Now David, I am angry!!!! [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Moovyz

10-23-2004, 11:09 AM

I just read your most recent post about a simple tournament question regarding playing Q,J under the gun. Many answerred your question with their opinions. One, who gets kudos from me, said "it depends".

You then posted that you were angry that no one did the math. You said something to the effect that it's simply a math question. I'm sorry, but IMHO YOU are wrong!

It IS NOT always about math. Yes, possesing mathematical ability is essential to winning poker. But it is not the only thing that makes a winning player great.

In the example shown let's say for example that the correct answer is to raise. Mathematically correct or not, if you had just raised the last 3 times you were under the gun, it changes things because someone, not doing the math, may play differently due to your previous action. Don't you see this?

The correct answer is almost always "it depends" to any poker question. Yes, math may swing a decision one way or another, but it doesn't mean that making correct mathematical decisions will ALWAYS result in winning that hand.

Once again, I agree that math is important. And no one here will argue that you are the best at this aspect of poker. But you are not correct in saying that it is ONLY a math question.

Someone recently asked why you don't win any big tourneys. You said that you play $300-$600 daily. In limit, your math works best. But your math means less in NL and in tournies.
It's much more about situational poker. Playing the player. Playing the situation. Perhaps this is why you don't sit on top of the NL tourney circuit.

I think it's time you stopped berating players about the math. You are perhaps mathematically correct +/- a few % about the hands you may use for example, but it isn't the only answer!

I know you're going to respond that your comments are based on "correct play as it applies to poker theory" but you are going to make many good players into robots by doing this. I'd really like to see you admit one day that "it depends" may be an alternative answer to "mathmatically correct".

Very respectfully yours, Glen

felson

10-23-2004, 11:11 AM

Oh no.

Stew

10-23-2004, 11:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I just read your most recent post about a simple tournament question regarding playing Q,J under the gun. Many answerred your question with their opinions. One, who gets kudos from me, said "it depends".

You then posted that you were angry that no one did the math. You said something to the effect that it's simply a math question. I'm sorry, but IMHO YOU are wrong!

It IS NOT always about math. Yes, possesing mathematical ability is essential to winning poker. But it is not the only thing that makes a winning player great.

In the example shown let's say for example that the correct answer is to raise. Mathematically correct or not, if you had just raised the last 3 times you were under the gun, it changes things because someone, not doing the math, may play differently due to your previous action. Don't you see this?

The correct answer is almost always "it depends" to any poker question. Yes, math may swing a decision one way or another, but it doesn't mean that making correct mathematical decisions will ALWAYS result in winning that hand.

Once again, I agree that math is important. And no one here will argue that you are the best at this aspect of poker. But you are not correct in saying that it is ONLY a math question.

Someone recently asked why you don't win any big tourneys. You said that you play $300-$600 daily. In limit, your math works best. But your math means less in NL and in tournies.
It's much more about situational poker. Playing the player. Playing the situation. Perhaps this is why you don't sit on top of the NL tourney circuit.

I think it's time you stopped berating players about the math. You are perhaps mathematically correct +/- a few % about the hands you may use for example, but it isn't the only answer!

I know you're going to respond that your comments are based on "correct play as it applies to poker theory" but you are going to make many good players into robots by doing this. I'd really like to see you admit one day that "it depends" may be an alternative answer to "mathmatically correct".

Very respectfully yours, Glen

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your comments in general, but the problem is you HAVE to understand the mathmematical component of the game before you even begin to start thinking about the "what if's".

BTW, whether or not you raised the last three times UTG has nothing to do wtih the mathematically correct play...it's all about expectation on each random event and if you don't understand that, then you need to think about it before you post again.

BTW, as far as David trying to turn players into robots, I can see how it comes off that way, but I do truely feel that David's intent is to alert players to the fact that the mathmetical aspect of the game is HIGHLY important as many new players definitely do not understand that.

cornell2005

10-23-2004, 11:42 AM

he explained why it was a math problem. you havnt addressed that point or tried to refute it, so this post has little point.

SossMan

10-23-2004, 11:52 AM

I stated this in the original thread, but I'll do it again here.
Given enough variables, it's all a math problem. Accurately appraising those variables are the skills that are non-math. However, once those variables are determined (or are assumed, as in David's theoretical questions) the only thing left to do is the math.
There are two sets of skills that good tourney players need to develop. The first is what to do given a certain set of variables: the math. The second is accurately assessing the variables: the "feel".

-sossman

DonkeyKong

10-23-2004, 12:46 PM

It may technically be a pure math problem but doing the math involves estimates and when you use estimates, there is error. If the math is compelling, you have to go with the math. It is when the math is close that you have to use non-math skills.

In the stated problem, what hands others will call you with cannot be calculated exactly. This automatically makes for error in your estimate.

