Well, if your hand always holds up, and you never voluntarily play worse than aces, you would still win every tournament you entered (though it would take forever). If you can't lose an all-in, you can't lose a tournamnet. So yeah, I'd take that bet.

> If you can't lose an all-in, you can't lose a tournamnet.

Only a tournament where you pay no blinds.

Checked your website, you are that semipro poker player. I'm quite sure only playing and always winning AA would be a (relatively) losing proposition for you. Not sure why you're arguing the other side here.

I'm not, I'm saying your argument is wrong. You play every hand your dealt. If you fold pre-flop, you played your hand by folding it. So I assumed you meant more "voluntarily play after the flop".

However, if you still win every hand you take to the flop, even if you voluntarily only play aces, you would in a tournament probably be forced all-in many times, in which case you'd involuntarily see the flop. But we still say you win every hand you play, so you'd never go broke.

But in reality none of this has anything to do with the OP's stupid quote. A guy who won every hand he played, any reasonable way you want to define that, would be by far the most profitable poker player ever.

> You play every hand your dealt. If you fold pre-flop, you played your hand by folding it.

Mmmkay. This is the confusion.

It's pretty common to talk about "playing" as opposed to folding your cards pre flop. I've seen this phrasing many times.

> A guy who won every hand he played, any reasonable way you want to define that, would be by far the most profitable poker player ever.

The point I was trying to make, and probably the OP, is that it is more profitable to win $100 and lose $80 than it is to win $10 and lose $0.