An “Information Ratio” for Poker?

[m2smith2]

Much of poker theory revolves around making positive EV plays. Anyone who has played with TTH has run tests for EV. But, if you look deeper you’ll also see the volatility that comes with many positive EV plays.

In investment management, there’s a concept called “information ratio.” Basically, you take the return premium (alpha, or for poker EV) of (say) your mutual fund over an index, and divide that by the volatility of that alpha. For those with a statistics background (most I would imagine) it’s akin to a T-stat not adjusted for degrees of freedom.

I must admit that one thing got me thinking about this – a recent spiral. If I had to put my finger on one factor it would be missing many draws over an extended period. Now, the old dogs will say “that’s poker,” and it’s certainly true. But, does it have to be?

I think the old rule of thumb is 100 big bets to withstand the natural volatility of poker. A rounder recently told me he thinks it’s actually 200. So, most pros manage their volatility with the size of their bankroll, which is fine if you have unlimited resources.

Economist John Maynard Keynes famously said “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.” Clearly, one way to manage this is follow the max-EV rule, and control your volatility by the level of game you’re playing. This is the exact thing many on-line players don’t do.

However, what if you think that your particular game is better suited for a limit that’s higher than your bankroll would suggest at 100 big bets? (Let’s assume this isn’t ego-driven, but rather that you don’t want to play with overly loose people for smaller money, or people with cheep Internet connections, or whatever.)

I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s possible. One problem with the analogy I used is this: (in the parlance of statistics) information ratio is important because you are estimating an uncertain alpha from a sample, and gaining confidence in its sustainability with the information ratio. While a hand EV isn’t truly a “population” figure, it’s far closer.

Unlike having (say) five years of monthly data for an investment portfolio, you can run 1,000,000 simulations with five different card codes and get a fairly tight EV range estimate. So, while IR attempts to learn if alpha is “real,” we know when a certain positive EV play is “real.” The question remains whether or not it’s worth the volatility over the “long-term” relative to your bankroll.

Again, I know you can manage this by playing a game in proportion to your bankroll. But factoring in the volatility of EV can have other benefits – like “psychic” benefits. That is, a lot of people (I’d dare say most) play worse when they’re in a tailspin. Many people recommend tightening up when you’re losing. Ironically, that’s another way of saying reduce your volatility! Why not reduce it BEFORE you go into a tailspin? If you play better when you don’t have big drawdowns, then managing volatility is, itself, a “positive EV play.”

[BarronVangorToth]

I'm forgetting precisely who I read this story by (I think it was Doyle Brunson) but it coincides with what you're talking about.

Let's say that a flip of a coin is 50/50 and that it isn't rigged in any way -- it's truly A or B.

Now, you guess A or B.

If you're right, I'll give you $10

If you're wrong, you give me $9

EVERYONE will take this proposition and play it for as long as possible.

However, extend the stakes.

$100 vs. $90.... Maybe I lost a few people that will only play, I don't know, $.05 / $.10 poker. The rest of us are right there.

now

$1000 vs. $900

I lost a number of more people.

$10,000 vs. $9,000

etc etc.

Doyle Brunson (I'm fairly certain now) said something to the effect of a situation where the bet came down to risking LITERALLY everything somebody had (let's say the total net worth of everything, down to clothing, furniture, everything) was $1,000,000 vs. something a lot more ... $5,000,000.

No matter what the secondary amount was, I wouldn't risk every nickel and item I own (leaving myself with nothing but the clothes on my back) for a 5:1 shot, just because being left homeless would be, well, a pain in the butt (sure, I could live with friends, borrow from family -- but all of this is such a huge set-back, that it wouldn't be worth it).

But I'd do the $1,000 vs. $900 every day of the week for as long as you wanted.

Sometimes the "right" play is beyond one's means. Say you see the $2,000 / $4,000 game looks a bit soft -- it's RIGHT to sit down ... but I'm not taking out a second mortgage for the, whatever, $200K I'd want to have to sit down (and, yes, I know that would be too little).