This is similar to finance. An asset is worth the present value of future cash flows. This sounds great but it is highly sensitive to your assumptions in your discounted cash flow model. A real-estate project or a stock price might be worth X or it might be worth 1.5x because of simple assumption differences (discount rate, revenue forecast, expenditure forecast, tax rate forecast etc...).

This is NOT a pure math problem but like finance, it is certainly based on math. Knowing the math is crucial fundamentals so David is definitely correct to pound on that but even he should insert the proper caveats and not come off like this is ONLY math. Surely he understands the challenges to an all-math approach.

David Sklansky

10-23-2004, 01:09 PM

The question as it stands is almost pure math. All the world class players realized that. Even those with less than adequate math skills. How much math applies to poker in general is another story. My comments are about the stated problem only. In that problem it is highly unlikely that players will call with A9 or K9 or fold 88 or AQ. That's all the non math knowledge you need.

Meanwhile let me go on record as stating this:

The only players who really have a right to argue with me about the importance of math to poker are those who know how to do the math. And there are plenty of players who both know how and think math is less important than I do. Howard Lederer, Mike Caro, etc (Chris Ferguson on the other hand is on the other extreme, I believe). But those who argue against math they do not know how to do can not be taken seriously. Even world class players (who would do even better if they learned math). There are two obvious reasons. One is that they don't really understand the power of mathematical analysis. Two is that they are almost certainly biased against the power of math to help poker decisions because it would be better for them if their opinions were true.

David Sklansky

10-23-2004, 01:16 PM

But your math means less in NL and in tournies.
It's much more about situational poker. Playing the player. Playing the situation. Perhaps this is why you don't sit on top of the NL tourney circuit

The opposite is true. Because only tournaments involve lots of all in situations and because there is less big bet bluffing except at the very end.

If I concentrated on tournaments I would be among the top twenty in the world. And my EV for the year would be less than the better 60-120 players.

Ipodkid

10-23-2004, 01:23 PM

If I concentrated on tournaments I would be among the top twenty in the world. And my EV for the year would be less than the better 60-120 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

PROVE IT. Play me heads up sit n goes on Full Tilt...I am one of the best online players in world and will play any stakes any game and I assure you over 100 games you end up a 75% LOSER David.

blackaces13

10-23-2004, 01:30 PM

David,

One thing that stands out to me about your original question is that neither yourself nor any of the big names that you mention have taken the time to work out the actual problem. Why is that? Is it because although it would be fairly straightforward to do with a pencil and paper in 10 minutes, it is exceedingly difficult and impractical to figure it out in your head in 2 minutes or less?

The reason I think this is important is because at the poker table, or better yet in the online world of many of today's tournaments, it is simply impossible to correctly work out a math problem which which requires time consuming calculations. You have to make rough estimates and come to a decision in often times 30 seconds online or whatever is reasonable live, 3 minutes or so I guess.

You chastised people for responding, "by the seat of their pants", but if the question is too dificult to get a precise mathematical answer in a live game anyway then what relevance does the correct mathematical solution have? I would imagine that what separates a lot of great poker players from just good ones is how close their approximations are at the table which allow them to work things out quickly enough to be considered by the seat of their pants.

The ability to arrive at the "correct" answer doesn't help much if you need more than a few minutes to get there does it?

Expunge

10-23-2004, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I concentrated on tournaments I would be among the top twenty in the world. And my EV for the year would be less than the better 60-120 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

PROVE IT. Play me heads up sit n goes on Full Tilt...I am one of the best online players in world and will play any stakes any game and I assure you over 100 games you end up a 75% LOSER David.

[/ QUOTE ]

even if he does take this challenge it doesn't prove anything either way. you're comparing apples with oranges.

Id like to see him prove it as well but as long as he hold the opinion that he is losing valuable time by playing tourneys i dont he will step up.

David Sklansky

10-23-2004, 01:51 PM

"You chastised people for responding, "by the seat of their pants", but if the question is too dificult to get a precise mathematical answer in a live game anyway then what relevance does the correct mathematical solution have? I would imagine that what separates a lot of great poker players from just good ones is how close their approximations are at the table which allow them to work things out quickly enough to be considered by the seat of their pants.

The ability to arrive at the "correct" answer doesn't help much if you need more than a few minutes to get there does it? "

You can't do the math at the table. But you can do it before you post an answer. At the very least you can point out that it is a matter of figuring out the probability that an individual has a calling hand, and then figuring out the probability that one out of eight will have such a hand, and then figuring out the chances that a caller will lose to you and combining it with the chances you steal $300. Estimating all this fairly accurately is extremely easy and few on this forum even tried, or even seemed to realize that the question boiled down to that.

