Negreanu says....

[Vincent Lepore]

Daniel in his latest Card Player article politely disagrees with Howard Lederers assesment of the way Ted Forest played a hand against Daniel. It seems that the latter two were involved in a hand in which another player was all in. It was the final table of a tournament. Daniel held A,Q and Forest held A,A. The board on the river was A,6,8,6,6. Daniel checked the river after betting the turn. Ted checked behind him. Howard claimed that Ted didn't bet because he thought that it was 50/50 that Daniel had the case 6 or case A. Daniel did not like this assessment. He referred to Howard as a "math type" ---ooh---yuck! He said that Howard like that Sklansky fellow and other "math types" oooh--yuck--take math much too seriously when it comes to poker.

Daniel chided "math types"....oooh--yuck--- especially Howard for using "static probability" when making a decision instead of using Daniel's tried and proven use of "conditional probability" as a decision making tool. We, the in between's, the guys that use math only as a tool to tie our shoe laces with must listen to the boy wonder. Daniel after all is a poker genius and Lederer, Sklansky and other math types--oooh ---yuck-- may be geniuseseses but only in math. pffff! So since I thought Daniel was very perceptive and cute to say the least I pose this question to you "math types" oooh-- yuck-- Do you feel enlightened?

How about you David, you self procalimed king of "static" probability? Are you going to let that little Agassi look alike talk to you like that? I'll tell you how I feel. I know not what probability others may use but as for me give me "conditional probablity" or give me death!

Vince

[SNOWBALL138]

Yeah, howard is wrong here, at least the way he stated it. Of course, probabilistically, there are as many 1 card ace combos out as there are one card six combos, but thats a very poor way to read hands unless you are sure that daniel is just as likely to play the ace or the six.

I don't know the whole hand, but in most spots, most players tend to play non pair hands with an ace more often than non pair hands with a six.

[SNOWBALL138]

Hi Vincent,

I just read Daniel article. I think its excellent.

[reddred]

Probability or no probability, I'm pushin with aces full.....if he's got the 6, then I'll say, "NH".

[Tom1975]

DN likes to play a lot of junk hands, so you could argue he would be as likely to hold a six as an ace.

[LetYouDown]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel was very perceptive and cute to say the least

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Beavis68]

conditional probability is crucial.

[jkkkk]

Check behind on that river?

Christ no.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Vince:

First off I haven't read the article. But I have certainly heard this type of stuff from Daniel and others like him many times before and they don't know what they are talking about.

When it comes to poker, both David and myself would be classified as Bayesian statisticians as opposed to classical statisticians. That simply means (as far as poker is concerned) that we work with basic probabilities and then adjust them based on other information that we may have. In most poker hands that other information is simply how the hand was played and what we know about our opponent. It can also include other factors such as exactly where we are in a tournament, stack size, payout structures, emotional stability of our opponent, and so on. I'm sure that this is Howard's approach as well (and Daniel's for that matter even though he doesn't really understand that it is).

Best wishes,
Mason

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
DN likes to play a lot of junk hands, so you could argue he would be as likely to hold a six as an ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the 6's came on the turn and river this is obviously not true.

[BruceZ]

Mason,

Here is a link (http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=15005&m_id=65573) to the article in question. Nowhere does it even mention David Sklansky or you. None of the statements in this article, alone or together, imply the statement that “math types take math much too seriously when it comes to poker”. This is just another case of Vince's floccinaucinihilipilification of all things mathematical.

-Bruce

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason,

" None of the statements in this article, alone or together, imply the statement that “math types take math much too seriously when it comes to poker”. This is just another case of Vince's floccinaucinihilipilification of all things mathematical."
-
-
-

From Daniel's article:

"I often make wisecracks about "math guys" and their approach to poker......if you focus only on the numbers........you'll come up with the wrong answer far too often."

Lloyd please get your facts straight before you floccinaucinihilipilification me. Beides does the thought that "humor escapes you" mean anything.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read Daniel article. I think its excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Do you truly believe that Howard Lederrer or other "math types" do not know how to do hand analysis? Isn't that what Daniel is saying by mentioning Howard and "other math types" when describing what he considers "Ted Forests" wrong play of this hand?? Why did Daniel find it necessary to use Howard Lederrer as a scapegoat in his "excellant" article?

Give me a break.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

Daniel a self proclaimed "people" poker player gave us his learned opinion of the difference between what he refers to as "static vs condiditonal" probability.

I thought that was either perceptive or cute. I'm sure other descriptions fit also. Like ...presumptious maybe.

Vince

there was an all-in raise, Ted Forrest called, and Daniel called too, and this sidepot ensued. This is very relevant, as it makes Daniel much less likely to be holding a hand that has a 6 in it.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
it makes Daniel much less likely to be holding a hand that has a 6 in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

Vince

having a player all-in in front of him and a call makes it less likely that Daniel will play a hand like 6-7 suited, doesn't it?

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
having a player all-in in front of him and a call makes it less likely that Daniel will play a hand like 6-7 suited, doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The all-in player was the short stack. Ted Forest called. Daniel was the chip leader in the small blind. Forest still had plenty of chips left. (I am reading this into Daniels comment that the stacks were pretty close together but Diagostino was short stacked). Negreanu in this situation might call with a wide range of hands that very well could include a 6. The prospect of knocking out a player or maybe two I'm sure influenced his decision.

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bruce:

I just looked at the Negreanuarticle. He says the following.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously he doesn't understand exactly what is meant by conditional probability, but he's clearly making an argument for a Bayesian approach even though he doesn't realize it.