Right isn't always right.

Great post, though, much to think about.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the old rule of thumb is 100 big bets to withstand the natural volatility of poker. A rounder recently told me he thinks it’s actually 200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Around these parts the standard answer to the bankroll requirement is 300 BB.

[ QUOTE ]
So, most pros manage their volatility with the size of their bankroll, which is fine if you have unlimited resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? How do you get from needing X times the BB to needing unlimited resources?

If you are sufficiently bankrolled there is no reason to avoid plays that you know are +EV just because they have high variance. Often, less-than-expert players (like me) avoid marginal +EV / high variance situations because they aren't confident enough about their ability to correctly negotiate them - but this is a different issue.

Consistently giving up EV in order to minimize risk is a well established form of bad poker. Isn't this what "rocks" do?

As far as the pyshic benefits of low variance, you're much, much better off working on your mental stamina to deal with the normal swings of the game than you are trying to adjust your game to minimize these swings.

Personally, I think learning how to maximize your EV in a high-risk situation is one of the greatest challenges and pleasures that poker has to offer - it may even be the essential quality of the game. I can't imagine cultivating a style of play that sought to avoid such situations.

/mc

[Cerril]

I've said a lot in my home games that I consciously aim to come in 'second'. Routinely there are two highly aggressive players in our games, and routinely they both take a larger share of the table than I do over time. So I guess technically I'm coming in third (but maybe second, if you factor in those few times that I take the table). Thing is, on any single night one will tend to be the big winner, and one a big loser. I lose my $20 now and then but nineteen out of twenty I win the second most.

I don't play quite so tight in table games, but my goal is a positive EV without going for that last little edge. And that's more or less what you're talking about. Let's say for the sake of argument that you're a player who can reliably make 1BB/hr in a game playing your best (let's call it online so it's more likely to be that or greater).

If you're given a choice between getting every edge and keeping that 1BB/hr or even maybe a little more, say 1.2BB, or of playing a little tighter, avoiding situations that come up rarely where you either end up a huge winner or second best, but sacrificing some winnings and leaving yourself a .6BB/hr player. Well most people would find that silly, and it's certainly 'bad poker' to give up half your winnings to safeguard potential losses.

On the other hand, there are some real reasons and some good ones either way. If you're an amateur or semi-amateur who plays without a bankroll, or is in the process of building one with some hard earned cash, it might be worth sacrificing the chance of losing it all (and presumably having a slower rate of growth from 0) to maintain a steady rate (that's what I'm doing at the moment. My stake was only a little more than 30BB when I started, it's up to around 200 now but I've also changed limits so that it's really only around 120BB).

Another reason you suggested might work too. If your only options for softish games are at 1/2 and 5/10, then you might take the 5/10 but play a little more conservatively to get a higher hourly even with a substantially lower +EV%.

The key, though, is never to give up so many of those marginal situations that you end up a loser over time. -that- is the rock's mistake and the mistake that will always be bad poker. If you can't afford to risk any of your money, there's no reason to start playing.

In the end there's no sound reason for a true pro, or a well-invested player to give up some +EV for lower volatility. The bankroll size is there for a reason, and the calculations (300BB is the number I'd heard before coming here too) are based around precisely those massive swings. Even pros though will say that sometimes you may need to swallow your pride and move down in limits if your bankroll drops too far, to avoid exactly this dilemma.

[Dan Mezick]

Excellent post and you are really on to something. I've been an advocate for adapting the available literature on portfolio theory and trading psychology to poker, and this posts hits home.

The poker session is a decent metaphor for position size you take per trade. Position size is an important trading decision because it delays your ruin when you do not have an edge and actually makes you money when you have a small but exploitable edge.

To large a position size can manifest an overall loss over many trades in an otherwise winning approach. IN other words, position size is a major critical success factor. To large a PS and you lose, even when you have an edge.

