Agreed. I don't know how fast it would get into the money, but an equilibrium strategy is guaranteed to not lose, in expectation. So as long as the variance doesn't make it to run out of money, over the long run it should collect most of the money in the game.

It would be fun to try!

> equilibrium strategy is guaranteed to not lose,

In my scenario and tournament play. Are you sure?

I would be shocked to learn that there is a Nash equilibrium in multi-player setting, or any kind of strategic stability.

In multi-player you don't have guarantees, but it tends to work well anyway: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aay2400

Thanks.

> with five copies of Pluribus playing against one professional

Although this configuration is designed to water down the difficulty in multi-player setting.

Pluribus against 2 professionals and 3 randos would better test. Two pros would take turns taking money from the 3 randos and Pluribus would be left behind and confused if it could not read the table.

>>Agreed. I don't know how fast it would get into the money, but an equilibrium strategy is guaranteed to not lose, in expectation.

That's only true for heads-up play. It doesn't apply to poker tournaments.