Most Contentious Area In Poker Theory!

[Al Mirpuri]

The most contentious area in poker theory seems to be the question of how many hands a player should play. The experts suggest 10% or 15% or 20%. Yes, they also contextualise the question and state play more hands against loose passives, poor players, when the antes are large in relation to the opening bet, and play fewer hands when the opposition is playing well or tight or because you cannot stand the standard deviation of certain hands and so on. However, no one seems to have written definitively on this point, not even our illustrious hosts, David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. Throw some light on my darkness!

[Styles]

Do you mean, like this?

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/

[Ed Miller]

Jeez.. what's the deal with that article... someone posts a link to that cheese here like once a week.

[Ed Miller]

I don't think this is very "contentious." As you note, a different percentage of hands is required for different situations, and other differences in situation change the makeup of the set of playable hands. How is this contentious?

The answer is, you play a hand if it is profitable and don't play a hand if it is not profitable. The percentage of profitable hands just isn't that interesting a number.

[Styles]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeez.. what's the deal with that article... someone posts a link to that cheese here like once a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee MajorKong is it that easy to put you on tilt /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Al Mirpuri]

Everything else (excepting of course, the arcania of tournament poker) has been set out and is now pretty much chiselled in stone. No, it is not contentious like The War On Drugs is contentious but in the relatively sedate world of poker theory, I think it one of the few remaining grey areas.

[Ed Miller]

Yes... I'm a raving lunatic.

[Styles]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes... I'm a raving lunatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha!

Well if you have some comments about the article, I would appreciate the input.

I've been looking for something like the poster asked too /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Ed Miller]

Well if you have some comments about the article, I would appreciate the input.

Eh... search the archives. Mason just reposted (for the two billionth time) his rebuttal to this article a couple of days ago.

[Nottom]

Personally I think you are wasting your time if you are focusing on something as unimportant as exactly what percentage of your hands you should be seeing the flop with. No one will tell you because there is no answer. Like everything else in poker ... it depends.

[J.R.]

Everything else (excepting of course, the arcania of tournament poker) has been set out and is now pretty much chiselled in stone.

Really?

[felson]

Here's the link to Mason's rebuttal:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=300714&Forum =All_Forums&Words=mason%20starting&Match=And&Searc hpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3weeks&Main=300714&Search=tru e#Post300714

[Aragorn]

I hadn't seen it and thought it was an interesting article.

[Styles]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the link to Mason's rebuttal:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=300714&Forum =All_Forums&Words=mason%20starting&Match=And&Searc hpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3weeks&Main=300714&Search=tru e#Post300714

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks!

Actually, I had already searched the archives. What I didn't find was the Sklansky post you mentioned in your post in that other thread. Maybe it was too old, archived, etc. or I just missed it somehow with Search. I read all the threads that come up searching on the URL and the text "New Guide to the Starting Hands" that mention the article.

BTW, the original poster said, "However, no one seems to have written definitively on this point" and I was merely asking if he considered the link not the subject matter of his question, just didn't know about it, or was ignoring it for some reason.

I'm not involved in a debate over whether KTs belongs in Group 3 or Group 2 or KT belongs in Group 6 or Group 5. However, I found the discussion of the sensitivity to the table conditions and the number of foes helpful in my own decisions regarding position, inspite of the comments that say the author ignored position (including Mason's).

"6. Position is ignored. “Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold ’em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we’ve drawn here.” "

Clearly this sensitivity is a factor in position and not vice-versa. The number of foes and table conditions would be and I think the author was correct to say that position was not important to the conclusions they made. The Author again addressed this which seems to have been ignored by many reviewers including Mason using just the above quotation.

"If you wish to vary your starting hand selection based on your playing position, which is fundamental to the playing strategies advocated by noted poker authors, then you'll be using the overall ranking of each hand as a basis for doing so anyway."

I think perhaps on re-reading Mason would agree, at least from all the books I have read by S&M. For example, I found this to coincide with S&M, particularly with what Sklansky says in the "improved System" in Tournament Poker where he accounts for the number of players yet to act, computes a number, and then accounts for position (by his graduated chart).

I plan to study the article further and each of Mason's points carefully. Even if I only manage to thoroughly understand where Mason is 'exactly right' in each of his points I will have learned something. Actually, I already found a leak I had with KQo that I must admit if I followed HPFAP and the posts on the board a little better I wouldn't but somehow I needed to look more at the "why" to convince me to stop doing it.

If you run across the original Skalansky post I would appreciate a link to that. I'll keep searching for it also.

I think the original poster was pretty much on target with his post and question.