REVIEW: Ed Miller's new book "Small Stakes Hold'Em" (page 13)

[Nate tha' Great]

Just finished Page 13 tonight. So far I'd have to say that I'M EXTREMLEY DISAPPOINTED with this book.

Onto some specifics:

- The words "Part One" and "Gambling Concepts" appear to be written using a SERIF FONT, probably Times New Roman. The use of a SERIF FONT is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE for a TITLE PAGE that is looking to GRAB THE READERS ATTENTION. Particularly a TIRED OVERUSED serif like TNR. Lee Jones used a COMBINATION of serif and SANS SERIF FONTS and his book was MUCH BETTER.

- Making matters worse, the words are not CENTERED CORRECTLY ON THE PAGE. They are slightly closer to the BOTTOM MARGIN than the TOP MARGIN.

- The phrase PART ONE should be PROCEEDED BY A COLON. Carson makes much better use of COLONS AND SEMICOLONS and should have been consulted. Even better FLUSH THE TYPEWRITER DOWN THE TOILET AND TAKE A GRAMMER COURSE.

- There is an awful lot of BLANK SPACE ON THE PAGE. I will not even mention page 12 since I have not yet finished reading it, but it looks to be COMPLETELY BLANK.

I would expect more from a so-called "professional" book that cost $24.95. IT WILL TAKE ME SEVERAL DAYS OF RAPING THE LUXOR 1/2 FOR AS MUCH AS I USULALY DO TO MAKE UP THE LOST INCOME. To quote TV's popular Emenim you guys should have KICKED IT UP A NOTCH before publishing this PIECE OF SHITE!

[Gatts]

It's early, but I don't see anyone beating this for post of the month.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
It's early, but I don't see anyone beating this for post of the month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me neither. Nate showing off his sense of humor....

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
It's early, but I don't see anyone beating this for post of the month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cant argue with that.

[uuDevil]

With the hyperbole and insults removed, I got the following from your post:

"....font....margin....grammar...blank space...."

Of these, the last could be an interesting topic. If there was anything else worth noting, whether expressed or implied, it alluded me.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Richard Berg]

Wrong forum.

[AncientPC]

I'd laugh more if I didn't waste so much time arguing pointlessly in that thread. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Lawrence Ng]

Did you also wipe your ass with the pages in this book? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Nate:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
The words "Part One" and "Gambling Concepts" appear to be written using a SERIF FONT, probably Times New Roman. The use of a SERIF FONT is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE for a TITLE PAGE that is looking to GRAB THE READERS ATTENTION. Particularly a TIRED OVERUSED serif like TNR. Lee Jones used a COMBINATION of serif and SANS SERIF FONTS and his book was MUCH BETTER.


[/ QUOTE ]

We use to use Dutch Roman. Do you think we should go back to that?

Best wishes,
Mason

[sin808]

you're my hero

[daveymck]

If you dont understand the +ev of pushing fonts like Times New Roman they you may as well give up reading now.

Its like word trying to standardise Arial font, people use this safe standard play all the time, you must move on to the next level and use Times New Roman.

Some people dont understand the concepts and use Windings for a while which is -ev, but that is just the process of evolution to a Verdana player.

[DeeJ]

Eluded. Alluded would have told you what it was all about.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elude

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=allude

This has been a free service from your local pedant. Please donate generously.

[sluttysteve]

Calm down there Jackie Harvey.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Eluded. Alluded would have told you what it was all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

That usage was prompted by these quotes from edrugtrader's rantings:

[ QUOTE ]
enough energy to elude that i am wrong, or not worth dealing with, but not enough intelligence to actually back that up with an explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
i would be more inclined to use tact if the book didn't elude that "if you disagree you are wrong" on every other page.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I get for trying to be a smartass. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[andyfox]

Bravo! I take back what I said about Mason having the best sense of humor here.

[DeeJ]

Well the troll got you good too then /images/graemlins/wink.gif

He even got diablo in the main thread
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
We use to use Dutch Roman. Do you think we should go back to that?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I'm a huge fan Franklin Gothic.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the troll got you good too then /images/graemlins/wink.gif

He even got diablo in the main thread
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really think he's a troll? You must not have been reading his posts.

[illguitar]

Amazing. The single funniest post I have read in my short time here. Edrugtrader...take a lap.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well the troll got you good too then /images/graemlins/wink.gif

He even got diablo in the main thread
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really think he's a troll? You must not have been reading his posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think he called nate a troll? You must not have been reading his post.

[Peter Harris]

sheesh, the book has made me more than the cover cost, i'll take it written in cursive mirror image.

Needless nitpicking.

Regards,
Pete Harris

[pokerstudAA]

If you only looked at page 13 I dont think your sample size is sufficient. You may want to examine the titling and margins of at least 4 other chapters and pages to make you comments accurate.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well the troll got you good too then /images/graemlins/wink.gif

He even got diablo in the main thread
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really think he's a troll? You must not have been reading his posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think he called nate a troll? You must not have been reading his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think he called edrugtrader a troll, which he clearly isn't (despite his arrogance).

[DeeJ]

Well I have; it doesn't really matter to me whether the intent is to flame-inspire or merely post provocative stuff, the effect is the same. The usual treatment is to ignore them /images/graemlins/smile.gif

This guy meets several troll criteria :

Subject: 3.1 The old definition

The old definition of a Troll is one who posts to generate
the maximum number of follow ups. These are a very minor
irritation, and can be considered to be advantageous to
newsgroups.

