Annie Duke on Up Close Tonight

[Glenn]

Up close is on after Nightline on ABC. Thought some people might be interested. I think it is great when people from the poker community get national airtime. Hopefully she'll do her job and get a few fishies to think they can play poker too.

to Daniel N: you might want to watch Letterman tonight :-).

[BruceZ]

I watched it. Here are my comments:

1. She stated that a good 300-600 player might make 600/hr. 2+2 has indicated that a world class player makes only 100/hr at that level, and 250/hr if selective.

2. She seems to emphasize the importance of tells more than 2+2.

3. She seemed to indicate that she won alot of money when she first started based on knowledge gained from a phone conversation with her brother about what hands to play in hold'em. This has got to be luck more than anything else, or luck combined with alot of natural skill, or else she had other sources of knowledge.

4. She has the basic mathematical misunderstanding that almost every knowledgable poker player has, which is that luck plays absolutely no role if you play long enough. While this is theoretically true, you can never play long enough in your lifetime for the magnitude of your results to match expectation and be completely independent of luck.

BTW, I would like to have posted this where it would get more reads, but for some reason the post button has no hyperlink, so I can only reply. What gives here? Geesh this thing is getting complicated /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[snakehead]

BTW, I would like to have posted this where it would get more reads

post it on rgp. then sklansky might read it, too.

[BruceZ]

Concerning point 4, I did a quick calculation of how close your actual results will be to your expectation 95% of the time. This is a measure of the residual luck factor. Think of this as an "uncertainty tax" if you come up short, but you could just as easily do better than expectation by this amount too. The numbers below assume you play 2000 hours a year with a standard deviation of 6 times your hourly rate. If you multiply your standard deviation by a factor, then multiply the percentages below by the same factor.

50 years: 3%
25 years: 4%
10 years: 7%
5 years: 10%
2 years: 15%

[Mason Malmuth]

There is an essay in my Gambling Theory book that says essentially the same thing. It's called Win Rate Accuracy and gives an example, assuming a $500 per hour standard deviation that it would require 250,000 hours of play to reduce your overall standard deviation to $1.

MM

[BruceZ]

The percentages I posted actually correspond to how close your results would be to expectations 90% of the time. This is the most they would be BELOW expectations 95% of the time (that tax again). For the 95% +/- percentages, the correct numbers are below. These come from computing sqrt(2000*years)*2*6/(2000*years) where 2 is the number of standard deviations and 6 is the standard deviation for 1 hour. The previous numbers replaced 2 with 1.6.

50 years: 3.8%
25 years: 5.4%
10 years: 8.5%
5 years: 12%
2 years: 19%

[crazy canuck]

I haven't seen the show, but if she wants to popularize poker (and bring a few fishies as the original poster saud), she can exactly start talking about the study time and discipline required and of course the bad beats. I mean she's gotta bend the truth a little bit and kind of make it look easy.

[Glenn]

1. With excellent game selection, I think these win rates are very possible, especially since the big games are often played shorthanded. Of course, for anyone who plays a lot, it is probably not possible since there is often going to be only one game at limits that big and it will be full of excellent players. So basically, I agree that 1BB/hr is not likely even for the best if they were forced to play every day, but if you only played when the game was good it is definitely possible. 1-2 fish in a 5 or 6 handed game can do a lot, especially for a great player. Mason wrote that the worst player will lose something like 8BB/hr in a full game. I would guess that even a mediocre player could easily lose 4BB/hr against top players shorthanded. So playing 5 handed, the four sharks will average 1BB/hr. Put another fish in the game and 1BB/hr would be trivial. Also, I think she was just giving an example and maybe we shouldn't take it so literally...

2. I noticed she said that when a player looks at you when he bets he has a good hand, but when he looks at the pot he is weak. This goes against strong means weak. When a player obviously looks at me when betting I think he is trying to discourage my call. When he looks somewhere else he is trying to seem nonthreatening. Anyhow, I agree with the general 2+2 consensus that tells are of secondary importance in limit poker.

