Mason's cardplayer article

Most of this article looks like old material and has been discussed before on this forum, but the last paragraph was of particular interest to me.


"That’s why when I’ve been running poorly or perhaps have been distracted, and believe that my perception of how things should be may be distorted, I’ll switch to perfect play (where possible). I’ll keep the “playing well” for those times when I’m actually doing just that."


First, I didn't think Mason ever lost a hand, let alone ran poorly /images/smile.gif.


Earlier in the article Mason said that a player that plays perfectly makes less than a player that plays well, and he makes a strong argument, although he has his own definition of what perfect is.


Let me guess as to what it is.


What I think Mason is saying is that he reverts back to game theory when he is running poorly.

So, he would bluff even a frequent calling station if game theory says so.


But this implies that almost all aspects of his later street play is Gametheorized. Mine certainly isn't. Also, how do you revert to game theory and totally disregard player tendecies.


After writing this, it's clear I don't understand. Mason what does this mean? How do you go back to playing "perfectly"


Maybe one day I'll have two gears, playing perfect and playing well.


Thanks in advance.

JV - you must've posted yours just as I started writing my "Flopped pairs" above. I wish I had waited.


Played perfect, played well, played badly? That's basically what it took me hundreds of words above to ask. you managed to do it without describing a hand. Very interesting.


Best of luck, Billy (LTL)

First of all it's a good thing you added your smiley to your sarcastic remark about Mason. I would not have set you straight otherwise.


"What I think Mason is saying is that he reverts to game theory when he is running poorly"


Wrong! Have you not read HPFAP? If not perhaps it is time. Do you not know who the poker player is and who is the theory guy among S&M? Well if not there may not be enough time here for me to explain so I'll stick to your statement. Mason and David developed a strategy for playing Mid Limit Holdem. It's found in HPFAP. When running bad Mason plays according to that strategy. Sure it's arguable whether the strategy is perfect or not but it's not argueable whether you can play their straetegy perfectly. Now Mason never told me this but I'm sure I'm correct. Why? Because when I am running bad, yes I've lost a few hands, I revert to "playing pefectly" also.


One other thing if you do not monitor your play you will not arrive at the day where you have "two gears". You will just play.


Vince

Since when did my play come under attack? I am just wondering what Mason thinks is perfect play. His distinctions are a bit vague. Mason is not talking about preflop strategy dictated in HFAP in this article. I think he is talking specifically about later round strategy.


And Vince, if you want to start measuring schlongs, in a poker sense, you're gonna look silly cause I'm hung like a bear. Please don't ever tell me what I need to do to improve my game. You know nothing about me and if you did, you would be embarrassed to be giving me advice. There are many posters who I respect, you aren't one of them.

You were right when you assumed he was talking about game theory.


Playing perfect = optimal strategy.

Playing well = exploitative strategy.


If he is bluffing optimally, it makes little difference if it is a calling station. Although the exploitative strategy of very rarely bluffing would be more profitable against a calling station.


Note that he points that his perception may be off from running bad. Therefore he might be wrong that an opponent is a calling station and trust game theory over his temporarily decreased reading skills. Something like that.


I think its a pretty good idea. Its not too tough to game theorize your river play away from the table for many common heads-up situations.


And bluffing on the end is a very easy situation to game theorize at the table using your watch and/or the river card.

Thanks for the analysis. However, trying to game theorize your play is tougher to do. For example, you have QQ. You get checkraised on the turn with a raggedy board that just made a backdoor two flush. You know you opponent has either AA, KK, JJ, or AKs flush draw. I had this problem once and Sklansky told me to game theorize it. But I don't know where to start.

"Maybe one day I'll have two gears playing well and playing perfectly"


Sound familar, big schlong? You wrote it, I didn't. Sure sounded like a sarcastic whine from someone that doesn't know what they are doing to me.


As far as respect goes, I believe that it is earned. Since I haven't earned your respect there is no reason for you to listen to anything I have to say. Thanks for the heads up. I will avoid anything you have to say in the future. Wouldn't want to upset you with my non respected inputs. Have a nice life.


vince

"You were right when you assumed he was talking about game theory"


You are absolutely wrong. He is taliking about playing according to his developed strategy (HPFAP) before the flop, on the flop, the turn and the river. BTW there is no such thing as optimal strategy. If you feel that I am wrong please describe it here.


Vince

A possibility is to make the odds against your folding the same as the pot odds you are receiving. That is used a mixed strategy of call (1-x)% and fold x% when your pot odds are (1-x):x.


Another possibility is to consider what possible hands you could have played this way, and fold QQ if it is in the bottom x% of possible hands, where your pot odds are (1-x):x.


Now factor in calling twice, effective rather than immediate odds, etc. and you are correct that it gets tough very quickly when there are cards left to come.

FWIW I'm going to jump in here and state that Vince has a really good point. I'm afraid that nf got the gist of the article correctly though. Vince's statement and subsequent question at the top are IMO very good and deserve an answer. I believe the answer would be that Vince is right overall in what he defines as "perfect play" but there are a very few situations where the optimal play could be determined and chosen in lieu of a potentially exploitive one. I'll readily admit I don't know what they would be though.

I think Vince is on the right track too.

Tom,


You know that I have a big ego. So whenever I am considered even to being close to being right my head swells. That aside, I do find this issue of what constitutes "perfect play" (do you think that may be an oxymoron) very interesting. I am waiting for Mason's definition. I will be bold here and say that unless one is an S&M diciple they will somewhat disagree with any definition Mason presents. One might disagree even if he is a disciple.


First of all to ask someone, even Mason or David, to describe perfect play is a trick question. Poker is a game of imperfect imformation so any strategy must take that into account. Since one is dealing with imperfect information both in opponents cards and their manner of play one must guess. Guessing carries with it a probability of being wrong on occaision. Also the sheer weight of possibilities in a given situation makes any attempt at describing perfect play arbitrary at best and impossible at worse. Evidence the discussion here on the best way to play certain hands (Hands to talk about). Before I go any further I would like to hear from Mason.


From one who never disagrees with you when you agree with me.


Vince

I wrote:


I believe the answer would be that Vince is right overall in what he defines as "perfect play"


To clarify:


I believe Vince is right in what 2+2 would define as "perfect play." Far be it from me to attempt to define a "perfect play" strategy.