Thought experiment

During an evening of getting smashed to bits by awful plays, I started wondering. Suppose we set up Phil Ivey with a new account at our favourite internet poker site with $300 in it. He plays tournaments at the $10 level - he can only go up a level when the bankroll permits, say 30 buy ins, but can stay at that level if it drops. Assuming it matters to him, what does the bankroll look like after 10,000 hands? Why?

Does he play under a pseudonym or do his opponents know that they're playing against Ivey?

'Cause that name induces a certain amount of terror.

BD

Pseudonym. it's just him and the buttons, no reputation.

The_Pup said:

Pseudonym. it's just him and the buttons, no reputation.

Click to expand...

'splain that please?

IMO. It would be like giving a top snooker player a bog standard Que and telling him he is not allowed to chalk it! Oh! and he has to play left handed!

Consequence - no interest and cannot show his class.

jacksprat said:

IMO. It would be like giving a top snooker player a bog standard Que and telling him he is not allowed to chalk it! Oh! and he has to play left handed!

Consequence - no interest and cannot show his class.

Click to expand...

Better example would be when world class chess players play a simultaneous exhibition match. Sure the chess master can think 10 or more moves ahead, but he would never need to and still wins easy.

He would blow all $300 on day #1.
Why? Because he'd get bored and has no respect for such a small amount and would want it to be over.

dj11 said:

'splain that please?

Click to expand...

I understand that could be confusing - all I mean is he is playing anonymously, he has no reputation.

I agree he would not be interested, but being a thought experiment we can get around that by assuming it would matter to him - say he gets paid $1k for every dollar he makes or whatever.

My point in posing this idea is asking whether his (presumed) skill advantage is enough to win at this level online. I ask this because I find whether I win or lose often comes down to one crucial hand (it may not be the hand that knocks me or someone else out, but alters the course of the game). And that crucial hand almost invariably comes down to a coin toss.

Here's an example from a MTT last night. About 30 minutes into the game I had been playing fairly tight but had picked up a few small pots. In the SB I get dealt KK and the button (who had played a similar game) raises 3BB, I reraise to 8BB and button calls. The flop is AK8, I check, the button bets 1/2 pot, my trap having worked I raise all in and the button calls. The button has AA.

I have lied, this didn't happen - in fact I was the button holding AA and am 90% favourite. The turn and river both come hearts to complete the SB's flush and I am out.

A while later at a SnG we are down to five players and I have a biggish stack (perhaps 2nd) and without going crazy I am putting pressure on the smaller stacks. Dealt AQo I raise 3BB and the SB calls half their stack - on the flop (Q8T) the SB puts the rest in, I call and am beaten by trip eights. I'm not out, but my stack has taken quite a knock, a few hands later I make a good fold to a raise from big stack and am down to 3BB.

In case you think this is just sour grapes, I have equally been in the other position and gone on to get paid. And it is always these types of hands that make or break a tournament.

So, what would Ivey do that's different without live reads or reputation? We all see extraordinary things at the table (in the same SnG a short stack went all in with K7 on a K74 flop, got called by A8 and the turn and river came A8). These 'extraordinary' hands seem to be the defining ones - and whether you are on the good or bad end of them is just a coin flip.

Do a google search for Chris Ferguson's challenge of going from $0 to $10k, he did it as a challenge for himself and to show what good bankroll management can do. I think a lot of it was in cash games, but the early stages was freerolls and SnG's.

In case you can't be bothered looking it up, I think it took him a little over a year to make it to 10k.

Thanks kid - I'll check it out, may answer some of my questions.

Phil Ivey is an extremely advanced psychological thinker, and IMO playing at low dollar levels would be a waste of his amazing tallent.

To a large degree he is relying on the opposition having some savvy so that he can put his thinking to the best possible use!

My guess is that Ivey would give Phil Hellmuth the $300 and Phil H. would then brag that he beat Ivey for $300.

Either that or he would give you that stare that makes you ask yourself "Am I as dumb as he thinks I am?".

IMO, I think that He would be better than most at getting reads on people from their betting patterns. Even though his skill is much more supreme to the fellow amateurs he might be playing, he still had to start in his life from learning to beat worse players. As far as coin flips, that is going to happen regardless. I think that when he has the best of it, he will probably put more money in the pot to give callers behind him worst odds even if he gets allot of limpers. The ultimate difference would be the level of thinking that he would involve compared to his competition. If they are thinking on level 3 or even level 4, phil obviously is on level 5, and that is all you need to beat your competition.