3. Yes, I agree. Of course I think most everyone who ends up playing seriously runs good at the beginning.

4. I don't know if it is a misunderstaning or if it was a simplification for television purposes. It is hard enough to get people to understand expectation. I wouldn't bother trying to explain confidence intervals either. The point she was trying to get across was that a good player will win in the long run, which we all know is hard enough to explain.

Other comments:

I wish she would have done more to encourage new players to take a shot at poker. That sort of thing pays for health insurance for lowly players like me /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

PS-Since you bowl, I need a new bowling ball, any suggestions? My current ball is a Deep Defense Zone, but it is just about done. I like it but I want something with a harder kick at the end.

[bernie]

"she can exactly start talking about the study time and discipline required and of course the bad beats."

why would she put the tedious parts in. this may turn off many players who would see all this stuff as taking the fun out of it. generally, players want the quick, cliff note answers. which is just enough to lose slowly...haha

b

[Annie Duke]

Hey--

Thanks for all the interest in the show :-) I want to respond to some of the comments here. Simply put, that was a 2 1/2 hour interview cut down to 20 mins--so things were really simplified! I was being overly simpistic in my discussion of luck, on purpose--since I wasn't talking to mathematicians :-) And I talked endlessly in the interview about how fun poker was, about how a newbie can win, blah blah blah and they cut all that out! They also cut out all my hawking of UB and the WPT too lol!

As for tells, I think tells are almost useless in limit poker. I actually think playing online is good practice cause it teaches you to focus on the more important information: Betting Patterns. The piece there was me talking about playing No Limit. It may not have been clear because of the way the interview was cut down. In fact, my answer to her question was in limit poker tells don't matter much but in NO LIMIT..... lol!

Anyway, just wanted to clear that up. Thanks for watching everybody :-)

Annie Duke

[CreamPuff]

I caught the show last night, and want to say that
she came across great.
She brought a smile to my face more than once.

As far as poker content, she was very honest and
didn't seem to overstate the importance of tells
at all.

And as for nitpicking her comment on luck..("There is
no luck in the long run"), I could care less
if the statement isn't 100% accurate...She was
just implying that a good poker player cannot lose
in the long-run.

I've played with Annie on UltimateBet (different screen
name), and pictured her entirely different. She
is a class act.

[AceHigh]

"3. She seemed to indicate that she won alot of money when she first started based on knowledge gained from a phone conversation with her brother about what hands to play in hold'em. This has got to be luck more than anything else, or luck combined with alot of natural skill, or else she had other sources of knowledge."

Her brother is Howard Lederer(sp?), who was already one of the top (the top?) limit Hold 'em players in the country. He just won Foxwoods main event. So she could have learned a lot from him.

[Glenn]

Thanks Annie. I think you came across very well. Certainly, the show's editing was questionable. I don't know if it was just here, but on the NY channel there were no closing statements, etc..., they just cut to "write Up Close at..." I wasn't even sure it was over /forums/images/icons/smile.gif. I definitely believe that you tried to get people to play, as my limited interaction with you has given me the impression that you are a good ambassador to new players. Therefore, I will blame ABC next time I am in a tight game.

-g-

[BruceZ]

Hi Annie!

I thought the show overall was very interesting and unique, and you came across great. The purpose of my post was just to raise some possible points of contention to generate discussion.

Elroy talked about some dream he had of going to Las Vegas. It's funny because I actually DID have a dream after the show that I went there and played a few hands heads-up against you. I was winning, and out of my peripheral vision I saw you smile. I read that to mean you thought I was either lucky, bad, obviously taking the game too seriously, or had some tell /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I intended to ask you what you thought of my heads-up game, but I never got the chance before I woke up.

Do you feel that 1bb/hr is an obtainable goal at 300-600 on a regular basis, or only under occassional circumstances (shorthanded, big fish, etc.)?

Do you feel that online poker is a viable alternative to casino poker for a working pro on a regular basis? How do you feel the competition compares?

Anyway, I'm glad to see you are part of these forums, and hope to see more posts from you in the future.