As for how these academic questions matter in the heat of battle the answer is this: You should work out several dozen of these type scenarios, memorize the answer and then extrapolate. I guarantee that Chris Ferguson has done this. For instance if it turns out that moving in with QJs is correct but close, you could deduce that moving in $2000 would be wrong and that moving in $800 with T9s would be right and that moving in $1100 with JTs if three players folded would be right, etc. You could also deduce that these close move ins would turn to limps or folds if players were calling with ace rag. See what I am saying?

DCIAce

10-23-2004, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
PROVE IT. Play me heads up sit n goes on Full Tilt...I am one of the best online players in world and will play any stakes any game and I assure you over 100 games you end up a 75% LOSER David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, this is amusing on multiple levels.

First, he didn't say anything about heads-up play whatsoever.

Second, I doubt he'd want to waste his time for an immaterial amount of money against someone whom he has nothing to gain by beating.

Third, I doubt he'd lose 75% to anyone, no matter how good. I'm thinking 65% or so is the biggest edge one high level player would have over another.

Fourth, why the hell are you claiming to be "one of the best online players in the world" with absolutely nothing to back it up, and four posts to your name? I'm sure there are at least 100 players on this site whom are better than you, and that's a terribly small estimate. (notably, 2 of your 4 posts were about a hand which you completely botched PF and on the flop)

Anyways, I'm not saying I completely believe the "Top 20 if I concentrated on tournaments" statement, nor do I think the answer to the Question which led to this thread was a purely mathematical question. However, I just had to respond to this complete joke of a reply. This is more of a "laugh at the braggart idiot" post, than a "defend DS" post. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

DonkeyKong

10-23-2004, 02:08 PM

<<The question as it stands is almost pure math.>>

This is an opinion and not a fact. You don't know the likelihood of getting called with AQ or 88. Saying you do discredits your argument.

I don't know how to do the math as well as you or Howard Lederer or Chris Ferguson but I do understand the importance of math.

The question as stated had an answer that was pretty close to going either way... and my math was good enough to get the correct answer. But where to go from there? You can argue that if its $1 +EV, then you should do it BECAUSE OF THE MATH... What I am saying is that doing such is indeed being a robot and not using any poker savvy whatsoever. IF that is your approach, it may work better than somebody elses and it may not. But come on, you cannot know for sure who is going to call you with A9-suited in that situation. Saying otherwise is being blinded by the math, in my opinion.

btw, I do believe in math... no matter how this post is interpreted.

italianstang

10-23-2004, 02:21 PM

"If I concentrated on tournaments I would be among the top twenty in the world."

Simply using math skills that I learned from reading pretty much all of your books Mr. Sklansky, and reading nearly all of your posts on this site, I don't understand how you can make this claim. There must be a way to quantify players' tournament skill mathematically. Maybe it takes in to account their wins versus entries (or cashes versus entries), or how they do traditionally in one game or another. Short term fluctuations would have to be figured in somehow too of course, Phil Hellmuth had six cashes at this year's WSOP and never finished better than sixth, what does that mean? I feel like it is certainly not my place to make poker requests of players/authors who have vastly superior skills than me BUT it seems that if you are going to go ahead and make statements such as the one quoted above, there should be backing. The most obvious backing would be for you to dedicate yourself to the tourney circuit for a year or two and prove it, however that could be unrealistic for lots of reasons. INSTEAD, I propose that you do something that would be much more interesting to read and probably take you only five minutes instead of two years. Give us some formula or math situation that quantifies player skill in tournaments and figure how you fit in to the top 20.

blackaces13

10-23-2004, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
See what I am saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Thanks for the reply.

Nottom

10-23-2004, 03:24 PM

You have to remember that David considers himself one of the top 5 all-around poker players in the world and would consider himself the favorite at a table that featured a mixed game including some less common variations of the game (since David figures himself to have an advantage in any non-traditional game). It could be argued that Tourney NL-Holdem is one of the most math based games out there, so it doesn't take much of a stretch for David to claim he could be a top tourney player.

On the other hand David, do you not think the extra publicity you would get as a result of being a successful tourney player might make it worth playing in at least the Televised tourneys even if they are inherently -EV compared to you normal game? It would certainly make selling TPFAP a lot easier if it was written by a WPT/WSOP champ.

DonkeyKong

10-23-2004, 04:11 PM

Ted Forrest summed it up nicely in an interview for the Plaza tournament a few months ago:
Something to the effect of "it doesn't take too long to learn the mathematics of the game. The real differentiator is being able to read people."

I believe Mr Sklansky certainly could be up there or even ahead of players like Howard Lederer if he focused on tournaments but I am very curious now if Mr Sklansky has created a serious handicap for himself by his overbelief in his quant-only approach...

It is like the very well-educated Wall Street Strategist who insists the S&P500 is undervalued by x% because of all his models.

