Expert vs. Strong player, where is the advantage?

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

I couldn't think of a better forum in which to post this, so I'll try it here.

In Hold'Em (limit or deep-money PL/NL) in which betting round does the expert player gain the greatest edge over a strong-but-not-expert player?

The expert's edge lies in making better decisions, so it seems reasonable that that edge will be most significant when the decisions are the most difficult. When the decisions are obvious, the expert has no edge over the strong-but-not expert player, because even the strong-but-not expert player will reach the correct decision most of the time. The more complex and difficult the decisions, the greater the edge to the expert over the strong-but-not-expert.

So, in what betting round are the decisions most complex and difficult?

(1) Pre-Flop
(2) Flop
(3) Turn
(4) River

I'll save my opinion (and I'm not sure I've formed one) until I've seen what others have to say. Also, if you believe the answer changes depending on the structure of the game (limit, pot-limit, no-limit), feel free to give a different answer for each structure. However, for PL and NL, assume deep money (average stacks of 200xBB or more).

Cris

[pudley4]

In limit, it's the turn. Followed by the flop. Preflop and river are too basic for any huge difference to occur (between these two skill sets).

[ChristophUoR]

I seem to remember Doyle Brunson say for NL that it's the flop. It makes sense, you gain relatively less information on the turn and river compared to the flop.

For limit, the bigger turn bet does change things, but I'd still say the flop was more important. Often crucial moves such as protecting your hand and raising for a free card or information are made on the flop... as much of the new information you have at the begining of the turn betting is what your opponant told you on the flop (which is often a direct result of correct flop play). So I'd go with the flop for limit as well. Most of the effect of the big bet is to change the odds you're faced with on the turn.

Just my $.02
Chris

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

I may have posed a trick question, in some respects. Perhaps the expert's advantage lies in a more wholistic approach to the pre-flop, flop, and turn decisions, and indeed the game as a whole. I'll try to explain, and I'm thinking out loud here, so please don't take this as more than an invitation to a discussion where I may very likely be more wrong than right....

New players, and even many strong-but-not-expert players, tend to take each decision point as it happens. The pre-flop decisions are, as another poster has noted, fairly basic. Then the flop comes, and a new situation emerges. They make a decision based on that situation, and on to the turn ... where another new situation emerges. And so on.

I suspect that truly expert players are anticipating flop and turn situations while they're assessing pre-flop options. Those situations have as much to do with the other players in the pot, their reads and tendencies, position, etc. as they do with the cards in hand and the cards on the board. Obviously, the best-laid plan for a hand can be blown out of the water by an unexpected action from another player, or a miracle/nightmare card on board. But even those can be anticipated to some extent, in most cases, and accounted for in the plan for playing the hand.

Moreover, expert players are not simply looking at this hand in isolation, but in anticipation of future situations against different players ... setting up later plays. All of that is swirling around each decision point, and perhaps the ability to filter through all of that -- as it applies to a given betting round -- is what truly separates the expert from the strong-but-not-expert player.

Thoughts?

Cris

[Dominic]

I think, by far, the flop is the biggest decision making round you'll have. Once you decide to play, the turn and river become fairly straightforward the majority of the time.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I may have posed a trick question, in some respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, another Cris Brown "I am smarter than you all" post.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the expert's advantage ... blah blah blah...a bunch of crap everyone already knows and/or no one cares about...blah blah blah...Look at how smart I am

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for sharing.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
In Hold'Em (limit or deep-money PL/NL) in which betting round does the expert player gain the greatest edge over a strong-but-not-expert player?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, which is it? Is your question "where does the expert have advantage over the strong player?" or "in which round does the expert have the greatest edge over the strong player?" Because if it's the first question, asking the second one is disingenuous, and (by your 'answer') I have to agree with Jeff A in content if not in style.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Jeff,

It wasn't that. What I realized, after posing the question, is that I don't think the question really gets to the point of where the expert's advantage lies. It wasn't an "I'm smarter than you." It was a "Gee, that was a dumb question."

What I was trying to work my way around to was what separates the truly expert players (of which I am NOT one) from the strong-but-not-expert players. This came from a discussion in another forum about the difference between NL and limit play, and which offers the expert the best earn:variance ratio. That discussion drifted to short- vs. deep-stack NL play, and then I read Daniel Negreanu's article on CardPlayer about why he believes the Main Event at the WSOP should be PL rather than NL.

