Math guys vs. "players"

[bunky9590]

Not sure which forum to post in so I'll post it here.

Dave's posts with the math have got me thinking. Math is important in poker, very important. So is the "psych" aspect of it. And I think they are both important to the game. One can excel at one more than the other (but still needs to know both) and can still excel at this game.

Now, what are you?

Its okay to be primarialy one or the other, and what are your best traits at the poker table?

I know Dave is more a math guy, as is Ed Miller. There Backgrounds are in that area and they excel at that aspect and use it in their game.

I know the basic math of poker (odds, probabilities) and such, but the problems David puts forth I (sad as it may seem) don't know how to do in a comprehensive way. Now does that make me less of a player? Maybe it does.

However, my play at the live tables I have 1 very big edge over a lot of the "math" players. And this is something much harder to teach. My reads of hands in the heat of battle are sick. I mean absolutely sick. I don't know why I know some things at the poker table, but I just know. Is it the tells these guys give off? I have a great recall memory of hands that most people don't remember. I remember how a particualr player bets (tempo etc.) when he had a strong hand vs, when he called on a draw. Its just there.

Online is a bit different, but you cant pick up tells online, you can play tendencies. Example, Is this guy a turn folder? Does he call overbets with just a draw? what types of hands will he play. Can I push his shortish stack in with AK and expect him to call with AQ, AJ, or AT?

I'm not always right, (nor are we all) but maybe I'm just a player.

I started back in like 1997 playing 5-10, 10-20 games at the Taj. The games back then at the 10-20 level were tough. Not the wiffle ball it tends to be today. I learned from experience right away and figured out what worked and what didn't. I learned to play tight, then I learned the aggressiveness. (Maybe too much aggressiveness, some say)

I didn't read HPFAP until 1999. Though I beat the 5-10 and 10-20 after about 2 months of play (and like 2 dimes) I picked up things from the book and incorporated them. I still think the preflop standards are a bit loose (but then again I'm not a math guy /images/graemlins/blush.gif)

I just wanted to open up and find out what you all think of yourselves (and what you think of me if you like) and maybe poker is not all balck and white, perhaps there is a gray area.

Thanks for the read.

Gregg

[Chris Daddy Cool]

hey gregg,

math is a very important concept in poker obviously. you have to have the right pot odds to make some calls and raises profitable. in NL you can raise or bet appropriately to ruin their odds, etc. you also gotta know the probabilities. you use probabilities hand in hand with pot odds. how likely am i going to make my hand versus how much money i have to put into the pot. these are all obvious things that basically all 2+2ers know.

you don't have to be *super* great at these things to apply the concepts correctly like 95% of the time. obviously the better you are at the math the easier it is for you to calculate really close decisions on the fly.

lot of people don't know this, but math is also used in hand reading. you know your opponents well, you know what type of hands they would need to make certain calls given the pot size. you can also use bayes theorem or whatever to know the different combinations and the range of hands might hold and how likely he is to hold them percent-wise.

but like i said, most of us can do the basic math and get along fine becaue most decisions are very simple. i have a gutshot. that's 4 outs. there's 15 bets in the pot. easy call. all of this is second nature to most of us, and is quickly learned through learning the material and experience.

however, a lot must be said for *playing* the game, where some math guys really don't get. i make a ton of seemingly ridiculous folds in big pots because i can read hands fairly well and know situation and player tendacies. i don't necceassirly "breathe in" and absorb the game where i recognize tempo and body tells that well, but i'd like to say i'm fairly atune to it all. sometimes you just know that a guy has a hand and you can fold getting 25-1 or sometimes you know he's full of it and 7 bet him with just top two pair. there are a lot of guys who can learn the math fairly well but simply can't play well because they get too intimadated, make incorrect reads, don't know how to utilize correct game strategy, etc.

it's not hard to argue that a majority of a poker player's winnings come from math. you really can't be a winning player without knowing the odds. but beyond that, what really seperates good players and great players is the playing aspect of it where making correct player/situation based decisions will earn you the extra bb/hour or what turns slightly losing players into winning players.

math is the foundation of poker, but playing the game well is what seperates the men from the boys.

chris

[Cerril]

I stayed away from poker for quite a few years, thinking that if I couldn't get good reads on people I'd never be able to win money. After awhile I started to realize that if I had a solid enough foundation in math and probability (which I already had through school and general interest), I'd be able to overcome that 'flaw'.

