Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

Not sure if anyone wrote about this before but from last week's wsop circuit event. Phil I say math isn't as important as most people think. He says it's more about instincts and reading the players. This is very different than what most of the math guys think. The math guys seem to think the math it critical to success. Yet Phil Ivey(who to some is considered one of the best players in the world including sklansky i believe, if i'm wrong about that let me know. but i thought i have heard him praise Phil I before) says math isn't as important as most think.

So whose right? Phil I. or the math guys that say its all about the math?

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

Like most answers in life, it depends.

Most of the guys that play consistently well at this level don't even think about the math, but only because it's second nature. At that level, reads are much more important than at the level most of us play at.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

There are about 10 people in the world who can really read people like Phil Ivey, maybe even less.. so to every other normal player (and even most pros), math is more important..

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

Maths might well be less important than I think, and maybe less important than Phil I thinks, I very much doubt however that it is less impolertant than most people think.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

The most hillarious thing about that clip is that in the start he says math isn't important and he in the end he says something along the lines of "Get your money in with the best of it" and "having the best of it" is usually a mathetically reference to +EV

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

everyone overestimates the math you have to do in holdem, its a bunch of fractions and pot odds, not very hard.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

Agreed, once you know the basic odds of hand A vs hand B preflop and how to calc pot odds that's really it for pure math.

Then you get into the more complex "I think there is a x% chance he has this hand and if I raise there is an x% chance he folds, y% chance he calls, z% chance he bluffs" etc.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

In small stakes games, the math is how you win because your opponents make huge fundamental mathematical errors. So you can have enough edge just from playing mathematically correct to beat the game. And, in multiway pots the math of the situation is going to dictate most of your play, regardless of specific opponent reads.

At higher levels, the opponents don't frequently make fundamental mathematical errors. They aren't going to draw to a hand they're not getting odds to, because they understand the basic math of the game. Of course at these levels simply knowing the math isn't going to give you any edge, and you will have to use other skills to beat them--namely deceiving them into making FTOP errors by convincing them that you have a hand that you don't really have.

So I would say that math does matter at the higher levels, but it's just a fundamental. You can't really beat high level games without the basic knowledge of the math of poker, but at the same time that knowledge alone isn't going to give you an edge at that level.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

Do you think he was being entirely honest?

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if anyone wrote about this before but from last week's wsop circuit event. Phil I say math isn't as important as most people think. He says it's more about instincts and reading the players. This is very different than what most of the math guys think. The math guys seem to think the math it critical to success. Yet Phil Ivey(who to some is considered one of the best players in the world including sklansky i believe, if i'm wrong about that let me know. but i thought i have heard him praise Phil I before) says math isn't as important as most think.

So whose right? Phil I. or the math guys that say its all about the math?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Phil I is making a point that is analogous to the following.

A few years ago I read (in some science journal) an article about the chances of us earthlings making contact with an alien race. The article ran through a ton of variables (number of planets, solar systems, M-type planets, chances of life on any one of them, etc.), and attempted to put percentages and other numbers around each variable, so that they could all be plugged into one grand formula.

Then, the final variable was something like "chances that any one such species would have developed communication technology (radio in the spectrum we use, etc.) that we can detect", and it was 0-100%. In other words, the whole complex formula was worthless without that particular input.

I think there's a tendency when math is discussed in any poker forum to over-estimate (by a lot) the quality of the inputs you're likely to actually have when sitting at the table. Sure, every once in a while you're in a mid-limit stud game where the third street heads up raising between a guy with a deuce door card and a guy with a five door card makes it pretty clear (since you saw a folded ace) that one of them has pocket rockets and the other one has the kings. Then, you can plug your inputs into a formula with a high degree of accuracy, and produce a poker probe result.

But much more often, it's the inputs that are in doubt at the table (what does he hold, what will he do x% of the time if he holds that and I do y, etc.), not the formula itself.

And when playing big bet poker (where the implied odds are much more important relative to the pot odds early in the hand), making good reads of situations early in a hand (that is, having solid input for your formula when it counts the most from a leverage perspective) is of particular importance.

So, Phil I is (not surprisingly!) right. The math basics are all well and good, but being able to detect the situation accurately (aka, "reading" it) is much, much more important, assuming you can do the very basic math.

