Theorem of poker

[golFUR]

You touch on a concept here I've been mulling for quite some time. As I have yet to figure out (all of the reasons) why some posts get plenty of responses and others go entirely neglected I'm still holding off before I post it.

I'll chance the ridicule and just say: screw the math.

There is a tendency here, bordering on the fanatic, to treat the math as THE answer in every situation. "You have odds" "You are giving away money in this situation" "over time" "in the long run" blah blah blah. I don't say the math is wrong, it is theoretically correct in every case. The problem is, we aren't playing with theoretical dollars against theoretical opponents. As well, every single case or response that references the long run seems to be wrapped up and tied off with a bit of faith. You have faith that in the long run the numbers are going to pay you off, that you aren't going to go bust before you get paid off, that your payoffs will come on the right tables...

To try to forestall the inevitable, I do use math. I do rough odds on every hand. Further, I'm mathematically inclined, I understand numbers intuitively and do very accurate 'back of the envelope' numbers on the fly. That said, I encounter situations a dozen times a day where the math takes a back seat to my read and to my comfort. I fold preflop with a very playable hand in a SnG when I sense the action is going to get out of hand and I don't want to mess up my image or I expect that tilted guy isn't going to go away or whatever...

I'm not going to go on. I'll save all this for its own post. Let me just point out one thing. There were a lot of people making money at poker, for a long time, before anyone pulled out a calculator and started getting theoretical about it. Even assuming Wild Bill was crunching numbers on his Aces and Eights, there have been plenty of players over the years who did it all with reads and intuition. If you are making money when you are comfortable and losing money when you are uncomfortable, seek comfort. If you have an idea that you are certain works at a real table but seems to go against the theoretically correct play... I don't know. Like I said, I'm still working this out for myself.

Let me just close by saying I understand. The confusion that arises when the book tells you to do something you are certain you shouldn't be doing... I don't know, but I wonder, what Stu Ungar would think of all these number crunchers...

[InchoateHand]

No offense...but a SnG is a completely different animal than a limit ring game. "Playable" hands in a SnG have widely varying definitions....but regardless, don't apply to limit ring games.

[Sundevils21]

golfur,
thinking like that is the perfect way to become a break even player, imho.

[PokerFoo]

Well, I'll end this by saying thanks to everyone. I have food for thought anyway.

While I still disagree with some of the math as justification for playing big pockets in these situations I'll keep an open mind and continue to explore my game for improvements.

I also disagree whole-heartedly that the lower limits are easier, at least for me. My hourly rate proves that. It goes way down at the tables where there are 7 or more 'gamblers' collectivly working against me and goes way up when I play against tighter players pre flop who make mistakes either on their own or induced by my own play later in the hand. I can get away from my own mistakes without costing me too much as well.

Fooling around in the micro's this week has reinforced this to me. You can lose hours of work in 2 hands against a whole table of hands collectivly working against you.

I think a few of you said it best in that there is nothing wrong with choosing the situations I feel good about and staying away from the ones I dont, regardless of the math.

For now, I'll stay uninvolved in those huge family pots unless I have Ax suited.

Anyhoo.. thanks for the input.

Foo
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
What would you rather have? Aces, kings or 5 8 suited?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Aces, aces and more aces. There is NO other hand I EVER want to hold other than aces. Its not even close. Not kings, not 85s, just give me Aces! With a very small sample, when more than 5 has seen the flop my Aces hold up 58% of the time, and I won 2.5 BB on average (I'm a bad player BTW - I can't really fold Aces). With 5 or less seeing the flop they hold up 64% of the time and I won 1.4 BB on average. I won more pots, and less money with fewer players. Show me the money every time!

[cnfuzzd]

First. Stu Ungar was a player with a near impossible ability to read people. He could overcome the deficit he saddled himself with by playing lesser quality starting hands. When you gain his reading abilities, then you can abandon the math.

Second. As has already been pointed out, SnG's are entirely different from a limit game. The soul of low limit games lies in exploiting ANY edge you have, no matter how small, to its fullest potential. Reads are important, but without the math, you will never achieve your maximum EV.

Finally, when you talk about theoritical dollars, you are neglecting to realize that these theoretical situations are how one can learn to play properly in said situations, and not be tainted by other influences such as bankroll concerns, (mis)reads, or the last hand.

Plain and simple, these theories that almost all the winning players on this site employ are the way to exploit the games we play in for the maximum profit. Several winning players have posted their stats, including winrates, for several tens of thousands of hands. When your system, or pokerfoos, or whomever's, has proven to be as successful over long periods of time, then i think you might have some position of authority to speak. Until then, i would, and am, try to follow, understand, and employ the theoretical approaches advocated here.

peace

john nickle

[cnfuzzd]

Your loss. Your huge, unfortuanate loss. But, at least you are thinking about it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


peace

john nickle

[golFUR]

There are probably a few things I am neglecting to mention...

First, I read here because I take your theoretical info and DO apply it to my games. I finally thought of a specific example...

Flush draws. On the flop I have a four flush. Straight math says that in limit, if there are enough people in the hand, you should jam it. If you are heads up you should get away from it. In NL, you do similar math adding in implied odds.

I took your theoretical info, that four flushes turn into flushes x out of y hands, and I use it as the most generic of guidelines. I find myself in situations constantly where I find other, non-mathematical, reasons for either chasing or folding. If I know a guy will ignore the board and pay me off, if I know there is the potential to seriously tilt someone, if I know that my A is playable regardless of whether or not I hit... Is all this supposed to go without saying? Is all this taken into account somewhere in the math and I'm missing it?

As for Stu's ability to read... I can't get inside anyone elses head but... is it that hard? By far, by a long long ways, when I lose on the river its a suckout or I missed something close enough to a coinflip as to make no difference. I mean, whether it is SnG or ring game, it takes at most an orbit to have a generic read on everyone, something at least usable. How many hands did they call in? Raise? What have they showed down? In most cases, one hand, a single hand and how it was played, gives you a handle on their abilities. Was there a way to maximize earnings and they missed it? Not as strong. Was there a reason for caution and they played it properly? Stronger. Given those limited reads it is a relatively simple process to put them on a range of hands and play accordingly, usually the range is small. To do all this I just recall my own learning curve. Given what I know about poker, and the order I mastered given abilities, it isn't much of a problem to put people in the appropriate place on that curve and play against them appropriately. If players are relying on math to make up for limited abilities in reading, I suppose I understand that. It seems a far more serious problem to me though, than a less than perfect ability to arrive at the significant digit past the decimal...

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Like when you DO win you will likely win LESS than you lost if you played equally as aggressive in THESE situations.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize how hard it is to lose more than say 6BBs in any given hand? Do you realize how big the pot is going to be when you have 6+ players in the pot for 3+ bets preflop?

[ QUOTE ]
What would you rather have? Aces, kings or 5 8 suited?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aces and its not even remotely close.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
With that many players though, your probably going to have to turn over a straight or better to take the pot. If I am wrong about this please show me some data to show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that giant turtles rule the universe. If I am wrong about this, please show me some data to show otherwise.

Do you see the lack of logic in your statement? It is not up to someone else to prove you're wrong, but it's up to you to prove you're right.