He also states this:

[ QUOTE ]
I often make wisecracks about “math guys” and their approach to poker. Now, I fully understand how important math is at the poker table, but if you focus only on the numbers without factoring in your opponent’s mood and playing style, you’ll come up with the wrong answer far too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again he confuses a few people who do some arithmetic type calculations with those who, like himself, are very good at statistical logic. If he ever becomes more familiar with some of our books, and I'm including my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics as well as David's Getting The Best of It where some Bayesian statistics is talked about, it would probably slow down some of these comments that Negreanu frequently makes.

And finally Negreanu states:

[ QUOTE ]
Conditional probability is what you should focus on if you want to reach the highest levels in poker. Static probability can get you only so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's just me but I do find it irritating when he uses the "conditional probability" incorrectly. Again to be specific he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
“Does this guy have it or not? Does this guy have the guts to bluff me here?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's talking Bayesian. That has nothing to do with conditional probability.

Best wishes,
Mason

"Sure, it’s true that I’ll often play suited connectors in big pots because of the implied odds they offer, but in this situation, there was an all-in player and a dry side pot. Even if I hit a 6-5 of clubs, for example, I couldn’t get paid off, since Ted would know that it would be silly for me to bluff in this situation."

- from the article

[SNOWBALL138]

Hi Mason,

You should read Daniel's article. You won't learn anything new, but you will realize that your comments don't apply here. Vincent is wrong. Daniel's article is excellent.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel's article is excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel's article is designed to show how much better at Poker decsions Daniel is than the so called "math type's" like Howard Lederrer. He's challenged the epitome of "math types", David Sklansky, to a poker dual on many occaisons to prove his superiority. This article is just another example of his disdain for math guys. He's wrong, he uses the term conditional probability (wrongly as Mason points out) as if the "math types" don't understand what is involved in hand analysis. Howard Lederer probably, just an assumption on my part, is much better at determining the EV of a situation than Daniel will ever be. Daniel, whom I like and believe is good for poker, does have a big ego. But that's ok, he's had a lot of tournament success to fuel it. But the article, though cute in some ways, in my opinion is of no value to a poker player, novice or pro. I started this thread because I thought Daniel was serious and I thought that was humorous. I appreciate Mason's response but I really wanted to get on Sklansky but he wouldn't bite. Damn it!

Vince

[SNOWBALL138]

Hi Vincent,

Why don't you do us the courtesy of telling us whats wrong with the content of Daniel's article? Imputing hostile motives to the author does nothing to further this thread.

BTW, for those of you that don't know, at least 1/4 of Vincent's posts are dedicated towards giving Daniel a bad name.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if I hit a 6-5 of clubs, for example, I couldn’t get paid off, since Ted would know that it would be silly for me to bluff in this situation."

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K here goes some more controversy. Daniel wrote this after the fact. Self serving? But if getting paid off were his primary consideration then why would Daniel expect to get paid off if he hit his A,Q? Did he think that Ted Forest wouldn't notice there was an A or Q on the board? Of course you can use the arguement that A,Q might be the best hand at show down but that is about it. But even with all of that it'ss not the point of this post. The point of the post was ...well who cares, forget it.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, for those of you that don't know, at least 1/4 of Vincent's posts are dedicated towards giving Daniel a bad name.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those of you that don't know "Snowball138 is a BALD FACED LIAR! Ask him to show you one post that I have made about Daniel beside's this one. Go ahead liar! I want you, that read this, to see that guys like this are the ones that start the bull flowing by writing lies and not sticking to the issue at hand. He had his feelings hurt because I pointed out flaws in his thinking about Daniels article so he decided to attack me with bodacious lies. Typical small minded approach.

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

I've read Negreanu's article. I agree with what he says about poker. I disagree with his comments about math and how a mathematical type approaches poker.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

I have already explained the problem with Negreanu's article. Why don't you read what I stated instead of just blindly defending him.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Vince:

Will you calm down.

Give Snowball a chance to answer the issue.

Best wishes,
Mason

[SNOWBALL138]

Hi Vincent,

I might have confused you with smoothcall. I thought I remembered you going out of your way on the WPT forum to say rude things about Daniel. If thats not the case, then I apologize.

[SNOWBALL138]

Hi Mason,

I just read this (http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol6/conditional.html) webpage about conditional probability, so now I understand Daniel's mistake.

I still think Daniel's article is good overall, and that Howard and Ted are incorrect here. Probably, Ted felt that Daniel was trying to induce a big bet by making the comment that he did, and so felt that the six might be in Daniel's hand.

If the stuff about pot odds and the misuse of the term conditional probability weren't used, the article would be much better. As it stands though, I think that many players will benefit from it. So, yeah, like you said Mason, the math stuff was bad but the poker stuff was good.

[Vincent Lepore]

Apology accepted.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

Ted Forest by all accounts is one of the best poker players (tournament also) in the world. Howard Lederrer has been similiarly lauded. I have not played much with Daniel but Forest and Lederrer have and know what Daniel is capable of, which I assume is calling raises with weak holdings. Holdings I bet that might include a six. Plus I bet they know that Daniel is capable of checking the nuts on the river. What Daniel is saying here is hey look how bad these two guys are Ted checked when he should have bet. Don't play like him. Bull, Forest checked because when he weighed the tournament situation he decided to err on the side of caution. Not a bad thing in tournaments with structured payouts. If Daniel's point was that even the pro's make mistakes then that I might buy his arguement but he ends the article with an attack on "math guys". He's wrong, totally. A logical approach to poker with prime consideration given to the math of the situation is the only, the only, way to truly understand the game. When Daniel claims that one must use people skills he is just telling you that you must apply a factor to the way your opponent plays. He might think that he is using intuition I don't know but all he is really doing is adjusting his calculations accordingly. He's using math, plain and simple. Do not discard the power of math when learning to play poker.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with his comments about math and how a mathematical type approaches poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Personally? I think David should beat him up!