Of course, if by "getting your money in when you have the best of it" one means the EV (which is the math applied to the inputs), then it just becomes a tautology. But I suspect he meant that the "reading the situation" point is more important than the "number of decimals of calculation, given those inputs" point (even though EV obviously picks up both of those aspects in the broad sense).

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if anyone wrote about this before but from last week's wsop circuit event. Phil I say math isn't as important as most people think. He says it's more about instincts and reading the players. This is very different than what most of the math guys think. The math guys seem to think the math it critical to success. Yet Phil Ivey(who to some is considered one of the best players in the world including sklansky i believe, if i'm wrong about that let me know. but i thought i have heard him praise Phil I before) says math isn't as important as most think.

So whose right? Phil I. or the math guys that say its all about the math?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an either or proposition. It's also very much a matter of context. When Phil says 'math' is overrated, he is not likely talking about basic pot odds for a flush draw, stuff like that.

More importantly, given enough information, everything is simply a math problem. However, properly assessing this information on the fly is the 'feel' part of the game. Reading the other players' psyche and mood and actions and tells and behaviours all go into assessing their probability of doing something or having something. Those somethings are then the assumptions that you use to start your math problem. That's really the feel part of poker.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

For pot-limit and no-limit poker, I agree. I'm not so sure about limit, but I imagine that, with the zillions of math-guy players flooding it, math could very well be over-empthesized.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

Wow its funny its two things one the math doesnt matter cuz its just division addition subtraction multiplication so he doesnt think about it two he wants all you suckers to believe that not knowing pot odds and implied odds is a good thing lol! Somebody gimma a counter arguement as to how it could be bad to know those things and dont say then u dont spend enough time thinking about the players cuz my 9 year old sisters brain could do pot odds and implied odds

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

I'm sure other have said this but..The math is basically simple..it's the accuracy in which in you plug in the variables (feelings/reads) that make the great ones great. Phil was making a pretty simple point that many people will probably misunderstand.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]
At higher levels, the opponents don't frequently make fundamental mathematical errors. They aren't going to draw to a hand they're not getting odds to, because they understand the basic math of the game. Of course at these levels simply knowing the math isn't going to give you any edge, and you will have to use other skills to beat them--namely deceiving them into making FTOP errors by convincing them that you have a hand that you don't really have.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King by Michael Craig. Andy Beal discovered the exact opposite of what you stated above about the higher level players not making mathematical errors.

The math is NOT easy
 

I am always alarmed when people say poker math is easy. It isn't. Yes, it is multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. The thing is, if you use a tree structure to model the possible hands, the possible plays for each hand, and then the mathematically correct play for each one, then the weighted correct play overall given the possible hands/plays, then you have such a large number of calculations to do that it is very far from easy. If you have a piece of paper and a pen and a few hours to work out each hand, yes the math is not so difficult. But you don't. There is no one in the world who is correctly working out the math on each hand, so stop saying it is easy.

Second point. Perhaps for Phil the math is less important because he is very good at reading hands. The smaller number of potential hands that an opponent has, the easier the math becomes. If you are dead sure your opponent has a certain hand, the math is so easy that it doesn't matter, a monkey could do it. If you are certain it is one of two hands, it gets harder, quickly, but the correct play is still fairly obvious. Once there are three or four different potential hands, the number of branches increases astronomically and the math is very difficult. Hence Phil's very good reading skills make decisions more straight forward, and his strategy and math isn't so complex. Compare that with someone like Sklansky, who himself has said he doesn't read hands as well as the very top pros like Ivey. Since Sklansky has more hands to put his opponent on, the strategy and math become more and more important. So it isn't a matter of math not being important, because it simply is. It is a matter of explicit math making a difference, and for Phil it makes a lot less difference than for most.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am always alarmed when people say poker math is easy. It isn't. Yes, it is multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. The thing is, if you use a tree structure to model the possible hands, the possible plays for each hand, and then the mathematically correct play for each one, then the weighted correct play overall given the possible hands/plays, then you have such a large number of calculations to do that it is very far from easy. If you have a piece of paper and a pen and a few hours to work out each hand, yes the math is not so difficult. But you don't. There is no one in the world who is correctly working out the math on each hand, so stop saying it is easy.

