Expert vs. Strong player, where is the advantage?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be that the expert's ability to anticipate future decisions and factor those into the immediate decision is what sets him apart

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that thinking "holistically" about the hand is necessarily confined only to experts at all, and think it's quite possible to think holistically but poorly.

The relating of tactical and strategic, the large and the small, immediate position versus "area of influence" in Chess and Go are all vital considerations for the advanced player, but they become a part of the long before that. One might consider that thinking in relational ways between the streets in a poker game and not doing so is important, but it's such a basic, integral part of the game that it makes more sense to define that level of thinking as one that separates the complete novice from other players rather than the experts from the highly competent.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Blarg,

[ QUOTE ]
One might consider that thinking in relational ways between the streets in a poker game and not doing so is important, but it's such a basic, integral part of the game that it makes more sense to define that level of thinking as one that separates the complete novice from other players rather than the experts from the highly competent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] What do you think sets the true experts apart from the strong-but-not-expert players?

Cris

[Blarg]

Since I'm neither a strong nor expert player, all I can do is guess.

Top sporting competitors often have a very tiny edge over their nearest competitors, and some people they beat may even have parts of their game that are better than the people they are regularly beaten by. Technically, skills may be virtually identical between the first place and the fifth place. Similarly in poker, I would guess, the skill of purely logically following the permutations of the fall of the cards and the mathematical implications probably hits a wall at a certain point where you either understand such things at a necessary level or you aren't in the same class as the people around you. After a certain level of general poker skill, I think we probably can take that particular aspect of poker skill for granted. I doubt this level would define being an expert all on its own, at least in practical application on the tables. Not that it might not be enough to write books with.

I would think that two things could be key in distinguishing the expert from the very strong.

The ability to understand what the opponent is thinking and feeling, and actively relating to his or her changes in mood -- aggression, fear, depression, etc. -- could be key. Realizing how and when an opponent is playing cards differently because of the influence of mood and energy swings requires someone actively concentrating on both the cards and the opponent, and remembering and valuing that knowledge and feel for the person so that it can be applied later. I think after a while math and card logic can become ABC, but the best players will not play on an ABC level when considering their opponents.

I don't mean merely reading tells, but picking up on the whole person as much as possible.

Having this kind of empathy and interest in other people(even if you don't like them one bit), and memory for their behavior and what it means, is not common. In the MTV-generation of short attention spans, even less so. But it is an asset that can lead to dramatically varying one's play against certain opponents, making stunning laydowns and seemingly ridiculous calls and raises in critical situations that actually turn out to be for the best. Or, more prosaically, just making a few more correct decisions in unclear situations.

The second key I think would be psychological balance of one's own. Tiger Woods astonished people from the get go not only with his golf, but because he seemed to play it so well even under brutally tense conditions. With everything riding on the line, he again and again came through as if it were all just another day and there was nothing to worry about. That kind of perfect calm and self-control is rare even among champions, but at least some degree of it is necessary for all but the rarest of prodigies that become champions.

At the top levels, the winner is often simply the person who makes the fewest mistakes. The ability to see situations clearly and unemotionally no matter what the stakes are is an enormous edge that most people simply don't have. There are many highly accomplished people who can't perform well when the stakes and pressure reach a certain level even though on the right day, they could be champions themselves. But they lack the requisite level of internal control. At least when it matters most.

So, two qualties, neither of which is adequate to make a winning poker player, not even in combination, but both of which can pull one well ahead of even a highly competent pack.

Both are fairly rare qualities to have developed at a high level. And they are quite hard to learn. You certainly can't crack a book to learn it. Probably very few people are highly developed in both ways.

After the logical skills are learned to an adequately high level, my guess is that those two psychological qualities -- of exceptional functional empathy and alertness(including memory) regarding others, and exceptional control regarding oneself -- would be what separates people out into the next levels.

[laja]

Don't overate 4th street.. and don't underate the street that the player jaywalked across to get to the casino where he decided that he was good enough to play the high stakes without a proper bankroll or that he was in a "gamblin'" mood. So I think that discapline is the most important thing: staying off tilt/patience/bank roll management

on a side note it seems like some of the pro's godlike abilities to read people would be up there somewhere also, No matter how perfect players play if you can read them well you own the fundamental theorm of poker. Like Men the master betting jack high versus a player for value.