So I'm a math guy, and I'm not an intuitive enough poker player to ever be among the 'best' out there, but I definitely feel successful, especially in limit games (I still tend to steer clear of NL games).

[A_C_Slater]

I once got into a players head so good that I made him choke and die on his own tongue right there at the table.

Think Hannibal Lechter at the poker table. Yup, that's me.

I can also make the waitresses give me "head" right then and there under the table while I play. Think Al Pacino in
the Devil's Advocate, yup, that's me too.

[umdpoker]

"I once got into a players head so good that I made him choke and die on his own tongue right there at the table.

Think Hannibal Lechter at the poker table. Yup, that's me.

I can also make the waitresses give me "head" right then and there under the table while I play. Think Al Pacino in
the Devil's Advocate, yup, that's me too. "

zack morris is so much cooler than you.

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
math is the foundation of poker, but playing the game well is what seperates the men from the boys

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true "player"

I agree that Math is the foundation and it is the cornerstone of poker. I just feel that the player factor is what can really send players through the stratosphere as far as playing ability.

I'm anxious to hear more from other players.

[Masquerade]

Math guys can be scarey for "players" in one regard: their willingness to call big bets if they feel the pot odds justify it. In one of Hellmuths articles he describes how he got all his chips in with 4-2 with NOTHING but draws and a guy called him with top pair weak kicker. Of course needless to say Hellmuth doesnt like this call, but against bluffers top pair is fine and the math type players would be more likely to call.

[spamuell]

Where's the line between being a math guy and a player?

For example, I don't play much PL/NL except live, but I was playing the other day. The action in one hand wasn't particularly important but by the river I was HU with an opponent who could conceivably have been drawing on the flop, and no obvious draws had hit by the river (oesd or flush). I had a look at the pot, estimated that my opponent would be on a draw a significant amount of the time and bet about a third of the pot (it was a fairly small pot) in the hope that my opponent would have a busted draw enough of the time for this to be profitable.

Does this make me a math player even though I didn't work out anything exactly at the table? Would I only be a player if I read my opponent and bet when he had a draw and checked when he had a pair that he wasn't intending to fold? Or pushed when he had a pair that he would fold?

Can one only be a "player" live or are there reads to be made online which a "math guy" won't make but a "player" will?

I don't really see exactly where the distinction lies, I'm probably a math guy.

[Mars357]

Ok...here's a strange question...

I'm not a math guy but I want to be. My problem is that I avoided math at all costs in school so I don't have the background. Took some very basic algebra in college but never took anything more advanced than that (no stats, no calc). So my question is: what is the best way to gain the math skills I need to be a more successful poker player? I avoided math because I was lazy not because I wasn't smart enough to do it.

TIA,

Mars

[bunky9590]

There is no line really bud. Its all in imagination.

Its seems like to me though that most people lean more one side or the other, neither side is wrong.

Nate's gonna like this one.
Its kinda like the comparison to Uma Therman's character Mia wallace.

to paraphrase: There's Beatles people, and there's Elvis people. You can like both, but you always like one more than the other. So vincent, what are you?

You always fall back in the heat of battle to your natural tendencies, do you crunch numbers, or do you read the situation and act accoridingly.

I'm not saying that math players don't play. In fact that's not true at all. they just have a different thought process. Consequently "players" have math skills (I'm not totally math stoopid) but seem to always fall back to reading the opponent.