------------------------------

Subject: 3.2 The Irritating Troll

Some merely post drivel, or tirades [ ... ]

<<

Whatever. life is too short to worry further /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Stork]

What's bothering me is that, even though he may be a bit annoying, hes bringing up points about the book and asking questions about poker, which is what the forum is for. But he's questioning Ed's advice, and for it everyone is being a comple a$$hole to him, as exemplified by this thread. The only person who isn't jumping on the bandwagon is Ed, who gave the best response to his main question about the rareness of high variance, low EV plays.

[DonkeyKong]

I also thought that the fonts used were very arrogant. Clearly, Ed is too full of himself to use standard fonts.

Moreover, the glossary does not do a good job describing the differences between a belly-buster and a gutshot.

[dana33]

I think that this definitively proves that the book was typeset with an IBM Selectric Composer in the early 1970s, and thus is out of date by three decades. I have confirmed this assessment by having my copy of the book inspected by an expert. (My next door neighbor, who once knew a guy who had a Selectric.)

[PaultheS]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not even mention page 12 since I have not yet finished reading it, but it looks to be COMPLETELY BLANK.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favourite part.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
What's bothering me is that, even though he may be a bit annoying, hes bringing up points about the book and asking questions about poker, which is what the forum is for. But he's questioning Ed's advice, and for it everyone is being a comple a$$hole to him, as exemplified by this thread. The only person who isn't jumping on the bandwagon is Ed, who gave the best response to his main question about the rareness of high variance, low EV plays.

[/ QUOTE ]
this obviously bothered me as well... especially coming here from RGP, which i thought was much worst about these things. i've found out that this forum isn't full of the poker minds i assumed it was. i'm not even convinced it's full of minds of any nature. Therefore i post this reply with the feelings of raising your KK after an ace flops and you're bet into. expect the worst, hope for the best.

this was a humerous response, but it just furthered the theme of attacking my delivery, arrogance, and persona rather than attacking any errors in my critique (if any).

as for the rareness +ev high variance plays... i thought about it some more and figured out what was bothering me...

all of the plays i disagreed with were RAZOR THIN +EV plays (we all agreed on this). the problem is they could potentially be moderate -EV plays depending on the action behind us. Sure the chart says we expect 6-8 callers, but we've all played in games where it's capped with 9 in on one hand, and AA picks up the pot with a raise uncontested the next. these high variance plays from early position are dangerous and i feel they are incorrect.

A2s UTG may be correct if you knew 6 people would limp in, and there wouldn't be a raise, but just because you are in a game where that is the average doesn't make it correct to assume it will happen, if only the assumption will change the play from +EV to -EV. the risk is too high to justify chasing the thin +EV if you are right. if someone raises, and only 1 other person limps, you're play becomes -EV, and much more -EV than it would have been +EV had the situation played out like you hoped.

so my real problem with the theme of some of Ed's suggestions isn't pushing slim +EV plays (which i also disagree with, but concede i may be wrong), rather pushing plays that only MAY be razor thin +EV plays from early position preflop.

again i would look to rarity of these plays as the deciding factor, as they are esentially coin flips.

the times you play them, AND the action after you is as expected, then they are barely +EV. the times you play them and the action isn't as expected (raised pot, too few limpers, too many limpers), then they may not only go -EV, but in some case become significantly -EV.

I'm not dictating these as facts or claiming them to be so. they are instincts from years of play. I am asking to be shown why these instincts are incorrect... not new ways my delivery can be mocked.

as a betting man, i put my cash on more joke replies than serious ones.

[DonkeyKong]

edrugtrader,

just laugh it off. it was a funny friggin post...

I understand these issues you are talking about. I don't play A2s from early position for the reasons you mention. As with most of the marginal hands. it is a +EV play if the pot isn't raised and it goes multiway and its probably a -EV play if the pot gets raised and/or doesn't go multiway. This is unknowable UTG... You are basing your decisions on estimates and it is these estimates that will drive your results. If you have no faith in a given round, then either don't play or call 1 bet and see how many are in if it comes back to you with a raise.

I think you need to learn to post in a way that invites poker critique and not run your mouth so much. Just calmly ask to discuss the point and I am sure you will get some well thought out responses.

When you talk about wiping your ass with the pages of the book, what do you expect?

[Richard Berg]

[ QUOTE ]
the times you play them, AND the action after you is as expected, then they are barely +EV. the times you play them and the action isn't as expected (raised pot, too few limpers, too many limpers), then they may not only go -EV, but in some case become significantly -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you want to calculate the Expected Value of a play, all you have is past information. Use whatever Bayesian inference algorithm you like, but you can't use future actions. This sounds like a nitpick -- obviously you didn't mean to imply that you can predict the future -- but when I read this paragraph it doesn't sound like you really, truly understand EV.

It's this precise: given an exact situation, every move is +EV, 0EV, or -EV. Every move has an expected SD. Frankly, every move has a complete probability distribution, just nobody cares enough to graph it. If the EV gain of a mathematically correct move is too low relative to its ESD and your Kelly criteria, so be it, but you then must reject all situations with similar statistical profiles in order to be logically consistent, even if Situation #2 occurs 10x more (or less) frequently.