Vince

[TaintedRogue]

"I often make wisecracks about “math guys” and their approach to poker. Now, I fully understand how important math is at the poker table, but if you focus only on the numbers without factoring in your opponent’s mood and playing style, you’ll come up with the wrong answer far too often."

Why did you take out the time to delete the bold part of Daniel's quote?

What is missing is the verbage on the river play:

"Ted started contemplating, and it reminded me of a situation he played against Antonio Esfandiari in the heads-up tournament on NBC. In that hand, both Ted and Antonio had a 6-high straight with a board of 2-3-4-5-K. Ted bet, Antonio raised, and Ted reraised Antonio all in, getting Antonio to fold his straight.

As Ted started reaching for chips, I said aloud, “You’re not seriously thinking about going all in here, are you? I saw you bluff Antonio off the same hand on TV.”

The comment seemed to puzzle Ted, and he decided to check. I turned up my hand, fully expecting to rake in at least half the pot, when Ted turned over … pocket aces!"

Now, if you're Forrest with the 2nd nut hand, and you're up against Daniel, who throws in a begging DON'T BET, when you reach for your chips..........are you going to take that as "I really mean it, please don't bet" or something else?

I think Ted's decision has nothing to do with "math." It has to do with the fact that Daniel can confuse Ted and lead him to make the wrong decision at times.

Vince Lepore is a joke. He comes on these forums to stirr arguments/conflicts. Vince when do you even find time to play poker when all you do is talk bad about Daniel Negreanu? You're absolutely sad, dope.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you take out the time to delete the bold part of Daniel's quote?


[/ QUOTE ]

They add nor detract from the point I made. In fact the bolded part of his statement is no more than patronizing.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I fully understand how important math is at the poker table

[/ QUOTE ]

From you: [ QUOTE ]
I think Ted's decision has nothing to do with "math." It has to do with the fact that Daniel can confuse Ted and lead him to make the wrong decision at times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why Ted made the play he did. I've never heard his side of the story. It has nothing at all to do with Daniels reason for writing this hand up in Card Player. I don't know for sure what his reason was. I never asked him. My conjecture is pure speculation. I found it egotistical, self serving and a bit funny for Daniel to point out what he viewed as an error by both Ted Forest and Howard Lederrer and then go on to say it was because these math types don't know how to think correctly about a poker situation. But he does. And his answer is don't use "static" probability use "conditional" probability. Wow.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

A Thread started by Duck Hunter:

How to keep track of Pot size?

[ QUOTE ]
Me and my friends play .25/.50 No-Limit regularly

[/ QUOTE ]

PM's from Duck Hunter to me:

[ QUOTE ]
My name is Daniel Negreanu. Come play with me, don't be shy. You're very good at poker I was told. Maybe a $500,000 match is in order. Don't smoke dope vinny boy.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Vincent, you want heads-up action yes? $100-$200 any game, any time. You think you still good boy?


[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about a dope, not to mention a coward who lies about who he is. sheesh...

Vince

?

[sholden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if I hit a 6-5 of clubs, for example, I couldn’t get paid off, since Ted would know that it would be silly for me to bluff in this situation."

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K here goes some more controversy. Daniel wrote this after the fact. Self serving? But if getting paid off were his primary consideration then why would Daniel expect to get paid off if he hit his A,Q? Did he think that Ted Forest wouldn't notice there was an A or Q on the board? Of course you can use the arguement that A,Q might be the best hand at show down but that is about it. But even with all of that it'ss not the point of this post. The point of the post was ...well who cares, forget it.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 65s is unlikely to be the best hand at the showdown, hence in order for it to be playable you need to have a good chance of winning a large pot when it hits the straight or flush. Since there's an all-in player this is unlikely, the other player is likely to fold when you bet since they are trying to check it down and maximise the chance of eliminating the all-in player. If you are only going to win a pot 3x the size of your call then the hand is not worth playing.

AQ on the other stands a good chance of being the best hand at show down. Hence you don't need a good chance of winning a large pot in order to play it, winning a pot 3x the size of your call is enough to make it worth playing.

But clearly you know this, but for reasons I don't understand choose to pretend otherwise.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
AQ on the other stands a good chance of being the best hand at show down. Hence you don't need a good chance of winning a large pot in order to play it, winning a pot 3x the size of your call is enough to make it worth playing.

But clearly you know this, but for reasons I don't understand choose to pretend otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I know this. The point of the post was not to argue the play of those involved in the hand. Again I posted this because I believed that Daniel wrote this article in short to show people how smart he believe's he is. i posted it in the Probability Forum because he is trying to show his genius through the use of the terms "static" probability and "conditional" probability. The former he ascribes to "math types" (Howard Lederrer) that play poker and the latter to players of his ilk (Jennifer Harmon, etc..) I found this humorous and thought that some here might also. Apparently tht is not the case. Most here like "dickhunter" would rather argue....whatever.

Vince


Vince

[Daniel Negreanu]

This thread is really, really, silly. There is absolutely no question that Ted's check was the wrong play. Ted knows that full well and admitted it immediately after he did it.

