Theory of Deadweight Information Loss

[AaronBrown]

Most poker theory takes a different approach. The information in B is not necessarily valuable. A good player will keep track of the information she has revealed, and act in the future to frustrate people trying to take advantage of it. Granted most players have some degree of predictability, so it does make sense to assume they are likely to act as they have in the past. However the value of this kind of information in poker is much less than in other games, and the better the players, the less valuable it is.

The usual poker advice is if you are willing to call a raise (including an all-in raise) you should make it yourself. The main exception is when you are slow-playing, you also need to work in exceptions for deception. But in general, it takes a stronger hand to call a raise than to make a raise, and to bet less than the maximum amount you are willing to bet gives options to the other player, and thus is passive.

As you can see, this sacrifices information about the other player's hands in the interest of limiting their options. It is closer to minimizing the information about their strategy than maximizing it. Gathering information is passive, forcing issues is aggressive, and conventional wisdom is that aggressive is better.

Therefore, this is a radical way of looking at the game. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but most people's first reaction will be to argue with you.

I don't like your specific example because calling an all-in raise with only an overpair is suicidal. Villain is representing a set, which has a 90% chance of winning. Even if he is loose enough to call 3 BB preflop with KJ and go all-in with two pair, he has a 73% chance of beating you. This ignores any flush possibilities. You are only likely to beat a pure bluff.

[ QUOTE ]
The information in B is not necessarily valuable. A good player will keep track of the information she has revealed, and act in the future to frustrate people trying to take advantage of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would content that this is a constant concern in poker, and any method of information gathering merely results in a better chance of anticipating your opponents actions. (You can better read when and why he is changing his plays up.

[ QUOTE ]
Granted most players have some degree of predictability, so it does make sense to assume they are likely to act as they have in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is no implicit assumption that says that along with the absorption of information on your opponent you must assume that the opponent will act in this exact manner again. Instead you can use the information to better gauge what level your opponent is thinking at.

[ QUOTE ]

The usual poker advice is if you are willing to call a raise (including an all-in raise) you should make it yourself. The main exception is when you are slow-playing,


[/ QUOTE ]
or value betting.

[ QUOTE ]

But in general, it takes a stronger hand to call a raise than to make a raise, and to bet less than the maximum amount you are willing to bet gives options to the other player, and thus is passive.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Gap Concept. TOP. but I am confused when you say that betting less than the max you are willing to bet gives them options. Again I must say that value betting should be an important part of your arsenal. The fundamental TOP says that you want to induce your opponent to make mistakes, and putting too much money in for their draws is the best kind of mistake you can induce... half the pot is a sufficient amount. Don't need to jack it always...

Harrington says in HOH that if you find yourself pushing at pots to protect a lead, you need to re-evaluate if this is the most +EV thing to do. You can often get someone to chase.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I apprecite you taking the time to offer comments and criticisms....

In closing, I would just say that information gathering in NLHE, especially tournaments -- is not passive in ANY WAY... the way you get information is by betting into someone. When you check to them you do not know what their betting represents. This is a fundamental resonance that fills TOP and HOH.. BET BET BET for information... I just cannot be dissuaded from this belief, it is a central tenant to how I play poker.

[elmitchbo]

quite frankly, i agree with both of you to some extent.

i think it is valuable to gain information at every available oppurtunity. i also think that sacrificing aggression for the simple purpose of gaining information is, more often than not, an incorrect play. you don't want to BET BET BET for information, you want to BET BET BET because it gives you the best chance to win pots. any information that is unveiled in the process is a happy byproduct, but it should never be your primary concern in the way you play a hand.

i would like to see you're other examples before i make more commments. i think you might be on to something, but your example isn't the greatest.(in quoting HoH you say pushing to protect leads isn't always the most EV play, but in your example you're way behind)

suggesting this type of play is more valuable in a tournament is crazy. you may gain lots of information from a hand that gets you busted out by a player you will never see again. information gathering is more valuable in ring games, because you are more likely to get a second chance to put it to use.

let's see some more hands that back up your ideas.

good post... got me thinking!