Summary of Where Profits Come From

[DavidC]

Sklansky says something along the lines of: "We make money when people play differently than they would if they could see our cards." I don't like that, because they may make the same mistakes even if they can see our cards, and we still make money, right?

Miller says, "You make money when your opponents makes mistakes." But this obviously doesn't really make a difference if you make the same mistakes in the same spots that your opponents make.

---

Poker being a game of relative skill, earnings come from when you and your opponent make different plays in the same situation.

Let's say that I make an extra half-bb when I have a set and you make TPTK. If this were the only difference between our two playing styles, we could calculate my edge as:

The difference in EV when I have the set vs your TPTK, is an extra 0.5bb in my pocket. When you hit your set vs my TPTK, I also lose an additional 0.5bb less than you did.

If this happens once every 2,000 hands or something like that, then my edge over you is:

E = D*F (in bb/100)

E = Edge
D = Dif in EV
F = Frequency per 100 hands

D = 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 BB
F = 1/20
E = 0.05BB / 100 hands.

Less my share of the rake over the course of those 100 hands, of course.

In conclusion, [censored] you, Party Poker, you greedy sons of pigs!

Edit: Caveat, I'm not totally sure of anything in this post, except that the people at Party are greedy sons of pigs.

good post. And this is why eventhough you are certain that you are a "winning player" you arent certain that you are able to beat the rake.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
good post. And this is why eventhough you are certain that you are a "winning player" you arent certain that you are able to beat the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, presumably there would be other mistakes to take advantage of... but yeah.

When looking for games you should look for mistakes being made, then considering the costs of those mistakes, what you would do differently, the difference in EV between the two plays, and how frequently they occur.

Of course, some of them jump right out at you: folding the river too much, cold calling too much, etc. But if someone were to sit down and crunch the numbers, a lot more things pop up... and in the tougher games (10/20++), you may have to look harder to find a game that suits you..

Its tough to spot individual misstakes since they come up so seldom so I think you have to settle for broad stats like VI$IP and PFR unless you have around 1k hands on villain.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Its tough to spot individual misstakes since they come up so seldom so I think you have to settle for broad stats like VI$IP and PFR unless you have around 1k hands on villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's possible...

But an alternative to this is that you could watch them play a few hands, see what they show down, go through the play in your head, and figure out what they did wrong.

PT stats are useful for evaluating player types quickly, when you're playing like a million tables at once.

Nothing really substitutes for reads if you want to "Play Perfect Poker", though.

--Dave.

Thats the truth.

I wonder how high I must play when I cant just go by the numbers. Right now I am 4-tabling 6max and it seems possible to beat this while 8-tabling. Just need to buy another monitor.

I also wonder if I am missing out, ie taking the easy road with pokerace and never really learning to see patterns. Maybe I should step down to 1 table and really try to follow the action and then dont add more tables until I can follow everything without pokerace? Its just that I am an action junky...

[xenthebrain]

You are right with your assumtion.
Thats also why quads vs. full houses are usually -EV for both.

Suppose a NL game.
One has JJ and the other has 88.

You move all-in on the 8J8 flop.

No doubt, none of them will fold to an all-in.
So sometimes you have the JJ and sometimes the 88.
Both EVs you have added equal 0. So due to rake, it's -EV for both, since they would not play it differently ever.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right with your assumtion.
Thats also why quads vs. full houses are usually -EV for both.

Suppose a NL game.
One has JJ and the other has 88.

You move all-in on the 8J8 flop.

No doubt, none of them will fold to an all-in.
So sometimes you have the JJ and sometimes the 88.
Both EVs you have added equal 0. So due to rake, it's -EV for both, since they would not play it differently ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, wow.

Damn.

Okay, good point.

Thanks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky says something along the lines of: "We make money when people play differently than they would if they could see our cards." I don't like that, because they may make the same mistakes even if they can see our cards, and we still make money, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I came to the same realization some time ago. A more accurate statement would be that you gain when your opponents pay more than correct pot odds (vs. their eventual chances of winning the hand) to see the next card, and when your opponents fail to make you pay in the same situation. Note that this also takes care of weird situations like calling preflop with 44 vs. AK with deep stacks ... the 44 is at a disadvantage because it can't call down, yet FTOP says he gains by calling since he has the better hand and could go to the river if the cards were face up. But I would define "eventual chances of winning the hand" to include the possibility that you might be forced to fold the winner.

[lautzutao]

haha, you really are a nit/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Move up in limits to negate the rake.