The reason Howard was singled out, was that even after his commentary and the fact that I pointed out his mistake he still defended his position. That shocked me to no end.

It got me to thinking about how Howard could come to such a conclusion? The first thing that struck me was simply that he wasn't fully understanding the situation and was doing his "math" wrong.

It was a large all in raise by D"Agostino, and no, there was no way I could have one six in my hand. No way, no chance at all.

As for the term "conditional probability" can we be a little more anal? I mean seriously, I think the readers had the right idea as to what I was trying to convey. I'd never heard the term conditional probability before and I sure hadn't heard of Bayegosianish math!

You can nitpick the article all you want looking for terms that are used "improperly", but the fact remains that Howard came to the wrong conclusion because he wasn't taking into account the situation properly. Why? Because the simple fact that I wouldn't call with a six in my hand never crossed his mind. That's faulty thinking.

Ted realized he blew it right away. He just made a boo boo. Howard, on the other hand still defends the play and that's why he was singled out.

Finally, I realize that math guys, especially the good ones, take all things into consideration. However, if there is one area where they might have a weakness, it's generally in factoring in how an opponent approaches poker, or how they think.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is really, really, silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But you found it necessary to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
There is absolutely no question that Ted's check was the wrong play

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the reason for this post. Didn't mention the right or wrong of Ted's play.


[ QUOTE ]
The reason Howard was singled out, was that even after his commentary and the fact that I pointed out his mistake he still defended his position. That shocked me to no end.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you felt it necessary to show up Howard Lederrer in CardPlayer magazine. I guess your purpose was to show everyone just how stupid Howard really must be. You were "shocked" to think that Howard Lederrer could defend his obviously way out there position so adamantly in the wake of your obviously (to you) correct assumptions. Anyone that has seen you on TV has heard you say that playing 6,4 is the way to go. You said that those authors that tell you not to play them are just way off. And you were going to show them when you wrote your book. Or am i making that up? Maybe Howard heard that broadcast. I believe it was after your Bellagio win. Again not the pont. The point of this "silly' post was to point out just how disengenuous it is to Howard and Ted to use them as some kind of "math type" scapegoat based on one somehwat arguable situation. Yes maybe it was just a "silly' post. I wanted to see if it would get any reaction from "math" guys like the wiz - David Sklansky.

Some people take themselves to seriously. I like to stir the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
You can nitpick the article all you want looking for terms that are used "improperly", but the fact remains that Howard came to the wrong conclusion because he wasn't taking into account the situation properly. Why? Because the simple fact that I wouldn't call with a six in my hand never crossed his mind. That's faulty thinking.

Ted realized he blew it right away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it interesting that in the heat of the battle two of the best poker players in the world came to the same conclusion and played the hand, according to you, incorrectly? Maybe, just maybe, their might be some right thinking going on with those two. Especially since you are basing your "he blew it" on the assumption that they "Must" conclude that Daniel Negreanu, the self proclaimed, "any two cards will do" guru was playing the hand. Or maybe you think that they thought that it was out of the querstion that you would check the nuts on the river.

Come on Dan, you didn't have to mention Howard Lederrer specifically or even Ted Forest to get accross the point that a good player takes a lot of elements in to consideration before making a poker play. Come on admit it your ego got pumped when you thought you had bested Howard. I mean after all "you were shocked" that he doesnt' get it!

Silly thread or not. The truth is the truth. And conditional probability is well...probability.

Daniel if this thread caused you any distress, I apologize. I did not intend that.

I believe you are a fine spokesman for Poker and have done a lot to fuel the ongong poker explosion. Keep up the good work.

Vince

The idea that there is literally a 0% chance of a world-class no-limit HE player like Daniel holding a single six is absurd. In this situation (shorthanded, against other world-class players) there is great value in deception.

If the other players are able to eliminate certain possibilities completely, Daniel would be giving up a significant edge. Forrest knows this.

The probability of Daniel playing 7-6 or 6-5 or 8-6 or even A-6 is non-zero. I think it is quite low, maybe 10%, but it is definitely non-zero.

Perhaps, by telling the world that he would "never" call pre-flop with a single six under those circumstances, Daniel is hoping the other top players will believe him. That might allow him to make this kind of play in the future with complete deception.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that there is literally a 0% chance of a world-class no-limit HE player like Daniel holding a single six is absurd. In this situation (shorthanded, against other world-class players) there is great value in deception.

...

The probability of Daniel playing 7-6 or 6-5 or 8-6 or even A-6 is non-zero. I think it is quite low, maybe 10%, but it is definitely non-zero.


[/ QUOTE ]

To me, it seems a bit silly to think that Daniel would call a large all in raise with a suited connector. You are saying that it is more probable because of it's deception. When calling a large all in bet, you are pretty much throwing up the flag of "I'm trying to eliminate him too", not "I can't wait for this side pot, sure I may triple up a "World Class" player in the process, but playing against Ted's unknown hand is much more important."

Considering the structure, players, and situation, it is incredibly less that 10% for Daniel to call with any 6 there. I would say that it is indeed zero.

Fact of the matter is that Ted REALLY dropped the ball on this hand, and like mentioned before, he understood that as soon as he checked.

As far as Daniel's poking at Howard, the fact that he defended Ted's play, knowing that Ted admitted fault INSTANTLY, makes it an obvious blunder in Howard's explanation. How can you defend somebody else's action when even they disagree with they did?!