For example in trading if you limit any single trade's risk exposure to 2% of your bankroll, as most trading pros will do (most saying 2% is WAY too big, by-the-way,) then ... when you have an edge, you are allowing enough samples, (trades) to tease the money out of the edge. If you have no no edge or -EV in your procedures, with small PS you lose more slowly. This allows you to evaluate and 'get away from' a losing procedure.

There is much more to position sizing but that's the general concept. My main point is, looking at the poker session as a trade, and 'sizing it' accordingly, never risking more than 2% of your bankroll... appears correct if you believe the trading literature and apply it to poker.

The stakes in the game you choose for your session has everything to do with sizing your risk in this session, against your bankroll.

For example if you follow the 30-bet stop-loss rule in your 10-20 session (another trading concept related to risk definition) your TOTAL risk for this session is $600. If you are looking to not risk more than 2% of your bankroll per session, $600 is 2% of an implied $3000 bankroll.

This goes back to the psychology of it all. If you factor in bankroll size, selection of stakes (for your session) and a "stop loss" rule (for example 30 big bets) then you have defined your risk.

And that knowledge of your risk (defined) for THIS session can be the "inner edge" that makes your just slightly +EV plays really become profitable.

Just the fact you have employed a rigorous methodology to define your risk per session is going to help your game within a **key** component of your poker mindset.

Your risk of ruin is close to zero-- what will knowing that do for your game?

[chipclod]

Thanks all for such interesting and informative posts.

A thought dawned on me reading through this thread and I was wondering if it is applicable. Essentially, I was thinking that the general mentality of early round tournament play really conforms to m2smith2's contained volatility ideas involved with his "information ratio" analolgy.

Despite a very high EV potential; a big hand at your first table has a much more profound down side if it fails. Thus, it seems this general "IR" understanding permeates most play in a very not yet quantified way. I think.

[m2smith2]

The tourney construct is certainly true, as 2+2 preaches. The classic example is your AA hand when you "know" someone has KK - 4-to-1 is not even enough of an advantage if you think you have an edge overall in the tourney (as an aside, it's humorous how often I've seen this on-line recently in table tournaments within the first few hands, but I haven't seen the AA lose yet. But the Kings just can’t get away).

I think early in the tourney you just have to follow that rule, but amateurs have used this in the WSOP. Sklansky once wrote about a simplistic strategy he taught to the daughter of a casino owner that basically involved putting all-in pressure on pros. Tournament strategy also dictates that you should gamble more when overmatched, so the recent approach of many amateurs is completely logical.

Once you start to get close to the money, I think some quantification is finally possible. My guess is it involves the same type of math that you would use when valuing a potential deal (they still have those somewhere – off the WPT – right?). Then you could recast from EV terms to chip terms based on the expected advantage for a particular play, and also grade that based on what it does for your chances. So, when you’re short-stacked a lower probability play with an AI and a caller in front could be worth more (even though the chances of winning this showdown are lower than heads-up) because you can triple-up and go from, say, one round of blinds to three.

Anyway, I still wonder if there’s some merit to an IR in ring games. After all, tournament strategy is based on the fact that if you “go broke you’re gone.” That can be true when playing in games that aren’t 1% (or a half percent or whatever) of your bankroll.

And FWIW, one final point on that – not making the same EV play every time also can mix up your game. For example, betting that four flush every time. Do it from late position and you might be opening yourself to a check-raise, and the “free card” play is so well known you can’t rely on it working. If you catch on the turn your opponent might actually think that the card didn’t help since you didn’t bet on the come like you usually do. And when that turn pairs their ace and you’re holding the suited king, it’s a joyous feeling...

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I still wonder if there’s some merit to an IR in ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to say it, but to me this whole thing sounds like a very complex justification for playing tight/weak developed in reaction to a nasty downswing.

Consistently opting out of +EV/high variance plays could lead to a general attitude of risk avoidance that will severely hurt your overall game.