One school of thought says that the more decisions there are to be made, the greater the edge to the more skillful player, owing to the accretion of those edges at each decision point. But then I thought about it some more, and not all decisions give an equal edge to the more skillful player. Some are so obvious that even a relative newcomer is likely to get them right most of the time.

So I found myself wondering where the more skillful player's edge really materializes in the process of playing a pot, or a session. My first thought was to look at which betting round offered the most significant and most difficult decisions, as it seemed that this was where the more skillful player's edge would emerge. And that's what I posted in the original question.

Then I thought ... that might not be it at all. It might be that the expert's ability to anticipate future decisions and factor those into the immediate decision is what sets him apart. Thus my reply to my original question.

Frankly, I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is a single answer for all expert players. It may be that, for some, the edge emerges in one area, while for others it is something else altogether.

I agree with those who said the flop is probably the most critical decision point in NL hold'em; that may move to the turn in PL and limit games, though I can't speak for limit. I'm just not sure the question I originally asked has any practical relevance whatever. *shrugs*

Cris

[mmcd]

Preflop, the expert can play a few more hands.

The biggest advantage comes from the combination of the flop and turn play.

[Demana]

[ QUOTE ]

Moreover, expert players are not simply looking at this hand in isolation, but in anticipation of future situations against different players ... setting up later plays. All of that is swirling around each decision point, and perhaps the ability to filter through all of that -- as it applies to a given betting round -- is what truly separates the expert from the strong-but-not-expert player.

Thoughts?

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

My newbie $.02 -

Whether the players are strong or expert, the play of the hand is the play of the hand. Neither holds an advantage over the other during the play of any one hand.

That said, I would expect that the expert looks at the game from an aggregate view and can set up other players for plays in other hands, whereas the strong player isn't looking much beyond their current holdings.

Perhaps a better way to put is this:
The expert is forward thinking, the strong player is backward thinking.

The strong player knows how to play any one hand based on previous experience.

The expert player plays any one hand with an eye on how they will play that same hand against the same opponents in the future.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be that the expert's ability to anticipate future decisions and factor those into the immediate decision is what sets him apart

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that thinking "holistically" about the hand is necessarily confined only to experts at all, and think it's quite possible to think holistically but poorly.

The relating of tactical and strategic, the large and the small, immediate position versus "area of influence" in Chess and Go are all vital considerations for the advanced player, but they become a part of the long before that. One might consider that thinking in relational ways between the streets in a poker game and not doing so is important, but it's such a basic, integral part of the game that it makes more sense to define that level of thinking as one that separates the complete novice from other players rather than the experts from the highly competent.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Blarg,

[ QUOTE ]
One might consider that thinking in relational ways between the streets in a poker game and not doing so is important, but it's such a basic, integral part of the game that it makes more sense to define that level of thinking as one that separates the complete novice from other players rather than the experts from the highly competent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. /images/graemlins/smile.gif What do you think sets the true experts apart from the strong-but-not-expert players?

Cris

[Blarg]

Since I'm neither a strong nor expert player, all I can do is guess.

Top sporting competitors often have a very tiny edge over their nearest competitors, and some people they beat may even have parts of their game that are better than the people they are regularly beaten by. Technically, skills may be virtually identical between the first place and the fifth place. Similarly in poker, I would guess, the skill of purely logically following the permutations of the fall of the cards and the mathematical implications probably hits a wall at a certain point where you either understand such things at a necessary level or you aren't in the same class as the people around you. After a certain level of general poker skill, I think we probably can take that particular aspect of poker skill for granted. I doubt this level would define being an expert all on its own, at least in practical application on the tables. Not that it might not be enough to write books with.

I would think that two things could be key in distinguishing the expert from the very strong.

The ability to understand what the opponent is thinking and feeling, and actively relating to his or her changes in mood -- aggression, fear, depression, etc. -- could be key. Realizing how and when an opponent is playing cards differently because of the influence of mood and energy swings requires someone actively concentrating on both the cards and the opponent, and remembering and valuing that knowledge and feel for the person so that it can be applied later. I think after a while math and card logic can become ABC, but the best players will not play on an ABC level when considering their opponents.