But with a strictly mathematical approach to no limit I'd say that the river is the most important because usually the biggest bets will come on the river, amplifying your decision.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]

So, in what betting round are the decisions most complex and difficult?

(1) Pre-Flop
(2) Flop
(3) Turn
(4) River


[/ QUOTE ]

Limit: Flop.
PL: Flop and Turn. The Turn is critical.
NL: PF, Flop, and River.

[Louie Landale]

Its not just the difficulty of the decision, its also how much the right decision matters. If you cut grass for a living some wiz-bang may be able to figure out exactly how long you'll need between blade sharpening vis-a-vis how many blades of grass there is likely to be over the course of the summer. That's a difficult decision to make but it just doesn't matter: sharpen every month works fine.

Looking at it this way, the river betting offers the greatest advantage since that's the one with the biggest pots and matters the most.

- Louie

[DonkeyKong]

Dan Harrington says "I have a much bigger edge over someone else in the game when we are both losing than when we are both winning."

[Scotch78]

I'm really surprised more people didn't choose the river. Not only is the most money at stake then, but there's also the most information available.

Scott

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
Top sporting competitors often have a very tiny edge over their nearest competitors, and some people they beat may even have parts of their game that are better than the people they are regularly beaten by.

[/ QUOTE ]

This effect is bigger in poker because your edge over non-experts can outway your lack of edge over other experts. You could be a consistent loser in an expert game but still outperform those peers in a tournament if you are better than them at accumulating chips in the early stages from weaker players. If you reach the final table with a huge chip lead, it won't matter so much if you're inferior to the other players, as long as their edge over you is small.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Louie,

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. The cost of being wrong increases dramatically at each betting round, especially in big bet poker. And I'm not sure the later round decisions are as straightforward they might appear.

(Note: the following example a hypothetical hand. I'm not offering it to say this is the correct way to play JTs in this spot. I'm simply offering it as an example of how tricky and costly river decisions can be in big bet poker.)

Let's say you have J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]10[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on the button in a PL game. A decent MP player raises pre-flop, and another decent player calls ahead of you. You know the small blind is a tight player, and is unlikely to overcall, but the big blind is a weak player who probably will. The money is deep (around 200xBB for each relevant player), so you call on the button. And, predictably, the BB overcalls, so there's 14xBB in the pot.

The flop is: <font color="red">10</font>[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

You have top pair (but a weak kicker), a flush draw, and a backdoor straight draw. The BB bets half the pot, and the initial raiser calls. The player to your right folds, and you decide not to semi-bluff at this point, but simply make the call getting 4:1 on your money. So now there's 35xBB in the pot.

The turn is: [<font color="red">10</font>[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]] <font color="red">Q</font>[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

The BB checks, as does the initial bettor, and it's to you. Hrmmm ... 35xBB in the pot. You have 9 outs for the flush, and 6 outs for the straight. And you may be ahead. Do you semi-bluff here? Do you take the free card? If you do bet, do you bet the pot, or some lesser amount? The pot is big enough to be worth winning right now, and you're 1:2 to draw out even if you're behind. So okay ... you bet the pot. The BB folds, but the original MP raiser calls. Now there's 115xBB in the pot.

The river is: [<font color="red">10</font>[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]] [<font color="red">Q</font>[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]] 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

The initial MP bettor moves in for his remaining 95xBB. You have 70xBB left in your stack. Now what? It's not likely that the 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] helped him, unless he was on 77, and that doesn't seem likely given his turn call. Is he the kind of player who would have raised pre-flop with J8s? Was he milking along the draws with a big pair? Did he hit the Q at the turn, on a hand like AQ or QQ? Would he make this river bet with a hand like A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] or another missed draw? Would he have called the flop and checked the turn with a hand like AT or KT?

If you call, and you're right, you win 210xBB. If you call and you're wrong, you lose 70xBB. If you fold and you're right, you save 70xBB. If you fold and you're wrong, you lose 210xBB. You're getting 3:1 on the call. Is there a 25% chance he's either bluffing or betting a hand that you beat?

I think Louie may be right: consistently getting this kind of decision correct may mean more to your hourly rate (and variance!) than flop decisions do.

Thoughts?

Cris