Quote from: PenAndPaper on November 24, 2013, 11:23:31 PM

Quote from: CoinFount on November 24, 2013, 11:03:39 PM

Quote from: PenAndPaper on November 24, 2013, 10:54:30 PM

Quote from: CoinFount on November 24, 2013, 09:02:57 PM

However, if you can only afford to bet the minimum, you still have a chance to win, it's just a smaller chance than those who bet the maximum (obviously).

If you think it is obvious or normal that when you bet min you play a game with -ev while when you bet max you play a game with +ev then ok. Beats me.

Just think if poker was a game that as you bet higher you get more ev. Ridiculous.

Actually, in poker, someone who sits down to the table with $11 will be able to throw a lot more weight around than someone with just $1. So it's not ridiculous at all, it's actually a very good analogy in that regard.

Actually you haven't understand what i said.
On top of that what you said is plain wrong anyway, because if you play nl1, sitting with 1$ against someone with 11$ doesn't put any weight at you whatsoever.
Actually many players don't prefer sitting around with 1000bb because it increases variance.
I could go on talking about shortstack strategies etc but doesn't make any sence since you are struggling to understand even your own game and how flawed it is.

Wrong.

In my game, the total value per .01 pay-in doesn't change. Someone who puts in .11 has 11x more chances to profit than someone who puts in .01.

In poker, the total value per $1 doesn't change. Someone with $11 has 11x more chances to profit than someone with $1.

Same principle.