-Bruce

[bernie]

"As for tells, I think tells are almost useless in limit poker."

i dont agree with this. maybe i have a much wider range to the definition of tells. to me, even a betting pattern is actually a tell, isnt it? there are many other subtleties that you can catch on to that can save/make you extra chips.

the better the player, the more they are deadened emotionally to a hand as it's happening, but new players, or even casual players, can give off alot of info. even in conversations about other topics other than cards when theyre not involved in a hand...

now maybe at your limit, where the competition is much more seasoned, but 10-20 and lower players jsut arent that hardened to the game in general.

N/L, i agree you can make much more based on tells, since the structure is set that way, and it's a much more of a feel game. but i wouldnt discount the advantage gained in limit games, if you get a bead on a guys' play/mannerisms, so quick. it can be a nice enhancement to a solid game.

b

[Mason Malmuth]

While there were a few things in the interview I didn't quite agree with, I thought that overall it came off quite well. David and I talked about it later and figured that it is probably worth an additional 1,000 books sold this month.

MM

[BruceZ]

PS-Since you bowl, I need a new bowling ball, any suggestions? My current ball is a Deep Defense Zone, but it is just about done. I like it but I want something with a harder kick at the end.

Choice of bowling ball is an extremely complex function of several variables. For me to suggest one without seeing you bowl would be like a doctor recommending brain surgery online. OK maybe not quite that bad. Anyway, I can try to provide information to help you make an informed decision.

First, find a good pro at a PBA certified pro shop. You can find one in your area at www.pba.com (http://www.pba.com) Chances are you can find one run by a touring pro or former touring pro. Have him watch how you bowl, and bring him your old ball. He can tell things from how the ball track is worn.

Matching a ball to a bowler depends on 1) ball speed, 2) rpms bowler generates, 3) axis rotation (direction the ball spins) 4)axis tilt (amount you top over) 5) the conditions you want to bowl on (oily or dry),and 6) the ball reaction you desire (down and in with sharp hook or early gradual hook).

There are a couple excellent websites which explain all this. One is www.ebonite.com (http://www.ebonite.com) and the other is www.columbia300.com (http://www.columbia300.com) The first of these has a ball selector program where you input the above parameters, but chances are you do not know them accurately. There is an article that tells you how to measure these parameters, but it requires a video camera. If you are lucky enough to live in Florida, you can go to the one place where they have a computerized CAT system. Otherwise, a knowledgable pro can make a recommendation based on observation. He may not use the video camera technique.

Balls differ in 2 primary dimensions, how long they go before they start to roll and hook, and how sharply they hook. The most important factor is the coverstock, especially when it comes to length. You've probably noticed that some balls have dull finishes while others are polished. That's not just decoration. Duller or sanded balls produce greater friction in oil for an earlier hook. Some have particles in the coverstock (TPS). Shiny balls skid longer before hooking, and some are "pearlized", the swirls you see. These act a little like ice cubes, allowing the ball to get through dryer heads without hooking prematurely. You probably want a reactive resin or tps particle ball. Standard urethane balls will hook less and are used for dryer backends. How much the ball ultimately hooks is determined partly by the core design. If you want a sharper backend reaction, chances are you want a ball with a high flare. Flare allows the axis of rotation to change so that the ball presents a fresh surface to the lane on each rotation.

Having one ball is a little like playing golf with one club. As your average improves, or if you play at more than one house, or at the same house under different conditions, you may want at least a couple balls, one that hooks more for oily lanes, and one that hooks less for dryer lanes. If you have trouble throwing your strike ball straight for spares (say at the 10 pin) you may want to purchase a hard shell plastic spare ball.

