Gus plays close to mathematically optimal??

[mccreadj]

Daniel Negreneau did a profile on Gus Hansen on his website, and said the following: "His approach to the game is closer to mathematically optimal than the approach of say, a David Sklansky type."

I posted a response asking him to expand on this. In the meantime, any of you have any ideas as to possible reasons this statement is true?

[elmitchbo]

seems hard to believe. although i did see a post recently claiming loose aggressive players make more money than tighties. i couldn't find the article, could you post a link?

[mccreadj]

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/viewtopic.php?t=4571

[BarronVangorToth]

I don't agree with the bashing of David, HOWEVER, I will say that Gus Hansen does play about as optimally as one can in the tournament situation, as proven by his phenomenal results. Daniel N. has a likewise style, in my book, and I hear he's done pretty well for himself (especially in the upcoming WPT season).

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[elmitchbo]

never mind the link... i found it. actually here it is for anyone else interested
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/viewtopic.php?t=4571

very interesting analysis by daniel. i'd like to hear what some other people think. i'm always fascinated by gus' play.

[Wally Weeks]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the bashing of David, HOWEVER, I will say that Gus Hansen does play about as optimally as one can in the tournament situation, as proven by his phenomenal results. Daniel N. has a likewise style, in my book, and I hear he's done pretty well for himself (especially in the upcoming WPT season).

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seems that Negreanu believes that Gus Hansen's super aggressive strategy is more in tune with tournament play. If you read Negreanu's profile of Hansen you'll see that Negreanu rates him lower in cash and ring games than he does for tournaments.

[ QUOTE ]

Weaknesses: He can be too reckless at times. It's a fine line between genius play and just plan maniacal play and Gus often flirts with that line on a regular basis. Also his approach isn't as perfectly suited for cash game play as it is for tournament play.

Cash Games: 6.5
Tournaments: 8.5
Emotional Stability: 6
Heart: 8
Short Handed: 8.5
Ring Game: 6
No Limit Hold'em: 9


[/ QUOTE ]

It should be (somewhat) obvious that aggressive play is more optimal in tournament and no limit play. Being really aggressive puts tougher decisions on your opponents. Clearly in limit your aggression is, well, limited. While being aggressive in limit play is important, being super, ultra aggressive is not optimal since opponents can simply "call you down."

Besides, much of Sklansky and Malmuth's work is more easily directly applicable to limit since limit games are more plentiful in general. Also, I'm betting that Hansen shifts gears in aggression depending on the structure of the game (e.g., limit vs. no limit, etc.).

Wally

[elmitchbo]

i read the profile,and i agree that gus is capapble of shifting gears when needed. what i'm really wondering about is where daniel gets 'mathmatically optimal' from. i'd like to see some figures to back that up. come on... that's a bold f'ing statement. i don't really know much more gus than i see on TV, but i'd like to learn more.

i'm also becoming more curious about the backgammon connection to hold'em. daniel said in the same profile that gus is probably the best backgammon player in the world. i've seen some other guys on TV lately that are world class backgammon players that moved to poker(i assume because of the huge increase in prize payouts) and had immediate succes. i don't know the first thing about backgammon, but maybe i should learn.

[gergery]

I'd guess Daniel means the totality of one's play.

Gus' style makes people bluff against him less, pay his good hands off more, make incorrect folds more, etc. So on any one given hand, Sklanksy probably can make a more correct decision. But taking into account the meta-game considerations, Gus' play probably induces more incorrect play on the part of opponents over a series of hands, and as a result, translates into a higher aggregate EV. At least in NL tournaments, where aggression is most highly valued.

Sklansky type likely refers more to the tight, ABC style, which S has a reputation for.

Daniel's style is also more similar to Gus (love seeing pots, thrive on implied odds, very good readers, strong understandig of the math aspects). And everyone tends to think others like them are cool /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

--G

[imported_Robert Andersson]

Very nice article about Gustav.

Daniel plays cash games at Doyles place with Gus Hansen,Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein,Chip Reese and and ..... many days per week with a min buyin of 500.000$, i guess we have to give him him credit for his analyses. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think the main thing about his (G.H) game is the agression factor, and how to defend against against it.

/Robert

[mcflog]

“I am definitely more aggressive than most players, but I also have a different philosophy about my game. My outlook is a little more from a mathematical perspective. Other players rely too much on their instincts and reading abilities. Sometimes they allow that to overshadow the mathematical truth. Usually, I let the math do its thing. Sometimes, people put too much into their reads, and ante off all of their chips and then suddenly have no chips at all.
Gus Hansen- feb 11th isue of Cardplayer


optimal or not I think he is mathmaticay superior to most players.

[TimmyMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
i read the profile,and i agree that gus is capapble of shifting gears when needed. what i'm really wondering about is where daniel gets 'mathmatically optimal' from. i'd like to see some figures to back that up. come on... that's a bold f'ing statement. i don't really know much more gus than i see on TV, but i'd like to learn more.

i'm also becoming more curious about the backgammon connection to hold'em. daniel said in the same profile that gus is probably the best backgammon player in the world. i've seen some other guys on TV lately that are world class backgammon players that moved to poker(i assume because of the huge increase in prize payouts) and had immediate succes. i don't know the first thing about backgammon, but maybe i should learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very fun game. Thoroughly strategic as well as mathematical. I've just begun learnign this game as well.

CHeers,
Tyler

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
daniel said in the same profile that gus is probably the best backgammon player in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
He isn't, according to backgammon players. (He was voted #23 (http://www.flintbg.com/giants.html) in 2003.) He is an expert player and was once viewed as one of the top backgammon players in the world, but his error rates have not been comparable with the top players in the world recently. As a group, top backgammon players are much stronger now than they were a few years ago.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't know the first thing about backgammon, but maybe i should learn.

[/ QUOTE ]


There are a wealth of games -- everything from Chess to Go to Backgammon to Puerto Rico to a variety of CCG's -- that can help you "think" which will help you in not only poker, but in life. Odds calculations on the fly are necessary in Backgammon which is a skill that will likewise benefit you in poker. Not to mention, there are a ton of quality games that offer strategic and tactical applications which can be translated well. Check 'em out.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)