The truth is that there is something called 'model risk' which I am sure Mr Sklansky is familiar with but it basically means that relationships are often dynamic and therefore your quant-model will not be accurate when this is the case. Some things just cannot be forecasted without significant error.

It occurs to me that maybe there is just a disconnect between internet players and B&M players. It seems to me that assumptions like 'I won't get called by AJ in this situation' is too dynamic an assumption to be able to use math-only effectively. You will get called with AJ often. You might get called by J8 if the other guy has an equal stack and feels it is time to gamble with you for chips. Math can spit out an answer for this but trust me, it is not going to be without very significant error.

Maybe it is that he is overestimating the competition or maybe it is that the competition is just more willing to gamble and doesn't believe as strongly in things such as the 'Gap Concept'...

Stew

10-23-2004, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Math can spit out an answer for this but trust me, it is not going to be without very significant error.

Maybe it is that he is overestimating the competition or maybe it is that the competition is just more willing to gamble and doesn't believe as strongly in things such as the 'Gap Concept'...

[/ QUOTE ]

The math is never in error, what you are calculating with the math is the EV of a situation. That doesn't mean you will always win a certain bet, it just means the bet has a favorable result more often than not. What you have done is applied results-oriented thinking to the situation.

Same scenario, if you have AA UTG and push-in and then lose the hand, was the math in error? Computing the EV of a particular situation (the math) and the result of the hand are two different things.

DonkeyKong

10-23-2004, 04:42 PM

That is not what I said. The math is not in error.

In the pre-flop scenario, admittedly the math is extremely important. But EV is only an estimate. It is what it is. But this estimate can have low error associated with it or high error associated with it. If your assumptions are correct, your 'EV model' is good. If your assumptions are not correct, ie others play unpredictably, your 'EV model' is not good. There is no such thing as a 'useful/objective EV model' or else reading people would not matter and the NLHE tournament champions would all be dominated by mathmeticians.

Because you do not know how others are going to play -- all you can do is assume that they will do X if they have Y or they will not do X if they have Y.

Again, the math can be spot on or it might not.

David Sklansky

10-23-2004, 04:45 PM

I'm less mathematical than you think. On these forums I emphasize questions that are mathematical in nature mainly for two reasons.

1. I think it is good that there be a final indisputable answer when I am trying to teach something.

2. The non mathematical aspects of poker should only be concentrated on after you have mastered the fundamntals. Most people want to gloss over the fundamentals.

Diplomat

10-23-2004, 04:48 PM

This is such an awesome post, for reasons I am sure you do not understand.

-Diplomat

DonkeyKong

10-23-2004, 04:54 PM

<<The non mathematical aspects of poker should only be concentrated on after you have mastered the fundamntals. Most people want to gloss over the fundamentals.>>

Let me just say that this forum is an awesome setting for learning poker fundamentals. Thanks for doing what you do --- very cool.

Diplomat

10-23-2004, 05:01 PM

IMO, once you have used your best judgment (feel?) to acertain a range of hands that will call your all-in bet, it cannot be anything but a question of math. However, this may not be the case in other situations, such as many post-flop decisions.

-Diplomat

Stew

10-23-2004, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That is not what I said. The math is not in error.

In the pre-flop scenario, admittedly the math is extremely important. But EV is only an estimate. It is what it is. But this estimate can have low error associated with it or high error associated with it. If your assumptions are correct, your 'EV model' is good. If your assumptions are not correct, ie others play unpredictably, your 'EV model' is not good. There is no such thing as a 'useful/objective EV model' or else reading people would not matter and the NLHE tournament champions would all be dominated by mathmeticians.

Because you do not know how others are going to play -- all you can do is assume that they will do X if they have Y or they will not do X if they have Y.

Again, the math can be spot on or it might not.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, you're right, you didn't say that. You said the math can be in SIGNIFIGANT error, which is even more wrong. If you don't understand why the math cannot be in error, then I can't explain it to you. The math is what it is and it is never in error. What can be in error is your estimates of what others may have or may not have and what range of hands they may or may not call with. The math is based on your input, if your input is wrong, then the math will be wrong.

Brann

10-23-2004, 05:09 PM

As a true newbie and still loser in on-line play I know my opinion won't count for much.

But what I gain from these forums is a constant reminder to follow the basics.

The math of poker is a basic. The math gives us starting hand rankings, pre-flop guidance, post-flop guidance, etc. Reads are important but what I get from this thread and many other similar ones is "focus on the basics and then use your skill (lack thereof in my case) in reading your opponent."

To argue that something is not a math problem when it's the math that sets the stage is to argue in favor of ignoring the basics of poker. In that case, even I can probably beat you.

Diplomat

10-23-2004, 05:12 PM

I'll assume you were replying to someone else.

