Oh you moved to 100$ already?
I've seen you on 33 and 55$ one or 2 months ago.
My screenname is ShadZer0.
I'd love to play w you but I'm kind of nitty with my BRM, so I still beat the 55$.
Is it winner takes it all or does #2 get some as well?
I mean in theory you could do that with more players in bigger HU tounreys as well to spread your risk and your chances. I mean HU comes along with a very high variance by definition. I am sure that even a fish beats Phil Ivey 35-40 out of 100 games because the cards do not fly like they should.
So if a group of 10 skilled player would start playing eg. it could be quite interesting to play the HU tounreys of the 2+ table HU SNGs as well.
Right but if you have 6-10 player in a HU tounrey the chances that one or more make money are much bigger than the chance that you will win yourself by playing alone. And the outcome should be the same. Either you win often small sums as the "group" will get a share, or you will win big but less often. So it would be less variance but nearly the same winnings if all have the same skill.
@beatmeupaa: The reason why people team up at 4mans is to lessen the variance. Since the tournament is winner-take-all, a two-player team is much more likely to place ITM than a single player. However, the fact that you're often playing only one match against a fish (instead of 2 when freelancing) means that your ROI is lower. For example, if three players team up to play a 4man, each single player in the team is only about 45% likely to face the fish at all and he'll never be playing both matches against him. Thus, his ROI gets small enough that it becomes increasingly hard to beat the rake, although the standard deviation gets a bit smaller
Ok, that said it would be better to find a partner and to aggree that both players will play X games the month (lets say 1000 games) - you know both beat the games with 6-8% roi longterm and both make a living out it, so both agree to play 1k games and to split the profit 50/50 - will give you less variance and less rake, therefore higher ROI.
PokerStars allows it. Full Tilt has told me that they allow it as well. There isn't any edge to be gained from it - it just reduces variance and makes it easier to get the games to fill up.
Yea, both PokerStars and Full Tilt explicitly allow this.
As long as you do not "rig" the game, you must go all in on the first hand if you are chopping with a partner and settle via player transfer afterwards (otherwise it's chip dumping and is NOT legal).
Their rationale is that it is mathematically not possible to gain an edge from this.
The less rake argument doesn't work, because you can play it solo and you're paying less rake by that theory, so it's the same type of advantage.
The variance may be lowered, but only if you're playing with a player of equal skill. Plenty of times players play with partners that are worse than them and in that case they are giving up some of their expectation and the weaker player is gaining some.
The only semi legitimate argument that I have heard about an unfair advantage is the opponent not being able to watch the first round game between two partners because they just flip.
The counter argument to that is that regulars chopping don't seem to ever watch their first round opponent's matches, it just takes up too much time, focus and energy for too little to be gained (if anything). At least that's why I don't do it, I'd rather be able to get another few games in my session than waste the time it takes to closely watch two players for reads in their first round game. That, and I almost always have other games going when doing 4 mans with a partner.
golforejht72 is my aim name, I am not really into forums and posts so it may be awhile till i come back to this
How do you make sure that you do not play your partner all the time? I mean is it like 1st seated plays 2nd seated and 3rd plays 4th?
In gerneal I think the idea is pretty good to get rid a bit of variance. :)
Oh you moved to 100$ already?
I've seen you on 33 and 55$ one or 2 months ago.
My screenname is ShadZer0.
I'd love to play w you but I'm kind of nitty with my BRM, so I still beat the 55$.
beatmeupaa,
They can't ensure that they don't play their partner. If they get matched against each other then they just flip on the first hand.
Is it winner takes it all or does #2 get some as well?
I mean in theory you could do that with more players in bigger HU tounreys as well to spread your risk and your chances. I mean HU comes along with a very high variance by definition. I am sure that even a fish beats Phil Ivey 35-40 out of 100 games because the cards do not fly like they should.
So if a group of 10 skilled player would start playing eg. it could be quite interesting to play the HU tounreys of the 2+ table HU SNGs as well.
But what's the point?
If you have 39 players in a 40 man MTT, you're only winning 1 1/39 of a buyin every time you win.
Right but if you have 6-10 player in a HU tounrey the chances that one or more make money are much bigger than the chance that you will win yourself by playing alone. And the outcome should be the same. Either you win often small sums as the "group" will get a share, or you will win big but less often. So it would be less variance but nearly the same winnings if all have the same skill.
xscwx
you know u wanna chop with me hahaahhahahahaha.
ur the man love ur vids
@beatmeupaa: The reason why people team up at 4mans is to lessen the variance. Since the tournament is winner-take-all, a two-player team is much more likely to place ITM than a single player. However, the fact that you're often playing only one match against a fish (instead of 2 when freelancing) means that your ROI is lower. For example, if three players team up to play a 4man, each single player in the team is only about 45% likely to face the fish at all and he'll never be playing both matches against him. Thus, his ROI gets small enough that it becomes increasingly hard to beat the rake, although the standard deviation gets a bit smaller
Ok, that said it would be better to find a partner and to aggree that both players will play X games the month (lets say 1000 games) - you know both beat the games with 6-8% roi longterm and both make a living out it, so both agree to play 1k games and to split the profit 50/50 - will give you less variance and less rake, therefore higher ROI.
Hey guys!
I've been thinking... Is this chop legal? Because the poker room could say that it's somekind of collusion, right?
this sound very much like cheating to me and I would be surprised if pokestars doesnt pick up on it.
After all poker is not a team game.
__________________________________________________________
It is like a horse but with shorter legs and bigger ears...(and we all love it!)
PokerStars allows it. Full Tilt has told me that they allow it as well. There isn't any edge to be gained from it - it just reduces variance and makes it easier to get the games to fill up.
Yea, both PokerStars and Full Tilt explicitly allow this.
As long as you do not "rig" the game, you must go all in on the first hand if you are chopping with a partner and settle via player transfer afterwards (otherwise it's chip dumping and is NOT legal).
Their rationale is that it is mathematically not possible to gain an edge from this.
The less rake argument doesn't work, because you can play it solo and you're paying less rake by that theory, so it's the same type of advantage.
The variance may be lowered, but only if you're playing with a player of equal skill. Plenty of times players play with partners that are worse than them and in that case they are giving up some of their expectation and the weaker player is gaining some.
The only semi legitimate argument that I have heard about an unfair advantage is the opponent not being able to watch the first round game between two partners because they just flip.
The counter argument to that is that regulars chopping don't seem to ever watch their first round opponent's matches, it just takes up too much time, focus and energy for too little to be gained (if anything). At least that's why I don't do it, I'd rather be able to get another few games in my session than waste the time it takes to closely watch two players for reads in their first round game. That, and I almost always have other games going when doing 4 mans with a partner.