Seems to me that the math players do better in limit, and the players do better in NL. From my observation. Not saying that the opposite can't be done.

Hope that made sense. I'm really liking this thread.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
"I once got into a players head so good that I made him choke and die on his own tongue right there at the table.

Think Hannibal Lechter at the poker table. Yup, that's me.

I can also make the waitresses give me "head" right then and there under the table while I play. Think Al Pacino in
the Devil's Advocate, yup, that's me too. "

zack morris is so much cooler than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit! I was the King of Bayside High! I once got Kelley to give me "head" right in front of Morris and he was crying like a little bitch.

[BottlesOf]

By nature, I'm not a math guy, but I want to be and I am trying hard to learn that aspect of the game, because I feel it is ultra important. It's not intuitive to me, so I'm working at it. I've gotten decent enough at it for poker purposes, but I want to be really diesel at it.

Every time I see Nate throw up a poker stove or Sthief or GoT put up a fairly complex EV calculation, I'm like, [censored], that's where I need to be.

I think the dichotomy you've laid out is a bit too simplisitc (I'm sure you're aware of this), but I agree, there is a spectrum from math intensive to math lite, and there is no simple correlation to poker skill.

I was talking the other day with Dave and mentioned how I thought it was interesting: Nate and Joe Tall are two top notch posters, yet their comments on hands/analysis is usually very different. However, they often reach the same conclusion about what lines to take and why. Nate uses a much more mathematical approach, often citing pokerstove, and hand ranges, while Joe rarely mentions numbers, but has an incredible card sense. He take a more hollistic approach. Clearly, there's more than one way to pillage the games.

If anyone can help me with my Internet Explorer problems, please pm me.

[spamuell]

If anyone can help me with my Internet Explorer problems, please pm me.

I have no idea what your IE problems are but a probably solution is http://www.mozilla.org/ . Click the Firefox Free Download link.

[SA125]

I've always been a big believer in instinct. In feel. That was before I understood the math of poker. Mixing the two got me to the next level. Then this happened.

Last year I'm playing in a tough 10-20 day game at the Taj. It wasn't one of the 6-8 callers in an unraised pot game where whoever hit the flop sticks around. This was filled with solid 10 players and a couple of regular 20 players who were waiting for their game to spread. I made a few strong plays and, during a bathroom or smoke break in the game, the 20 guys complimented my play. I was playing as solid and strong as I could and it was paying off. Naturally, I felt great. Who doesn't like to win and get complimented by respected players in the process?

I took a dinner break with my wife and came back to sit in a brand new game that just started. Funny thing happened. I was just sitting there, waiting for the right hands to play for the right price, waiting to play "solid" again. But this other guy, who I'm pretty sure was playing 20-40 stud during the day, was taking complete and total control of the table right from the start. He didn't play every hand but, every single hand that he was in, he was the one to be reckoned with and everyone knew it. It was a great display of skill and feel. He got lucky and rivered some hands, but it didn't matter. He set the terms of every hand he played, even when guys tried to play back at him. He left after 1 hour with almost a rack. Talk about BB's per hour.

It was then I realized what you're saying. Playing solid and knowing the math will win you respect and money. But being able to recognize the personalitites and opportunity at a brand new table, being able to immediately seize control of it, that takes more than numbers. That takes being a player.

I sat there like a rookie player on the bench who's waiting for his turn at-bat against a great pitcher. Instead of thinking about what moves or plays might work against him in certain situations, or watching carefully what he was doing in a play, I might as well have been sitting in the stands. I was more like a fan than an opponent. I'd guess we both knew the same math, he knew far more about how to play that table.

[astroglide]

fwiw i only started paying attention to pot odds about a month or so ago, before that i never did (like i literally never counted the pot when i had a gutshot or whatever). and it doesn't seem to have helped materially. my biggest problem is semitilting. if i go on full blown 96o utg tilt it's more out of amusement and it doesn't last long, it's the JTo in mp kind of tilt that kills me. if i never did that i would have a lot more money.

