Phil Ivey say Math not as important!

[betgo]

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.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ 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"?

[TransientR]

[ 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

[Quicksilvre]

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

[Quicksilvre]

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.

[Shandrax]

[ 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.

[splashthepot]

[ 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.

[benkahuna]

[ 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.