I was thinking about a situation earlier today. Let's take two players. One is a massive fish. One is a solid 100nl winning reg. Let's say they have infinite amount of chips. Blinds stay at a constant 100/200. Who wins in a best of 5?

Now let's say they have 100 chips at 10/20. Who wins this one in a best of 5?

Lastly, let's put chip stacks at 2,000 with blinds at 10/20. Who wins, best of 5?

The top scenario, even though its impossible for the game to ever end, should have the good player winning 5 out of all 5. The middle scenario is a crapshoot. Essential luckfest. The good player, in this case, will have less of a skill advantage over the massive fish. On average, I'd say the good player wins maybe 2.9 out of 5. Even if we increase the chip stack to 200, 400, etc., the good player may only win 3.5 out of 5 times, on average. The last scenario, however, the good player should win 4 out of 5 times, every time. He has more maneuverability room, and luck is not as big of a factor.

How come then that a lot of good players say that we have a huge edge over fish in faster paced games IE turbos or short stacked play? At what point also does luck become removed enough to become insignificant to results?

I have no idea what I am talking about here ...but I will give it a go

Firstly I don't like the word "luck" being used.

The 1st scenario just sounds like a cash game...btr plyr always going to win there

The 2nd scenario is just ,ahhh,meh,...50/50...i don't see how a solid plyr could be much ahead there...just get a deck of cards out, run it three times and that would be the short answer

The 3rd scenario is again back to basically being a cash game with the solid player being way ahead before the game ever starts.

This is just the way I see it and i don't know crap.

And the answer to the REAL question at the bottom of your post I am still studying on and prob will not have a good/valid short answer

...but I will try...

Now I am speaking from a real novice level but I sometimes think it is good to read what other novices have to say...meaning with what LITTLE I  do think I know now I sometimes wish I could go back to when I REALLY did not know crap and see the table from the way I used to see it/how these other players are seeing it now...don't know if that makes any sense or if I am getting my point across...
anyways...

My short answer to the real question is I do not see it the way you say some "good" players see it...imo the longer the blinds stay small the more hands I can play with no pressure and the more hands i can get away from with no real pressure...meaning the ,sigh, "luck" factor has essentially been removed.

and I am editing here...
A  "good" player will have/get a better "feel" for the table in a turbo/short stacked enviornment faster and therefore be able to use that against someone like me.They will also have in memory odds on what the hand they are holding is against 2/3/4 random hands and use that against me.So I am not going to use the word "luck" here but they will be able to use this knowledge against me.You know like 64s vs AKo  HU aint but like 60/40 AKo's way...short stacked they would know to run with it and I ,as a novice,would want to "wait for a btr hand" so now comes the aggresion factor and blah ,blah. blah................oh,ah,eh,..what was the question?

"crapshoot" structure of a game discourages solid players from joining, therefore if YOU are solid they are highly profitable because much of your opposition are NOT solid.

simple.

speaking from the last 4 weeks of BR-rebuilding via grinding mostly hyperturbo 6max games (SnGs, and *especially* 2-of-6-paid satellites :drool: )


Sure, "bad luck" (aka runbad/variance) hurts, but that is why you have dozens of buyins. And that same "luck" comes in the other flavour; it can become runGOOD just as easily.


The "good" structures (e.g. deepstack MTTs, non-turbo SnGs) are so filled with experienced, solid players nowadays... There's essentially no edge, you'll never get stacks invested unless it's a cooler, ugh, no thanks. Play against worse opposition more often + patience + = PROFIT. $ per HOUR is what really matters, not ego, not even "improving my game by playing against tough competition". If I can invest less than 2 hours per night and bump my BR up by 5%-10% almost every day, that is a lot better imo than putting in many more hours and (unless hitting a few lucky cards) basically breaking even (for mega-rakeback, which is what tons of those "solid" players seem to be doing).

If it's not related to the OP scenarios, I would.