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DN likes to play a lot of junk hands, so you could argue he would be as likely to hold a six as an ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the 6's came on the turn and river this is obviously not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

how does the run of cards on one hand have any relevance to what cards a player is likely to play, _generally_?

[Smoothcall]

Daniel Negreanu is a world class nl player? Where do you guys get this stuff?

[Smoothcall]

How do you know Ted actually disgrees with his play? Maybe he told Daniel that to play with daniels mind for future confrontations. Not saying he did but we(including Daniel)don't know if Ted really believes that. Only person who knows that is Ted.

I have to agree with others that Daniel again uses his power to insult and discredit people that might irk him. I remember Howard wasn't too happy when daniel attacked Annie duke years ago on another poker forum. I'm sure they smoothed things over through the years, but feelings like this sometimes reemerge. Only difference is Howard doesn't discredit Daniel in public. He has too much class for that.

I agree with Vince when he says he likes Daniel and he's good for poker. I think Daniel is a good guy. But like most young people that gets rich and famous they start to believe the hype and think they are a bit better than everyone. He needs to be a little humble if he doesn't want to rub people the worng way imo.

[David Sklansky]

"The first thing that struck me was simply that he wasn't fully understanding the situation and was doing his "math" wrong."

The key sentence. There was nothing wrong, however, with using math RIGHT to get to the best play.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
There was nothing wrong, however, with using math RIGHT to get to the best play.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading this sentenace I must admit that there is some truth in what Daniel says about "math types". Of course, as usual, I have much difficulty and in this case and unable to discer just what in the futch you are talking about. Please for the idiots like me reading the forum, ELABORATE...just a little. Oh I get it. You think that this thread is about math. Hmmm. Maybe I was wrong to ask you to look at this thread.

Vince

I would say that it is pretty certain that Ted was disappointed with his play. He did check down AA on a checked around 6 A x 6 6 board.

I think that everybody is also neglecting the fact that if Daniel did hold a 6, he would probably have bet the turn, trying to take down the pot where he most definately was beating Dags in the process.

If he WAS being Deceptive, check the river in a checked down hand?! No way. He would have to put Forrest on an Ace, (or AA) to be able to check-raise quads on the river, and that would be a HUGE risk, whereas it WAS possible of Forrest checking it down. I would say to check the turn/river with any 6 (Except 6 6, which would have quad'ed on the turn) in that spot is bad tournament play. As I am not Daniel, this is only hypothesizing, but I am confident that it would be played this way.

Again, if you really think that checking Aces full in that spot is the best play, you have to seriously re-inspect your play.

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Negreanu is a world class nl player? Where do you guys get this stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you need attention that bad Smoothcall? If you really want to be flamed by FCP'ers so that you can outwit/outsmart them, just go there (I should say our, as I post there on occasion as well).

I know that you love bashing fanboys, which is fine, but it is pretty lame to do it for the sole purpose that you are trying to acheive.

Also not 100% on what you mean here David, elaborate?

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as Daniel's poking at Howard, the fact that he defended Ted's play, knowing that Ted admitted fault INSTANTLY, makes it an obvious blunder in Howard's explanation. How can you defend somebody else's action when even they disagree with they did?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it make it an obvious blunder? Only if we think Ted is bound to be correct when he 'admitted fault'. Why is he bound to correct in that instance, but not when making the play in the first place? One of those decisions is incorrect, but why is it necessarily the second one? And why should Ted's admission colour Lederer's judgement anyway? Presumably he is expressing an opinion based on his knowledge and experience, not on who did what or who said what when (other than in the actual play of the hand, of course).

[Smoothcall]

When did i say i like his check on the river? Do you not know how to read? I know you like bashing me to make yourself popular with the trolls of 2+2 but make sure you have your fascts straight if you're gonna go that route. And even if i did think it was a good check that means there is serious problems with my play? I guess Howard is a complete moron then? You must play better than him or that would not make yourself look not very smart.

[Smoothcall]

Whose being lame? You are trying to pick a fight with me because i don't agree Daniel is a proven world class nl player? Am i entitled to my opinion? The only one bashing is you bashing me. I didn't bash Daniel. Just because i don't think he's world class doesn't mean i'm bashing him lol. How is that bashing him? Please explain. There are many players that i don't think are proven world class players. Doesn't mean i'm bashing them or that i even think there not good players. Just not proven world class players. I in fact think Daniel is not a dope. And probably a good player(at least as far as tournaments go). I just don't think he's as good as he thinks or you think. Thats not bashing by any means. Bashing is if i said Daniel was a complete moron and sucks. I have never said that. And would never say that about anyone. Because i don't lower myself to your garbage. Grow up!

[ QUOTE ]
When did i say i like his check on the river? Do you not know how to read? I know you like bashing me to make yourself popular with the trolls of 2+2 but make sure you have your fascts straight if you're gonna go that route. And even if i did think it was a good check that means there is serious problems with my play? I guess Howard is a complete moron then? You must play better than him or that would not make yourself look not very smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, you did not say you liked the check on the river. Instead you made fun of the author of an article that disagreed with the play. I guess that I figured that you did not agree with his viewpoint. I am pretty sure that I am not out of line on assuming this. Just so I know, what are your views on the topic?

To respond:

First: You said something that was undeserving, it was a stupid shot a pro player that you knew people would get worked up about. You did it solely to feed your ego. I am not trying to gain the fanfare of 2+2, it's pretty obvious since I disagree with a lot of people on this thread's original topic.

Second: If you agree with the check on the end, yes, I believe you have a problem with your play. Also, I am not calling Howard a complete moron, I do believe that he was wrong in this instance however.