[fsuplayer]

Every time I see Nate throw up a poker stove or Sthief or GoT put up a fairly complex EV calculation, I'm like, [censored], that's where I need to be.

I often feel the same way when on 2+2. When in the heat of battle I rarely think of the math aspect. I have a feel of the hand and I think there just a feel of the math from each individual hand.

If I can just get my math skills in the heat of the battle to match my feel skills, watch out.

fsuplayer

[A_C_Slater]

4818 posts and you still have tilt problems? Jesus.

Maybe you should take some Xanax before playing.
It will help detach you.

[bunky9590]

I knew you were a "player", I just knew it!

[Lawrence Ng]

100 percent of the time I am 50 percent my hand is drawing live. But 50 percent of the time I am 100 percent sure I am drawing dead. Good ol' Bayes Theorem...

[1800GAMBLER]

Any card game you make up will have a correct optimal way to play it which is all proven with math. i.e. 4 of one 3 of the other or whatever it's called, BJ etc etc.

The only way holdem is different is because you are playing aganinst people who will can be flexiable (read: sub optimal) so you have to adjust and become a 'player'. If all players played optimally you could then prove with math the optimal way to play.

Hence math is much more important.

[bunky9590]

Hey Jay!

Glad to see you're back.

[ QUOTE ]
Any card game you make up will have a correct optimal way to play it which is all proven with math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And hold'em is no exception. Only problem is we don't always know what they other guy is holding. We can guestimate and make the decision from there. But there are finite formulas to play "optimally" in any card game as you said.

[ QUOTE ]
The only way holdem is different is because you are playing aganinst people who will can be flexiable (read: sub optimal) so you have to adjust and become a 'player'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats pretty much the point I was trying to make. Adjusting to players and taking into account characteristics of their play and putting into your decisions instead of "playing by the book"

I'm sure you find in limit (especially 8 tabling), its nearly all math and a whole lot less read dependent.

As far as NL , Math is super important as well, but your "play" in NL is some of the best raw talent, I've seen. I'm quite sure your "plays" in NL and natural instincts are as much a part of your success as was your math skills. Maybe more so.

It just seems to me the "players" wind up setting out of the bounds of the math and wind up excelling a bit more when the limits get up to where people skills take more of a front seat.

Thanks for your time.

Gregg

[dejkdarejk]

"Dave's posts with the math have got me thinking. Math is important in poker, very important. So is the "psych" aspect of it. And I think they are both important to the game. One can excel at one more than the other (but still needs to know both) and can still excel at this game."

Can anyone point me to where I can find Dave's posts on math? What is his twoplustwo username?

[bunky9590]

Welcome to the forum.

Dave Sklansky posts under his own name.

Check the poker theory and World poker Tour sections.

[Joe Tall]

while Joe rarely mentions numbers

And that's coming from a playa w/a degree in civil engineering and a minor in mathematics. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif I normally don't post that way but the math is a driving force. I like to break down the logic behind every line and empathize player reads in this muli-table-blind poker world we live in. I've done some math in the past on the forum (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=815890&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1) but it's not everything a new poster needs to learn. The math will come in time.

Go Sox!
-Joe Tall

[Monty Cantsin]

Interesting thread.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Any card game you make up will have a correct optimal way to play it which is all proven with math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And hold'em is no exception. Only problem is we don't always know what they other guy is holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the critical hidden information in poker is your opponent's strategy, not his cards. If you had complete knowledge of your opponent' playbook then you would be in a position to find provably optimal plays.

/mc

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to open up and find out what you all think of yourselves (and what you think of me if you like) and maybe poker is not all balck and white, perhaps there is a gray area.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think i am either too mathy or too playful. but i am definitely a multi-tabling poker machine!

