Negreanu says....
 

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

Re: Negreanu says....
 

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.

Re: Negreanu says....
 

Hi Vincent,

I just read Daniel article. I think its excellent.

Re: Negreanu says....
 

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

Re: Negreanu says....
 

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.

Re: Negreanu says....
 

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

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

Re: Negreanu says....
 

conditional probability is crucial.

Re: Negreanu says....
 

Check behind on that river?

Christ no.

Re: Negreanu says....
 

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

Re: Negreanu says....
 

[ 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.