All In Free Throws

[David Sklansky]

Obviously my calling most tournament pros "rank suckers" when it comes to late stage all in preflop strategy is a bit of hyperbole. A more accurate description is to make an analogy to basketball. The typical NBA player is far above average when it comes to free throws. But in this fairly important aspect of the game most pros are significantly worse than the best practitioners. There are certainly tens of thousands of people who can hit over 85%. Many could do this even in the heat of battle. Some would shoot underhand.

I suspect that most NBA players suckerdom when it comes to free throws is partially a physical attribute. But it is probably also part a lack of studiousness. An unforgiveable lack regardless of how well they play the rest of the game. The analogy to tournament poker where there are thousands of math guys who know more about all in situations than the guys who make their living at it is my point.

[Men the Master]

Wilt Chamberlain was the biggest scorer of all-time but he was near the bottom in free throw percentage.

[fnurt]

Among pros you may be right that the only excuse is laziness.

Out here in the rank-and-file, however, I think there is a depressing amount of reliance upon bad poker books and unexamined platitudes.

If you don't take a mathematical approach to the game, you run the risk of letting emotion rule you instead. Many players, if they get their chips in as a 60-40 favorite and lose, will think "that's what I deserve for betting all my chips on a coinflip." Now there are times to pass up a 60-40 advantage, but that is not my point. My point is that all attempts at rational analysis go by the wayside. Getting busted out of a tournament is tough on the psyche and some people look at it as a sign from the Almighty that they must have played wrong. That's not an approach conducive to improving your game.

Another self-destructive form of fuzzy thinking is a resistance to learning the mathematics of a situation, because "poker is more complicated than that." Of course there is more to poker than pure mathematics, but the math is still a basic tool that you need. If you know your opponent perfectly and know that he would only make that raise with a pair higher than 88, what good does that knowledge do you if you can't figure out whether a call is mathematically correct against that range of hands? As I've said elsewhere, there are a million factors you can consider in playing a poker hand, but it's a lot easier to make a decision if you know the mathematically "correct" play and then can decide if extraneous factors should cause you to deviate from that play.

I don't mean to come off as cocksure because I am just another player. Some aspects of my game (I hope) are better than average; some (I know) are worse than average. But when it comes to those few areas of the game that I do understand, it hurts to see people come to these forums, time after time, with the same misconceptions about poker and about tournament play. In a sense maybe it should be encouraging that even top pros can fall into the trap of neglecting to think about the mathematics.

[SossMan]

I used to be able to dunk. Then I started playing poker and got fat. Now I can barely touch the rim. My mid-range jumper is doing fine, though.

[goofball]

no pun intended i'm sure

[Men the Master]

Not as big a scorer as Jim Brown eventually will be, though.

[Vince Lepore]

Does this post mean that "rank sucker" no loner means "rank sucker" in the same way it did when my buddies use to call me the "rank sucker"in our home games? While you are at it does "you're a fool" really mean that one is a fool or that he can't make free throws? Please help me out here.

Vince

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Out here in the rank-and-file,

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a play on words? Do you really mean out here in the "rank sucker" world?

Vince

[binions]

Try taking a "non-NBA free throw specialist" and have him shoot free throws when he is winded, just took an elbow to the ribs the previous trip down the floor, oh by the way the game is on the line.

To mix metaphors even further, there is a difference between quarterbacking and armchair quarterbacking.

Having said that, I don't doubt for a minute that some poker amateurs are better than some poker pros when it comes to "all-in math" when discussed at leisure.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
Try taking a "non-NBA free throw specialist" and have him shoot free throws when he is winded, just took an elbow to the ribs the previous trip down the floor, oh by the way the game is on the line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trust me, there are some people out there who are non-NBA who can still deliver after those blows. Even with no legs.

[Vince Lepore]

Barely touch the rim? Hmmmph ..I can't even see my toes!

Vince

[David Sklansky]

"Try taking a "non-NBA free throw specialist" and have him shoot free throws when he is winded, just took an elbow to the ribs the previous trip down the floor, oh by the way the game is on the line."

There are a thousand girls and a thousand sixty year old guys who would outshoot most NBA players even under these conditions especially if they spent some time acclimating themselves to game conditions. Why, because in laboratory settings they'll shoot 95%, an edge that would carry over to maybe 83% in a game.

"To mix metaphors even further, there is a difference between quarterbacking and armchair quarterbacking."

But not when it comes to knowing whether to go for one point or two point conversions under typical conditions for various scores.

"Having said that, I don't doubt for a minute that some poker amateurs are better than some poker pros when it comes to "all-in math" when discussed at leisure."

Not just when discussed at leisure. Unless they have complete beginner's butterflies, that edge that their preparation gives them will follow them into the game as well.