In case you don't believe me yet (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1122212&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1), consider a trivial argument by contradiction:

Case 1 - being dealt A/images/graemlins/club.gif4/images/graemlins/club.gif UTG. If you play live full-ring poker 40 hours a week, this will happen twice a year. Limping has a EV of X1 and a variance of Y1.

Case 2 - being dealt A3-A5s in the first two seats. Playing the same amount of poker, this will happen every week. Limping has an EV of X2 and a variance of Y2.

The important facts here are that X1 == X2 and Y1 == Y2.* It doesn't matter in the slightest that case 1 is very rare. Given my clever choice of cards, enjoying case 2's profit while refusing that from case 1 actually demonstrates reductio ad absurdum.

*ok, maybe not a good C operator to use with floating-point values. Point to take home is that if there's a difference, it's several orders of magnitude under the radar of any mortal being.

[Richard Berg]

[ QUOTE ]
The only person who isn't jumping on the bandwagon is Ed, who gave the best response to his main question about the rareness of high variance, low EV plays.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was first /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I am asking to be shown why these instincts are incorrect... not new ways my delivery can be mocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude! You mock and ask not to be mocked in return? [Ed's a bigger man than most of us.]

You seem to be claiming that 1) certain recommended plays are ~0 EV but high variance and 2) these plays are rare.

Well you haven't shown 1) but if you do, if 2) is true, then 1) doesn't matter since 2) implies there should be little or no effect on overall win rate or variance or bankroll or risk of ruin. Since their effect is limited (you can only lose so much on a given hand), such plays can't matter much. The more rare they are the less they matter, not the other way around.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
When you want to calculate the Expected Value of a play, all you have is past information. Use whatever Bayesian inference algorithm you like, but you can't use future actions. This sounds like a nitpick -- obviously you didn't mean to imply that you can predict the future -- but when I read this paragraph it doesn't sound like you really, truly understand EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
i understand... here is my point hopefully more clear. everything below the text i quoted from your post i understand and agree with.

example situation:
every pot for the last hour was 6 handed on the flop without a raise. can you really assume it will be on the next hand and play a hand where ONLY that assumption makes the play +EV, and barely +EV at that? I say no, especially if it will be more -EV than it would have been +EV if the situation does not come as expected. If you are not more than confident in your assumption then the play could possibly be negative, then you can't make this play. so if it would be +1 if you are right and -1 if you are wrong, then you have to be more than 50% sure you will be right.

your EV is positive at the time when you call preflop with your assumption of future action... if that action doesn't happen, then you have a new EV that fits the action that really did happen. sure the chances of the situation happening or not happening drives your original EV, but they aren't really related sometimes. what if everyone was just calling for the last hour waiting for the game to start, and it just started as this hand was dealt? past experience is a good guage, but i don't think it should be relied on when your play could go negative if ONLY that information is slightly off.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude! You mock and ask not to be mocked in return?

[/ QUOTE ]
DUDE! I was mocked first, and never stop coming back at those who choose to mock me. as should be evident, this is a character flaw i quite enjoy.

perhaps my tone induced the mocking, but then, who is really to blame?

social dynamics on a poker forum. good times.

[Richard Berg]

You're making even less sense now. The last 30 times (same # of hands as your hour of live play) I've made the nut flush, nobody beat me. What if people started holding onto their 2pair redraws longer? Should I stop betting paired rivers for value?

[Richard Berg]

[ QUOTE ]
DUDE! I was mocked first

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, your very first post juxtaposed feces with a 2+2er (Ed Miller).

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
You're making even less sense now. The last 30 times (same # of hands as your hour of live play) I've made the nut flush, nobody beat me. What if people started holding onto their 2pair redraws longer? Should I stop betting paired rivers for value?

[/ QUOTE ]
NO, because the fact that them holding 2 pair redraws longer isn't the ONLY thing that will hurt your EV, and even if it was, it would never make it negative.

the failed assumption that 4 other players will limp and the pot doesn't get raised, will be the ONLY thing to turn your EV negative with A2s UTG. i think ed relies on these assumptions too much while pushing barely +EV situations too hard... if even a few of the assumptions fail, then you're really pushing -EV situations.

as we've all concluded the rarity of these situations makes them near meaningless individually... but the whole point of the book was "lee jones is missing a lot of small EV cases and we'll fill in the holes..."

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, your very first post juxtaposed feces with a 2+2er (Ed Miller).

[/ QUOTE ]
oh yeah, there was that... but i seriously had just ran out of TP.

taco bell for lunch... you know the story.

[Richard Berg]

[ QUOTE ]
NO, because the fact that them holding 2 pair redraws longer isn't the ONLY thing that will hurt your EV, and even if it was, it would never make it negative.

the failed assumption that 4 other players will limp and the pot doesn't get raised, will be the ONLY thing to turn your EV negative with A2s UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]
You lost me.

A2s UTG, you limp, raise-3bet-cap, folded back to you. Coldcalling is now -EV every time.

Nut flush, someone stayed with their redraw, river pairs. Your river bet is now -EV every time.

It won't always be capped behind you. Opponents won't always fill up. I'm not saying these two possibilities have the same likelihood, but they are included in any EV calculation exactly the same way.