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think i am either too mathy or too playful. but i am definitely a multi-tabling poker machine!


[/ QUOTE ]

I KNEW you were a bot. I KNEW it!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
4818 posts and you still have tilt problems? Jesus.

Maybe you should take some Xanax before playing.
It will help detach you.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think the # of posts matters /images/graemlins/grin.gif. however, i also never wouldn't thought of you as a tilter or semi-tilter.. i mean, i am very convinced that your skills are beyond solid, it's just a little out of character.

JT in MP tilt u mean open-raising, i hope?

[gonores]

I'm just like you, Gregg. I know when I can and cannot chase a draw and I can primatively slug my way through all-in situations and the such, but I'm rarely going to let mathematics get in the way of a good read. Bayes theorem is way less important to me than my gut feelings and qualitative assessments in the heat of battle.

That being said...if I could trade in my skill set for Nate's or Jay's or stheif's, I think I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the critical hidden information in poker is your opponent's strategy, not his cards. If you had complete knowledge of your opponent' playbook then you would be in a position to find provably optimal plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post that hits right on Shania.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
My reads of hands in the heat of battle are sick. I mean absolutely sick. I don't know why I know some things at the poker table, but I just know. Is it the tells these guys give off? I have a great recall memory of hands that most people don't remember. I remember how a particualr player bets (tempo etc.) when he had a strong hand vs, when he called on a draw. Its just there.

Gregg

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are your posts always about how awesome you are? I knew when I opened this post it would turn into some sort of self praise, and it did.

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are your posts always about how awesome you are? I knew when I opened this post it would turn into some sort of self praise, and it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feeling some sort of inferiority complex? Not all my posts are this way, and neither is this one.

As a matter of fact sport, I stated in my original post in this thread that my lack of deeper math skills may make me less of a player than most. (You might want to read it again before you decide to rip me, Ace.)

Maybe its all about self confidence and self esteem with me. I've never had a problem with either. Maybe you do. If you don't like my posts, please just block my name and you never ave to worry again. But, you may actually miss out on some advice I give more often than not.

O yeah, have a nice day.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
My reads of hands in the heat of battle are sick. I mean absolutely sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't know many people who would say something about themselves in that way. You need to get over yourself.


[ QUOTE ]
But, you may actually miss out on some advice I give more often than not.



[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that's cause you are SOOOOOOOO AWESOME!!!!!!!!

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't know many people who would say something about themselves in that way. You need to get over yourself.




[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am in love with myself, Damn, I thought it was just a summer thing. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Care to add anything useful to this thread, or do you just have sand in your vagina today.?

Keepin it real. Have a nice day.

Bunky

[Dov]

David Sklansky

LOL

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the critical hidden information in poker is your opponent's strategy, not his cards. If you had complete knowledge of your opponent' playbook then you would be in a position to find provably optimal plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point, Monty, but it's probably both strategies and cards.

Knowing his cards tells you when to play. Knowing his strategies tells you how much you can make when you play.

Obviously, there is some overlap in these areas, but I think it is a little bit like describing a player or a table as loose/tight, passive/aggressive.

L/T would be a measure of the cards and P/A is a measure of strategy.

Dov

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to add anything useful to this thread, or do you just have sand in your vagina today.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, I miss Vehn...

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

I play against bad players at the local lodge, and most of the really bad players talk about how the math is unimportant, because "you have to play the man." I get a lot of money from these guys.

Making adjustments and "playing the man" is important, but only AFTER one masters the basics, and the math.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Bayes theorem is way less important to me than my gut feelings and qualitative assessments in the heat of battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think with experience and skill development, you learn to isolate down an opponents hand. Turn this qualitative aspect into a quantitative percentage. Combine that with Baye's Theorem and you have a potent math-read skill that will help a lot in making marginal decisions, especially more so in the SH games.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Gregg:

Here's my take on this. The best poker players have the ability to think clearly and logically at the table, and they do this by using both math and psychology. So experts are neither math guys or psych guys.

