TOP Re-Read Ch's 1-4

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
When I played the 800 chip tourneys I was uber tight early. In the 1000's i'm a bit looser early on. Well if I am interpreting chapter 4 properly, sklansky is saying that this is not wise. In fact that I should be playing TIGHTER early on in the 1000 chip tourneys than in the 800 chip tourneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, your ubertightness wasn't optimal to begin with, so there's no point in using that as a reference point for how tight/loose you "should" be playing in a 109.

Also, I don't know of the context of the quote so I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like he's talking about the deepishness of the stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
To recap the chapter, the higher the ante's (defind as ante's + blinds) the more hands you should play due to increased pot odds. The lower the ante's the fewer hands/tighter you should play due to the low pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in a Party SNG, assuming everyone keeps the same standard opening raise through levels, your pot odds aren't changing at all, just your implied odds.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a claue that you want to take advantage of bad play in low ante games so play more due to this, but if anything the 1000 chip games have FEWER bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all opponent mistakes can be capitilized on by playing more hands. Some you have to capitlize on by playing less hands.

Others you have to play more hands and make some moves.

[Pokey]

Page 5:

"However, mathematics is only a small part of poker logic, and while it is important, it is far less important than understanding and using the underlying concepts of poker."

This quote really threw me for a loop. In light of MLG's evolution post, does this just mean that Sklansky is so deep into level 4-5 that he forgets those of us at levels 2 and 3 who are just starting down the math path in poker? It seems that a more accurate description of math's importance in poker is "math is the absolute fundamental be-all and end-all of poker until you get it, and then it becomes nothing more than the undercurrent to all your more interesting decisions." Or am I just confuzzled again?

[ QUOTE ]
Page 5:

"However, mathematics is only a small part of poker logic, and while it is important, it is far less important than understanding and using the underlying concepts of poker."

This quote really threw me for a loop. In light of MLG's evolution post, does this just mean that Sklansky is so deep into level 4-5 that he forgets those of us at levels 2 and 3 who are just starting down the math path in poker? It seems that a more accurate description of math's importance in poker is "math is the absolute fundamental be-all and end-all of poker until you get it, and then it becomes nothing more than the undercurrent to all your more interesting decisions." Or am I just confuzzled again?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need to define 'the underlying concepts of poker' before we can answer those questions. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Math is very important in poker. If you knew everybody's hole cards AND everybody's thought processes/psychology, the hole game would be a bunch of calculations. But since the game of poker is a game of incomplete information and many variables, we can't possibly calculate everything that we need to know.
The only thing we can do is learn about the necessary calculations and the important variables, and then gain experience until we have developed a 'feel' for the game, where we 'just know' what is right and what is not. In a way you're doing most of the calculations subconciously I think. (Or you are doing everything from memory.)

I think that you may be correct in your assumption that he is talking about the 'end game' here, not necessarily the 'beginning game'.

I really think that 'math poker' is the same thing as ABC poker, basically you are making all your decisions based on what you actually know (being your hand, the cards on the board, and the pot size). When poker gets more complicated you have to start factoring in all the unknowns (player reading, card reading, etc.).

So the question then becomes, can you win with ABC poker? I think that the answer is us, up to a certain level. Based on what I have read I think that the following is the level of ABC poker, 5/10 Limit (online), 10/20 Limit (live game), 200 NL (online), and 50+5 SnGs (online). However keep in mind that the % of the player base that is learning ABC poker is greatly increasing and as this happens these limits will lower.

So if you want to play in the 100/200 Limit game (either live or online) math will be a small part of the skills that are needed to win at this level.

Margon

[Pokey]

Page 24:

[ QUOTE ]
When you have a hand that is rooting for a call, you should not try to make your opponent fold by betting an exorbitant amount in a no-limit or pot-limit game. Such a situation came up one day when I was playing no-limit hold 'em. There was one card to come, and I had a straight which, at that point, was the nuts....I bet something like $50, the player to my left called, and the player behind him called the $50 and raised the rest of his money, which was about $200.

Since I had the best possible hand, the question was, should I raise or just call? There was something like $500 in the pot. Because the third man was all-in, I only had to think about the man behind me. I knew if I reraised, say, $400, making it $600 to him, he definitely would fold; in fact, if I raised almost any amount he would fold. But if I just called the $200, he would probably call.

What did I want him to do? I was pretty sure he had two pair. If I called the $200, there would be about $700 in the pot, which would give him 7-to-2 odds on a 10-to-1 shot. So I just called the $200, and as I expected and wanted, he did too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we put this in the context of a SnG, does the reasoning change? It seems to me that, while the argument is still sound, the "out of chips = out of tournament" nature of a SnG means that we should aim to trim outs whenever we can. Is this one of those advantages that the peculiarities of a tournament require us to forgo? Should we be raising to win what's already in the pot instead of taking a (positive expectation) chance at a somewhat bigger score? Without stack sizes, remaining players, and blinds we can't actually ICM this, but intuitively it seems like tournament scenarios would require a closeout raise here.

[gumpzilla]

The answer is, of course, that it depends. The amount of stacks left behind for everybody at the table, and how many are left, and how likely you are to extract even more money on the river from the overcaller, are all important factors that might make extracting maximum value more important than trying to win the pot right away.

[Degen]

by FTOP we would be incorrect to fold TT to an open push if we saw their AK, even if all we are getting is 1:1 + blinds. i think the generally accepted rule is to pass on a coin flip (slight edge) early to survive...though i don't know if i'd take this spot in a deep stacked cash game either...

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
by FTOP we would be incorrect to fold TT to an open push if we saw their AK, even if all we are getting is 1:1 + blinds. i think the generally accepted rule is to pass on a coin flip (slight edge) early to survive...though i don't know if i'd take this spot in a deep stacked cash game either...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd take it early in an SNG, good for the hourly rate. In something like a live MTT, I'd pass.

In a cash game, I'd also take it, especially if it let me contend even deeper with a juiced player.

[tewall]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd take it early in an SNG, good for the hourly rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your thinking is either you'll get yourself in real good position for a high finish, or you'll just start another tourney. This is interesting. It seems intuitively wrong to me, however. I'll have to think about it.

It seems to me that if you fold you're in a situation where you are likely to finish ITM. If you call there's about a 50% chance you're done. If you win, it seems to me you don't gain nearly as much as you lose, so the risk/reward thing is off. If it were more like 2 to 1 instead of 13 to 11 I'd agree.

[maddog2030]

I did some calculations a while ago. If you're a pretty big winner at whatever limit (>17% ROI), you shouldn't do this. Less than that, it's either around breakeven even or +EV for you to take this. Also this is assuming 55/45, because its not going to be 50/50.