I don't mean merely reading tells, but picking up on the whole person as much as possible.

Having this kind of empathy and interest in other people(even if you don't like them one bit), and memory for their behavior and what it means, is not common. In the MTV-generation of short attention spans, even less so. But it is an asset that can lead to dramatically varying one's play against certain opponents, making stunning laydowns and seemingly ridiculous calls and raises in critical situations that actually turn out to be for the best. Or, more prosaically, just making a few more correct decisions in unclear situations.

The second key I think would be psychological balance of one's own. Tiger Woods astonished people from the get go not only with his golf, but because he seemed to play it so well even under brutally tense conditions. With everything riding on the line, he again and again came through as if it were all just another day and there was nothing to worry about. That kind of perfect calm and self-control is rare even among champions, but at least some degree of it is necessary for all but the rarest of prodigies that become champions.

At the top levels, the winner is often simply the person who makes the fewest mistakes. The ability to see situations clearly and unemotionally no matter what the stakes are is an enormous edge that most people simply don't have. There are many highly accomplished people who can't perform well when the stakes and pressure reach a certain level even though on the right day, they could be champions themselves. But they lack the requisite level of internal control. At least when it matters most.

So, two qualties, neither of which is adequate to make a winning poker player, not even in combination, but both of which can pull one well ahead of even a highly competent pack.

Both are fairly rare qualities to have developed at a high level. And they are quite hard to learn. You certainly can't crack a book to learn it. Probably very few people are highly developed in both ways.

After the logical skills are learned to an adequately high level, my guess is that those two psychological qualities -- of exceptional functional empathy and alertness(including memory) regarding others, and exceptional control regarding oneself -- would be what separates people out into the next levels.

[laja]

Don't overate 4th street.. and don't underate the street that the player jaywalked across to get to the casino where he decided that he was good enough to play the high stakes without a proper bankroll or that he was in a "gamblin'" mood. So I think that discapline is the most important thing: staying off tilt/patience/bank roll management

on a side note it seems like some of the pro's godlike abilities to read people would be up there somewhere also, No matter how perfect players play if you can read them well you own the fundamental theorm of poker. Like Men the master betting jack high versus a player for value.

But with a strictly mathematical approach to no limit I'd say that the river is the most important because usually the biggest bets will come on the river, amplifying your decision.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]

So, in what betting round are the decisions most complex and difficult?

(1) Pre-Flop
(2) Flop
(3) Turn
(4) River


[/ QUOTE ]

Limit: Flop.
PL: Flop and Turn. The Turn is critical.
NL: PF, Flop, and River.

[Louie Landale]

Its not just the difficulty of the decision, its also how much the right decision matters. If you cut grass for a living some wiz-bang may be able to figure out exactly how long you'll need between blade sharpening vis-a-vis how many blades of grass there is likely to be over the course of the summer. That's a difficult decision to make but it just doesn't matter: sharpen every month works fine.

Looking at it this way, the river betting offers the greatest advantage since that's the one with the biggest pots and matters the most.

- Louie

[DonkeyKong]

Dan Harrington says "I have a much bigger edge over someone else in the game when we are both losing than when we are both winning."

[Scotch78]

I'm really surprised more people didn't choose the river. Not only is the most money at stake then, but there's also the most information available.

Scott

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
Top sporting competitors often have a very tiny edge over their nearest competitors, and some people they beat may even have parts of their game that are better than the people they are regularly beaten by.

[/ QUOTE ]

This effect is bigger in poker because your edge over non-experts can outway your lack of edge over other experts. You could be a consistent loser in an expert game but still outperform those peers in a tournament if you are better than them at accumulating chips in the early stages from weaker players. If you reach the final table with a huge chip lead, it won't matter so much if you're inferior to the other players, as long as their edge over you is small.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Louie,

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. The cost of being wrong increases dramatically at each betting round, especially in big bet poker. And I'm not sure the later round decisions are as straightforward they might appear.

(Note: the following example a hypothetical hand. I'm not offering it to say this is the correct way to play JTs in this spot. I'm simply offering it as an example of how tricky and costly river decisions can be in big bet poker.)