-Diplomat

Brann

10-23-2004, 05:13 PM

Sorry Diplo. Was just responding to the overall thread.

Diplomat

10-23-2004, 05:20 PM

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

No worries.

Welcome to the forum.

-Diplomat

Ghazban

10-23-2004, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm less mathematical than you think. On these forums I emphasize questions that are mathematical in nature mainly for two reasons.

1. I think it is good that there be a final indisputable answer when I am trying to teach something.

2. The non mathematical aspects of poker should only be concentrated on after you have mastered the fundamntals. Most people want to gloss over the fundamentals.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two points ought to be stickied on every strategy forum on this site (or, for that matter, anywhere poker is discussed in earnest).

JTG51

10-23-2004, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"If I concentrated on tournaments I would be among the top twenty in the world."

Simply using math skills that I learned from reading pretty much all of your books Mr. Sklansky, and reading nearly all of your posts on this site, I don't understand how you can make this claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you guys understand that David isn't just a guy who's really good at math and plays a little poker on the sice, but is in fact an expert poker player?

Some of you guys (and I don't mean to single you out, italianstang, you're just the post I happened to reply to) respond to his posts as if David doesn't even play the game. The guy has been beating some of the biggest games in the world for longer than many of us have been alive. You don't do that by just being good at math.

italianstang

10-23-2004, 05:46 PM

I understand what an accomplished poker person Mr. Sklansky is, however to make a claim like "top 20 in the world" seems strange. A buddy of mine was real drunk the other night and proclaimed that he was "in the top 3% of all limit players in the world" (because he can beat the 4-8 at the Bellagio). Can either of those things possibly be proven? I take exception to the statement because of Mr. Sklansky's usually exacting detail and careful thought process when explaining a poker problem. "Top 20" seems reckless as the argument spills over in to "most successful" versus "best". Until this year, Chris Moneymaker was the all-time winningest player in the history of the world series of poker. What does that mean? Was he then in the top 20? I think that I could probably beat him heads up, does that put me in the top 20? What if I knocked him out of a tournament?

The problem here is that this is such a ridiculous statement. In chess, where most successful basically IS best, thats one thing, but poker where the answer to nearly every question is "it depends" offers a forum where we cannot quantify "top 20". If I am mistaken, please let me know.

AngryCola

10-23-2004, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys understand that David isn't just a guy who's really good at math and plays a little poker on the sice, but is in fact an expert poker player?

Some of you guys (and I don't mean to single you out, italianstang, you're just the post I happened to reply to) respond to his posts as if David doesn't even play the game. The guy has been beating some of the biggest games in the world for longer than many of us have been alive. You don't do that by just being good at math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that 100%, and that's rare for me. It is easy for me to see how much weight his opinions have.
Maybe that's why it stings a bit to get chastised by the man.

He caught most of us posters (including me) napping on the QJ suited thread, and it's never fun when the 'boss' catches you 'sleeping on the job'. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I have no doubt that he would be a top tournament player if he chose to be. According to him, it's not worth his time. I believe that, because it's well known that cash games are far more lucrative than the tourneys. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

JTG51

10-23-2004, 05:53 PM

In chess, where most successful basically IS best, thats one thing, but poker where the answer to nearly every question is "it depends" offers a forum where we cannot quantify "top 20". If I am mistaken, please let me know.

David is obviously talking about, as he does in every poker question, expectation. He thinks his expectation would be among the top 20 in the world at tournament poker if he focused on it.

I have no idea if that's true, but I don't think it's an outrageous claim. The fact that David says it's true makes me think there's at least a good chance that it is.

DonkeyKong

10-23-2004, 06:59 PM

<<If you don't understand why the math cannot be in error, then I can't explain it to you.>>

If you can't understand that I did not say that the math is in error, then so be it.

Stew

10-23-2004, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
<<If you don't understand why the math cannot be in error, then I can't explain it to you.>>

If you can't understand that I did not say that the math is in error, then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I can't understand that b/c you wrote it. But, obviously that isn't what you're saying, so I'm not going to worry about it. I'm not trying to argue over semantics, you seem like a good guy and posts like these are for learning, not splitting hairs, so I'm cool with it.

DonkeyKong

10-23-2004, 07:55 PM

cool dude. I just meant to say that there is 'error' in any forecast so that it is ok to estimate EV and if EV is close to zero, it no longer really matters... the non-math poker skills are then at play.

I said that forecasts have error, not that math is in error. Expected Value is based on assumptions. In this case, you are assuming that many hands fold and you can pick up the blinds. You can be wrong and say 'yes but it was positive +EV'... but you aren't necessarily correct. You probably are correct and so this is semantics but your assumptions might have been off and you need to be aware of this or you could spend your life thinking you are making +EV plays when maybe the EV is not statistically different than zero.

