What´s most important in a NL-MTT? Preflop-system?

As you recieve a hand in a tournament you think about alot of things thats positive or negative for your EV. How stong hand do you need to raise? Well anyway, what do you think is most important, rate them.


-Actions from other players
-Position (How many is going to act after)
-Reads and handstrength (handstrength and comparance, gap-concept)
-Reads (Post-flop play, bettingpatterns, what moves will work, what read they have on you?))
-Blindsize (compared to stack and much value to steal)
-Table and involved players tightness tightness (easy/hard to steal blinds)

My own list would be like this:
1. Actions
2. Postion
3. Table and involved players tightness (easy/hard to steal blinds)
4. Blindsize
5. Reads and handstrength (handsstrength and comparance, gap-concept)
6. Reads (Post-flop play, bettingpatterns, what moves will work, what read they have on you?)


Opinions on my rating?

Well based on this rating we now can create a system.

Blinds (100/200) 350/800 players left, 80 places paid, 20$ Freezeout NL Texas Holdem

Button (t4375)
SB (t8160)
BB (t2270)
UTG (t6915)
UTG+1 (t13325)
MP1 (t2025)
MP2 (t4370)
MP3 (t17470)
You (t20835)

Preflop: You is CO with QQ.
4 folds, MP3 calls t200


Ok, so let´s use the system

1. Actions - 1 call
2. Position - Good position
3. Table and involved players tightness - Table is loose, player MP3 limps alot
4. Blindssize - Blindssize is still very small
5. Reads and handstrength - read is: MP3 raises his top hands and limps alot of average hands.
6. Reads - MP3 bettingpattern is easy to read, His read on you is prob tight/agg.


Maybe you could rate the situation with numbers according to this system, you have any suggestions?

For example, on the bubble, nr 3. the table tightness greatly increases and you can raise more often with +EV.
Another example is when you have no read for the othere players handstrength, thats very -EV.

Please help, and we´ll make this system a great one.

/CarlLee

With no disrespect intended, your post makes it rather clear that you do not have a grasp on the concept of EV and should probably focus on posting more hands and getting involved in strategy discussions rather than attempt to create a rating system in your first post here. In addition, this system already exists in a variety of forms and we can learn these concepts and theories from a wide variety of established players by reading their books and posts here on 2+2. Why should we attempt to reinvent the wheel?

[ QUOTE ]
With no disrespect intended, your post makes it rather clear that you do not have a grasp on the concept of EV and should probably focus on posting more hands and getting involved in strategy discussions rather than attempt to create a rating system in your first post here. In addition, this system already exists in a variety of forms and we can learn these concepts and theories from a wide variety of established players by reading their books and posts here on 2+2. Why should we attempt to reinvent the wheel?

[/ QUOTE ]

My first post, that´s true. What has that got to do with anything? I discuss alot in other forums, and have alot of experience.

Anyway, I would appreciate some critique on the idea instead of personal critique.

/CarlLee

Ok, completely discounting the fact this is your first post then....

These systems do not make for a better poker player. I am not a fan of systems at all. Starting hand charts are great for starting players, but you need to abandon them at some point and learn to play some poker. I realize you are speaking of something that encompasses much more, however a quality thinking player does not require a system to succeeed. His knowledge of EV, ICM and the ability to observe the other players he is seated with coupled with the ability to adapt to those situations is what makes a winning player.

If your idea were something new and groundbreaking that would be a different story, however these "systems" only help to create a group of "bots" that can't think on their own and adapt to different situations. You will encounter literally thousands of different situations at a poker table and no system can account for all of them - I suggest learning the theories and resons WHY you make certain moves rather than developing a system that says with the following variables being true "X" is your move.

As an analogy, I have a client who is a network administrator that is completely underqualified. She requires step by step instructions for everything she does and does not understand any of the theories behind why she does these things. She always asks for me to create these step by step directions, even when she has a manual for the product in question and because she is paying for my services I always oblige her. She will never learn to administer her network on her own. Using these types of tools to begin your learning experience is fine, but at some point you need to abandon these instructions and learn to think for yourself.

