Phil Ivey say Math not as important!

[TransientR]

[ 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

[niin]

[ 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.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ 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.

[oreogod]

[ 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.

[binions]

[ 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.

[Smoothcall]

Agreed.

[jackaaron]

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.

[CrazyN8]

[ 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.

[sammy_g]

[ 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.

[sammy_g]

[ 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.