Negreanu says....

[BruceZ]

Mason,

Here is a link to the article in question. Nowhere does it even mention David Sklansky or you. None of the statements in this article, alone or together, imply the statement that “math types take math much too seriously when it comes to poker”. This is just another case of Vince's floccinaucinihilipilification of all things mathematical.

-Bruce

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason,

" None of the statements in this article, alone or together, imply the statement that “math types take math much too seriously when it comes to poker”. This is just another case of Vince's floccinaucinihilipilification of all things mathematical."
-
-
-

From Daniel's article:

"I often make wisecracks about "math guys" and their approach to poker......if you focus only on the numbers........you'll come up with the wrong answer far too often."

Lloyd please get your facts straight before you floccinaucinihilipilification me. Beides does the thought that "humor escapes you" mean anything.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read Daniel article. I think its excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Do you truly believe that Howard Lederrer or other "math types" do not know how to do hand analysis? Isn't that what Daniel is saying by mentioning Howard and "other math types" when describing what he considers "Ted Forests" wrong play of this hand?? Why did Daniel find it necessary to use Howard Lederrer as a scapegoat in his "excellant" article?

Give me a break.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

Daniel a self proclaimed "people" poker player gave us his learned opinion of the difference between what he refers to as "static vs condiditonal" probability.

I thought that was either perceptive or cute. I'm sure other descriptions fit also. Like ...presumptious maybe.

Vince

there was an all-in raise, Ted Forrest called, and Daniel called too, and this sidepot ensued. This is very relevant, as it makes Daniel much less likely to be holding a hand that has a 6 in it.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
it makes Daniel much less likely to be holding a hand that has a 6 in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

Vince

having a player all-in in front of him and a call makes it less likely that Daniel will play a hand like 6-7 suited, doesn't it?

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
having a player all-in in front of him and a call makes it less likely that Daniel will play a hand like 6-7 suited, doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The all-in player was the short stack. Ted Forest called. Daniel was the chip leader in the small blind. Forest still had plenty of chips left. (I am reading this into Daniels comment that the stacks were pretty close together but Diagostino was short stacked). Negreanu in this situation might call with a wide range of hands that very well could include a 6. The prospect of knocking out a player or maybe two I'm sure influenced his decision.

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bruce:

I just looked at the Negreanuarticle. He says the following.

[ QUOTE ]
What Howard neglected to factor in with his commentary was the conditional probability of the situation. When doing “poker math,” it’s important to not only look at the static probability of your opponent having a certain hand, but to also factor in the likelihood that your opponent could hold the hand you are worried about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously he doesn't understand exactly what is meant by conditional probability, but he's clearly making an argument for a Bayesian approach even though he doesn't realize it.

He also states this:

[ QUOTE ]
I often make wisecracks about “math guys” and their approach to poker. Now, I fully understand how important math is at the poker table, but if you focus only on the numbers without factoring in your opponent’s mood and playing style, you’ll come up with the wrong answer far too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again he confuses a few people who do some arithmetic type calculations with those who, like himself, are very good at statistical logic. If he ever becomes more familiar with some of our books, and I'm including my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics as well as David's Getting The Best of It where some Bayesian statistics is talked about, it would probably slow down some of these comments that Negreanu frequently makes.

And finally Negreanu states:

[ QUOTE ]
Conditional probability is what you should focus on if you want to reach the highest levels in poker. Static probability can get you only so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's just me but I do find it irritating when he uses the "conditional probability" incorrectly. Again to be specific he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
“Does this guy have it or not? Does this guy have the guts to bluff me here?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Best wishes,
Mason

"Sure, it’s true that I’ll often play suited connectors in big pots because of the implied odds they offer, but in this situation, there was an all-in player and a dry side pot. Even if I hit a 6-5 of clubs, for example, I couldn’t get paid off, since Ted would know that it would be silly for me to bluff in this situation."

- from the article