Your entire bash on me is redundant.

[yellowjack]

Please get back on your meds. Thanks.

[Vincent Lepore]

I will eaborate. David, ever the diplomat, is saying that Daniel did not say that using math is not the correct way to get the right answer. He's right of course but what he fails to acknowlege is that Daniel's whole articale was designed to somehow show that "math types" miss something when they analyze poker situations. That is just not correct, at ;east not for all of them. I don't know, maybe David is afraid of Daniel. After all David is getting old.

Vince

[jester710]

One thing I think some people missed:

Daniel acted first on the river. He checked. Ted reaches for chips, and Daniel says something along the lines of, "You're not really gonna bet here, are you?"

Now, if we assume that it's entirely possible for Daniel to both have a 6 and check it on the river, why in the world would he try to discourage Ted from betting it for him?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Daniel:

I just noticed this on your site.

Poker Vitamins (http://www.pokervitamins.com/)

I bet you didn't know that I take approximately 100 vitamin pills everyday and have been a member of the Life Extension Foundation for approximately 12 years.

Life Extension Foundation (http://lef.org)

Perhaps in twenty plus years when you catch up to my age you'll do the same.

Best wishes,
mason

[Smoothcall]

I agree with Daniel. i think he shoulda bet. The chances of him having a 6 are less likely after daniel called a somewhat big raise from Dag. But even though thats true. There is somthing else to think about. If daniel has the ace ted can get a few chips off him. But if Daniel has the 6 he will double through ted and take alot of chips. So while i think betting is right i don't think we should dismiss Ted and Howard if they say its not right. There are more things to think about then whether it was a good value bet. NL at times is about survial and maybe not losing a ton of chips or going broke may be more important than making what looks like an obvious value bet.

What i disagree with Daniel about is his arrogance where he knows he's right. And for calling Howard out and making Howard and Ted look like they are worse players than him to feed his ego.

So if i think checking the river was the right play i have problems with my game but in Howard's case it was just a wrong play in that instance and not a problem with his play. Your logic is astounding!

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet you didn't know that I take approximately 100 vitamin pills everyday

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a list? That's just a lot of pills to be taking.

"Now, if we assume that it's entirely possible for Daniel to both have a 6 and check it on the river, why in the world would he try to discourage Ted from betting it for him?"


That's an easy one. Daniel's strange comment makes Ted thinks - "does he want me to bet, or does he not want me to bet?" Either Daniel's being sincere, or he isn't. And it's tough to know which it is.

The key idea is to make your opponent confused about what you want them to do. They are them more liable to make a mistake.

And that is precisely what happened. Ted made a mistake because Daniel confused him. Had Daniel not said anything, I'm pretty sure Ted would have made a value bet and Daniel would have paid him off.

[jester710]

I can see your point if Ted was considering whether to bet or not. But the way Daniel tells it, it seems like Ted was clearly getting ready to bet. There's no reason to say anything in that case if Daniel did indeed have the 6, as it could possibly cause Ted to second-guess the value bet (which he did).

[Exitonly]

i'd really like to hear what Lederer says about this hand, because like DN says, this is a terrible check-behind by Forrest and i dont know how Lederer can defend it.

For some reason i don't believe DN completely that Lederer still defends this, because well frankly i can't imageine that he'd be that dumb. Howard needs to common here and post.

[David Sklansky]

I was saying that properly done math WILL get the right answer. Howard's wrong answer should not be attributed to an over reliance on math.

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Daniel:

I just noticed this on your site.

Poker Vitamins (http://www.pokervitamins.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow that's hilarious. Be sure to include some creatine and protein shakes in the mix Daniel, those would be a sure hit amongst your followers.

Regarding the math stuff, no one likes to admit they're bad at anything, but it's bad form to attribute an opponent's mistake to something you admittedly don't understand.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Howard's wrong answer

[/ QUOTE ]

Mind elaborating?

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Paxosmotic:

I don't want to put up a list since it would take too long to write. But my daily bunch of pills does include Life Extension Mix which is a very large multi-vitamin and I take the recommended nine tablets a day.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Vincent Lepore]

Life extension for Mason Malmuth...I bet Abdul will be gald to hear that.

Vince

Bayesian statistics is a conditional probability

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that there is literally a 0% chance of a world-class no-limit HE player like Daniel holding a single six is absurd. In this situation (shorthanded, against other world-class players) there is great value in deception.

If the other players are able to eliminate certain possibilities completely, Daniel would be giving up a significant edge. Forrest knows this.

The probability of Daniel playing 7-6 or 6-5 or 8-6 or even A-6 is non-zero. I think it is quite low, maybe 10%, but it is definitely non-zero.

Perhaps, by telling the world that he would "never" call pre-flop with a single six under those circumstances, Daniel is hoping the other top players will believe him. That might allow him to make this kind of play in the future with complete deception.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, there was ZERO chance that I could have a 6 in this situation. Precisely zero, and that's a promise!

Remember now, the implied odds that might make playing a goofy hand worthwhile are nullified by the fact that there is a dry side pot.

Also, the raise was simply way too big to ever call with a hand that contained a 6 in it- yes even A-6.

I was talking to Juanda about the hand last night and he came up with zero percent also. Of course, John knows my game well and could be bias, but frankly, there is no way a good player calls such a large raise in this situation with a suited connector... even me!

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on admit it your ego got pumped when you thought you had bested Howard. I mean after all "you were shocked" that he doesnt' get it!

