|
|
#21
10-23-2004, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Now David, I am angry!!!!
I'm less mathematical than you think. On these forums I emphasize questions that are mathematical in nature mainly for two reasons.
1. I think it is good that there be a final indisputable answer when I am trying to teach something. 2. The non mathematical aspects of poker should only be concentrated on after you have mastered the fundamntals. Most people want to gloss over the fundamentals. 
|
|
#23
10-23-2004, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now David, I am angry!!!!
<<The non mathematical aspects of poker should only be concentrated on after you have mastered the fundamntals. Most people want to gloss over the fundamentals.>>
Let me just say that this forum is an awesome setting for learning poker fundamentals. Thanks for doing what you do --- very cool.
|
|
#24
10-23-2004, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now David, I am angry!!!!
IMO, once you have used your best judgment (feel?) to acertain a range of hands that will call your all-in bet, it cannot be anything but a question of math. However, this may not be the case in other situations, such as many post-flop decisions.
-Diplomat
|
|
#25
10-23-2004, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now David, I am angry!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
That is not what I said. The math is not in error. In the pre-flop scenario, admittedly the math is extremely important. But EV is only an estimate. It is what it is. But this estimate can have low error associated with it or high error associated with it. If your assumptions are correct, your 'EV model' is good. If your assumptions are not correct, ie others play unpredictably, your 'EV model' is not good. There is no such thing as a 'useful/objective EV model' or else reading people would not matter and the NLHE tournament champions would all be dominated by mathmeticians. Because you do not know how others are going to play -- all you can do is assume that they will do X if they have Y or they will not do X if they have Y. Again, the math can be spot on or it might not. [/ QUOTE ] First off, you're right, you didn't say that. You said the math can be in SIGNIFIGANT error, which is even more wrong. If you don't understand why the math cannot be in error, then I can't explain it to you. The math is what it is and it is never in error. What can be in error is your estimates of what others may have or may not have and what range of hands they may or may not call with. The math is based on your input, if your input is wrong, then the math will be wrong.
|
|
#26
10-23-2004, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now David, I am angry!!!!
As a true newbie and still loser in on-line play I know my opinion won't count for much.
But what I gain from these forums is a constant reminder to follow the basics. The math of poker is a basic. The math gives us starting hand rankings, pre-flop guidance, post-flop guidance, etc. Reads are important but what I get from this thread and many other similar ones is "focus on the basics and then use your skill (lack thereof in my case) in reading your opponent." To argue that something is not a math problem when it's the math that sets the stage is to argue in favor of ignoring the basics of poker. In that case, even I can probably beat you.
|
|
#30
10-23-2004, 05:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now David, I am angry!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
I'm less mathematical than you think. On these forums I emphasize questions that are mathematical in nature mainly for two reasons. 1. I think it is good that there be a final indisputable answer when I am trying to teach something. 2. The non mathematical aspects of poker should only be concentrated on after you have mastered the fundamntals. Most people want to gloss over the fundamentals. [/ QUOTE ] These two points ought to be stickied on every strategy forum on this site (or, for that matter, anywhere poker is discussed in earnest).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
