I understand exactly where you're coming from NOTI. Alternative, risk-preserving strategies seem apropos for any atypical play that represent disproportionate bankroll risk.
But simply because a single play may represent a very limited opportunity is no reason, alone, to employ alternate strategy. If a play has similar (even if not identical) risk/reward characteristics in common with plays you're likely to engage with meaningful frequency down the road, then there's no need to consider the risk of the play in isolation and it's much more likely that maxEV is appropriate strategy (with N0 hands of play being a reasonable hurdle).
My impression of Bob's SLS play is that this latter description is a fairer take on it.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote :
I think I would say that it is a judgment call, how desperately do you want that royal? If you're playing for a long time (at least over N0) then maxEV is the appropriate amount of royal chasing aggression for optimal net EV. But what about one hand? One $125 hand of 10-6 DDB with maxEV and ignoring the royal yields an average return of 0.98 x $125 = $122.50 . One $125 hand of 10-6 DDB with minRoyal strategy and ignoring the royal yields an average return of 0.984 x $125 = $123.00 . 50 cents more average return per hand for minRoyal strategy (if you ignore the royal). Is that significant? That's your call. How desperately do you want that royal?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (13) |