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I was beyong shocked, I was absolutely flabberghasted. It shocked me that a good player like Howard would have trouble with such a simple situation.

Ted, he is a different story. He was thinking "tournament strategy" and just goofed up. Ask Ted what he thought of his check and he'll tell you that.

Howard, well he thought it was a GOOD check. It got me to thinking about how others approach poker. Howard is obviously successful with his approach, as is David Sklansky with his.

I'm sure there are a million things that both players know, or do better than I do in certain areas, but when it comes to the psychological aspects of the game I genuinely feel like I have the upper hand.

You can assume that my motives for writing the column were ego driven, I can't change that and frankly, I don't really care.

The hand was interesting to me, and I had no qualms about putting Howard and Ted's names in the column, and why should I? They are grown men and can handle criticsm.

[Exitonly]

Do you think Howard is just defending this because of his ego? or does he actually ignore previous actions when determining probability? I think it's gotta be the former, theres just no way he could be as succesful as he is.

[David Sklansky]

"Howard, well he thought it was a GOOD check"

But if he was wrong it wasn't because he was a "math guy". You don't need math to tell you there is only one six and one ace left in the deck.

[Smoothcall]

You feel you have the upper hand in the psychologigal aspects of the game against Ted Forrest? I wonder how he feels about that?

And i agree that you can write about Howard and Ted. That they are big boys and can handle it. Tell that to you cronies that bash me evertime i point out mistakes you make.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]

He's talking Bayesian. That has nothing to do with conditional probability.


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't he basically say given the call(along with the conditions), whats the probability that he would hold a 6? Sounds like conditional probability to me. And it seems like a strange claim since Bayesian is based on conditional probabilities.

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
"Howard, well he thought it was a GOOD check"

But if he was wrong it wasn't because he was a "math guy". You don't need math to tell you there is only one six and one ace left in the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that 100%. Just to clarify I didn't say anything like that in the column.

[David Sklansky]

And to clarify futher, of the top 100 poker players in the world, only ten to fifteen of them are more math oriented than you are. I know that by your answers to my quizzes and your refernces to the computer simulations you study. However, like Mike Caro you publicly distance yourself from your own mathematical inclinations because you know I already have that turf covered and because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[yellowjack]

[ QUOTE ]
and because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wow.

[calmasahinducow]

[ QUOTE ]
And to clarify futher, of the top 100 poker players in the world, only ten to fifteen of them are more math oriented than you are. I know that by your answers to my quizzes and your refernces to the computer simulations you study. However, like Mike Caro you publicly distance yourself from your own mathematical inclinations because you know I already have that turf covered and because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This needs to go in the next 2+2 book.

women = -ev ?!?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi calmasahinducow:

No. I need to take the next Two Plus Two book and whack David over the head with it.

Best wishes,
mason

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi calmasahinducow:

No. I need to take the next Two Plus Two book and whack David over the head with it.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Conditional probability theory suggests you might have more success choosing a more appropriate body part as a target.

:P

[sqvirrel]

[ QUOTE ]
Ted called the turn and the river brought another 6, for a final board 6-6-4-A-6. I checked and made it rather obvious (at least to me) that I didn’t like that card. I figured that my A-Q was probably in the lead, unless of course Ted had A-K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the difference between poker math and real math is that in poker math they count the sixth card.

[ABM]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need math to tell you there is only one six and one ace left in the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmmm... Yes you do. 1=4-3

Sheesh /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you define "got" for all of us at home?

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
And to clarify futher, of the top 100 poker players in the world, only ten to fifteen of them are more math oriented than you are. I know that by your answers to my quizzes and your refernces to the computer simulations you study. However, like Mike Caro you publicly distance yourself from your own mathematical inclinations because you know I already have that turf covered and because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, that was funny dude, I love it! Only one correction: the last four women I've seen you with were 18, 16, 15 and 14 years of age. Dude, I don't come the high school's quite like you do- you got me there! lol.

[Malachii]

[ QUOTE ]
I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really, do we need any more proof that David rules? He plays poker for a living, he could've won a Nobel Prize, and he gets 23 year old girls! If you can come up with anything to top that, I'd like to hear it.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can come up with anything to top that, I'd like to hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He works for me.

best wishes,
Mason

Sorry Daniel, I don't believe you.

And even if you think it is a clear mistake to call with A6 in that situation, it doesn't rule out the possibility of you making a mistake in the heat of battle.

Have you never seen a world class player play with his chips as if he were going to bet, while studying his opponent for a reaction to this "intention"? Because Ted "looked like" he was going to bet does not mean he actually had the intention of betting. Only Ted knows this for sure.

[ QUOTE ]
I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ambiguous. Is that twenty 3-year-old girls, or twenty-three year-old girls? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Reminds me of that joke:

Q: What's so good about sex with twenty seven year olds?

A: There's twenty of them.

(I think this was on a joke thread in here somewhere...)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ted called the turn and the river brought another 6, for a final board 6-6-4-A-6. I checked and made it rather obvious (at least to me) that I didn’t like that card. I figured that my A-Q was probably in the lead, unless of course Ted had A-K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the difference between poker math and real math is that in poker math they count the sixth card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he meant on the turn. He didn't like the river 6, because he now thought it was a split pot. I'm just guessing.

Heh. I just was watching Ted Forrest in the "James Woods vs. The Unabombers" where he and Nicole Sullivan were heads up. Nicole is all-in with Q3c vs. Ted's 8d6s (pre-flop), and she asks what her odds of winning are. Ted responds: "I'm not a real math guy, but I know Q-high is usally a favorite agains 8-high."