Sometimes the fortune cookie gets it right: scared money don't make money.

Your 300 BB bankroll is your net. You don't also need a parachute and a bungie cord and a jetpack.


[ QUOTE ]
And FWIW, one final point on that – not making the same EV play every time also can mix up your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mixing up your game is something you do to maximize EV, if you happen to make lower risk plays in order to mix up your play that is purely incidental.

/mc

[chipclod]

I tend to agree with much of the sentiment behind your posts here Monty.

Mixing up your play is a means designed to help you make more money by trying to not allow your competitors to get a handle on you. I would have to say mixing your play can be much more a psychological ploy then one related to EV.

In a very simplistic example ...
Limping in with 8,3 off in early position will not be profitable in the long run; however if there are no raises, and the flop shows an eight and three .... no one in their right mind is gonna gauge your hand correctly.
This of course could throw them off gauging you correctly for a while even as you play very fundamentally afterward.

I think there is merit in m2smith2's notion, even if, as you seem to imply, it's founded on reducing the gamble. In a way, all the books and ideas regarding what has become the fundamentals of poker are based on reducing the gamble.

The striving for a way to contextualize this EV stuff in regard to stack, (or money, or reality) has not been crystalized yet ... is at least intuitively understood as valuable by anyone with finite funds.

I think a viable fundamental could be gained.

[Dan Mezick]

Avoiding marginally positive +EV situations in a ring game is playing a weak-tight style.

The 300BB rule is a ratio rule. This rule helps define total session risk but without the stop-loss (30 bet rule) that risk definition is not complete.

Once the total risk-defintion for the session is complete you can pick your spots within the session to go aggressive on marginally +EV situations. You have 30 big bets to play with before you get 'stopped out'.

The point is, if you completely define session risk you can just swing away, using your judgement to pick the proper spots.

Using the30 bet rule you can open up your game maybe 2 or 3 times and take swings at marginally EV+ situations.

Most players probably can't do that consistently in a completely relaxed way without some kind of session-based stop-loss.

[Cerril]

It's a tendency toward weak/tight, but since the majority of winning situations fall in that 'risky' area if you trim off the ones that have low +EV (but positive still, the ones starting TAG players don't play yet anyway, since they don't always recognize the smallest edges) due to huge swings (high potential of being up against a quality second best or of being second best itself), then you aren't necessarily turning yourself into weak/tight (presuming that you need to be TAG to have a positive expectation), even if you're edging a little closer.

The key is being able to know you're only throwing away a piece of your edge, not the whole thing. Knowing that the specific plays you're tossing are high volatility is easier than that.

[for teh win]

Good starting post and interesting discussion.

I think both camps are right in a sense here, but that there is indeed an important lesson to be learned from finance. And it's not the first lesson. The bankroll management ideas discussed on 2+2, the concept of Risk of Ruin, reward-to-variability expressed as net winnings over standard deviation (the Sharpe ratio to finance geeks) etc etc - it's all straight out of Investment Management 101.

The lesson here is that you can choose your volatility and hence your average return. Reducing volatility will reduce returns. It's the price you pay for lower risk of getting knocked out. You can call it weak-tight or you can call it a rational investment given the circumstances, like e.g. bankroll or stack size. Or even opposition. As an example, compare playing overcards against a TAG and a maniac. The latter example bring it even further. Sometimes you don't even have a clue what your volatility for a certain play could be, but by hedging your risk and avoiding certain plays you can define it (somewhat at least) although it comes at a price. A price I am more than willing to pay at times and, I would guess, so would all the TAG-and-TAG-only proponents on this forum.

That reducing risk is the same as weak-tight is only really true if your play becomes exploitable by opponents. It could be of course. But on an average day I can't see why it would be anywhere near as exploitable as all those flaws we come here to correct. You're on PP playing for an hour or two against people you've never played before, you keep notes. They will notice that you fold but they will never know what. In fact, I'm not a multi-tabler myself but I would assume most multi-tablers play according to some system, however vague, that already implicitly incorporates the idea of hedging risk on a play-by-play basis.

