Phil Ivey or Blackjack?

[Caleb]

God, you don't play FR w/ Caleb, do you?

What are you trying to say Colemannnn?

[Caleb]

haha you have obviously been talking to caleb and the convo i had with him on the weekend where i was astounded that someone could be so nitty as to play full ring

he called me a stupid internet kid (pretty sure i am older than him )

Hadn't even brought it up with him yet. I've worked 12 days straight so haven't seen roomie much.

I completely endorse and stand by my comments though.

BTW, you know how un-nitty I actually am. I just can't stand 6-max. It's a stupid internet invention only suitable (marginally) for tournaments. I will never by choice play 6-max over 8-10 full ring. This includes omaha.

[bennymacca]

back on topic.

caleb ivey or BJ?

[Caleb]

BlackJack

And I HATE BlackJack.

Although I do like the part of the hypothetical where you just go to the bank and "get the money out".

Therefore implying you already are a millionaire.

I was nearly swayed by the whole "you can't count cards", but 24 hours of heads up with Ivey is not a way to make a profit by comparison.

In a desperation situation like this, I would prefer a game with less variables that can affect the outcome.

Edit: Just clicked.

BRM. This is about BRM.

Blackjack you can choose the stakes. Bet $1 a hand for 23.5 hours and your varience will be minimal. Then bet enough in the last few hands to make sure you end up in profit.

Heads up, 5k/10k blinds, 1 buy-in v an opponent with an unlimited bankroll. Completely different situation and definately not one in your favor for posting a profit, regardless of other factors.

Now that I've written that, i think i've read it wrong. Are we just trying to make a profit, or the most profit?

[rcon]

Second part of this was for you benny the cunt

Yes I can count and with that much roll I would smash it up over any period of time.

Ah, but counting was specially excluded, or i would have double fist pumped so hard i'd have my shoulder in a sling about now

Or were you suggesting benny the cunt that counting was ineffectual with an 8 deck shoe? That is incorrect if that is what you were suggesting, your edge just wont be as high.

[bennymacca]

BlackJack

And I HATE BlackJack.

Although I do like the part of the hypothetical where you just go to the bank and "get the money out".

Therefore implying you already are a millionaire.

I was nearly swayed by the whole "you can't count cards", but 24 hours of heads up with Ivey is not a way to make a profit by comparison.

In a desperation situation like this, I would prefer a game with less variables that can affect the outcome.

Edit: Just clicked.

BRM. This is about BRM.

Blackjack you can choose the stakes. Bet $1 a hand for 23.5 hours and your varience will be minimal. Then bet enough in the last few hands to make sure you end up in profit.

Heads up, 5k/10k blinds, 1 buy-in v an opponent with an unlimited bankroll. Completely different situation and definately not one in your favor for posting a profit, regardless of other factors.

Now that I've written that, i think i've read it wrong. Are we just trying to make a profit, or the most profit?

you are on the right track


its not specifically about BRM, but more about the edge we have in each game and the variance of each game. what you have suggested would reduce the BJ variance a lot.

ivey can change the stakes as well. do you think it would be better for him, over the course of a 24h period, to play 100bb deep with you or 1000bb deep?

[Gaz787]

Blackjack. You stated that I would have the choice in stakes (up to 10k) in Blackjack, and obviously to minimise any losses, I'd choose the lowest offered ($1)....and I'd play very, very slow, in an attempt to reduce the hands/hour. This is the lowest potential risk/lowest potential reward option - would likely resort in a loss, but a small (by way of comparison to $1MM) loss. However, you stated Phil would get to choose the stakes otherwise, and given the fact that I am a fish, and Phil is likely to be better rolled for it, Phil would probably be keen to maximise his profit with higher stakes, and given it's HU over a long-ish period, it would be harder to remain on the positive side of variance, which I feel would be my only way of being break-even/profitable vs a player like Ivey. To me it's a question of controlling the environment I gamble in - in the blackjack scenario, I have control of my stake, whereas in the poker scenario, a person whos interest lies with me losing money is in control of my stake, which is a big deal.

Edit: HURR DURR I didn't read <$1MM=$0. Still BJ as you could control it until the last hour and try to get up.

[bennymacca]

if we have to play ivey, is it better for us to play higher or lower stakes, given that we have a million that we have to burn, and that we cant keep any of it at the end, only our winnings?

[666HARPS666]

if we have to play ivey, is it better for us to play higher or lower stakes, given that we have a million that we have to burn, and that we cant keep any of it at the end, only our winnings?

This ^
It is the profit we keep . Has to be Ivey .either way u can't lose .

[bennymacca]

if we have to play ivey, is it better for us to play higher or lower stakes, given that we have a million that we have to burn, and that we cant keep any of it at the end, only our winnings?

This ^
It is the profit we keep . Has to be Ivey .either way u can't lose .

what?

nowhere did i say that it is better to play with ivey.

i havent' given my answer yet.