[ QUOTE ]
but the whole point of the book was "lee jones is missing a lot of small EV cases and we'll fill in the holes..."

[/ QUOTE ]
Just read the postflop chapters already; your ignorance isn't helping your forum image. Jones would have you fold the first hand presented in the intro. Raising is correct, and it's not close.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps my tone induced the mocking, but then, who is really to blame?

[/ QUOTE ]

Claiming to use someone's work as TP is an explicit insult, not a tone.

[edrugtrader]

postflop there are a lot more assumptions that all interact... if you have the nut flush on the turn and you know that every player will call with 2 pair, that doesn't do either of the criteria i set forth

1) it doesn't make the river bet -EV when the board pairs. you didn't say if there was another assumption that they would call with TPTK, or with a straight when a flush was possible... these other assumptions invalidate this example
2) it isn't the ONLY reason for the EV to lose value.

number 1 is obvious as you have already stated. for #2, what if trips or gutshot straight flush draws are guaranteed to be sticking around...

the A2s UTG was just a situation that sort of fit this idea... you NEED a few more limpers to make your initial call profitable. that is the ONLY thing that will help and make your call +EV, and if it doesn't happen your play will be -EV. that is my point.

[Richard Berg]

I still don't think you understand my comparison. I'm simply giving an example of another situation where betting is +EV unless you have an extra piece of information that doesn't exist. You can't predict when a table will suddenly go 4 bets preflop in exactly the same manner that you can't predict when the river card happened to be one of a calling station's 4 outs. Luckily, when discussing EXPECTED value, it doesn't matter.

Look, Ed would tell you not to play A2s UTG if it doesn't suit your interpretation of your game's preflop texture. I don't play it either, if that matters.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, Ed would tell you not to play A2s UTG if it doesn't suit your interpretation of your game's preflop texture. I don't play it either, if that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
i understand. for the case of A2s UTG, if the preflop texture is 6 players per flop, no raise (exactlly what you want), then EVEN WITH THAT DATA i say you can't call, because if it doesn't fit this exact time, you're -EV. given only 1 piece of data that could flip your EV either way isn't enough to play the situation and folding is free. i think that is my point.

how about this: i have a bag full of quarters. 100 of them. i throw in 4 double headed coins and offer a $1.02 to your $1.00 bet where you get tails.

you can expect to get a fair coin, in which case your EV is positive (1% per flip), but if the situation isn't as expected (you get an unfair coin), then you'll lose.

this is an extremem example, but as far as preflop texture, you don't know how many double sided coins are in the bag, and you don't know how badly they'll affect you.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
how about this: i have a bag full of quarters. 100 of them. i throw in 4 double headed coins and offer a $1.02 to your $1.00 bet where you get tails.

you can expect to get a fair coin, in which case your EV is positive (1% per flip), but if the situation isn't as expected (you get an unfair coin), then you'll lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm.... actually i think i may be able to invent a fun casino game out of this idea.

[Ed Miller]

but the whole point of the book was "lee jones is missing a lot of small EV cases and we'll fill in the holes..."

To be honest, I think you've somewhat missed the point of the book. If I had to sum up the "point" of the book, it would be this:

1. You need to protect your vulnerable made hands and draws in big pots more aggressively than you probably are right now.

2. You need to continue with weak hands and draws more often than you probably are right now when the pot is very big.

3. When the hand is multiway, it is often helpful to switch to a "pot equity" perspective when making betting and raising decisions.

4. Don't give loose opponents with weak calling standards credit for a good hand when they just call you.

I wouldn't say "push your small edges" is really the point of the book at all. Somehow that's what people got out of it, though. (I'm not saying you shouldn't push small edges. Often you should. I'm just saying that I don't feel that's the main emphasis of the book.)

Since you mentioned Lee's book, I would say that these four points are all handled quite differently in my book than in his. He often tells you to check down marginal made hands when loose players call you on scary boards. He also tells you to fold weak hands more frequently, usually also neglecting to mention the size of the pot when explaining his decisions.

You are zeroing in on the "Loose Games" preflop chart... doing exactly what I pleaded with the reader not to do. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to present a cohesive, 100% accurate preflop strategy in four pages of charts. If you follow the charts to the letter, you will often be making errors. I say as much in the book.

So why did I include the charts at all then, you ask? If I can't do it right, why do it at all? Well, I included them because I felt they would help the newer players who are reading my book. My book isn't INTENDED for new players, but I know that new players will buy and read my book anyway. Without some basic preflop guidelines, a new player would be TOTALLY lost. I feel that those four pages make the book a lot more helpful for a newer player.

Of course, if a new player follows those charts, he will make the mistakes that I know the chart sometimes tells you to make. But those mistakes are far less frequent and far less expensive than the mistakes a new player might make sans chart.

BTW, this is why your reception here has been as it has been. Most of the people here perceive that you have, to some extent, "missed the point." That, coupled with your discussion of your toilet habits, has caused people not to take you seriously.

