Hey, on Winamax, there are just 2 "registering" tables for each stake, so it's very common that as soon as one new table opens, u sit and
at the same time another reg joins, so you will sometimes have an agreement of chopping instead of playing, but as transfers are not possible on the site,
the chopping means that u will play 2 fixed husngs (winning one and losing one) ie paying twice the rake.
So I was thinking, isn't it more +EV to flip, I mean, if u already have an agreement with a specific reg, to flip on the 1st hand, so that both players
will pay half the rake than in a chop deal and in the long run both would win close to 50% of the time rite?
Any comments?
why not just simply play eachother ???
and in case you don't like that answer lol ...
bookkeeping? keeping the score so you both know who's time it is to win or loose the fixed sng ?
that way you pay only once the rake per 'encounter'
The solution to this problem highlights the power of position and I think it leads to an interesting economic equilbrium.
The game theoretical solution is to play shove / fold with nash ranges.
Consider two expert players playing a one period game under the assumptions you described:
As you said, if you're intent on not playing the match out, you're better off flipping (ATC vs ATC ranges) than paying the rake twice.
So you agree to both shove ATC range.
You act first and shove.
But your counterparty realises you shove a range of ATC and he understands poker and so only calls when he has correct equity to do so.
His optimal strategy in a one period game is to cheat on your agreement.
You're not stupid and realise that your counterparty will act this way and so you preemptively adjust.
But he realises that you realise that he will cheat on the arrangement and preemptively adjusts to your adjustment.
See where this is going?
Even if you agree to flipping, you don't really know that your counterparty will cooperate, so you're still going to be playing a version of the game out anyway.
Ethics of agreeing to something and then exploiting your agreement with the advantage of position aside this is a pretty interesting situation.
I think it leads to the conclusion, just play the game out and play well.
If you don't think you can beat him, try to play an approximation of GTO.
By flipping when u have a previous agreement I mean both players always go all in on 1st hand no matter what are they cards. The moment one of them
somehow folds their 1st hand instead of going all in, unless he says something on the chatbox explaining why his hand was folded,
is an indication that he didn't respect the agreement therefore the other player would consider the agreement canceled, and play out the sng everytime they
face each other again.
I think I was called in a harshly way to be a pathetic bumhunter, and don't think this makes sense to me, as I have the agreement with just like 10% of the regs,
so I'd say a nice chunk of my games on winamax are still vs regs. Or are guys like mrgr33n13 and Liv B pathetic bumhunters for having an agreement of not
playing each other?
VHL
afaik those two have a teacher student relationship also, so it´s understandable they don´t play each other for money.
Cdon was that a level
If the stakes were high enough I wouldn't mind flipping and getting onto the next game given your reasoning. I have yet to chop with a reg on stars and not received payment, most regs that are in the lobby day in day out are'nt going to screw you over 1 buyin when it would affect their reputation.
Wasn't really a level (I understand this to mean trying to fool someone? Bit like trolling?).
Because one player acts before the other, the situation described effectively becomes an application of a common situation explored in economic game theory: the prisoners' dilema.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Note your comments about preserving your reputation are consistent with the repeated version of the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game
Which is probably more applicable for reg v reg situations which are likely to repeat.
I can understand not wanting to play against players that are better than you all the time.
But playing them every so often doesn't cost that much in expectation (think about your own win rate in reverse).
You might sacrifice like -1% to -2% ROI in that single match.
As long as you're not doing it with a high frequency, the things you learn from the match might even be net +EV for your game.
If your question is whether to flip or to play two games in order to chop, then flipping does save you that rake (playing two games costs double rake, correct).
I would not chop with another reg unless I was 100% sure they would pay back, and to know it near 100% you need to know them fairly well online at least, not just be aware of their name/know they are winners.
Put it this way, if you just take a random reg, and bank on them agreeing to not freeroll you on a flip/chop, then you're probably losing a few bucks every time you do this (because there is risk they will screw you).
Playing it may not seem like it is worthwhile, but you can improve a ton against thinking players, it forces you to think critically about more of the situations that you're in.
The most EV you get from screwing your choping partner.
Hi.