What's the big deal about the inflection point theory?

[AliasMrJones]

I think you guys are giving way too much credit to your average tournament player. I played in a tourney what gets by as a casino here in CO a few weeks ago and many/most of the players had no idea that stack size matters. At the final table the guy to my left limped in for 1/4 of his stack, then called min-raise for another 1/4 of his stack, then check/folded the flop. This kind of play was not uncommon. Earlier, when it was down to 11 (4 get paid) folded to button with something around or just less than 10XBB who pushes, SB who has a fairly short stack goes into the tank and finally calls with KQ. Button had AT and won knocking out the SB. At the final table I mentioned this to one of the other players who had been at the table and he said, "I knew he had an ace when he pushed. He wouldn't have pushed without an ace. He's a good player." In that spot, I think a good player would raise with less than an ace.

In other words, people were not thinking "all-in or fold" when appropriate and were not adjusting their raising standards when appropriate based on their stack sizes. These are exactly the concepts talked about in the inflection point sections.

In the SnG forum there were comments about how "robotic push or fold" play in Party SnG's is not the future of "real poker" and other kinds of trash. I think my experience with small stack play from playing Party SnG's (along with reading the SnG forum and using eastbay's program) and because of that my understanding of inflection points was a real advantage in this tourney because many/most of the other players just didn't get it.

[Only_Why]

The argument is more that they used a new term for a concept that isn't new at all, not that everyone already understands the concept.

[Rock27]

Don't forget me. I invented the Internet.

Sincerely,

Al Gore


Rock27 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is more that they used a new term for a concept that isn't new at all, not that everyone already understands the concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't think that's the case. Here's a quote from the original post:

[ QUOTE ]
Dan does do a great job explaining it in detail, but the basic concept is pretty much blindingly obvious. One can easily deduce the gist of it prior to playing a single tournament from studying the structure and rules of tournament poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's clearly saying the content is well-known and obvious. I don't think that's the case and I have seen it not be the case. Also, I don't think the name "inflection point" is new. I've heard inflection point, tipping point, cusp, etc. used before. It may be the first time it has been used in a major publication.

[ramses]

I wasn't saying that is was widely known. I said it was very obvious to anyone who gave a little thought to the subject. For instance, I deduced the basic premise behind the inflection point theory before I had ever played a single tournament, which might explain why I was a good tournament player long before I was a good poker player. Then again, strategic analysis has always been a forte of mine, especially with games.

[AliasMrJones]

So you're saying it is "blindlingly obvious". I guess that's possible.

Others, though, chimed in with things like:

[ QUOTE ]
It's nowhere near as revolutionary as the gap. it's an idea that's pretty darn close to the 10Xbb rule, which is so commonly known that shana hiatt told us about it in a poker corner last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I got the impression that people were saying it is "pretty darn close to...so commonly known..."

[Bluff Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I don't understand the hype the inflection point stuff. Dan does do a great job explaining it in detail, but the basic concept is pretty much blindingly obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, several HUNDRED THOUSAND people are going to read the book. The concepts of tournament poker are not going to be as obvious to every one of them as they are to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

well that is just great!

[Shandrax]

Both the gap-concept and the inflection point theory are very intuitive.

Let's look at the gap-concept first. Since having the 2nd best hand doesn't get rewarded in Poker, the worst you want to happen is a tie. That's why you should only call if your hand is equal or better than the hands that are already in play. Rather obvious isn't it?

Same goes for the inflection-point. If you fight to your last chip and then start going all-in, you will double up and have 2 chips - not quite an archievement. It is rather obvious that you have to make a move before you are dead and when doubling up gets you back in the race.

Still, even if those concepts seem rather obvious, I think that it is important to formulate them. Harrington did a great job on inflection points and he did more than just reminding people that making a move is important. He told us when it is important and he gave us very specific rules on what to do.

What more can you ask for?

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Both the gap-concept and the inflection point theory are very intuitive.

Let's look at the gap-concept first. Since having the 2nd best hand doesn't get rewarded in Poker, the worst you want to happen is a tie. That's why you should only call if your hand is equal or better than the hands that are already in play. Rather obvious isn't it?[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

You say your statement is obviously true but it seems incorrect to me, generally, and in any case doesn't properly state the "Gap Concept" which is as follows:

' "There is a very important general principle understood by all good poker players. That is, you need a better hand to play against someone who has already opened the betting than you would need to open yourself." The size of the gap depends on how your opponents are playing, "If your opponents are quite loose, there may be no gap at all." '