Second point. Perhaps for Phil the math is less important because he is very good at reading hands. The smaller number of potential hands that an opponent has, the easier the math becomes. If you are dead sure your opponent has a certain hand, the math is so easy that it doesn't matter, a monkey could do it. If you are certain it is one of two hands, it gets harder, quickly, but the correct play is still fairly obvious. Once there are three or four different potential hands, the number of branches increases astronomically and the math is very difficult. Hence Phil's very good reading skills make decisions more straight forward, and his strategy and math isn't so complex. Compare that with someone like Sklansky, who himself has said he doesn't read hands as well as the very top pros like Ivey. Since Sklansky has more hands to put his opponent on, the strategy and math become more and more important. So it isn't a matter of math not being important, because it simply is. It is a matter of explicit math making a difference, and for Phil it makes a lot less difference than for most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be honest... nobody is actually doing the math on ranges. They are calculating the pot odds and making estimates on ranges based on logic and deductive/inductive reasoning (attributes important to a successful mathematician). Anyone who has gone further than Calculus 1 knows that poker math is VERY simple.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

Dude you're funny.

The basic math is fairly simple..what you're describing is pretty complicated but also pretty useless. So if I say weighing myself in the moring is pretty simple are you going to say, NO, NO, NO..you have to weigh yourself and subtract the mass of air in your lungs and continually subract the water that is being evaporated on your skin and then adjust for the airpressure in your house and add in the dog fart you inhaled when you got up..etc.

I can say I weigh 205 but you'll tell me I'm actually 205.1265789956458897. You can complicate any problem but if the simple solution gets you 99.9% accuracy I'm going to go out on a limb and say the other methods are just silly.

As for your second point..yea, I just said that in my original post only I used about 1/4 the amount of words.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

No problem, so what you are talking about is estimation, based on logic. It is not mathematically correct though. You may think that being about right is fine, and without ever going through the whole process you will never know how close your estimates are. If you are doing well in the long run, they are probably good. But I think that going through the process is very valuable, and can only help with estimations at the table.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

The only difficult thing about poker math is doing it very quickly on multiple tables and still having enough time to devote to the other equally important aspects of the hand.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

[ QUOTE ]
No problem, so what you are talking about is estimation, based on logic. It is not mathematically correct though. You may think that being about right is fine, and without ever going through the whole process you will never know how close your estimates are. If you are doing well in the long run, they are probably good. But I think that going through the process is very valuable, and can only help with estimations at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

The long mathematical calculations 2+2ers post when analyzing a range of hands are great, but it is more: 'I spent a half hour on this to impress my friends,' not anything you would normally do over the table. I found it interesting that on the WPT 'Poker By the Book' episode, Sklansky himself wasn't always that accurate when asked to give the odds.

I think it is a given that math is an important part of poker, but it is also a given that mathematical exactitude isn't going to make any player great. The variables are not determinable enough.

I think Lisandro did have the better full house, and it wasn't ESPN trickier that got him to fold to Ivey's all in. Just Ivey's willingness to put him to the test in that spot for a lot of his chips. No amount of math can give you the stones to do that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Frank

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

[ QUOTE ]
not anything you would normally do over the table

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of doing more complex analysis of hands off the table is so that you don't *have* to do it at the table, since it would be impossible. If you analyze enough situations, you can apply previous analysis to current situations and make a quick estimate as to what the best move is.

That's why repetition of hands is important, and why offline analysis and applying what you learn from that analysis is equally important.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I found it interesting that on the WPT 'Poker By the Book' episode, Sklansky himself wasn't always that accurate when asked to give the odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

OT, I found that very interesting also.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I found it interesting that on the WPT 'Poker By the Book' episode, Sklansky himself wasn't always that accurate when asked to give the odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

OT, I found that very interesting also.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was close enough IMO. But at a table, yeah on the spot, you are probably going to be off a little...over/under 5 percent, 10 percent...whatever. But you will usuall have a general feel.

U can do weighed outs against various hands where u have 3-6 outs...but u guestimate you have about 4-4.5 outs. Same w/ percentages.