[Richard Berg]

[ QUOTE ]
for the case of A2s UTG, if the preflop texture is 6 players per flop, no raise (exactlly what you want), then EVEN WITH THAT DATA i say you can't call, because if it doesn't fit this exact time, you're -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do not understand EV. Period.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You need to protect your vulnerable made hands and draws in big pots more aggressively than you probably are right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
then why just call with TT in seat 5 after it is 3 bet to you and you know the pot will be large? Sorry to bring this up again, but this was one of my few problems with the book. I agree you can't put a preflop guide on 4 pages, but i also think that a 4 page preflop guide shouldn't contain obvious errors. i can't see how i can be more aggressive than i am right now, so i have a feeling this portion of my game will remain unchanged.
[ QUOTE ]
2. You need to continue with weak hands and draws more often than you probably are right now when the pot is very big.

[/ QUOTE ]
very obvious. this is a theme in every poker book.
[ QUOTE ]
3. When the hand is multiway, it is often helpful to switch to a "pot equity" perspective when making betting and raising decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]
the "pot equity" perspective is interresting, but pot odds, implied odds and reverse implied odds get you to the exact same result.
[ QUOTE ]
4. Don't give loose opponents with weak calling standards credit for a good hand when they just call you.

[/ QUOTE ]agreed, and this would be the main difference in this book than anything else out there. often the players will have weak calling standards AND weak raising standards. playing against their raises is the real tricky part.

i felt the "you're up against bad players" cop out was used way to much to justify borderline plays. i've finished your book, and enjoyed the well thought out explanations of certain plays. sometimes they were based on assumptions that can't always be held true (such as "your opponent is making the wrong decision")... in those cases you're just thinking too much and not really adding value. you can't outthink someone that doesn't understand the game.

I seriously believe a "Lee Jones Style" bot vs. an "Ed Miller Style" bot, at a loose 6-12 game, both with built in randomizations to mix up their play accordingly, would make the same money against the same 9 opponents over time. However, I believe the "Ed Miller Style" bot would show much higher variance. I can't prove this, I don't think anyone can. I strongly believe it to be true.

That all being said, if you're a gambling man, you'll have a lot more fun playing Ed Miller style, so i highly recommend his book to you.

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
You do not understand EV. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think i simply don't know how to articulate my knowledge of EV while being attacked.

trust me, i understand EV... i'm just trying to explain some feelings about estimating EV which aren't easily expressed in words. i'll stop trying.

[Richard Berg]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't prove this, I don't think anyone can.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can. You raise QQ, get 3 calls, flop comes J85 two clubs. WLLH tells you to check if the turn is a club (p. 120). The Miller bot makes money, Jones does not. I suspect situations like this arise to the tune of more than 0.5BB/hr/table. That's a lot.

[Zac Ray]

I am the new player discussed by Ed. This is my 3rd book and I look forward to applying it to $.5/$1 games at Party. My best night there ($140) was on a night I could do no wrong except to fold, I even hit a royal. I know that was a fluke night but ever since then, I've wondered how much my super-aggressive play helped (versus my usual timid, newby-smart tightness). I cleared 2 and a half tables before my cards quit coming. I guess I've never really had the guts to push that hard again and have bled my $140 bankroll conservatively away.
I am currently putting your charts into a macro so I can asorb the info more quickly during realtime gameplay. Don't worry, I know that they are only guidelines and will use them as such. Thanks a million for this book, it seems like most other texts focus on already being a pro player or playing against other great payers. This book is full of information I can use immediately, quite a bit of it!
I'm just wondering how long the book's spine will hold up, heh. Thanks again.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I think you've somewhat missed the point of the book. If I had to sum up the "point" of the book, it would be this:

1. Blah, blah, blah.
2. Blah, blah, blah.
3. Blah, blah, blah.
4. Blah, blah, blah.

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on, ED. You know the real reason you wrote the book was so that you could put your mugshot on the same page as Mason's and David's. Watch out, ladies.

BTW, we're coming to Vegas this weekend. Are you watching the Sox games at one of the casinos?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, your very first post juxtaposed feces with a 2+2er (Ed Miller).

[/ QUOTE ]
oh yeah, there was that... but i seriously had just ran out of TP.

taco bell for lunch... you know the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

100K in the safe and he can't even afford toilet paper.

[CORed]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. You don't know what the players acting after you are going to do. You try to estimate the probability. If the probability that you will have several callers and no raise is sufficently high, the limp UTG with A2s is +EV. An analogous situation is a semibluff. The semi-bluff is +EV only if there is a sufficiently high probability that your opponent(s) will fold. Winning poker is all about using probability to make the correct decision with incomplete information. Some probabilities (like the probability of completing a draw) can be calculated exactly. Some, especially those involving the future actions of your opponents, can only be estimated. If you do a bad job of estimating these, you will lose EV. If you always make the worst case assumption , you will also lose EV. It appears that you are making the latter mistake.

[DonkeyKong]

I was going to right essentially the same thing as CORed.. Good post.

You can run all the algorithms you want regarding past play which say X is +EV or -EV. Nevertheless, it is your estimate of future actions that is going to decide whether your current/future plays are +EV or -EV. Sometimes your estimate will be right and sometimes wrong.

I thought SSH was an excellent book on Hold Em. I have a problem when authors say 'you are wrong' without the proper caveats though. SSH is making the assumption that the game you are in is one where opponents do not play well after the flop (and before the flop but it is after the flop play that really differentiates small stakes from medium-high stakes).

You can't say 'this play is +EV' or that play is '-EV' unless the game you are in is as SSH assumes -- bad after the flop play. If the game you are in is loose pre-flop but pretty good after-the-flop, then the SSH strategy will have you betting and calling way too much and this will manifest itself in increased variance and low win rate.

