Aloysius
10-06-2005, 05:58 PM
Negreanu CardPlayer Article - Heads up With Ted Forrest $20K Buy-In (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=15005)
Howard Lederer was doing the commentary for the show and I spoke to him afterward. Howard defended Ted’s play by rationalizing, “Ted made a good check there. There was a fifty-fifty chance that he was walking into four sixes. Also, if you didn’t have the ace or the 6, you couldn’t call anyway. If you have the 6 and he bets, he might eliminate himself from the tournament.”
What Howard neglected to factor in with his commentary was the conditional probability of the situation. When doing “poker math,” it’s important to not only look at the static probability of your opponent having a certain hand, but to also factor in the likelihood that your opponent could hold the hand you are worried about.
First, I find it hard to believe someone, especially a poker pro who clearly understands probability, would say that it was 50/50. Second, what poker player doesn't take into consideration "conditional probability", as Negreneau calls it, when making critical decisions?
I don't read alot of his writings, but DN seems to have a clear agenda in sort of discrediting mathematicians (like a Sklanksy for example) vs. "feel" players.
My read: DN failed highschool trig.
Howard Lederer was doing the commentary for the show and I spoke to him afterward. Howard defended Ted’s play by rationalizing, “Ted made a good check there. There was a fifty-fifty chance that he was walking into four sixes. Also, if you didn’t have the ace or the 6, you couldn’t call anyway. If you have the 6 and he bets, he might eliminate himself from the tournament.”
What Howard neglected to factor in with his commentary was the conditional probability of the situation. When doing “poker math,” it’s important to not only look at the static probability of your opponent having a certain hand, but to also factor in the likelihood that your opponent could hold the hand you are worried about.
First, I find it hard to believe someone, especially a poker pro who clearly understands probability, would say that it was 50/50. Second, what poker player doesn't take into consideration "conditional probability", as Negreneau calls it, when making critical decisions?
I don't read alot of his writings, but DN seems to have a clear agenda in sort of discrediting mathematicians (like a Sklanksy for example) vs. "feel" players.
My read: DN failed highschool trig.