Time spent building a solid understanding of game theory and strategy will yield a much better return than time spent developing a system like this.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Actions - 1 call
2. Position - Good position
3. Table and involved players tightness - Table is loose, player MP3 limps alot
4. Blindssize - Blindssize is still very small
5. Reads and handstrength - read is: MP3 raises his top hands and limps alot of average hands.
6. Reads - MP3 bettingpattern is easy to read, His read on you is prob tight/agg.

Maybe you could rate the situation with numbers according to this system, you have any suggestions?

[/ QUOTE ]
A good player considers all these things without a rating system. Let's say you come up with a number according to your system. Say this situation rates an 8. Whatever. What does that tell you? Raise? The number tells you almost nothing about the situation. A rating system just makes it much more complicated. IMO, you're just better off learning the game instead of sticking to some system that you'll probably end up using in an inappropriate situation.

And for no further misunderstanding about EV.
Every point 1-6 isnt directly about EV. For example "actions from other players". It´s the system in a whole that shall estimate how good the situation is.

Mainly EV is about position, handstrength and how good players are on your table.

I know every good player thinking about these points when they are making a decision, but what i´m talking about, is to put it to some formula that give us a number to rate how good the situation is.

Sometime the situation is good based on how tight the players are in the blinds, on the bubble for example. Some other time you get a good number because of position and handstrength.

Maybe you have to think about the situation in a cognitive way, it´s just to complex for a formula. That´s what i want your opinions about? Do you think it´s possible to do a system that works?

The X factor that will separate who´s better in usin this system is the ability to read the other players.

/CarlLee

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometime the situation is good based on how tight the players are in the blinds, on the bubble for example. Some other time you get a good number because of position and handstrength.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tight players in the blinds....good position and handstrength. These situations call for VERY different plays. This is what I mean about using the system incorrectly. If a situation got a good rating, how do you know if it's because of tight players in the blinds or good postion and hand strength? It's impossible to determine the correct play based on your number system.

The point is that you already consider these things when playing. You should always be attempting to put your opponents on a range of hands based on how they are playing. You should always consider your position and know that your hand has relative value. These are nothing new and, in fact, something that every player should already think about when making decisions in a game. You can't place a value on a lot of these, however if you refer to HOH and Dan's explanation of calculating your EV you always assign a percentage value to your villain holding certain hands and base your decision over how likely you think it is that villain holds "X" holdings versys "Y" holdings and always throwing in the percentage of times you think villain will bluff.

Creating a system like what you are describing is not a worthwhile effort is what I'm saying. Someone could probably spend a lot of time developing this system but it wouldn't show enough of a positive return to make the time spent worthwhile. Beyond that I don't think the players that frequent this forum, myself included, are fans of the idea that a system could be created to sum up everything we've spent years (cumulatively) learning. Like I said previously, learn WHY you make certain decisions rather than what the right decision is based on certain variables as there are times where the variables may be right but other things can change the way you would play it.

I doubt you'll get very many positive responses to the idea of a system as most of the posters here prefer others to become thinking players as opposed to robots.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sometime the situation is good based on how tight the players are in the blinds, on the bubble for example. Some other time you get a good number because of position and handstrength.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tight players in the blinds....good position and handstrength. These situations call for VERY different plays. This is what I mean about using the system incorrectly. If a situation got a good rating, how do you know if it's because of tight players in the blinds or good postion and hand strength? It's impossible to determine the correct play based on your number system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, i agree. It´s very much about the situation. And a one number rating is of course impossible to get.

But then, when you are reasoning about a situation, you make some "rating" about all these points, and then you make a decision based on how good all these points are.

What i am aiming for, is to break down the "decision-process" into small pieces. And then try to estimate of how much importance every point is. And as you see i haven´t thought it true very deep yet, but with some brainstorming here we might end up with something valueful.

I want to see the whole decision-process as a blueprint or puzzle. And maybe numbers isn´t the way to this.

