All In Free Throws

David Sklansky · #1 11-01-2004, 07:46 PM

Obviously my calling most tournament pros "rank suckers" when it comes to late stage all in preflop strategy is a bit of hyperbole. A more accurate description is to make an analogy to basketball. The typical NBA player is far above average when it comes to free throws. But in this fairly important aspect of the game most pros are significantly worse than the best practitioners. There are certainly tens of thousands of people who can hit over 85%. Many could do this even in the heat of battle. Some would shoot underhand.

I suspect that most NBA players suckerdom when it comes to free throws is partially a physical attribute. But it is probably also part a lack of studiousness. An unforgiveable lack regardless of how well they play the rest of the game. The analogy to tournament poker where there are thousands of math guys who know more about all in situations than the guys who make their living at it is my point.

Men the Master · #2 11-01-2004, 08:00 PM

Wilt Chamberlain was the biggest scorer of all-time but he was near the bottom in free throw percentage.

goofball · #3 11-01-2004, 08:57 PM

no pun intended i'm sure

Men the Master · #4 11-01-2004, 09:34 PM

Not as big a scorer as Jim Brown eventually will be, though.

fnurt · #5 11-01-2004, 08:12 PM

Among pros you may be right that the only excuse is laziness.

Out here in the rank-and-file, however, I think there is a depressing amount of reliance upon bad poker books and unexamined platitudes.

If you don't take a mathematical approach to the game, you run the risk of letting emotion rule you instead. Many players, if they get their chips in as a 60-40 favorite and lose, will think "that's what I deserve for betting all my chips on a coinflip." Now there are times to pass up a 60-40 advantage, but that is not my point. My point is that all attempts at rational analysis go by the wayside. Getting busted out of a tournament is tough on the psyche and some people look at it as a sign from the Almighty that they must have played wrong. That's not an approach conducive to improving your game.

Another self-destructive form of fuzzy thinking is a resistance to learning the mathematics of a situation, because "poker is more complicated than that." Of course there is more to poker than pure mathematics, but the math is still a basic tool that you need. If you know your opponent perfectly and know that he would only make that raise with a pair higher than 88, what good does that knowledge do you if you can't figure out whether a call is mathematically correct against that range of hands? As I've said elsewhere, there are a million factors you can consider in playing a poker hand, but it's a lot easier to make a decision if you know the mathematically "correct" play and then can decide if extraneous factors should cause you to deviate from that play.

I don't mean to come off as cocksure because I am just another player. Some aspects of my game (I hope) are better than average; some (I know) are worse than average. But when it comes to those few areas of the game that I do understand, it hurts to see people come to these forums, time after time, with the same misconceptions about poker and about tournament play. In a sense maybe it should be encouraging that even top pros can fall into the trap of neglecting to think about the mathematics.

Vince Lepore · #6 11-01-2004, 10:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Out here in the rank-and-file,

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a play on words? Do you really mean out here in the "rank sucker" world?

Vince

David Sklansky · #7 11-01-2004, 11:11 PM

Among pros you may be right that the only excuse is laziness.

Out here in the rank-and-file, however, I think there is a depressing amount of reliance upon bad poker books and unexamined platitudes.

If you don't take a mathematical approach to the game, you run the risk of letting emotion rule you instead. Many players, if they get their chips in as a 60-40 favorite and lose, will think "that's what I deserve for betting all my chips on a coinflip." Now there are times to pass up a 60-40 advantage, but that is not my point. My point is that all attempts at rational analysis go by the wayside. Getting busted out of a tournament is tough on the psyche and some people look at it as a sign from the Almighty that they must have played wrong. That's not an approach conducive to improving your game.

Another self-destructive form of fuzzy thinking is a resistance to learning the mathematics of a situation, because "poker is more complicated than that." Of course there is more to poker than pure mathematics, but the math is still a basic tool that you need. If you know your opponent perfectly and know that he would only make that raise with a pair higher than 88, what good does that knowledge do you if you can't figure out whether a call is mathematically correct against that range of hands? As I've said elsewhere, there are a million factors you can consider in playing a poker hand, but it's a lot easier to make a decision if you know the mathematically "correct" play and then can decide if extraneous factors should cause you to deviate from that play.

I don't mean to come off as cocksure because I am just another player. Some aspects of my game (I hope) are better than average; some (I know) are worse than average. But when it comes to those few areas of the game that I do understand, it hurts to see people come to these forums, time after time, with the same misconceptions about poker and about tournament play. In a sense maybe it should be encouraging that even top pros can fall into the trap of neglecting to think about the mathematics.

What a great post. I'm repeating it for those who did not read it the first time. No elaboration needed

MLG · #8 11-01-2004, 11:33 PM

fnurt, you have reached the promised land. it might be time to retire from poker posting at the top of your game.

mmbt0ne · #9 11-01-2004, 11:54 PM

Seriously. That would be printed, and up on my fridge right now.

DonkeyKong · #10 11-02-2004, 01:10 AM

I haven't been reading here all that long but that is a great post by Mr Sklansky... Well-worded and well-framed. The humility part wasn't needed but the fact that it was included is impressive.

This is an honest question, why wasn't all this math more prevalent in TPAP? The phrase 'Fold Equity' doesn't even appear in the index. I know the book is for 'advanced players' but if so many pro's aren't using the math, then surely this is worthy of an advanced poker book???

David, Mason --- que pasa?