[David Sklansky]

Among pros you may be right that the only excuse is laziness.

Out here in the rank-and-file, however, I think there is a depressing amount of reliance upon bad poker books and unexamined platitudes.

If you don't take a mathematical approach to the game, you run the risk of letting emotion rule you instead. Many players, if they get their chips in as a 60-40 favorite and lose, will think "that's what I deserve for betting all my chips on a coinflip." Now there are times to pass up a 60-40 advantage, but that is not my point. My point is that all attempts at rational analysis go by the wayside. Getting busted out of a tournament is tough on the psyche and some people look at it as a sign from the Almighty that they must have played wrong. That's not an approach conducive to improving your game.

Another self-destructive form of fuzzy thinking is a resistance to learning the mathematics of a situation, because "poker is more complicated than that." Of course there is more to poker than pure mathematics, but the math is still a basic tool that you need. If you know your opponent perfectly and know that he would only make that raise with a pair higher than 88, what good does that knowledge do you if you can't figure out whether a call is mathematically correct against that range of hands? As I've said elsewhere, there are a million factors you can consider in playing a poker hand, but it's a lot easier to make a decision if you know the mathematically "correct" play and then can decide if extraneous factors should cause you to deviate from that play.

I don't mean to come off as cocksure because I am just another player. Some aspects of my game (I hope) are better than average; some (I know) are worse than average. But when it comes to those few areas of the game that I do understand, it hurts to see people come to these forums, time after time, with the same misconceptions about poker and about tournament play. In a sense maybe it should be encouraging that even top pros can fall into the trap of neglecting to think about the mathematics.


What a great post. I'm repeating it for those who did not read it the first time. No elaboration needed

[MLG]

fnurt, you have reached the promised land. it might be time to retire from poker posting at the top of your game.

[mmbt0ne]

Seriously. That would be printed, and up on my fridge right now.

[DonkeyKong]

I haven't been reading here all that long but that is a great post by Mr Sklansky... Well-worded and well-framed. The humility part wasn't needed but the fact that it was included is impressive.

This is an honest question, why wasn't all this math more prevalent in TPAP? The phrase 'Fold Equity' doesn't even appear in the index. I know the book is for 'advanced players' but if so many pro's aren't using the math, then surely this is worthy of an advanced poker book???

David, Mason --- que pasa?

[David Sklansky]

I'm not sure if you are joking but it wasn't my post.

[Wayfare]

If someone was 50% free throw shooting and missed out on 5 points per game because of it (say shaq), you might say he is lazy and stupid for not putting in the extra hours to do it.

However, what if those extra hours were spent at the gym working out or practicing some other skill like posting up that he uses to better effect? If he gains .1 points per hour of practicing free throws and .15 per practicing post up with no decrease in marginal return, he should always practice posting-up without ever practicing free throws.

The same is true in poker?

[jhodges]

I think you make a point about the marginal utility but miss the analogy...Shaq(or any free-throw shooter) needs to practice this skill to "keep it up". Presumeably anyone who would take the time to learn the math of all-in situations would learn them for ever. So what David S. is pointing out is that the vast majority of experts haven't done the extra work. I think the analogy to golf and how Tiger dominated because he was ahead of the others physically, mentally etc. and how the rest of the top players (great by history's standards until he came along) had to go back to the gym, short-game specialists, shrinks etc. to catch up to him is appropriate. Maybe wunderkinds like him will cause todays experts to have to retool their games.

John H

[Daliman]

Excellent point. Only thing is, much of the math is not that hard to memorize.

[Bataglin]

"que pasa?"... "QUE PASA?" Omg... we're on to you now, Philmuth

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you are joking but it wasn't my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

use quotes, don't be a lazy poster

[Gallopin Gael]

You would also think that at some point diminishing returns would kick in.

[italianstang]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why, because in laboratory settings they'll shoot 95%, an edge that would carry over to maybe 83% in a game."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ridiculous statement in a similar way to judging whether someone is 4-1 or 5-1 to folding to your bluff, and the pot odds fall somewhere in the middle of those numbers. In many of the discussions in your books you ask the reader/player to make decisions similar to that, decisions while technically of course are math based but are not just difficult to ascertain without "feel", but impossible.

I have always held my tongue when reading these ideas in your books but it seems silly. How in the world can you approach a situation and say "Player A is going to fold 23% of the time when I bet but not 28% of the time."

Similarly, there are innumerable pressures added to a player in an NBA game. Assuming that a "girl" or "sixty year old man" could shoot 83% in game situations when they could shoot 95% in a lab is insane. What about the previously mentioned issue of being winded, elbowed, game on the line, or how about being worried specifically about your free throw pecentage because it will be a negotiating factor if you become a free-agent. Scared money is not good money in poker, nor in basketball.