[playerfl]

There is a guy that recently sold everything he had down to one set of clothing and bet it on one spin of a roulette wheel, red or black ( slightly less than 50/50 if I understand roulette properly). He won, but this was so extreme that he had tv people filming it.

This to me is nuts, but even if the odds were improved to say, the odds of winning with AA in holdem, I still wouldn't do it.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
...reducing risk is the same as weak-tight is only really true if your play becomes exploitable by opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, as soon as you opt out of a high variance play that you know is +EV you've already given away value to your opponents.

I think this argument has been reduced to a question of preference.

We all agree that EV is EV. If you knowingly give some away in order to achieve lower volatility that's your business.

For me personally, I have a very cautious, risk-averse approach to daily life. But when I play poker I LIKE ACTION.

/mc

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to say it, but to me this whole thing sounds like a very complex justification for playing tight/weak developed in reaction to a nasty downswing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very very well said. I read the original post and was thinking: "well, here's a guy I want to bluff into". /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[m2smith2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Very very well said. I read the original post and was thinking: "well, here's a guy I want to bluff into". /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I was talking about making plays not responding to them. I know your comment applies if you generalize volatility management to be WT, but I disagree with such a simplification.

The aforementioned Brunson through experiment is an apt description as to why.

[m2smith2]

Thanks for the response. You have a point, but I think it's too much of a simplification. Just as an example, managing volatility on draws based on your position might look WT, whereas overall raise/bet and bet/check could look completely different...

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very very well said. I read the original post and was thinking: "well, here's a guy I want to bluff into". /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ] For the record, I was talking about making plays not responding to them. I know your comment applies if you generalize volatility management to be WT, but I disagree with such a simplification.

The aforementioned Brunson through experiment is an apt description as to why.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand how a "generalize volatility management" can be applied only to "making plays not responding to them". Every play in poker, IMO, is essentially a respone, to certain circumstances, certain hole-cards, certain board, position, opponents, etc. There are no "plays" in empty space. If you are consistently willing to sacrifice EV (i.e, reducing your EV) because of variance and volatility consideration, you are playing weak-tight.

It is of course the right thing to do in many tournament situations, but I understand you are talking about cash games. This "generalize volatility management" will be probably correct if you are playing at higher limits than you should, or if from some reason you are afraid to bust in a specific hand (if, for instance, there's a very weak player playing at your NL cash game, and you are on a limited bank-roll for some reason, so you prefer to sacrifice some EV against other player, in order to "survive" and play more against the weak player. There are other possible scenarios).

[m2smith2]

My only point with that last post was that I think it would be a mistake for you, or anyone, to assume that managing volatility in a particular situation equates with being weak tight. If I hit my flush draw and you pay me off to a showdown and then realize "he flopped a four flush and didn't bet it," if you adjust your game to a weak tight player YOU would be the one subject to a blush b/c you would have incorrectly gauged my style.

Weak tight just has a much broader meaning.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
If I hit my flush draw and you pay me off to a showdown and then realize "he flopped a four flush and didn't bet it,"

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please explain this point? If it's higher EV for you to bet your draw, rather than to check-call (is that what you mean by not betting?) against specific opponent/s, then if you don't bet it you lose potential money. Very simple.

[ QUOTE ]
if you adjust your game to a weak tight player YOU would be the one subject to a blush b/c you would have incorrectly gauged my style.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you mean "if you don't adjust..." etc. Anyway, it is relatively easy for an OK player to adjust to the weak-tight play you are advocating, if I understand your way of thinking correctly.

BTW, I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but the whole point in Ed Miller's new book (which had already became a classic, I think /images/graemlins/grin.gif. you can also see his "Why you don't crush the low-limit games" famous post around here), is forgetting about this kind of weak-tight play, and maximizing EV up to the last possible cent of it, in EACH and every situation. Playing with this "managing volatility" approach in a limit ring game, looks very very bad, in this perspective.

