Hold em odds, but not the normal ones.... Recurring odds

Hi everyone,
this is my first post here so I'm sorry if this has been discussed somewhere else.

We should all know in Hold Em that odds like AA vs any other 2 random cards are at 85%
What I found particularly interesting is when AA goes heads up more than once, in a recurring sense the odds work out increasingly worse.

Round Percentage
1 85%
2 72.25%
3 61.41%
4 52.20%
5 44.37%
6 37.71%
7 32.05%
8 27.24%
9 23.16%
10 19.68%

Ok, so my percentages aren't completely right but the reason I'm running this is because I'm trying to mathematically, probability wise, show how poker in the long term, even if a decent player can have massive down swings. I'm writing a book on the dark side of poker and too often the info we have is all about saying in the long run, things will balance out.

Ideas like in cash games 22 vs AK not suited, the 2s are better off. 55% vs 45%. I've heard many times how in a cash game this should always be played because of the slight edge. While this may be the case, in the real world over time the odds are bad too.

Round 22vsAK (Chances the 22 will win)
1 55%
2 30%
3 16%
4 9%
5 5%

What I'm getting at is, particularly with tournaments, in the long run, even better cards lose often. What I'm saying is, playing right still can have really poor returns. Ok, these examples don't include multiway pots, which of course decrease the odds total, but then the pot is bigger so ROI risk and all that. Also, I've not included stack size yet. That's another variable.

Let's put this hand forward which I lost, and was where I decided to stop playing poker.

Me 10 10
Villain 3 7

Here I'm 85% preflop. I raised a lot and he called (this guy was a total fool needless to say, I expected to get paid off - who wouldn't at 85%?)

Flop came out with a gutshot straight draw for him.
I'm now 80% 20%. I bet hard and he still called. Gambler.

Turn, up and down for him. I'm still ahead. Despite his hand improving his odds are 18% vs 82% I went all in, even though I couldn't know what he had from being too lose. He called of course and I thought I had a good chance.

You know he got there on the river. This isn't about a bad beat story, it's about recurring play. If I'm always playing right, and betting hard on hands when I'm a massive favourite, I'm supposed to win, particularly when I get called and I'm in front.

But, as I've shown above with recurring play, when you're smashing into stacks of almost equal size of better, it's really a question of time until I bust. I know the goal would be to have the biggest stack, but assuming that I'm a decent player playing some better some worse players, over time, doesn't luck influence more and more? A bit like betting against the house, even if the odds are in the hero's favour, if all is on the line, it will go.

If that's the case, unless I get a stack bigger than others, aren't I'm destined to lose even if I always play right?

I hope this question makes sense to the maths people out there.

Thanks for your answers,
Alisdair.

"
Let's put this hand forward which I lost, and was where I decided to stop playing poker."

Worse reason I ever heard of for stopping. Sounds like the rocks who always complain when their Aces get cracked. Or the players who always have to tell a fish how lucky he was to draw out on them. I always congratulate the winner, telling him " That's why I raised. I was hoping to chase you out before you caught a winner". Or anything to reinforce their style of play.

Quote: Formerplayer

We should all know in Hold Em that odds like AA vs any other 2 random cards are at 85%
What I found particularly interesting is when AA goes heads up more than once, in a recurring sense the odds work out increasingly worse.

Round         Percentage
  1              85%
  2              72.25%
  3              61.41%
  4              52.20%
  5              44.37%
  6              37.71%
  7              32.05%
  8              27.24%
  9              23.16%
 10              19.68%

This math is inaccurate for the discussion.

What you've calculated are the odds that the aces will win EVERY TIME.

They have an 85% chance EACH time. The chances they will win twice in a row is 72%.

I.E. The chance that the second aces will win is still 85%, regardless of whether the prior aces won or lost.

all in with a pair of tens...you got what you deserved

No no I stopped cuz I lost too much and couldn't turn it around over 3 years. What I realised was even when favourite going all in eventually when AT equal stacks I'd lose

Perhaps you misread my hand. I was the same as AA. Wouldn't you go all in AA? Particularly against loose bad player who obviously was on a lucky draw? Why not? I had him. Got what I deserved? I deserved to win 80% of the time. And I'm no rock.

Thanks dj for the most intelligent reply yet which addresses my question instead of criticise my thoughts or style.

What I'm saying is the chances of winning in the long run are low if always reinvesting the same stack like in a tournament. Like if you played Phil hellmuth style tight it's bound to have issues when playing hands out comPletely. Sure if you bluff right points and get someone to fold they are edges. But even with a favourite advantage the likelihood of winning each hand played correctly decreases significantly.

with TT you had no idea you were an 80% favorite during the hand.
you only know that subsequently. TT is not a very strong hand.
sorry, but going all in with TT with a possible strait on the board...
you asked us to assume you were a decent player, i cant make that assumption

Quote: Formerplayer

Perhaps you misread my hand. I was the same as AA. Wouldn't you go all in AA? Particularly against loose bad player who obviously was on a lucky draw? Why not? I had him. Got what I deserved? I deserved to win 80% of the time. And I'm no rock.

Any thought this was one of those 20% times ?? 80% is just that. Lose an 80% chance and decide to quit. DUMB !!!!!

You're not listening to my point so dont worry. If you ain't got the guts to play 1010 against the hugest gambler at the table or fold qq to the tightest player youre not playing the player. My instinct was right.