Strangely Played Hand in 10K at Harrahs - Page 17

Vince Lepore · #**161** 03-29-2005, 06:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Never heard of game theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that you are trying to be sarcastic but you probably should use aomething appropriate to the situation. Especially since you do not know what you are talking about. Or maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you explain how to effectively use game theory in the situation described and then we can ask mr Math (Sklansky) or Mr. 10th smartest poker player (Phillips) if that is what they had in mind.

Vince

partygirluk · #**162** 03-29-2005, 07:05 AM

Simplyfying things a great deal:

if you always limp in this situation with AA, then when you raise your opponent can conclude that you don't have AA, which is bad.

if you always raise with AA, then when you limp your opponents can conclude that you don't have AA, which is bad.

Therefore against good, tough opponents, with deep stacks it is probably optimal to mix things up.

If you ask the question:

I am playing at a table with x players and I hold AB, and I have y BBs left and........... what should I do?

Most of the time there will be a correct answer. However, as stacks get deeper, and your opponents tougher, randomising becomes more important.

Vince Lepore · #**163** 03-29-2005, 07:06 AM

I don't know. What do you think? Do you think Harrington and Brunson might mention that if you are a top player you can vary from the advice on a consistent basis? Wouldn't they say that for beginners, as you seem to imply, raising is correct but for top pros the opposite is true, just limping is better? Don't you think that would be important to tell a reader? Although Harrington, who has won a world series, finished at the final table 2 other times including last year, states that he uses the raise strategy most of the time. Of course, Sklansky and Phillips, neither of whom has ever come close in the NLH Finals at the WSOP might be better tournament players than Harrington. What do you think?

Vince

Vince Lepore · #**164** 03-29-2005, 07:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
However, as stacks get deeper, and your opponents tougher, randomising becomes more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and in this case the situation was well defined and static. So?

Vince

partygirluk · #**165** 03-29-2005, 07:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, as stacks get deeper, and your opponents tougher, randomising becomes more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and in this case the situation was well defined and static. So?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely missing my point.

Vince Lepore · #**166** 03-29-2005, 07:16 AM

Oh, one other thing. The blinds are 25-50. It's early in the tournament. Tough table. Everyone has T10k and you believe that it necessary to randomize your play? BTW - I apologize for inferring that you do not know Game theory and how to apply it in a given situation. From your answer I believe that you know Game Theory much better that I do but you still have not shown why you believe that Phillips is using Game theory in this situation to determine his play.

Vince

partygirluk · #**167** 03-29-2005, 07:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. What do you think? Do you think Harrington and Brunson might mention that if you are a top player you can vary from the advice on a consistent basis? Wouldn't they say that for beginners, as you seem to imply, raising is correct but for top pros the opposite is true, just limping is better? Don't you think that would be important to tell a reader?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not aimed at World Class players! Would a basic English book say that if you want to describe someone who talks a lot you should use "talkative", but if you are speaking to an English graduate you could use "loquacious"?

[ QUOTE ]
Although Harrington, who has won a world series, finished at the final table 2 other times including last year, states that he uses the raise strategy most of the time. Of course, Sklansky and Phillips, neither of whom has ever come close in the NLH Finals at the WSOP might be better tournament players than Harrington. What do you think?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea who is the better player. But I am quite confident that the sample size is way too small to judge the relative tournament skills of these players just based on their WSOP finishes.

TransientR · #**168** 03-29-2005, 07:19 AM

But Vince, Paul is the 10th smartest player in poker. Who decides these things - Sklansky. Paul likes Sklansky's limp - great minds think alike.

I don't mind the limp, I wonder though about the fold.

Frank

partygirluk · #**169** 03-29-2005, 07:22 AM

It is more important to randomise with deepere stacks.

Vince Lepore · #**170** 03-29-2005, 07:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But I am quite confident that the sample size is way too small to judge the relative tournament skills of these players just based on their WSOP finishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider the total number of players in the WSOP's that Harrington has waded through to get to those final table you "just might" think the sample size was big enough to consider him pretty darn good. You don't want to discuss you just want to win some point. Ask any top pro, including Sklansky, their opinion of Dan Harrington's skill when playing NLH tournaments and everyone of them, I believe, will tell you that he is one of the best ever. And, the fact of the matter is that he states in his book that he prefers to raise in this situation.

Your english book analogy is silly and I think you know it.

Vince