[MrTeddyKGB]

There can be no question that passing on even the slightest +EV play has to reduce your overall win potential. Brings to mind how some super high-limit players make 1/8 of a BB per hour.
I remember an artical by Sklansky were he wrote that he has played against players whos only weakness that he can spot is they don't check-raise often enough. It is easy to imagine a table of 5 top pros playing say $4,000-$8,000 where 3 play perfect pushing every posible edge. Two because of say limited bankroll pass some marginal but positive situations. This might leave 1/2 of a BB per hour up for grabs. It is not uncommon for a super pro winning 1/8 of a BB per hour at the highest levels. Passing on +EV plays to reduce volitity is a leak. The fact that at the levels most of us play we and our opponents make so many mistakes that we can pass on good plays and still win dose not mean it a solid approach IMO.

[m2smith2]

What I mean is check/call is not the positive EV with the flush draw - that would be betting the flush draw. So, if someone thought that, because of that one play, I'm weak tight, they'd be in trouble when I bluffed them because, having "adjusted to weak tight," they'd assume I'd have a hand.

Just because you pass up one or two +EV plays doesn't mean you're automatically weak tight. That's all I'm saying.

[Cerril]

I don't think there's any question that you're giving up money by making these plays. The question is just whether anyone is willing to give up $/hr in order to reduce their volatility, and in what situations they can justify it.

Now there's no situation where giving up *any* portion of your EV is justified in pure theoretical poker, especially since at some limits giving up anything measurable would also involve giving up a positive expectation.

However, in an imperfect game, if you have enough knowledge about your game and the games you're in to know you aren't giving up a profit, just giving up a portion of your earnings, but safeguarding a too-small bankroll to do so, then it might be justified. It would be especially justified if your only games were this one, and one at a low enough limit (if there were a lower limit) that your $/hr would be going down by playing there even if your B/hr would increase.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is check/call is not the positive EV with the flush draw - that would be betting the flush draw. So, if someone thought that, because of that one play, I'm weak tight, they'd be in trouble when I bluffed them because, having "adjusted to weak tight," they'd assume I'd have a hand.

Just because you pass up one or two +EV plays doesn't mean you're automatically weak tight. That's all I'm saying.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not clear, and I must say that what you're suggesting looks pretty self-contradictory to me. You are willing to play "weak-tight" in a certain point in order to reduce show-down volatility, but then you say you are going to use this "weak-tight" image in order to increase EV on other hands, but also, as it comes together - increase your potential volatility in these other hands, since some of your bluffs will be called, especially in low-limit, where people are very very hard to bluff, no matter what image you have. So, you basically give up on +EV in certain situations, but can hardly compensate for it when you bluff. BTW - what is the inherent difference between the two situations? it's not clear at all, and it looks like you are simply not willing to "semi-bluff" in the first, but willing to "bluff" in the other. Is that what you mean?

This image play your talking about, which is essentially about "mixing it up", has probably more merit in higher buy-ins, or in NL, but again, it's only a question of what strategy gives you higher EV. In different conditions, optimal strategy can be *very* different. Poker is all about adjusting, in order to *maximize EV*, as long as you don't take ridiculous risks for a huge portion of your bank roll at once.

In other words: you are thinking about a way of playing, that will reduce your probability of busting all-together. Playing limit with this concern in mind, is *by definition*, problematic.

I want to add that the analogies to stock-trading and such, that a few posters has made here, are completely irrelavanty IMO. The idea of risk-management when it comes to trading is completely different from when playing ring poker. Stock-trading strategies etc have more to do, in some very narrow sense, with tournament poker, but the analogy is too often taken much too far, specifically on this board.

Only my opinion, of course.

[m2smith2]

What I'm saying is that <B>one play</b> does <b>not</b> determine a player's style.