'Error' is a statistical term to quantify the actual standard differences relative to the forecast. You will always be off by a little bit because you never know the calling standards of others. Being off by a little is the 'error' and may or may not be important.

My point is that you absolutely should run the math to see if it is compelling, especially in pre-flop situations where math dominates. But often the math is not that compelling and then you are left with your non-math skills.

gergery

10-24-2004, 07:10 PM

This post is littered with misconceptions and inaccuracies.

If poker was like a house, then math would be the foundation and structural support. EVERYTHING in poker comes down to a math decision.

Your reads on people just adjust the percentages that get multiplied together to get your answer. When you get to higher levels, your reads become the most important thing, and ruling out or ruling in other hands has a HUGE impact on the MATH that you use to resolve a decision.

But the decision you make will always be fundamentally based on math. Every single situation can come down to "I need to risk X chips to win Y chips, and there is Z chance my hand is good now, and W chance it will be good by the showdown with a Q chance everyone folds. Your reads and the cards merely adjust what numbers the letters stand for.

Moovyz

10-24-2004, 07:40 PM

Some of you understood my post, others did not. For those of you who did, I thank you for responding. For those who didn't, David thanks you.

I guess the way to best put this to bed is with one final thought.

David, I CAN do the math. Both because you taught me (I own all your books) and because I have always loved the mathematical aspect of the game. But I guess my complaint is that YOU DO berate people, possibly not meaning to, and come off very obnoxious and demeaning. Your question did not ask people to do the math, or did it state that you were not looking for any other factors except the math. If you want to give math quizes, fine. If you want to pose poker "situational" questions, then I believe STRONGLY that you should be aware of and aknowlege ALL the factors and accept those in players answers. For example, here is the statement you made after numerous responses to your question:

QUOTE "I am angry because almost none of the answers attempted to do any math. I asked several world class players this question. All of them ventured an opinion and then said "am I right?" Because they all realized that this was in fact mainly a math problem. That should be obvious because we are talking about a possible all in move and talking about eight random hands yet to act. All in= math problem. Random opposing hands= math problem.

The fact that this is a tournament or that you are the best player has only a tiny bearing on the correct decision. Basically you move in if the EV of your resultant stack is more than the $1100 you have now and not otherwise. What is relevant is that your opponents are not live ones. This means an all in move will be called by medium pairs and up, big aces and perhaps KQ or KJ suited. Later positions will call with a few more hands than early positions. At this point it is all math. Yet almost none of you tried to do this math. HOW DARE YOU? What makes you think that this question should be attempted by the seat of your pants? Were you just lazy? Or is it because you do not know how to do this relatively simple problem? If you don't, you better learn now because otherwise you are almost certainly destined to go broke." END QUOTE

How dare you David! I am not lazy! I am able to do "this reletively simple" math problem. I didn't do the math because the question, as stated, was not clear enough of a situation to me to base my answer SOLELY on the math. When I read the question I said to myself "but what if...?" It DOES matter, to me anyway, that if I had just stolen the blinds the 3 previous times I was under the gun, it changes my answer because I'm sure I'm more likely to get called THIS time. That changes my EV!

If you want others to simply tell their answers based on the math then state your questions as such. If they get it wrong, show them the formula or plug your book. Don't confuse, irritate, belittle or otherwise beguile players that come here to learn and exchange ideas by saying "it's all math".

I consider myself an exceptional player, a winning player for 27 of 28 years. I play all games well (again, much thanks to your teaching). I have won many tournaments and specialize in NL. Greg Raymer and I duked it out for several years at Foxwoods before his fantastic win this year (by the way, he's an exceptional math and feel player). I considerred him to be my number 1 adversary in the NL tournies I played. So I feel I am qualified to represent some of the "exceptional" players that respond to your posts. But I am truly irritated with some of those posts, and disgusted even more so by the subsequent replies by you after responses. I started this post because I hoped I could make you realize that you are alienating, at least, some of us. I hoped to not get to the point where I refuse to read them anymore.

I think it's time to step back and ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. If you're trying to teach, then teach, with humility and patience and understanding. If you are "Grandstanding" so everyone will know how great you are, write more books or become a visible "Champion" of the game.

Please take this in the way I have meant it. I was hoping to get you to understand that some of us aren't "learning" any more. Now, were just getting angry!

Sincerely, Glen Peterson

Paul Phillips

10-24-2004, 08:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But I guess my complaint is that YOU DO berate people, possibly not meaning to, and come off very obnoxious and demeaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah. It's sort of charming in a perverse way. His style isn't going to change at this late date so I don't think you're going to accomplish anything by complaining about it. Either you can fade it or you can't. Granted, I probably "get" david better than most.