Who makes the Defense Zone, Brunswick? I couldn't find it online. I have a couple balls that are relatively inexpensive, but they are intended to be an excellent value, that is they do alot for the money. One is the Tornado by Ebonite. It is a particle ball with a high flare and nice sharp backend reaction. After all is said and done, this may be all you need unless you play on very heavy oil. The other day I tried out a pearlized Ebonite Savage. I found it to break slightly more sharply than my Tornado, which is what it is intended to do, but it also goes longer. If you play on dryer conditions, there is a non-particle version and a pealized version of the Tornado as well that goes long and still has high flare. My dry lane ball is a pearlized Ebonite Gyro Pro. Apparently the Tornado is meant to replace the Gyro, but the Gyro is still offered. You can get these for around a hundred bucks with drilling.

[Ed Miller]

LOL at this post... Who knew that there would be as much jargon, subtlety, and nitpicking in bowling as there is in poker. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[BruceZ]

Actually that was just a cursory overview. I referenced other pages for details. I didn't even touch on radius of gyration, differentials, drilling techniques, weight blocks, polishing and finessing, etc. And don't even get me started on shoes /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Glenn]

Thanks. For clarification, my current ball is a Brunswick Deep Danger Zone not Defense Zone. I think there is Defense Zone that I have tried, hence the typo. Anyhow thanks for the info.

[M2d]

"Having one ball is a little like playing golf with one club."

I'm convinced that I'd cut at least 5 strokes off of my rounds if I tossed out twelve clubs and played with only my seven iron and my putter.

[Annie Duke]

Lol on the dream hehe. Come play me on my table at UB and I'll be happy to tell you what I think of your heads-up game--of course it will have to be Omaha 8-or-better /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

Anyway, to answer your questions: I think that a BB an hour is obtainable at the 300-600 level if you are very game selective. You would be surprised how incredibly juicy these games can be. At the very highest limits, the $1500/3000 for example at the Bellagio I think that number would be unobtainable.

As for internet poker, I think that it is definitely a viable alternative for a working pro. In fact, I know of two higher limit pros who now play almost exclusively online. Because it is limit poker you don't lose that much information by not *being* there. Betting patterns are so informative in limit and, frankly, by the last round of any limit hand there is already so much money in the pot that if you have any doubts you should probably go ahead and call anyway.

You can make so much more at the same limit online because of how fast the hands get out--sometimes twice as many hands per hour. That really increases your earn. Plus the players are generally much worse than IRL--that is just IMHO of course /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I have always lurked on two plus two. I might just have to show my face a lot more ow that I see how nice ya'all are /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Annie Duke

[Bob T.]

That's two clubs.

[BruceZ]

Omaha-8! Do I look like a tourist? /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

Do you play mostly omaha-8? This would seem to explain the juiciness of the games you describe. Or would your estimate apply to holdem as well? Also, is this game the basis for your assessment of online players?

[eLROY]

Maybe 20 minutes after I posted, I remembered how my dream ended.

The more I thought about it, I realized the dream bore a strange resemblance to my lifestyle when I was 16, and I used to just kick around different high schools, and see who wanted to hang out.

So anyway, we were working our way through a sort of student-lounge type place, that was kind of like an airport waiting gate, and kind of like an indoor overpass between Binion's and the Bellagio. Some uppity young female poker player was picking on me because I was, like, the new kid - a tourist - so I agreed to play her heads up.

I was all worried that I didn't have the stake to play as big as I would be expected to, and of course I was worried that she would clean my clock since I'm rusty. That's part of why I was all worried about, like, keeping track of my big bills in my different pockets in my sleep.

I somehow ended up setting up at like a military-issue card table, on a metal folding chair, on the stage in a sort of high-school auditorium. All the other poker players were kind of gathering to watch, and I tried to find out, you know, how big are we playing?

It was a $1,000 freeze-out. I thought darn, I can swing that, and asked don't you want to play a little bigger? Somehow, in the course of it, I offended and disgusted the girl so much with my attitide, that she just walked away and forfeited her $1,000 which she had already posted on her side of the table - like just to prove $1,000 was nothing to her.

So that's how in my dream - thanks to my charming personality - I won $1,000 heads-up off a Las Vegas pro, without even having to make a single bet.

And right then I woke up wishing I were there, and you were there, and a big house fell on the witch!

eLROY