While we're talking about "leaks," I'd say a huge leak is assigning a player type to someone based on limited information, and then not updating that based on new information.

My point is that putting a player on a certain style based on one play would be a mistake. It's true that I may give up a certain +EV play in a certain situation. But that doesn't define my overall play. And anyone who drew a conclusion based on that would be making a mistake, even if I'm not doing it to cultivate an "image."

Signed, misunderstood...

[EjnarPik]

He was probably in a +EV situation. Had he lost, the tv-company would probably have paid him something for the show. And he might have gotten into showbuisness, perhaps as: "The man who lost everything in 13 seconds."

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[Mike]

Wow! This is the longest thread of discussion in quite a while. Sure is pleasant to read! This is probably a side note to the main arguement, but it does carry some weight in the spirit of the first post. When one draws cards that are playable but get cracked time after time in a session, throwing away those particular +ev cards in some situations is not the worst play to be made, continuing to play them is.

For example during a hypothetical session XX is dealt to you every other hand. After an hour you have lost with it 16 times. You also lost with your other hands you went to the river with.

Isn't this a good time to evaluate just how much +ev you are really gaining continuing to play XX compared to throwing it away? Maybe you are not playing this hand well for a great number of reasons. You can not win all the time when obviously swimming upstream, imo, and sometimes there is no doubt you are going downstream trying to get upstream.

On the other hand to consistantly throw away XX every time you get it dealt to you isn't the greatest of plays either.

[playerfl]

the problem with ev logic is that its only true in the long run.

If you go totally broke then there is no long run.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem with ev logic is that its only true in the long run.

If you go totally broke then there is no long run.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are more worried about going totally broke, than about making +EV moves, then you probably shouldn't play poker. There are less "risky" ways to make money.

[playerfl]

so you think only people willing to go broke should play poker ?

if thats the case then only idiots would play IMHO.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
so you think only people willing to go broke should play poker ?

if thats the case then only idiots would play IMHO.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, only idiots play. And strong, winning poker players are by definition idiots, who are willing to go totally broke, and therefore try to maximize EV for each specific strategy they use. Yes, good observation.

[Tuneman]

Here's an interesting correlary:

There is a analogy that can be made from a particular argument against what is known as "Pascal's Wager". Who I believe was the inventor of EV, yes thats right it wasn't your favorite self proclaimed genius salansky.

Anyways, here's the idea:
Say that we were wondering what the odds are of finding a fountian of youth, something that makes you live forever. What are the odds of finding something like that 10^100? 10^1000, well anyways, wouldn't it be positive EV if you searched your entire life so find it? becuase altough the odds are 1/10^1000, the reward would be infinite? Well the answer is no, no one in their right mind would do this. But it has positive EV? Well just as you guys said when the stakes get higher, its tougher to take into consideration the idea of EV. The reason for this is becuase if you were to take this bet to find the fountian of youth, you would be losing everything, an infinite amount. Well anyways, I guess my point is what you guys were saying, that there are times when EV just doesn't matter.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a analogy that can be made from a particular argument against what is known as "Pascal's Wager". Who I believe was the inventor of EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget Fermat! They were working on this together, as you probably know. And I wouldn't say "invented", but maybe "defined the term", or something similar. Anyway, thank you for bringing Pascal to this discussion. It's a pity this great great thinker is not mentioned here more frequently. This is actually the first time his name comes up here, IIRC.

