Your opponents never make mistakes (long)

[PrayingMantis]

Some thoughts I had about adjusting to a game, from a little different perspective.

I've read a Sklansky essay, about the 8 mistakes in limit holdem (it's in the articles section), and realized that his approach, combined with the "theorem", can be sometimes very problematic when applied to NL tournaments, specifically SNGs (which I play more than any other format).

On this board, people are talking about mistakes their opponents made. It is very common with regard to opponents calling too many steals, or calling all-ins on the bubble, but it can also be playing too tight, too passive, too manic, etc.

I think that in a deep way, your opponents are not making any mistakes. This is just how they play. And since NL SNG are rarely stricktly about pot-odds (as limit is), sometimes it's difficult to see in what way your opponents are mistaken. My point is that the only mistake in regard to how your opponents play, can be done by *you* (or me), not profiting from the way they play.


Simple example: HU with relatively high blinds, like in most SNG endgames. An opponent who is folding too much, is making a mistake only if you steal from him a lot. If you are not able to capitalize on it (by playing very lag), he's not making a mistake. He might not be winning, eigher, but it is still not a mistake. On the other hand, an opponent who plays over-aggressively when blinds are not that high, is not making a mistake, unless you are trapping him correctly, or simply making a stand often enough.

Examples are common in any area of the game. If you push on the bubble with some garbage, with a small stack around, because you think a reasonable player won't call with marginal hand, it is YOUR mistake, if he does call with marginal hand that beats you, or even puts you in a "coin-flip" race. You didn't adapt to this opponent, you didn't anticipate him well enough. Pushing against loose, "gambling", opponent, who do not care about $EV, is a mistake. Their move is simply their move. That's how they play. I don't care if they win or not by playing this way.

A different mistake, might be opposite: not taking advantage of players who play TOO tight on the bubble. By itself, their over-tightness is not a mistake if you are not there to make a killing.

And so on and on, for many different kinds of opponents, and whole tables, who are simply playing their game: calling a lot, folding a lot, pushing a lot, miniraising a lot. These are not mistakes by themselves. Your opponents never make any mistakes, if there's no counter-move, made by you, that is turning your opponents' moves into mistakes.

Only some thoughts, most of them pretty banal, I'm sure. Hope it wasn't too long. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[AleoMagus]

Good post.

I think where many players go wrong (or don't go right enough, I guess) is that they know by playing solid ABC poker, they will be playing a fairly perfect 'center' of the game theoretic scale of play. This is to say that the only perfect counter to their play is their own play and that all other play will be a losing strategy against it. Game theory describes 'optimal' strategy this way.

The important thing though, is that 'optimal' in the grand theoretical sense is a lot different than 'optimal' in a table specific sense. So sure, if you don't want to watch your opponents at all and you want to break even or make a tiny ROI, then keep playing ABC poker and talk about all of your opponents dumb mistakes.

If you want to destroy the opposition though, this means deviating from what you know to be optimal play now and then because against this particular table, or this particular opponent, there are better ways.

In this sense, game theory tells us that a truly maximizing strategy is always dependent on our opposition's strategy. If they are playing very well (close to theoretically optimal) then about all we can do is match their play. If they are playing badly though, we can adjust our own play to take advantage of this.

This reminds me of a recent post I saw where someone suggested that my 'guide' for beating the party 10+1 was somehow close to a perfect way to play 10+1. As if that strategy would yeild the greatest return. Well... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Not even touching the issue of how close that strategy is to a theoretically optimal, Lets just talk about what that point is missing even if the guide was somehow 'perfect' against unknown opposition.

It is completely infexible!

It makes no allowance for the fact that sometimes it is ok to steal with a lot less, and sometimes you need to steal with a lot more (just one example) because of the way your opponent can be expected to react and by the time you reach even the middle stages of a SNG you should be able to make these kinds of assessments (at least against one or two guys anyways).

This really all just comes down to the importance of adjusting play based on player observation so I guess it isn't anything new. Still, it can't hurt to say it all again.

Regards
Brad S

[AJo Go All In]

you are basically saying something like "spilling ketchup on yourself is not really a mistake if ketchup doesn't exist"

your opponents are acting in response to what you do. by definition, an opponent's action is termed a mistake by virtue of your play.

it is also possible to take actions that are mistakes no matter how your opponent plays, for instance, folding the nuts on the river, but that's another story

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
you are basically saying something like "spilling ketchup on yourself is not really a mistake if ketchup doesn't exist"


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, kind of. But not really. It's more like "Ketchup spills. But only if you're getting under the bottle, you are making a mistake". Or, in another way: "People are throwing money at your direction. That's not a mistake by definition. If you are not able to take *most* of this money (while that's what your playing for), YOU are making the mistake."


[ QUOTE ]
your opponents are acting in response to what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the time (especially in lower limits), no. They are simply acting. And many "simply act" in the higher levels too. Of course they are adjusting in some sense, but what I'm saying is that *a mistake* would be "not taking advantage of their non-adaptive play". In a deeper sense, it also means "not being one step ahead".