But there is one thing I do want to point out. When this discussion comes up, the person who is usually classifying someone else as a math guy, is usually putting that classification on someone who they perceive as being very tight, frequently weak tight. An expert, even if he is someone like David or Ed (or even myself since I'm the one with the math degrees) certainly knows when it is appropriate to loosen up and play a few extra hands or throw a raise in.

One final comment. You state that you think the preflop standards of HPFAP are a bit loose. Whether you're right or not, you are certainbly in the minority. On the other hand, when we originally published the book, several of the regular players, who did play extremely weak tight, told me the same thing. Most of them went broke.

Best wishes,
Mason

[DonkeyKong]

You state that you think the preflop standards of HPFAP are a bit loose. Whether you're right or not, you are certainbly in the minority. On the other hand, when we originally published the book, several of the regular players, who did play extremely weak tight, told me the same thing. Most of them went broke.

Are you saying they went broke because of their pre-flop weak-tight play or because their pre-flop weak-tight play was rampant in their entire game??

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Donkey:

Yes to both.

Best wishes,
Mason

[bunky9590]

Hey Mason,

Thanks for the time.

I wasn't knocking the Preflop standards, (I'm no expert) and I don't deviat much but its the low suited and unsuited connectors that I ususally wind up not playing. (I will defer to the man with the math degrees though /images/graemlins/blush.gif)

I also tend to be more aggressive than the "weak tights" It just seems like I play less hands than the "book" states.

The classification of players is not a line in the sand per se, but it seems like that the basic math concepts of odds probabilities, and pot odds seems to be satisfactory for beating the games of today. Combine that with good hand reading skills and it makes that player a little better.

I agree that a combo of both is the best way to be. But, with the basic concept of pot odds and drawing prosects, and implied odds and such, wouldn't you say that is adequate to be a "winning" poker player?

I don't think you need to have MIT math degrees to excel in this game. But, Thats just me.

Thanks for putting me in check. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Metabeing]

I'd like to think of myself as both. I come from a very math intensive background, and work a math intensive job, but I also love playing with peoples minds. There is no greater feeling then winning an "Im smarter then you" battle.

The one thing I have noticed in my play is--the longer I take to make a decision to a large raise the more and more mathematical I begin to think. Sure, Ill think about the players tendencies, their tempo, and how they have played the hand, but even all of that can be thought of in terms of probabilities. And the longer something seems to churn in my brain, the closer it gets to pure numbers.
Maybe its a sign that I am a weak player, and I have to trust my instincts more. But I have never really gotten burned that bad. Unfortunately, I think it will take a bad burn for me to start listening to my gut more, but I guess I am a product of my environment.

Since I do most of my playing online, where reads are much less profound, I can rely on the fact that numbers never lie, but once I make more of a move to live games, I think I am going to have to put solid work into my mind game.

mb:

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bunky:

Keep in mind that the weakest hands are those hands which while profitable (assuming they are) are only just slightly so. That is if you choose not to play them it should have very little impact on your overall results.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you need to have MIT math degrees to excel in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. My degrees are from Virginia Tech.

Best wishes,
Mason

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. My degrees are from Virginia Tech.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I love it.

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that the weakest hands are those hands which while profitable (assuming they are) are only just slightly so. That is if you choose not to play them it should have very little impact on your overall results.


[/ QUOTE ]
But there's an advantage to playing more hands as long as they aren't -EV though, isn't it? It'll make it tougher for your opponents to read your hands since you're playing a wider range of them? So if you add some EV neutral hands you'll increase variance, but you should be able to increase your profit slightly on your other hands. Or?

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. My degrees are from Virginia Tech.


[/ QUOTE ]

Classic Mason. I stand corrected. I like it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

You do have a sense of humor.

Thanks for your time and thoughts in this topic. Its appreciated.

Gregg