I fully appreciate the idea of trying to quantify all aspects of poker mathematically, it makes for easier dicussion and analysis and offers insight in to many tough game-time situations, but I think that the Sklansky reputation (outside of 2+2) that formulas and fractions only go so far has some truth.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you are joking but it wasn't my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

Your posting system makes it so easy to set off someone else's words (see above). In fact, it's actually easier than cutting and pasting the text. Did you want to make it confusing? It makes me think that you purposely make your books difficult to comprehend as well...

Do you see why?

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you are joking but it wasn't my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

use quotes, don't be a lazy poster

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. What is the difficulty in clicking the Quote link? You don't need to have atteneded MIT to figure it out.

[eggzz]

I think he did it because in case anyone didn't read fnurts post, he repeated it to make it look like he wrote it, and then complimented fnurt at the end.

Had he just used the big quote box, people likely would have skimmmed it.

[mtdurham]

I just wanted to state that I was 100% from the line my senior year of high school prior to the state tournament where I promptly went 2-4.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he did it because in case anyone didn't read fnurts post, he repeated it to make it look like he wrote it, and then complimented fnurt at the end.


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure this is true.
David has previously copied previous text but failed to put it in a quote-box thingee. I'm not really sure why but I suspect it's just the way he prefers to do it regardless of the fact that it can be quite confusing.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why, because in laboratory settings they'll shoot 95%, an edge that would carry over to maybe 83% in a game."

[/ QUOTE ]


Can someone ploease review for me in case I missed something from a previous thread?
Are there really that many people out there who can shoot 95%? I find this hard to believe.

[Daliman]

There are probably dozens of people worldwide that can make over 99%. To a free-throw specialist, it is even easier than kicking an extra point in Football, which many kickers go several seasons without missing. If you took the 10 best in the world right now, I'd bet you any amount of money that given 3 chances each, one of them would get 500 in a row at one point

As of 2000,(can't find it in Guinness online) the record for most consecutive freethrows is 5,221. meaning, he shoots about 99.98% /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[uaw420rook]

As a freshmen in high school, I made 36 free throws in a row in practice. I was competing against the coach. If he won we ran Michigans. If I won we were free to go. He made 35 and I made 36. I never started a high school game in my life. I went to a very small school at that. There are people in the general public who cant jump, cant run, cant defend, and cant dribble, but can shoot a free throw well. Im one.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
As a freshmen in high school, I made 36 free throws in a row in practice. I was competing against the coach. If he won we ran Michigans. If I won we were free to go. He made 35 and I made 36. I never started a high school game in my life. I went to a very small school at that. There are people in the general public who cant jump, cant run, cant defend, and cant dribble, but can shoot a free throw well. Im one.

[/ QUOTE ]

MicroBob; I give you exhibit A.

[West]

NBA players don't get to shoot all their free throws continuously. Big difference.

[David Sklansky]

"NBA players don't get to shoot all their free throws continuously. Big difference."

Everybody knows that. So what. The average pro would still be well below 95% if he shot continuously and part of the reason is that he didn't study the necessary things. And even if I was wrong about that, it still is irrelevant to my math-poker, point. It would just mean I chose a bad analogy.

[West]

I actually wasn't attempting to invalidate your analogy at all, just noting that there's a difference between hitting 35 free throws in a row all at once and interspersed over the course of a number of NBA games. Your "rank suckers" (heheh) point is well taken.

I guess a more pertinent comment would have been that it would take more than making 35 in a row to convince me you were a 95% shooter.

[Bill Murphy]

I'm shocked; SHOCKED, I say... /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jwvdcw]

I didn't read the entire thread, but as for your analogy, I think you totally underestimate just how much harder it is to shoot 2 free throws then run a lot then shoot 2 more than to just shoot a bunch in a row and get in a groove.

I played college basketball...I could easily go to a gym and get in a good rythmn and hit 50 or so free throws in a row. When we shot 500 free throws for a fund raiser my sophomore year, I hit around 475/500. However, in a game, I'm only about 80-85%.

For all of those who make fun of Shaq so much because he only hits 50% of free throws, realize that he probably(I say probably becuase I have no real proof) could hit around 70% if he just sat there and shot a bunch in a row like you all do when you go to the court.

[top2pear]

I don't think Sklansky's analogy is all that good here. In fact why even use an analogy? You could simply say that good poker players need to learn and practice (for retention) heads-up all-in situations so that when the game's on the line, you won't make the wrong decision.

changing gears:
jwvdcw, I totally disagree with your assessment of Shaq's likely success rate outside of game conditions. I assume you've actually WATCHED Shaquille at the line. But haven't you noticed that he has (arguably) the worst "technique" in the league? Someone of his height and strength shouldn't be using any leg muscles or arm muscles--he could probably flick the ball the 15 feet with just a twitch of his index finger. Minimize your motion; simplify your stroke (or spasm in his case). And that should be the advice of any decent shooting coach. Instead he palms the ball as if he's going to dunk. Bends at the knees AND waist. Flexes then extends his right arm almost completely (after releasing the ball from his left hand entirely). And hurls it at an insane speed on a straight line for the rim. He is the human coin flip when it comes to free throws. He IS a 50% free throw shooter...in the Platonic sense of the verb "IS"!