Have you read any books on this subject? Dan Harrington already created a system similar to what you are speaking of, although not as in-depth. Most posters here have read Harrington on Hold'em vols 1 and 2 already and know these concepts. If you haven't read either of his books (or the other recommended reading in the stickied anthology post) I strongly suggest you buy them ASAP. From reading your posts thusfar it doesn't appear that you have read any of them.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
What i am aiming for, is to break down the "decision-process" into small pieces. And then try to estimate of how much importance every point is. And as you see i haven´t thought it true very deep yet, but with some brainstorming here we might end up with something valueful.

I want to see the whole decision-process as a blueprint or puzzle. And maybe numbers isn´t the way to this

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not going to like this answer, but the way to do this is the same way every seasoned pro does it. Play real poker. Just learn to process all these bits of info everytime, for every hand. That's the only way. It comes with experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you read any books on this subject? Dan Harrington already created a system similar to what you are speaking of, although not as in-depth. Most posters here have read Harrington on Hold'em vols 1 and 2 already and know these concepts. If you haven't read either of his books (or the other recommended reading in the stickied anthology post) I strongly suggest you buy them ASAP. From reading your posts thusfar it doesn't appear that you have read any of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read them both along with 20 other pokerbooks.
I´m aiming to get one step further. And the numbersystem was nothing i thought about very deep, execpt from that i wanted to rate the different things in the decisionprocess.

And now when I have recieved some really good responses, thank you very much for that, i would like to further discuss the decision-process.

To illustrate this. A golfplayer can break his swing down to small moves from diffrent parts of the body, that will determine how long and straight he will hit the ball. And the better his swing becomes, the better he will hit his targets in average. This is like the preflop-strategy, based on how good you are on making a decision based on many variables.

If you would break down the decision-process. how would it look like?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What i am aiming for, is to break down the "decision-process" into small pieces. And then try to estimate of how much importance every point is. And as you see i haven´t thought it true very deep yet, but with some brainstorming here we might end up with something valueful.

I want to see the whole decision-process as a blueprint or puzzle. And maybe numbers isn´t the way to this

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not going to like this answer, but the way to do this is the same way every seasoned pro does it. Play real poker. Just learn to process all these bits of info everytime, for every hand. That's the only way. It comes with experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

It comes with experience and true knowledge, what i mean with true knowledge is that experience doesn´t allways make you better in the decision-process. You´ll have to analyze things things as we do right now, with discussion and reading, Along with practical knowledge and experince of course.

[gergery]

I think a better approach would be to use your system to get very good tourney players to elaborate on which of the multitude of factors are most important in a given situation. And use their comments to improve how you play poker.

The system becomes just a tool to force clarity and prioritization. Trying to actually play with a system is a horrible idea for your longer-term development as a player.

-g

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What i am aiming for, is to break down the "decision-process" into small pieces. And then try to estimate of how much importance every point is. And as you see i haven´t thought it true very deep yet, but with some brainstorming here we might end up with something valueful.

I want to see the whole decision-process as a blueprint or puzzle. And maybe numbers isn´t the way to this

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not going to like this answer, but the way to do this is the same way every seasoned pro does it. Play real poker. Just learn to process all these bits of info everytime, for every hand. That's the only way. It comes with experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

It comes with experience and true knowledge, what i mean with true knowledge is that experience doesn´t allways make you better in the decision-process. You´ll have to analyze things things as we do right now, with discussion and reading, Along with practical knowledge and experince of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is one point that you're sort of making that I generally agree with you on: the idea that some sort of routine for remembering to look at all the things you should be looking at each hand could be good for avoiding lazy or incorrect play.

There are, imo, two issues here. On the first one (that most posters in this thread are talking about), systematising the synthesis of all the variables that go into a poker hand is pretty pointless, because the system has to be so big and complex that it is essentially impossible to design such a system. The good news is that you don't need to: that's what your brain is for, to evaluate all these things.

However, there is a second sense in which (imo) a system can be useful--To remind yourself to take note of all the variables in a hand while you're playing. Everyone does this anyway but it could be helpful to make it explicit if you tend to do it haphazardly or not in the same way every time. You can ask questions like Harrington has in his "Elements of a Hand" section, stuff like "what's my position" "what's the status of the tournament?" ending in "what are my cards?"