And of course he means to -- I realize you're just leaving him an out by saying that, but anyone who writes "And you deserve to lose" in an instructional book must be self-aware about it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to pose poker "situational" questions, then I believe STRONGLY that you should be aware of and aknowlege ALL the factors and accept those in players answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that david is constantly posing these questions that have an implied moral, and that he wants them to have one right answer, and that he often doesn't specify them tightly enough. However, in this game you can ALWAYS hypothesize about unspecified factors that might alter the decision. If you habitually go down that road then you'll just lose command of the fundamentals tilting at windmills. Forests, trees, all that.

[ QUOTE ]
It DOES matter, to me anyway, that if I had just stolen the blinds the 3 previous times I was under the gun, it changes my answer because I'm sure I'm more likely to get called THIS time. That changes my EV!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that's a perfect example of complicating the question for the sake of complicating it. Even if you did think that mattered you could ignore it for the purposes of answering the question and then throw in that your decision might be swung slightly by your image and recent actions.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's time to step back and ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. If you're trying to teach, then teach, with humility and patience and understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha ha! Humility, patience and understanding from david, that's rich. After you're done fixing david you should call dennis rodman and ask him to "tone it down a little."

West

10-24-2004, 09:42 PM

I definitely understand your point of view, but at the same time, let me say that David's "I'm very angry" response motivated at least one person to attempt to work out the underlying math behind the decision. When Sklansky threatens you with being destined to go broke, and calls you lazy, it's a bit arrogant and not particularly polite, but if you can get past that, it IS an effective motivator if you have the desire to be as good as you can be. The poker books I haven't finished reading yet just won't pull a Vince Lombardi on me. I definitely appreciate these thought problems that David is posting, along with all the related discussion.

jamescam

10-25-2004, 01:05 AM

"If I concentrated on tournaments I would be among the top twenty in the world. And my EV for the year would be less than the better 60-120 players."

This is by far the funniest thing I have read on this forum.

CrisBrown

10-25-2004, 02:15 AM

Hi David,

I agree and, for the record, these two threads prodded me to finally work out the equations that relate fold and showdown equity, and thus allow me to solve for unknowns. While some may decry such equations, they allow me to do exactly what you have suggested: work out dozens of cases using abstract variables -- current pot, bets you will add, bets your opponent(s) will add, probability they will fold if you bet, probability your hand will win at showdown -- and thus get a 'feel' for how pot ratios, fold percentages, and win percentages interact.

Obviously, there's no time to compute exact percentages at the table, but there is a value to knowing that if: (a) you figure to be a ~3:1 dog if called; and (b) the showdown pot will pay you ~3x the current pot; then, (c) you need your opponent(s) to fold at least 43% of the time for a bluff to have positive net equity.

Because the problem and solution are abstracted, they are not limited to a particular hand scenario, nor even a game or structure. You could arrive at this situation -- you figure to be a 3:1 dog if called, the showdown pot figures to pay 3x the current pot -- pre-flop UTG in a NLH tourney, heads-up at the turn in a PLO cash game, etc. Regardless of the specific situation from which these numbers derive, the steal will be a positive equity play if your opponent(s) will fold at least 43% of the time when you bet.

Within the next few days, I plan to work out values for fold and showdown equities over various odds ranges and pot ratios. And yes, I'm planning to memorize them. Will that make me a better player? No, not unless I can accurately estimate the actual values and probabilities in a given situation against particular opponents. That's the "people" part of the equation.

Cris

DonkeyKong

10-25-2004, 02:46 AM

(b) the showdown pot will pay you ~3x the current pot

how do you calculate/know this? why isn't it: 1100 + 1100 + 300 = 2400
2400/1100 = ~2.2x... and that is if the BB isn't the one that calls...

CrisBrown

10-25-2004, 03:25 AM

Hi D.K.,

[ QUOTE ]
[from my post] (b) the showdown pot will pay you ~3x the current pot

how do you calculate/know this? why isn't it: 1100 + 1100 + 300 = 2400
2400/1100 = ~2.2x... and that is if the BB isn't the one that calls...

[/ QUOTE ]

The 3:1 ratio for showdown pot:current pot wasn't a reply to David's posted question. It was a hypothetical set of values.

BTW, for David's question, the ratio is 1400:300 (if the caller is not in the blinds), 1300:300 (if the caller is the SB), and 1200:300 (if the caller is the BB). That is, there is 300 OPM in the current pot (the blinds). If a non-blind player calls your 1100 bet, that adds 1100 OPM to the showdown pot for a total of 1400 OPM. The equity formulae do not count what you will add to the pot in your profit, and do not count the money already in the pot in your loss (it's not yours).

Thus, your showdown equity (Es) = (pW * (Pc + Bo)) - ((1-pW) * By), where pW is your probability of winning at showdown, Pc is the current money in the pot, Bo is the bets your opponent(s) will add to the pot, and By is the bets you will add to the pot.