I say this because i once offered him this advice as he was signing in to visit a local radio station located in the same building as me (in Detroit). He had the same vacant stare you see him with on the bench. Perhaps i used too many multisyllabic words or didn't rhyme the ends of my sentence fragments.

[Go Pistons!]

[Desdia72]

[I don't think Sklansky's analogy is all that good here. In fact why even use an analogy? You could simply say that good poker players need to learn and practice (for retention) heads-up all-in situations so that when the game's on the line, you won't make the wrong decision.]

in other words, an explaination in "commonsense" terms instead of analogies or possible theorums.

[bones]

I think the free-throw analogy is very appropriate.

There is more to FT shooting than just stepping up to the line and making 2 shots. The preparation for that moment comes prior to the games. Just as there is more to an all-in situation than "getting a read" on someone. If the calculations have already been performed away from the table, it's much simpler to make the correct choice.

Away from the table math = practicing the mechanics of the FT.

Getting a correct read and applying the math = making the FT in front of 20,000 after running 6 miles.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
He had the same vacant stare you see him with on the bench. Perhaps i used too many multisyllabic words or didn't rhyme the ends of my sentence fragments.

[/ QUOTE ]


Or perhaps you were kinda rude or he just didn't care what you had to say on the matter or was ignoring you.

Any player/coach who regularly appears on sports-talk shows or answers questions from reporters routinely get told things by people who think they know more about it then they do.

For you it was just a one-time occurance....but it's likely Shaq has been suggested he do it this way or that way by fans just like you over and over and over and over (I really don't think fans can fully comprehend the patience that is required by some of these athletes in dealing with fans/media...although this is not to excuse those who behave inappropraitely).


anyway, Shaq knows he's a bad FT shooter. He's worked on it....maybe a lot, maybe not quite a lot....but this is as good as he's gotten (which is obviously not very good).


You have your theory.....but you're not seeing or noticing anything that all of his other coaches haven't noticed before.
Some people might tell him to stop using his legs so much....others might tell him to stay in rhythm and continue using his legs for better shooting form....or whatever.
He's heard it all.....about a thousand times over.

[top2pear]

MicroBob,

You show once again why i should just stick to what i know (which is very little) and let you smarties do all the typing.

I was trying to be funny re: my anti-Shaq rhetoric and when i look at it now, it sounds like i'm a rank amateur racist (assuming "i'm so smart Shaq must listen to me and if he don't, it's cuz i talk too good.")

Thanks for calling me out. This is the end of my public apology.

[scalafab]

The analogy with basketball it's not appropriate at all.
The main reason of poor free throw shooters it's phsycological.Do you think Shaq doesn't practice on that.?He did hire a trainer just for the free throws.It's in his head,it's in Tim Dunkan's head;they have the problem in theyr head,they think they can't make it and in opposite with poker it's not just what you think you going to do or whats the right thing ,it's also the mecanics.
In poker in the other hand you have to deal with luck even if you are perfect in readind the opponent and in calculating the odds.See all winners of WSOP and see that everyone of em at some point was all in being big underdog.

[LuckyDuckSD]

[ QUOTE ]

"The main reason of poor free throw shooters it's phsycological.Do you think Shaq doesn't practice on that.?He did hire a trainer just for the free throws.It's in his head,it's in Tim Dunkan's head;they have the problem in theyr head,they think they can't make it and in opposite with poker it's not just what you think you going to do or whats the right thing ,it's also the mecanics."


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely. Shaq has sought help with this problem and many other struggling NBA free throw shooters have too (not all of them, some might just be lazy). However, Shaq has tried to conquer this problem through training and preparation. The problem with making this comparison is that Basketball is a mainly physical game with mental aspects, and poker is a mainly mental game with physical aspects. It is because of this that Shaq is one of the all-time greats regardless of his mental capabilities or free throw shooting. Shaq practices for hours on end but when he steps up to the line he mentally freezes, thinking about pressure, exhaustion, the media's view of his poor shooting, or whatever holds him back and he shoots a far lower % than he does in training. The only way to compare this to poker is to say that someone who has trained all their life and been blessed with the greatest math/poker mind in the world had some sort of physical problem which caused them to muck their cards even after they calculated the odds perfectly, had great judgment on his opponents, and knew the correct play would be to call, but sadly his arm spasm has cost him another big pot.