In cash games, I have implemented some questions I ask myself every time I hit the HJ seat: Is this a table I should be playing at? What's the table VPIP/PFR? Am I tired? Am I tilting? What's my table image? I found that the HJ is a good spot for that analysis, since I can play around to my blinds while I'm thinking about it and I'm not quite as active with hands as I would be in the blinds or on the button.

So, anyway, I think a system to remind you to remember to look at everything you should look at in situations like preflop, analysing the texture of the flop (does it have a pair, does it have 2 suited cards, what cards have a straight draw, is it likely to have made 2-pair for someone, etc) is a good idea, and I'd go even further and say everyone uses one, whether they think of it that way or not.

But attempting systematically to evaluate the information into a play decision by assiging weights, codifying it, etc. is essentially unworkable except perhaps in push-or-fold type situations and, even then, you have so many subjective factors (what hand ranges your opponents will be playing, how they see you, how they play different stack sizes, etc) that your results will be much better to just come with answers on the fly each time.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
The X factor that will separate who´s better in usin this system is the ability to read the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

It already is.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What i am aiming for, is to break down the "decision-process" into small pieces. And then try to estimate of how much importance every point is. And as you see i haven´t thought it true very deep yet, but with some brainstorming here we might end up with something valueful.

I want to see the whole decision-process as a blueprint or puzzle. And maybe numbers isn´t the way to this

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not going to like this answer, but the way to do this is the same way every seasoned pro does it. Play real poker. Just learn to process all these bits of info everytime, for every hand. That's the only way. It comes with experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

It comes with experience and true knowledge, what i mean with true knowledge is that experience doesn´t allways make you better in the decision-process. You´ll have to analyze things things as we do right now, with discussion and reading, Along with practical knowledge and experince of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is one point that you're sort of making that I generally agree with you on: the idea that some sort of routine for remembering to look at all the things you should be looking at each hand could be good for avoiding lazy or incorrect play.

There are, imo, two issues here. On the first one (that most posters in this thread are talking about), systematising the synthesis of all the variables that go into a poker hand is pretty pointless, because the system has to be so big and complex that it is essentially impossible to design such a system. The good news is that you don't need to: that's what your brain is for, to evaluate all these things.

However, there is a second sense in which (imo) a system can be useful--To remind yourself to take note of all the variables in a hand while you're playing. Everyone does this anyway but it could be helpful to make it explicit if you tend to do it haphazardly or not in the same way every time. You can ask questions like Harrington has in his "Elements of a Hand" section, stuff like "what's my position" "what's the status of the tournament?" ending in "what are my cards?"

In cash games, I have implemented some questions I ask myself every time I hit the HJ seat: Is this a table I should be playing at? What's the table VPIP/PFR? Am I tired? Am I tilting? What's my table image? I found that the HJ is a good spot for that analysis, since I can play around to my blinds while I'm thinking about it and I'm not quite as active with hands as I would be in the blinds or on the button.

So, anyway, I think a system to remind you to remember to look at everything you should look at in situations like preflop, analysing the texture of the flop (does it have a pair, does it have 2 suited cards, what cards have a straight draw, is it likely to have made 2-pair for someone, etc) is a good idea, and I'd go even further and say everyone uses one, whether they think of it that way or not.

But attempting systematically to evaluate the information into a play decision by assiging weights, codifying it, etc. is essentially unworkable except perhaps in push-or-fold type situations and, even then, you have so many subjective factors (what hand ranges your opponents will be playing, how they see you, how they play different stack sizes, etc) that your results will be much better to just come with answers on the fly each time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great response. Thank you, this discussion really makes me brainstorm.

"The good news is that you don't need to: that's what your brain is for, to evaluate all these things."

Poker decision-making is cognitive thinking. It´s to many variables to consider and there are to many different situations. And based on our "poker-IQ" we´ll handle these situation good or bad.

But I still think it´s posible to take the discussion about decision-making to a higher level. Our goal must be to make a perfekt decision based on the information about the situation.

I think a list with every fraction of information would increase our poker-intelligence. Just like you said, to remember ourself to include every bit of information. And the more we train ourself on these point, the higher "poker-intelligence" we get.

Thoughts?