Even at Party Poker 3/6, you can run into tables where the players play pretty well after the flop. That isn't the rule but it does happen reasonably often. Betting and calling down with pair of Aces, no kicker (ie A2) is not necessarily +EV. It is only +EV if you get many callers so that when you do hit a pot where nobody has you outkicked or 2-paired, the pot is a big one. But this is Ed's point of the entire book --- let the pot size be your guide when making decisions, don't fold when your hand may be good and the pot is big. If the pot isn't big, then folding what may be the best hand is a small mistake. If the pot is big, then folding what may be the best hand is a big mistake.

If the pot odds are good, err on the side of calling rather than folding. This is true for all stakes but seems to be the rule at low limit poker. If you are not in this kind of game, then don't do as SSH teaches.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do not understand EV. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think i simply don't know how to articulate my knowledge of EV while being attacked.

trust me, i understand EV... i'm just trying to explain some feelings about estimating EV which aren't easily expressed in words. i'll stop trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally "I can't easily express this in words" means "I don't really understand my own thoughts on the matter." That's my personal belief and I know it ruffles a lot of feathers but I don't care! Muhahahaha! Whenever I have a hard time expressing something, that's a clue to myself that I don't firmly understand the subject.

If you're at a game where the flop is rarely raised and usually six people see the flop, then A2-4s in EP is +EV. If you get A/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/club.gif and it gets raised and 3-bet behind you, then your EV for the second call is negative. That doesn't change the EV of the first call.

I guess I'm confused about what you're trying to say. If you say that A2s UTG is -EV after it's been 3-bet behind you, then sure. Numerous people here agree with this, and have said so. But this thread was discussing the first call with A2s, which is +EV because of the table texture.

The point of EV is that it describes the long-run return expected from making a decision. Once you get more information (say during one specific hand), the EV of that previous decision does not change. You seem to be implying that it does. EV only applies when the decision is made, and with the amount of information you have at that point.

You might say, after it gets raised and 3-bet behind you, that "I made a mistake this time," but that assumes that you somehow could have known that it was going to get 3-bet. The original call was not a mistake; to call it a mistake means that you had information available that could have helped you fix that mistake. On this particular hand, the call lost you money (because you're going to have to fold it when it comes back around to you) but that loss should be factored into the EV of the original call.

EV is like Sklansky Bucks. You make S$ every time you make the right decision, independent of specific results.

[DonkeyKong]

<<You might say, after it gets raised and 3-bet behind you, that "I made a mistake this time," but that assumes that you somehow could have known that it was going to get 3-bet.>>

I will speak for edrugtrade,

I think his point is that in the games he plays in, he can never be very confident when he is UTG how the betting will play out. In mathematical speak, he can't estimate it without lots of error. This is completely understandable because when UTG, you are at an extreme disadvantage. I completely understand this perspective. When in default mode, I am not going to throw my money in this spot either. If I gain confidence that it is unlikely to be 2-bet and players are calling too much after the flop, I will begin to play in this spot.

I think Ax-s when UTG is -EV exactly BECAUSE it will be 2 or 3-bet often enough that it will kill your profits when you do hit it. I think it is +EV in middle/later position if there are a few limpers and no raise has hit yet.

My view is that most hands are -EV UTG because of all the errors you will make. I played 2/4 for a while and that game was unbelievably easy so for 2/4, I would probably limp with Ax-s as my default play.

For all practical purposes, when UTG, you just don't have any information to estimate whether this next hand you play is +EV or -EV. You can argue long-run this or that but that isn't going to help you much unless you have a good feel for what is going on at your table and on that hand. Poker is a game of mistakes so if you put yourself in position to make a lot of mistakes by playing hands that aren't profitable for 2 bets when UTG, your variance is going to be high and you may or may not actually be making +EV plays...

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think his point is that in the games he plays in, he can never be very confident when he is UTG how the betting will play out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then this whole discussion was useless. Ed Miller's point was that, in a passive game where 6 people on average see the flop, A2-4s in EP is a +EV move. If EdRugTrader's point is that his games are tighter and/or more aggressive than this... fine. That's accepted. Miller even says as much.

So what are we arguing about again?

[DonkeyKong]

<<So what are we arguing about again?>>

I think the discussion was originally about pushing small edges and variance... but we seem to have come to the conclusion that this wasn't what it was really about. It is really about whether A2s-A4s and other similar plays are +EV or -EV.

If UTG, you don't know whether calling the BB is +EV or -EV until you see how many callers you get. If you get a lot, it was a +EV bet, even if the pot gets raised. If you get 1 or 2 callers, it is likely -EV. If only 2 or 3 callers & a raised pot, it is likely -EV.

So to me, this isn't a question of pushing small edges. There is no edge to push if the pot doesn't develop as you estimate. So it all comes down to your estimate of players in the pot on that round. We are in agreement, we are not arguing. But I think it was a worthwhile discussion. If it wasn't for you, then so what? move on.

[frank_iii]

At least it's not the Comics Cartoon font.

MOST...
OVERUSED...
FONT...
EVER...

[edrugtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
I think his point is that in the games he plays in, he can never be very confident when he is UTG how the betting will play out. In mathematical speak, he can't estimate it without lots of error.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is exactlly what i was trying to say. ONLY the table texture expectation makes the play +EV, and the texture varies enough to make depending on the texture wrong...

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Oh yes, FONT makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONTENT OF POKER BOOKS. (insert font name) is for IDIOTS and I would NEVER listen to the advice or such morons, while (insert different font name) is for SUPER-GENIUSES and I would take their words as second only to Jesus H's.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

al

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
all of the plays i disagreed with were RAZOR THIN +EV plays (we all agreed on this).

[/ QUOTE ]


You are making all of these grand assumptions that the plays are OBVIOUSLY razor-thin +EV at best. Perhaps many agreed with you....but not all.
I, for one, do not agree with this.


[ QUOTE ]
A2s UTG may be correct if you knew 6 people would limp in, and there wouldn't be a raise, but just because you are in a game where that is the average doesn't make it correct to assume it will happen, if only the assumption will change the play from +EV to -EV. the risk is too high to justify chasing the thin +EV if you are right

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you are underestimating the potential of these hands. I suspect that many of the players around here who play these hands on the appropriate tables and play them correctly show a profit.

Wonder what would happen if all the solid players around here who fire away with Axs UTG combined their p-tracker win-rate on these.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Felicia Lee and I were discussing this thread on instant messaging (and Mason's response regarding fonts). here is part of our conversation:

Felicia says:
mason is funny

Dave In Vegas (Al Capone Junior) says:
i know, he is semi-serious even tho he is (not quite) obviously being funny

Felicia says:
lol

Dave In Vegas (Al Capone Junior) says:
he's pseudo-subtly dry in his humor

Felicia says:
definitely



Most people just don't appreciate this kind of thing Mason, but just so you know, there are still a few geeky poker degenerate guru types who DO.

al

[SA125]

Mason - "We use to use Dutch Roman. Do you think we should go back to that"

Al - "Most people just don't appreciate this kind of thing Mason, but just so you know, there are still a few geeky poker degenerate guru types who DO."

I hear you Al. Mason's practically a laugh factory.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
all of the plays i disagreed with were RAZOR THIN +EV plays (we all agreed on this

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think folding TT to a reraise when typically six to eight people see the flop is razor thin. I think it is a significant loss.

A2s UTG: that I think is usually razor thin.

[ QUOTE ]
A2s UTG may be correct if you knew 6 people would limp in, and there wouldn't be a raise, but just because you are in a game where that is the average doesn't make it correct to assume it will happen, if only the assumption will change the play from +EV to -EV. the risk is too high to justify chasing the thin +EV if you are right. if

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop right there. Your problem is in this paragraph. When you say A2s UTG is +EV in a loose passive game. You are taking an average across all possible actions that could follow.

[ QUOTE ]
the risk is too high to justify chasing the thin +EV if you are right. if

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rather pushing plays that only MAY be razor thin +EV plays from early position preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if A2s is –EV when played UTG. If A2s is +EV then by definition of EV, the risk WILL justify the reward.

You do not fully grasp what EV means (I am not trying to be rude).

EV(A2s UTG) = Prob(someone raising) * EV(A2s UTG when someone raises) + Prob(no one raising) * EV(A2s UTG when no one raises).

************************************************** ********

[ QUOTE ]
so my real problem with the theme of some of Ed's suggestions isn't pushing slim +EV plays (which i also disagree with, but concede i may be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Missing slim +EV plays to reduce variance only makes sense when you are playing too high for your bankroll. If you have a decent bankroll you should never make a play you know is–EV.

[DonkeyKong]

I totally agree with this last post regarding EV. I am entirely sure that you should always push anything that is +EV. If you aren't comfortable doing this, then drop your table stakes and play aggressive there.

I think we can all agree that Ax-suited can be a powerful hand. We can also agree that it is definitely +EV if it is multiway.

I think there may be a disagreement on what the default play should be when in early position. If you make some errors because you are out of position, this reduces EV so it is definitely less EV in early than late position. But does it drop to negative?

I realize this isn't conclusive but Pokerroom.com has these numbers for over 120mm hands played and it says that A2-s & A3-s are very marginally +EV. It doesn't break it out by position but I think it is safe to assume that this overall number is being buoyed by late position higher EV and lower early position EV. I think its likely a slightly negative EV for early position but that is really just a guess.

Here is the link:
http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/totalStats.php?order=value

So this is at best a marginally +EV play UTG and at worst a mariginally -EV play. If you don't make this play, it is not that you are playing incorrectly because you "are not pushing your +EV edge" --- it is that you believe it is not a +EV play to begin with. Both sides can claim technical victory but in my view, Ax-suited UTG rounds to zero, so you can't be materially wrong either way. The decision is entire table texture specific.

In my view, the EV UTG is very close to ~0... you are picking up ~0 EV for pushing this play and you are losing ~0 EV for passing on this play... To me, it is just as likely that this play is -EV than it is +EV so it is just not much to push.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize this isn't conclusive but Pokerroom.com has these numbers for over 120mm hands played and it says that A2-s & A3-s are very marginally +EV. It doesn't break it out by position but I think it is safe to assume that this overall number is being buoyed by late position higher EV and lower early position EV. I think its likely a slightly negative EV for early position but that is really just a guess.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry, this doesn't count (at least not IMO)

You're supposed to be playing it CORRECTLY and many of your opponents just aren't doing that.