Just thought it was note-worthy to this discussion... I guess Ted wouldn't consider himself to be one of the "math types" that is being discussed in Daniel's article or in this thread.

[buddhablessed1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ted called the turn and the river brought another 6, for a final board 6-6-4-A-6. I checked and made it rather obvious (at least to me) that I didn’t like that card. I figured that my A-Q was probably in the lead, unless of course Ted had A-K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the difference between poker math and real math is that in poker math they count the sixth card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he meant on the turn. He didn't like the river 6, because he now thought it was a split pot. I'm just guessing.

[/ QUOTE ]

he specifically says he didn't like the river card even though he thought he was most likely still ahead unless ted had AK.

for being such a self proclaimed master at reading his opponents does anyone else find it interesting daniel never puts ted on AA. this after he says he knows ted is tricky. what does he think ted is calling the turn with in position after calling an all in preflop? AK and AA come to my mind.

it's funny how everytime daniel writes the word math it comes out with quotation marks around it.

[buddhablessed1]

[ QUOTE ]

As for the term "conditional probability" can we be a little more anal? I mean seriously, I think the readers had the right idea as to what I was trying to convey. I'd never heard the term conditional probability before and I sure hadn't heard of Bayegosianish math!

You can nitpick the article all you want looking for terms that are used "improperly", but the fact remains that Howard came to the wrong conclusion because he wasn't taking into account the situation properly. Why? Because the simple fact that I wouldn't call with a six in my hand never crossed his mind. That's faulty thinking.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, hoss, the card player article that you wrote was titled, "Conditional Probability - There's more to probability than just the "poker math"
by Daniel Negreanu".

the title of your article is a term you've never heard before and then you proceed to discuss it at length whilst trying to make a much more intelligent professional look foolish? THAT'S FAULTY THINKING!

[mex78753]

funniest.
thread.
ever.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to clarify futher, of the top 100 poker players in the world, only ten to fifteen of them are more math oriented than you are. I know that by your answers to my quizzes and your refernces to the computer simulations you study. However, like Mike Caro you publicly distance yourself from your own mathematical inclinations because you know I already have that turf covered and because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, that was funny dude, I love it! Only one correction: the last four women I've seen you with were 18, 16, 15 and 14 years of age. Dude, I don't come the high school's quite like you do- you got me there! lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ted called the turn and the river brought another 6, for a final board 6-6-4-A-6. I checked and made it rather obvious (at least to me) that I didn’t like that card. I figured that my A-Q was probably in the lead, unless of course Ted had A-K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the difference between poker math and real math is that in poker math they count the sixth card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he meant on the turn. He didn't like the river 6, because he now thought it was a split pot. I'm just guessing.

[/ QUOTE ]

he specifically says he didn't like the river card even though he thought he was most likely still ahead unless ted had AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. He didn't like the river card, BECAUSE he thought he was in the lead on the turn. Surely he didn't mean he was in the lead on the river, "unless Ted had AK". For him to mean that, he'd have to be a moron. And, I don't think he's a moron. So, benefit of the doubt, surely he meant he thought he was in the lead on the turn (with a bigger kicker than Ted, presumably).

[IndianaSlim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to clarify futher, of the top 100 poker players in the world, only ten to fifteen of them are more math oriented than you are. I know that by your answers to my quizzes and your refernces to the computer simulations you study. However, like Mike Caro you publicly distance yourself from your own mathematical inclinations because you know I already have that turf covered and because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, that was funny dude, I love it! Only one correction: the last four women I've seen you with were 18, 16, 15 and 14 years of age. Dude, I don't come the high school's quite like you do- you got me there! lol.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh snap!

[Notorious G.O.B.]

No real reason to bump this thread, but Lederer posted on the full tilt forum a couple months ago about how he screwed up the analysis of this hand. He agrees that there is no way Daniel would hold a six in this spot.

[cardcounter0]

Did Lederer make any mention of how many 23-year-olds he had?

[ QUOTE ]
No real reason to bump this thread, but Lederer posted on the full tilt forum a couple months ago about how he screwed up the analysis of this hand. He agrees that there is no way Daniel would hold a six in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's definitely good to know. Do you have the link by any chance? I respect Lederer's poker skills & knowledge, and figured he had either misspoken, or didn't think enough about the situation. The odds that DN had a 6 were practially nil -- but the odds that he had an A, and would call almost any bet from Ted, were pretty good. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PassiveCaller]

More like Howard solved the problem if a 6 was a possible holding but if you follow the pre-flop action no good player can have a 6. If a 6 isn't possible then it can't be 50-50. Not rocket science, simply common sense applied.

Thus if you use the correct math you would get the right conclusion. However this is a much simplier situation not needing math once you realize a 6 isn't possible since that gives you the answer.

[Notorious G.O.B.]

pokerforums.fulltiltpoker.com, and go to the 'ask the pros' section. Something like 'Ted Forrest AA hand' I guess, or just do a search on Howard's name.

[Hofzinser]

Link to Howard's admission of error:

http://pokerforums.fulltiltpoker.com/online-poker-play276.html&highlight=ted+forrest

Found it: http://pokerforums.fulltiltpoker.com/online-poker-play276.html

7 minutes too slow. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Vincent Lepore]

Lederrer: [ QUOTE ]
I should have also realized that there was almost no chance Daniel could have a 6 in his hand. Unless he had 66 before the flop, which he could not have given the three 6's on the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

There were not 3 6's on the flop only 2.

Vince