Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

FIRE!

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]
FIRE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you Bevis?

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FIRE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you Bevis?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Butthead, it's not.

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FIRE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you Bevis?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Butthead, it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh huh huh huh.......cool

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FIRE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you Bevis?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Butthead, it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]



huh huh huh huh.......cool

[/ QUOTE ] http://htomc.dns2go.com/anim/anim/bevbutt2.gif

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you knew your opponent had AA, would you have open pushed here? Of course not, so it's a mistake. Just because it's a mistake that everybody would make doesn't mean it's not a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not a mistake, any more than it's a mistake when you get your money in with your opponent holding QQ and they flop a Q. This is exactly the wrong kind of results-oriented to be.

I think what you mean is that it is a mistake according to Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker. But that doesn't mean that it's an incorrect play - or are you suggesting folding KK PF when it has been folded to you is correct? Also, I don't believe that the Fundamental Theorem applies to tournament play very cleanly, because there are many situations where your opponent can make a mistake according to the Fundamental Theorem but you still lose equity by having them call you. Bubble play is full of situations like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There can be different kinds of mistakes depending on context. It certainly is one kind of mistake to not realize this, [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img].

I believe you understand GrekeHaus but for some reason are interested in focusing on how he could incorrectly be using a term ('mistake') rather than making your focal point that Fundamental Theorem type thinking can't apply to STTs well.

On that subject, while the Theorem doesn't apply directly to tournament play, I'm not really sure how you can't mathematically tell who is making better decisions if you have a certain number of HHs and can see everyone's hole cards. It will be trickier, perhaps, than for a limit ring game, but it should still work.

Yugoslav

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure how you can't mathematically tell who is making better decisions if you have a certain number of HHs and can see everyone's hole cards. It will be trickier, perhaps, than for a limit ring game, but it should still work.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) Even in this instance, how do you propose to do this? Are you aware of a mathematically provably correct way of moving from tournament standings to equity?

b) You guys appear to be talking about a kind of mistake that is not particularly relevant to the context of determining who plays well, which was what this thread and discussion was about, which is why I'm harping on it. We'll all agree that correct SNG play involves substantial amounts of PF pushing late, frequently with any two in the right situations. Yet you guys are saying that it we can determine mistakes from a hand history if I push and my opponent happens to pick up AA. This isn't a mistake, it's bad luck.

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure how you can't mathematically tell who is making better decisions if you have a certain number of HHs and can see everyone's hole cards. It will be trickier, perhaps, than for a limit ring game, but it should still work.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) Even in this instance, how do you propose to do this? Are you aware of a mathematically provably correct way of moving from tournament standings to equity?

b) You guys appear to be talking about a kind of mistake that is not particularly relevant to the context of determining who plays well, which was what this thread and discussion was about, which is why I'm harping on it. We'll all agree that correct SNG play involves substantial amounts of PF pushing late, frequently with any two in the right situations. Yet you guys are saying that it we can determine mistakes from a hand history if I push and my opponent happens to pick up AA. This isn't a mistake, it's bad luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Btw...this thread didn't start out being about making good plays. However, the OP has written like a bajillion other posts on that topic.

What you're saying applies to cash games too...so I'm not really sure what your point is. I don't see how you can't do for tournaments what you can do for ring games via FTOP. The idea is that one can play perfectly if seeing everyone's hole cards. While the best tournament strategy varies very differently from how you'd play if you could literally see everyone's hole cards, so do ring games. Also, in both structures one may even choose to make a 'bad' play even if seeing his/her opponent's hole cards due to metagame reasons....practically speaking, you are playing against imperfect players and so you must take their imperfections into account in your decisions. So if you're saying that the fundamental theorem is largely correct but not always...well, ok. Greke most likely will agree that practically there are situations one should abandon a strictly mathematical calculation based on perfect information, due to external imperfect information.

However, with perfect information, ring game and STT decisions both can be reduced to relatively simple math....which I think is what Greke is trying to say.

Yugoslav

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]

Btw...this thread didn't start out being about making good plays. However, the OP has written like a bajillion other posts on that topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but it has spawned a lengthy subdiscussion on how to identify good players if you believe that statistical analysis of results is "horrible."

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you can't do for tournaments what you can do for ring games via FTOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain pushes an 8 BB stack from MP. It's folded to you in the BB with AdKd. Villain accidentally shows you that he's holding two black sixes. You're getting 9.5:7 (or better) odds to call, and you're a 52:48 dog. In a cash game, this is clearly a correct call with no further information. However, in a tournament situation, there are so many other variables to consider: how close are we to payout? How big is my stack? How big is everybody else's stack? Are the blinds going up soon? etc. Now how do we take these variables into account?

The point is that the $ EV in a tournament is much more fundamentally linked to the situation of everybody else at the table and to what those situations will be like in the future than in a cash game. This is the same reason why the Fundamental Theorem doesn't really work in a tournament; even when there are only two of you in a pot, equity can be transferred to players other than yourselves.

Re: RANDOM thoughts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Btw...this thread didn't start out being about making good plays. However, the OP has written like a bajillion other posts on that topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but it has spawned a lengthy subdiscussion on how to identify good players if you believe that statistical analysis of results is "horrible."

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you can't do for tournaments what you can do for ring games via FTOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain pushes an 8 BB stack from MP. It's folded to you in the BB with AdKd. Villain accidentally shows you that he's holding two black sixes. You're getting 9.5:7 (or better) odds to call, and you're a 52:48 dog. In a cash game, this is clearly a correct call with no further information. However, in a tournament situation, there are so many other variables to consider: how close are we to payout? How big is my stack? How big is everybody else's stack? Are the blinds going up soon? etc. Now how do we take these variables into account?

The point is that the $ EV in a tournament is much more fundamentally linked to the situation of everybody else at the table and to what those situations will be like in the future than in a cash game. This is the same reason why the Fundamental Theorem doesn't really work in a tournament; even when there are only two of you in a pot, equity can be transferred to players other than yourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, this is the type of post I was hoping for.

I agree wholeheartedly. One would have to adopt an equity model to do these strict calculations...ICM should work very, very well here (especially if a few short stack/position relative to blinds scenarios are optimized). And I think doing this calculation with perfect information would show exactly who is better. I don't think we'd get weird situations where we decided a worse player was better than a superior player.

Yugoslav