An “Information Ratio” for Poker?

[Cerril]

It's a tendency toward weak/tight, but since the majority of winning situations fall in that 'risky' area if you trim off the ones that have low +EV (but positive still, the ones starting TAG players don't play yet anyway, since they don't always recognize the smallest edges) due to huge swings (high potential of being up against a quality second best or of being second best itself), then you aren't necessarily turning yourself into weak/tight (presuming that you need to be TAG to have a positive expectation), even if you're edging a little closer.

The key is being able to know you're only throwing away a piece of your edge, not the whole thing. Knowing that the specific plays you're tossing are high volatility is easier than that.

[for teh win]

Good starting post and interesting discussion.

I think both camps are right in a sense here, but that there is indeed an important lesson to be learned from finance. And it's not the first lesson. The bankroll management ideas discussed on 2+2, the concept of Risk of Ruin, reward-to-variability expressed as net winnings over standard deviation (the Sharpe ratio to finance geeks) etc etc - it's all straight out of Investment Management 101.

The lesson here is that you can choose your volatility and hence your average return. Reducing volatility will reduce returns. It's the price you pay for lower risk of getting knocked out. You can call it weak-tight or you can call it a rational investment given the circumstances, like e.g. bankroll or stack size. Or even opposition. As an example, compare playing overcards against a TAG and a maniac. The latter example bring it even further. Sometimes you don't even have a clue what your volatility for a certain play could be, but by hedging your risk and avoiding certain plays you can define it (somewhat at least) although it comes at a price. A price I am more than willing to pay at times and, I would guess, so would all the TAG-and-TAG-only proponents on this forum.

That reducing risk is the same as weak-tight is only really true if your play becomes exploitable by opponents. It could be of course. But on an average day I can't see why it would be anywhere near as exploitable as all those flaws we come here to correct. You're on PP playing for an hour or two against people you've never played before, you keep notes. They will notice that you fold but they will never know what. In fact, I'm not a multi-tabler myself but I would assume most multi-tablers play according to some system, however vague, that already implicitly incorporates the idea of hedging risk on a play-by-play basis.

[playerfl]

There is a guy that recently sold everything he had down to one set of clothing and bet it on one spin of a roulette wheel, red or black ( slightly less than 50/50 if I understand roulette properly). He won, but this was so extreme that he had tv people filming it.

This to me is nuts, but even if the odds were improved to say, the odds of winning with AA in holdem, I still wouldn't do it.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
...reducing risk is the same as weak-tight is only really true if your play becomes exploitable by opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, as soon as you opt out of a high variance play that you know is +EV you've already given away value to your opponents.

I think this argument has been reduced to a question of preference.

We all agree that EV is EV. If you knowingly give some away in order to achieve lower volatility that's your business.

For me personally, I have a very cautious, risk-averse approach to daily life. But when I play poker I LIKE ACTION.

/mc

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to say it, but to me this whole thing sounds like a very complex justification for playing tight/weak developed in reaction to a nasty downswing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very very well said. I read the original post and was thinking: "well, here's a guy I want to bluff into". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[m2smith2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Very very well said. I read the original post and was thinking: "well, here's a guy I want to bluff into". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I was talking about making plays not responding to them. I know your comment applies if you generalize volatility management to be WT, but I disagree with such a simplification.

The aforementioned Brunson through experiment is an apt description as to why.

[m2smith2]

Thanks for the response. You have a point, but I think it's too much of a simplification. Just as an example, managing volatility on draws based on your position might look WT, whereas overall raise/bet and bet/check could look completely different...

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very very well said. I read the original post and was thinking: "well, here's a guy I want to bluff into". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ] For the record, I was talking about making plays not responding to them. I know your comment applies if you generalize volatility management to be WT, but I disagree with such a simplification.

The aforementioned Brunson through experiment is an apt description as to why.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand how a "generalize volatility management" can be applied only to "making plays not responding to them". Every play in poker, IMO, is essentially a respone, to certain circumstances, certain hole-cards, certain board, position, opponents, etc. There are no "plays" in empty space. If you are consistently willing to sacrifice EV (i.e, reducing your EV) because of variance and volatility consideration, you are playing weak-tight.

It is of course the right thing to do in many tournament situations, but I understand you are talking about cash games. This "generalize volatility management" will be probably correct if you are playing at higher limits than you should, or if from some reason you are afraid to bust in a specific hand (if, for instance, there's a very weak player playing at your NL cash game, and you are on a limited bank-roll for some reason, so you prefer to sacrifice some EV against other player, in order to "survive" and play more against the weak player. There are other possible scenarios).

[m2smith2]

My only point with that last post was that I think it would be a mistake for you, or anyone, to assume that managing volatility in a particular situation equates with being weak tight. If I hit my flush draw and you pay me off to a showdown and then realize "he flopped a four flush and didn't bet it," if you adjust your game to a weak tight player YOU would be the one subject to a blush b/c you would have incorrectly gauged my style.

Weak tight just has a much broader meaning.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
If I hit my flush draw and you pay me off to a showdown and then realize "he flopped a four flush and didn't bet it,"

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please explain this point? If it's higher EV for you to bet your draw, rather than to check-call (is that what you mean by not betting?) against specific opponent/s, then if you don't bet it you lose potential money. Very simple.

[ QUOTE ]
if you adjust your game to a weak tight player YOU would be the one subject to a blush b/c you would have incorrectly gauged my style.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you mean "if you don't adjust..." etc. Anyway, it is relatively easy for an OK player to adjust to the weak-tight play you are advocating, if I understand your way of thinking correctly.

BTW, I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but the whole point in Ed Miller's new book (which had already became a classic, I think [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. you can also see his "Why you don't crush the low-limit games" famous post around here), is forgetting about this kind of weak-tight play, and maximizing EV up to the last possible cent of it, in EACH and every situation. Playing with this "managing volatility" approach in a limit ring game, looks very very bad, in this perspective.