Cris

DonkeyKong

10-25-2004, 04:19 AM

ok, I understand but that seems like such a formal way to do something that is much more intuitive if your thought process is (and please critique this):

1) Observe the overlay
2) Compare the overlay to your % chance of winning the hand if called
The difference in these is the amount needed to be made up by the chance others will fold.
Then observe how many players are left to act, how many of those have large stacks or are just loose players, how many are tight or normal players, and then make a judgement about what the % chance is that all will fold.

ie,
1) there is a 30% overlay,
2) I am probably about 30% chance to win if I get called...
3) I have X opponents left to act... Y of these are large stacks or just LAG players and Z opponents left are tight. Taken together, there is a ~40% likely to all fold.

I therefore have either:
1) A good betting situation
2) A close decision
3) A clear fold

In the event of 2, a close decision, consider how you feel about your current position in the tournament and is it time to push? Do you have plenty of time left or are you getting desperate? If you fold, how likely are you to get a better hand in better position than you are now? Can your stack be blinded off for another round and still retain its threatening status???

-----

I am interested in how you and others practically perform similar steps when you have 30 secs to act in an online tournament...

gergery

10-25-2004, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's time to step back and ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. If you're trying to teach, then teach, with humility and patience and understanding. .... or become a visible "Champion" of the game.

I was hoping to get you to understand that some of us aren't "learning" any more. Now, were just getting angry!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's time to step back and ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish at the 2+2 site. I'm here to learn to play poker better. I couldn't care less how humble or arrogant David is -- It's a simple question to ask yourself, "do his posts improve your ability to play poker well"? End of story and its just that simple.

As an aside, he is a visible champion of the game. His picture is on the cover of some of the most popular poker books out there, he runs one of the most popular poker websites, and he plays frequently in big stakes games.

You'd be better off focusing on what's important and ignoring the rest.

eastbay

10-25-2004, 04:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Estimating all this fairly accurately is extremely easy and few on this forum even tried, or even seemed to realize that the question boiled down to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please. This sort of calculation has been done ad nauseum in the STT forums.

eastbay

wray

10-25-2004, 09:37 AM

I think Paul is right when he says the situation is complicated by adding previous hands. But maybe it deserves to be complicated. If I was playing against Paul or anyone that commands that presence at the table they could play hands of lesser value than someone else. Maybe that makes me a worse player than most but it is a fact in my book.

I ask you to look at this hand and take what I say about this guy as fact and tell me what you would do.

In a NLHE tournament at the Horseshoe.
Seat 10 is playing everything in every position. Rasing 2 3 OS UTG. Raising UTG +1 with 95 suited. Raising on the turn with 2 people after him with jack high. They're his cards and he can play em the way he wants to but it's obvious he's crazy loose.

I get pocket 4's on the button and raise it 4x the BB. All 4 people stay in. The flop comes 4 A 6. Everyone checked to me and I bet 4X the BB (which now I believe was a bit small)and everyone folded to the crazy guy in seat 10. He raised me 500. I had about 2k left and he had me covered easy. What should I have done?

CrisBrown

10-25-2004, 10:19 AM

Hi D.K.,

I'm certainly not going to do these calculations at the table, either live or online. As I said in my earlier post, I plan to work out a few dozen such calculations for various pot ratios, fold and win probabilities, and commit them to memory ... much in the way we memorize the odds for various common hand matchups.

While the specific situation in a given pot may not match precisely with any of those memorized values, it's likely to be close enough to one or more that I can interpolate and get a very close estimate of my net equity, assuming of course that I'm reading my opponents correctly.

In that respect, I agree with the "people first" crowd. In an actual game situation, if you aren't making good reads, then none of the mathematical work is worth a damn, because your calculations are based on faulty data regardless. But I also agree with David that good reads aren't worth much if you don't know how to turn that data into something you can use.

The math is more "fundamental," both in the sense that it's easier to teach and learn, and in the sense that the math guides your reading by telling you what information to look for. But you'll need both math and reading skills to be successful in modern poker.

Cris

SpeakEasy

10-25-2004, 04:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's time you stopped berating players about the math. You are perhaps mathematically correct +/- a few % about the hands you may use for example, but it isn't the only answer!

[/ QUOTE ]

My father used to have a phrase that he would say to me from time to time, back when I was a teenager and was going through the “I’m smarter than my parents” phase:

“Your mind has slammed shut like a steel trap. You are not hearing what I’m saying because you don’t like the way I’m saying it.”

The same thing is happening here. Listen to David and you might learn something. Don’t get all wrapped up in how he says it. He may sound gruff and offend your sensibilities, but you might also learn something. Aside from the specific question that sparked this discussion, the message here is now very simple: learn the basics (math), then learn the advanced techniques (reading players). Any other way is losing poker.