Let's say you have J/images/graemlins/spade.gif10/images/graemlins/spade.gif on the button in a PL game. A decent MP player raises pre-flop, and another decent player calls ahead of you. You know the small blind is a tight player, and is unlikely to overcall, but the big blind is a weak player who probably will. The money is deep (around 200xBB for each relevant player), so you call on the button. And, predictably, the BB overcalls, so there's 14xBB in the pot.

The flop is: <font color="red">10</font>/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif

You have top pair (but a weak kicker), a flush draw, and a backdoor straight draw. The BB bets half the pot, and the initial raiser calls. The player to your right folds, and you decide not to semi-bluff at this point, but simply make the call getting 4:1 on your money. So now there's 35xBB in the pot.

The turn is: [<font color="red">10</font>/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif] <font color="red">Q</font>/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

The BB checks, as does the initial bettor, and it's to you. Hrmmm ... 35xBB in the pot. You have 9 outs for the flush, and 6 outs for the straight. And you may be ahead. Do you semi-bluff here? Do you take the free card? If you do bet, do you bet the pot, or some lesser amount? The pot is big enough to be worth winning right now, and you're 1:2 to draw out even if you're behind. So okay ... you bet the pot. The BB folds, but the original MP raiser calls. Now there's 115xBB in the pot.

The river is: [<font color="red">10</font>/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif] [<font color="red">Q</font>/images/graemlins/diamond.gif] 7/images/graemlins/club.gif

The initial MP bettor moves in for his remaining 95xBB. You have 70xBB left in your stack. Now what? It's not likely that the 7/images/graemlins/club.gif helped him, unless he was on 77, and that doesn't seem likely given his turn call. Is he the kind of player who would have raised pre-flop with J8s? Was he milking along the draws with a big pair? Did he hit the Q at the turn, on a hand like AQ or QQ? Would he make this river bet with a hand like A/images/graemlins/spade.gifK/images/graemlins/spade.gif or another missed draw? Would he have called the flop and checked the turn with a hand like AT or KT?

If you call, and you're right, you win 210xBB. If you call and you're wrong, you lose 70xBB. If you fold and you're right, you save 70xBB. If you fold and you're wrong, you lose 210xBB. You're getting 3:1 on the call. Is there a 25% chance he's either bluffing or betting a hand that you beat?

I think Louie may be right: consistently getting this kind of decision correct may mean more to your hourly rate (and variance!) than flop decisions do.

Thoughts?

Cris

[Boopotts]

I won't speak to NL games, but in limit it will show up in two spots.

1) How they handle the small blind, and
2) How they play the turn when they have position.

[Deorum]

The answer lies in who the strong player is. When talking
about an expert player, we generally mean somebody who
excels in every aspect of the game. That is, the expert
will almost always make the best decision given the game
conditions, the situation, and his or her reads on the other
players. A strong player is someone who is lacking when
compared to the expert player in at least one of these
areas. Perhaps he or she does not read hands as well, or
does not understand head up play on the river as well.
Where the expert gains an advantage over his opponent is
dependant upon the area in which the strong player is
lacking. An expert is defined as somebody who excels in all
areas of the game, whereas a strong player is not as easily
defined. Where the expert gains an edge is based on that
definition, whatever it winds up being.

[Zetack]

I'm thinking just about limit.

Implicit in the discussion seems to be the idea the the expert's advantage is small, so when you say strong I'm assuming not a run of the mill strong player but truly very strong, say a hairsbreath away from being an expert player.

So I would assume the strong player to be very good at all the skills involved in limit hold em...Hand reading, oppenent reading, probabilities, straightforward play, tricky play, mixing it up, adjusting to table conditions, ability to stay off tilt etc etc etc.

The expert would be better than very good at all those areas. However, I think the marginal utility of being slightly better in those areas--since better than very good is only ta tiny improvement--would likely have no or at least negligible affect in limit hold em. In other words, despite the difference in skill, it would be too small to have a measurable affect.

In other words, being fractionally better at reading people probably won't give you a different read than the very strong player, being fractionally better at probabilities won't give you a different idea of the odds, being fractionally better at not tilting won't cause the guy who's very good at not tilting to tilt,etc.

Now perhaps those tiny differences add up to something in NL but I suspect they do not in limit.



--Zetack