you dont need no math to play poker

[sammysusar]

sklansky seems to advocate doing these fairly complex calculations (ie what are the odds of a q j being the best hand in a nine handed game under the gun)however most of the variables are not known(ie it is likely someone has a better hand, but would k j call you?). Knowing the exact answer would have a small positive value, however, if thinking about these types of problems distracted you from studying your opponents' plays then overall being a "mathy" player would hurt you.
writing be not my strength. However im just trying to say studying your opponents play and tendencies has enormously more value than these math problems.

[drewjustdrew]

You are possibly correct on very close decisions. However, mathematics are the basis for a larger portion of your overall winnings. The "no-brainer" decisions are exactly that because of the math. Knowing the percentages that make it correct for drawing vs. folding are key. I'm not referring to the sklansky example, just in general.

[Solitare]

The complex calculations are not necessarily meant to be done at the table. I think it is valuable to do these sorts of calculations on key hands away from the table. I think it give you a deeper knowledge of the mechanics of the hand with the goal being that when you see a similar situation again, you have some instinct for what the right thing to do is without necessarily doing to complex math behind it.

[Neil Stevens]

If you don't know the math to calculate what the outcomes are, of what value is it to read your opponent and find out what his hand is?

[sammysusar]

The subject sort of exaggerates my point(meant to be slightly funny i guess). But my basic point is i rather be able to read my opponents better than to be able to solve complex situations when the variables are almost always unknowable (because they are people dependent).

[ALL IN!]

Just go All In.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
writing be not my strength. However im just trying to say studying your opponents play and tendencies has enormously more value than these math problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

The skill you talk about is used to estimate the variables in these math problems.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
But my basic point is i rather be able to read my opponents better than to be able to solve complex situations when the variables are almost always unknowable (because they are people dependent).

[/ QUOTE ]

But once you become so good at reading opponents, those variables will no longer be unknowable.

You could turn it around and say it's no good being able to read people if you don't then know the best play based on the information you have collected.

[M2d]

Unless you're talking about Helmutian reads, math comes in to play when figuring out what the other player has.

[SossMan]

Contrary to certain Oreo theamed poker movies, reading hands is nearly all math. It's not sexy, but it's true. You could teach someone with a good memory and good math skills to have "incredible instincts".

[aaronjacobg]

in what way? what exactly does one have to do with the other

[LBJ]

[ QUOTE ]
you don't need no math to play poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...double negative.

So you are saying, "you need math to play poker...."

[dogmeat]

Soss's point is that by having a firm grasp of math, you make much better predictions about your opponents possible range of hands based on their overall play. Strange as it seems, you have more trouble "scaling" the fish, than a strong player who is more apt to make a play also based on math.

In other words, as you go to the second level and third level of thinking (well, he knows I know about such and such) the math becomes critical for excellent performance and your play begins to look like you have "great instincts" when it is really based on mathematical reason.

My guess is that a great majority of players (90%+) never get to this third-level math thinking and that is why some players with this skill look like great "readers" and do so well over other players.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[aaronjacobg]

let me know if this is an example of the type of scaling that you mean:

"Robby has played many pots, lets say 50% of the hands he is dealt. this means that when the flop comes high cards he has such and such percent chance of having top pair, and another percentage of having a pair at all."

If this is what you mean it seems like an interesting idea. I tend to be skeptical of math in this application because we are considering quantitative data that, i would assume, is not incredibly decisive. This compared to looking at him and guaging his strength, breathing etc.

However, i would assume that it would do a world of good for my online game. Thanks in advance.


Jake

[M2d]

That's pretty much the gist of it, but not quite in such broad terms.

A more specific example would be, say, you have A2 (don't even ask me why you're in there) heads up. the PFR bets out on a A10864 board. and you're left to call, fold or raise. What are his raising standards pf? from this, you can determine what percentage of the time you expect to be beat. taking it a little further, you can guesstimate what percentage of the time you can raise him off of a better hand (if he's known to fold a top pair heads up a certain percentage of the time, etc).

[sammysusar]

The title of post is misleading i suppose. Im not claiming knowing basic probabilities and estimating players hands is useless. I guess i was reacting to a post by sklansky where i saw little value in knowing the answer(maybe i just dont know any better. Post is under
Simple Common Tournament Situation by david sklansky

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
was reacting to a post by sklansky where i saw little value in knowing the answer

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is a purest, no doubt. As for "value in knowing the answer", David's emphasis on math is evolutionary. One thing that David practices better than anyone, even my buddy Mason, is game selection. Game selection's emphasis lies in the realm of knowing ones opponents. If one's objective is to be a winning poker player and one learns a workable basic poker strategy and then practices perfect game selection and then applies his strategy one WILL win. Notice that I am claiming that one need not know or employ any math whatsoever to be a winning poker player. That is true in live action poker. I do not believe that one can be a successful poker tournament player without knowing the math. But that's for another post.

Knowing the simple math of determining outs, pot odds, implied odds etc... will allow a player to take advantage of situations that he might not otherwise do through the use of a simple basic strategy. Using simple math will help in situations in which one's opponents are not easily readable and /or he finds himself in a game that is tougher than his optimal game selection criteria allows. If a player wants to become one of the top or even a very good players he cannot rely on game selection or reading ones opponents. To be a top player one is going to find himself playing against other top players. Top players are not easily, if at all, readable. Top players know the odds of most poker situations. Understanding when to make a correct play requires processing situational information available to the player. Using math helps define the situation one finds himself and helps him choose between close options. Knowing how too find the mathematical answer to complex poker situations gives one confidence that he is thinking in a logical mode and thus is more likely to make a correct play on a close decision. The better the competition the closer the decisions. The closer the decsions the more precise one needs to be. Precision can be expressed with mathematics.

Ironically you are absolutely correct. "Knowing the answer" is of little value. Understanding that there is a defineable answer and knowing how to get that answer without anyones help is much more important.

Vince