This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to browse the website, you accept such cookies. For more details and to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy. Close

playing from a common BR

    • fun101rockets
      fun101rockets
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.06.2008 Posts: 1,162
      An idea to lower varience
      Players who play similar limits with similar winrate get into a group. At the end of the week everyone shares their profit/losses. A mean profit is calculated and money is distributed so that everyone wins. any comment/feedback?
  • 7 replies
    • viewer88
      viewer88
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.04.2008 Posts: 5,545
      Only +EV if you're the worst player in the group :f_grin:
    • KidPokersKid
      KidPokersKid
      Global
      Joined: 27.02.2009 Posts: 653
      I have done this with a few friends when we hit up the Live Casinos because we're only 1 tabling
    • Ejeckt
      Ejeckt
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.12.2008 Posts: 517
      Sounds like communism to me :P Great on paper, but it'll never work. People are inherently too... well... too too.

      Unless you're very close to the people, and I mean really close, and willing to risk your friendship (ever heard the advice: never go into any form of business with friends/partner), you should stay away.

      Didn't Doyle and his friends to something similar back in the 70's?
    • anx1ety1223
      anx1ety1223
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.08.2009 Posts: 11
      yes Doyle Brunson, Puggy Pearson and Amarillo Slim have done that.. It worked out for them
    • kingdippy2008
      kingdippy2008
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.08.2008 Posts: 2,107
      Originally posted by Ejeckt
      Sounds like communism to me :P Great on paper, but it'll never work. People are inherently too... well... too too.

      Unless you're very close to the people, and I mean really close, and willing to risk your friendship (ever heard the advice: never go into any form of business with friends/partner), you should stay away.

      Didn't Doyle and his friends to something similar back in the 70's?
      Yes i also thought this at first. Of course its a great way to reduce your variance so to speak but really all players have to be the same abilty for it to be =ev. This is just my opinion though.

      Pretty cool about the Doyle Brunson etc. thing. I suppose when playing live it makes more sense because the variance seems bigger because you get dealt less hands.

      Regards,

      -Jack
    • SoyCD
      SoyCD
      Bronze
      Joined: 20.02.2008 Posts: 6,356
      The main problem I see with this kind of stuff is that you need to have 100% trust and absolute and complete confidence in each others skills.

      Otherwise you are looking at general problems like:

      - Some people putting in more volume than others and feeling the others to be slacking
      - Some people playing better than others and seeing the system as them just subsidizing the worse players

      or worse individual things.
      -E.g. a player obviously tilts and loses money which is then shared among the others (who fight about it).
      -A player doesn't honestly document all his sessions (so leaves out big winning sessions but includes losing sessions).
      -etc. etc. etc.

      I would never do this except in situations such as real life friends with obvious edge hitting live games - where the volume is obviously the same and everyone knows that there is a big edge and is really just looking to share the profits evenly in order to reduce variance. Never online though.
    • fun101rockets
      fun101rockets
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.06.2008 Posts: 1,162
      but if i couldfind some other high volume trustworthy players who play greater than 20K hands per week we would be able to collectivly play over 100K hands=0 varience