If somebody is stupid enough to call down raises and re-raises with their A2s on a board of AKTTQ then that's their problem.
I've seen this happen. I suspect many of you have also.


More realistically, if someone is not value-betting their nut-flush draws on the flop with Axs and is missing opportunities to build the pot then it will drag down the EV.
Same goes for the guys who get too gun-shy when their flush hits on the turn and then the board pairs on the river (checking it down because they are afraid of being raised).


Anyway, stats of a bunch of players who are likely playing their hands incorrectly does not leave much of an impression on me.

In fact, you could argue that if Axs is break-even for those playing it incorrectly then it would HAVE to be +EV for those who don't miss as many bets with it.


I would be far more convinced that I should be ditching Axs in EP if a bunch of good players combined their p-tracker stats on this hand and showed it to be a loser.


If it's only break-even for me then it's one of three things
- it's marginal crap that I should be tossing.
- I'm just not playing it ideally. Going too far when I'm beat and/or not getting enough value when I hit.
- small sample size....variance can be both your friend and your enemy.


Right now, I'm inclined to suspect that 2nd option. I'm fairly certain I've leaked some bets with these.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
If UTG, you don't know whether calling the BB is +EV or -EV until you see how many callers you get.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, we were arguing about what EV is. Calling is +EV if the table is loose and passive. It doesn't matter if the pot gets raised this time, as long as it doesn't generally get raised. If it does get raised, the call was still +EV. If you don't get many callers, it was still +EV.

Say you have AA UTG and raise, blah blah blah, you eventually lose lots of money to a runner-runner straight. Does that mean that raising AA UTG is -EV? There is no "this time," because EV is a statistical phenomenon. The EV of a decision can only be assessed by information available at the time the decision is made.

[MicroBob]

very good post.

[DonkeyKong]

AA is a bad example because it plays well both heads-up and multiway. Speculative hands need certain conditions to be +EV. It was not a +EV play just because it normally does this.

This entire discussion is dependent on how volatile the table is in terms of multiway vs heads up and raised vs unraised.

If the table is always going multiway, then the play is +EV.

But just because it normally does X, does not make it +EV.

Statistics rely on lots of assumptions (normality, no fat tails etc...) and just looking at an average by itself is useless. Data has to be statistically significant.

It isn't a disaster if you make a play that doesn't play out as you expected but you are fooling yourself if you think it is +EV just because of some hostorical average.

Note that this is entirely due to position. It is clearly +EV if you know how the action is looking and you can make an informed decision.

My only point is that UTG, this play can be +EV or -EV. If you think it is definitely +EV UTG because it normally does X, then we just disagree. I

AA is +EV necessarily because it doesn't matter what happens after you. With speculative hands UTG that are clearly not big +EV contributors, EV is very near zero. Maybe slightly +EV.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Data has to be statistically significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had only observed 1 hand at a table and that hand was an unraised family pot, which is more likely: that the next hand will be played similarly or that it will be capped preflop? I say the first. (If you disagree, try reading this thread. (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=633663&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)) So should you play A2s in this case? I'd say yes.

I think Microbob is right about the Pokerroom EV stats. These are the average for all players. The average EV of all hands based on these stats is -.03 BB (if I did the math right). The average player is a loser.

For this losing player, A2s utg has an EV -.01 BB, but significant overall +EV of .08 BB at positions not including the blinds. For a player that plays the hand in the right circumstances and plays it well, A2s utg likely has significant +EV.

[Trainwreck]

That is the silliest thing I have ever read here, and that's saying A LOT.

Wondering: ACID or PCP?

>TW<

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
For this losing player, A2s utg has an EV -.01 BB, but significant overall +EV of .08 BB at positions not including the blinds. For a player that plays the hand in the right circumstances and plays it well, A2s utg likely has significant +EV.

[/ QUOTE ] \



And to my mind, almost 0.1BB from ALL of the players (inlucding the losers) hardly qualifies as 'razor-thin' EV.
You are missing EV if you fail to play these on the appropriate tables, plain-and-simple.

And quite a few around here seem to have incredibly exaggerated standards as to what makes a table appropriate for such a play.

On most typical 2/4 and 3/6 tables you should be playing these.

Curious if there are any winning 15/30 players around here who like Axs and low PP UTG. I suspect probably not but I really don't know.

[astroglide]

pocket pairs are way better than Axs early in the 15

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
For this losing player, A2s utg has an EV -.01 BB, but significant overall +EV of .08 BB at positions not including the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

The second of these numbers is wrong. It's only .01 BB outside the blinds, essentially zero. Sorry about that.

I would still say that A2s can have value utg for a good player.

[astroglide]

i don't believe it's possible to break even with A2s utg in aggressive midlimit games

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't believe it's possible to break even with A2s utg in aggressive midlimit games

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept this.

The A2s utg example came from our good friend edrugtrader's "review" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1120213&page=3&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=7&vc=1) of SSH, where he disagreed with some of Ed's "loose games" (avg. 6-8 players to the flop) recommendations:

[ QUOTE ]
page 82: 6 players seeing the flop on average, and you want me to call with A2s under the gun?!

[/ QUOTE ]

[astroglide]

with 6-8 players seeing a flop i would like it