As far as Sklansky...he faired pretty well on his guesses IMO.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if anyone wrote about this before but from last week's wsop circuit event. Phil I say math isn't as important as most people think. He says it's more about instincts and reading the players.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW Chip Reece said the same thing in PSI.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

Agreed.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

I think Phil would be correct in saying that in the arena we most often seeing him play in (NLHE tourney). In ring (cash) games, my opinion is that math is extremely important. But, in an arena where you lose your chips, and you are done, it should only be part of an overall consideration.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if anyone wrote about this before but from last week's wsop circuit event. Phil I say math isn't as important as most people think. He says it's more about instincts and reading the players.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW Chip Reece said the same thing in PSI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greenstein says it in AoTR. He does say that you need to know a little but it's not all that important.

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I found it interesting that on the WPT 'Poker By the Book' episode, Sklansky himself wasn't always that accurate when asked to give the odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

OT, I found that very interesting also.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. In Sklansky's defense, part of the reason the numbers on the screen were different is that they accounted for mucked cards.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think Phil would be correct in saying that in the arena we most often seeing him play in (NLHE tourney). In ring (cash) games, my opinion is that math is extremely important. But, in an arena where you lose your chips, and you are done, it should only be part of an overall consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I disagree. Math is less important in NL ring games since the money is generally deeper. Implied odds and player reads are more important. When the money is shallow like in the late stages of NL tournaments and you have to move in or fold preflop, the correct play is almost purely a math problem.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

He says that because he is not good at the math part. I think Sklansky posted that he beat Ivey heads up, partly because he played the math part better than Ivey.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW Chip Reece said the same thing in PSI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember hearing or reading Chip Reese saying that the thing that separates the very good players from the world class players is how they handle their bad runs.

He stresses the importance of not misbehaving when you get sucked out on by donk hands as well, which makes sense, because he's rather famous for being exceptionally good at - how should I put this - "seducing the fish"?

Re: The math is NOT easy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not anything you would normally do over the table

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of doing more complex analysis of hands off the table is so that you don't *have* to do it at the table, since it would be impossible. If you analyze enough situations, you can apply previous analysis to current situations and make a quick estimate as to what the best move is.

That's why repetition of hands is important, and why offline analysis and applying what you learn from that analysis is equally important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The same applies to backgammon. The reason it is important to see thousands of positions and study the equity/structural nature of each is that over time one develops a 'feel,' which is a relatively accurate substitute for the kind of detailed analysis you don't have time to do over-the-board.

Frank

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

I'm sure they make some. Still, they make fewer than rank amateurs.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

I remember this being talked about during the WSOP audio broadcast, when (I think) Harman and Negreanu were up. They stressed how much psychology went into it, to the point where it seemed (at least to me) that psychology has less emphesis than the math.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if anyone wrote about this before but from last week's wsop circuit event. Phil I say math isn't as important as most people think. He says it's more about instincts and reading the players. This is very different than what most of the math guys think. The math guys seem to think the math it critical to success. Yet Phil Ivey(who to some is considered one of the best players in the world including sklansky i believe, if i'm wrong about that let me know. but i thought i have heard him praise Phil I before) says math isn't as important as most think.

So whose right? Phil I. or the math guys that say its all about the math?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I find Phil's interviews quite embarrassing. He acts like if he had interview coaching. Basically he talks without saying anything.

Second, I think that math statement applies to high stakes poker. Math is all about making the "correct" play, while in high stakes poker they all pretty capable of playing close to perfection and it is all about making the wrong move at the right time.

The all-in he made on Lisandro in the WSOP was just about that. Representing queens or better on the river, because nobody would be so "stupid" to raise with nothing in that situation. That was all about psychology.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Phil I say math isn't as important as most people think. He says it's more about instincts and reading the players. This is very different than what most of the math guys think. The math guys seem to think the math it critical to success.

[/ QUOTE ]

seems to me that math and reading players go hand in hand. if you have the wrong read, the math is useless.

Re: Phil Ivey say Math not as important!
 

[ QUOTE ]


The all-in he made on Lisandro in the WSOP was just about that. Representing queens or better on the river, because nobody would be so "stupid" to raise with nothing in that situation. That was all about psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul Phillips wrote in his blog that he was pretty sure they messed up on this hand as they have on other broadcast hands in the past. He was fairly certainly Lisandro did not have the pocket tens tv said he did. I know it's hard to believe tv lied and deciding whether tv or Paul Phillips is wrong, I think that would put my computer in an infinite loop. Anyway, that's what was said.