Negreanu says....

Bayesian statistics is a conditional probability

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that there is literally a 0% chance of a world-class no-limit HE player like Daniel holding a single six is absurd. In this situation (shorthanded, against other world-class players) there is great value in deception.

If the other players are able to eliminate certain possibilities completely, Daniel would be giving up a significant edge. Forrest knows this.

The probability of Daniel playing 7-6 or 6-5 or 8-6 or even A-6 is non-zero. I think it is quite low, maybe 10%, but it is definitely non-zero.

Perhaps, by telling the world that he would "never" call pre-flop with a single six under those circumstances, Daniel is hoping the other top players will believe him. That might allow him to make this kind of play in the future with complete deception.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, there was ZERO chance that I could have a 6 in this situation. Precisely zero, and that's a promise!

Remember now, the implied odds that might make playing a goofy hand worthwhile are nullified by the fact that there is a dry side pot.

Also, the raise was simply way too big to ever call with a hand that contained a 6 in it- yes even A-6.

I was talking to Juanda about the hand last night and he came up with zero percent also. Of course, John knows my game well and could be bias, but frankly, there is no way a good player calls such a large raise in this situation with a suited connector... even me!

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on admit it your ego got pumped when you thought you had bested Howard. I mean after all "you were shocked" that he doesnt' get it!

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I was beyong shocked, I was absolutely flabberghasted. It shocked me that a good player like Howard would have trouble with such a simple situation.

Ted, he is a different story. He was thinking "tournament strategy" and just goofed up. Ask Ted what he thought of his check and he'll tell you that.

Howard, well he thought it was a GOOD check. It got me to thinking about how others approach poker. Howard is obviously successful with his approach, as is David Sklansky with his.

I'm sure there are a million things that both players know, or do better than I do in certain areas, but when it comes to the psychological aspects of the game I genuinely feel like I have the upper hand.

You can assume that my motives for writing the column were ego driven, I can't change that and frankly, I don't really care.

The hand was interesting to me, and I had no qualms about putting Howard and Ted's names in the column, and why should I? They are grown men and can handle criticsm.

[Exitonly]

Do you think Howard is just defending this because of his ego? or does he actually ignore previous actions when determining probability? I think it's gotta be the former, theres just no way he could be as succesful as he is.

[David Sklansky]

"Howard, well he thought it was a GOOD check"

But if he was wrong it wasn't because he was a "math guy". You don't need math to tell you there is only one six and one ace left in the deck.

[Smoothcall]

You feel you have the upper hand in the psychologigal aspects of the game against Ted Forrest? I wonder how he feels about that?

And i agree that you can write about Howard and Ted. That they are big boys and can handle it. Tell that to you cronies that bash me evertime i point out mistakes you make.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]

He's talking Bayesian. That has nothing to do with conditional probability.


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't he basically say given the call(along with the conditions), whats the probability that he would hold a 6? Sounds like conditional probability to me. And it seems like a strange claim since Bayesian is based on conditional probabilities.

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
"Howard, well he thought it was a GOOD check"

But if he was wrong it wasn't because he was a "math guy". You don't need math to tell you there is only one six and one ace left in the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that 100%. Just to clarify I didn't say anything like that in the column.

[David Sklansky]

And to clarify futher, of the top 100 poker players in the world, only ten to fifteen of them are more math oriented than you are. I know that by your answers to my quizzes and your refernces to the computer simulations you study. However, like Mike Caro you publicly distance yourself from your own mathematical inclinations because you know I already have that turf covered and because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[yellowjack]

[ QUOTE ]
and because it annoys you that I've got more twenty three year old girls than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Wow.