[ QUOTE ]
by definition, an opponent's action is termed a mistake by virtue of your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, however, it is much more complictated in NL, and specifically in NL tournies than in limit, and that was my point. In limit, many times you can define mistake pretty easily. However, in SNGs, for instance, many very different ways of playing can actually be profitable against certain kinds of opposition. That's why I said "your opponents never make mistakes" - not because they play "perfectly", but because their game could be described as "mistaken" only if you take the right measures against it. And if THEY don't adjust - well, of course it's their mistake from this point and on.

I wrote my post mainly because I've seen many times people describe their opponents' play as "bad" or "stupid", while actually not being able to really turn it into a mistake. (common example: people play against very loose low buy-in players, that push and call with very bad hands. Some people call it "dumb play", and still sit very very tight, being afraid to get involved with less than super premium hands against these fishy guys. This is a very simple example of a play (the "fish"'s play) that might be actually very effective against very weak-tight players, who think it's a mistake, but can't understand THEY are making the mistake, by not fully adapting themselves to this game, and crushing it.)

[ QUOTE ]
it is also possible to take actions that are mistakes no matter how your opponent plays, for instance, folding the nuts on the river, but that's another story

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but as you say, it's another story.

[PrayingMantis]

Good post.

I think you have taken further some points I'm thinking about, but didn't write about. For instance, the "game theory" aspects of these SNGs, which are, in my opinion, much more important than in limit (which is the main subject of most of poker theory). Game theory plays of course a part in limit too, but only in very specific decisions. SNGs are, from start to end, a "game theory" style competition. That's part of the reason why we are so confused about the questions of CEV and $EV. We simply cannot say for sure which is more important and why, in many many cases.

This turns the whole subject of SNGs (and tournaments at large) into a much more "vague" area to discuss. And that's why very different strategies can be acutally profitable. And that's why an optimal strategy is much much more difficult to achieve, since it's about exploiting so many other, different, strategies (I'd say that an optimal play in a specific SNG could be something very different from what is usaly written here in this board, since it will be much more player and situation dependent than could be described in a common post here).

[eastbay]

Never? I think you know better than that.

eastbay

[CrisBrown]

Hiya P.M.,

I agree. If you don't punish your opponents' mistakes, then they aren't making any ... and you are.

Cris

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Never? I think you know better than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the title of course was a bit of an exageration, to make people read this long post. But I _do_ try not to see my opponents' moves as mistakes (even if they play "horribly") - my goal is only to play in a way the exploits their streategy in the best way, and by that turning it into a mistaken one against me.

You know, there are situations where you just see an opponent plays in a most terrible way, but for reasons a, b anc c, you're not in a position to fully exploit it. Therefore, he's not making a mistake, in a clear way. And in other very commong situation you see an opponent A, making constant mistakes against opponents B. Opponent B thinks he's a better player than A, and might even berate him, but still, doesn't know or understands how to exploit A's strategy (or afraid of it?). And in this case, A never makes a mistake.

[chill888]

This post - to me - is mainly about the value of adapting your play

It reminds me of the importance of tracking and note taking to adapt your play to specific players.

For example, guys that play 8 tables are not making a mistake unless I adapt.

People often post that its hard to get tells online.
But its even harder to keep detailed notes and stats handy of people at live games.

gl

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, guys that play 8 tables are not making a mistake unless I adapt.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great point. I think players who "over"-multi-table are playing a very exploitable game. But since they are (usualy), pretty good over-all players, it is more difficult to turn their strategy (very straight forward game, at the early rounds, for example), into a mistake.

From the opposite angle, a heavy multi-tabler is, by definition, not able to exploit many strategies that people use in the different tables he/she playes. So in a way he is paying "twice": once for making mistakes against more adapting opponents, and again for not exploiting strategies of weaker players at the game. This, of course, could be compensated by higher $/H, if his volume of play is big enough. But IMO, heavy multitablers sometimes give more than they take. I have no doubt about it.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Never? I think you know better than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the title of course was a bit of an exageration, to make people read this long post. But I _do_ try not to see my opponents' moves as mistakes (even if they play "horribly") - my goal is only to play in a way the exploits their streategy in the best way, and by that turning it into a mistaken one against me.

You know, there are situations where you just see an opponent plays in a most terrible way, but for reasons a, b anc c, you're not in a position to fully exploit it. Therefore, he's not making a mistake, in a clear way. And in other very commong situation you see an opponent A, making constant mistakes against opponents B. Opponent B thinks he's a better player than A, and might even berate him, but still, doesn't know or understands how to exploit A's strategy (or afraid of it?). And in this case, A never makes a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most mistakes are relative to your opponent's strategy. I think that's your main point here. Some are absolutely not. That's all I'm pointing out.

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Most mistakes are relative to your opponent's strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The interesting thing, however, is that many specific ("tactical") mistakes are relative not only to the specific opponent's (you're in a hand with) strategy, but also to the over-all "combined" strategies of the other players in the game.

As an example: you're in a HU situation, mid-game, where you have a reason to believe you can bluff out a specific opponent, and win a nice pot (of course, there is a pretty big risk involved). Your decision whether to do it or not, might be altered by your understanding of the other players' strategies. If there are other opponents you can steal blinds from (maybe later on), with relative ease, without risking as much as you risk now, then making a big bluff now is probably a mistake. OTOH, if the players around you (specifically the players acting right behind), are tough, aggressive opponents (or calling stations!), it's possible that NOT bluffing now is a mistake.