[ QUOTE ]
yes thats right it wasn't your favorite self proclaimed genius salansky.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who mentioned Sklansky? I don't quite understand your point here, but you definitely don't need a "genius" to tell you how reward vs. risk come into play in poker.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, here's the idea:
Say that we were wondering what the odds are of finding a fountian of youth, something that makes you live forever. What are the odds of finding something like that 10^100? 10^1000, well anyways, wouldn't it be positive EV if you searched your entire life so find it? becuase altough the odds are 1/10^1000, the reward would be infinite? Well the answer is no, no one in their right mind would do this. But it has positive EV? Well just as you guys said when the stakes get higher, its tougher to take into consideration the idea of EV. The reason for this is becuase if you were to take this bet to find the fountian of youth, you would be losing everything, an infinite amount. Well anyways, I guess my point is what you guys were saying, that there are times when EV just doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice point, but it really has very little to do with the discussion about EV vs. Risk in ring game poker, that's if you're playing with an adequate bankroll for your limit, of course. It has more to do with NL tournamnet poker, where your survival (and hence, your chances for winning anything at all) are always on the line, but even there (in every SPECIFIC tournament) many people are taking their "risk management" way to far.

And since you have mentioned Sklansky yourslef, you should probably know that many posters on these boards (specifically on the MTT board) disagree with Sklansky's approach as it's stated in TPFAP, with regard to not taking marginal +EV chances early in tournies. In this sense, you're somewhat on sklansky's side with your argument (ONLY when it comes to the play in NL tournaments).

[Louie Landale]

This is old stuff. If you are playing over your head bankroll-wise then Yes, forgo tiny EV plays that are volitile. In general that and tend to fold rather than call (play less hands), check rather than bet (don't marginal bet), call rather than raise (let the lesser hands in). There are exceptions such as not-slowplaying and raising to narrow the field.

If you are comfortable in the 5/10 but see a pretty good 15/30 game then play it but play it tight.

If you can quantify your "alpha divided by volitility(alpha)" in poker terms please do so.

- Louie

[Tuneman]

[ QUOTE ]
And I wouldn't say "invented", but maybe "defined the term", or something similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I mean it is a method of operation, a type of behavior that he did contrive. I would call it inventing. But whatever its just semantics.

[ QUOTE ]
Nice point, but it really has very little to do with the discussion about EV vs. Risk in ring game poker,

[/ QUOTE ]
Ya my analogy was in response to a few people posting not even about poker, but just general betting, and how you can't really use EV as much when the impact of winning or losing any bet increase. I think someone reffered to the guy who risked everything he had on roulette.

[ QUOTE ]
Who mentioned Sklansky? I don't quite understand your point here

[/ QUOTE ]

What I ment by that, well I don't really wanna go into it, just that sometimes you see his posts, and well, I'll leave it to you guys to decide, I dont wanna step on toes or anything.

[ QUOTE ]
And since you have mentioned Sklansky yourslef, you should probably know that many posters on these boards (specifically on the MTT board) disagree with Sklansky's approach as it's stated in TPFAP, with regard to not taking marginal +EV chances early in tournies. In this sense, you're somewhat on sklansky's side with your argument (ONLY when it comes to the play in NL tournaments).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not farmiliar with salansky's early +ev approach to whatever,, actually now that I think of it I would go with the +EV theroy in early tournaments, to a degree. See all of this stuff, all of these theories, should be taken to a degree, sometimes they are useful, sometimes they are not. Also, I wouldn't say I agree with salansky, remember my previous post was just in very high stakes bets.

But yah that lil analogy is pretty interesting to think about.

[Al Mirpuri]

You are right. However, reducing your volatility must allow your bankroll to exist. If your bankroll is so large that the volatility of the extreme EV+ plays is not going to affect it then you should make those plays.

[m2smith2]

This relates to a starting hand, rather than "a play."

These tests were done for a 20/40 tough table, but from multiple positions (so this would be better if the button was frozen), but I think it's illustrative of the point.

AJ offsuit had a slightly higher EV than 10/10 in my test, $21.87 per hand vs. $20.37.

However, that EV took a higher invested about, and the ratio of $won to $lost is far better 10/10.

A/J offsuit has a $won/$lost ratio of 1.02, vs. 1.24 for 10/10. Even though EV is similar, and it's positive, you can really get in trouble with A/J.

Of course, regular players know A/J as a dominated hand, but the information ratio quantifies it.