Rick';s "Fundamental Theorem of Disagreement" (version 0.1)

[Rick Nebiolo]

Sorry, have to writte fast because I have an appointment tonight.

[ QUOTE ]
Now Dynasty thought that a call was the correct play, but he didn't recognize that folding was almost as good a play. Clarkmeister incorrectly thought folding was the best play, but he recognized the play was close.

Then Dynasty makes more money with less understanding of the position, while Clarkmeister makes less money with more understanding of the position. Sadly, you can’t deposit understanding at the bank; It’s the decision that matters. Since understanding is only valuable to the extent that it translates into better decisions, I’m not supporter of the Theorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theorum tries to show the quality of the thinking behind the decision. Unless this analysis is not typical, Clarkmeister should more often make the correct analysis AND play.


[ QUOTE ]
You may both be beating the crap out of your games because each play is right for that game. For example, the 100-200 might have strong players who will fold often enough to his bets to make his overcalls correct, while your 10-20 game might be loose enough that you can’t value bet your marginal holdings profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]

This 60/120 game sounded softer than the 15/30 and 20/40 games I play. This hand is applicable to my games.


[ QUOTE ]
...if the EV is a fairly small swing in either direction, perhaps there is a greater EV swing decision that you have not uncovered yet, and your reposting efforts on this decision might be more profitably spent on uncovering that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reluctance to take one off on the flop appears to be a major area where I tend to be on opposite sides from many posters in threads going back several years. If I'm wrong, I want to find out why and work on it.

Regards,

Rick

[mike l.]

"Mikel. is a mojo machine right now, running good for the last 8 months"

but doing everything i can to lose all of it back before the end of the year. really trying here guys so cheer me on.

anyway re: rick and his anal nit problem, er, i mean "theorem of disagreement", well i dont know what to say. it did occur to me to fold on the flop, ill say that much, and it also occured to me to raise, but then i decided calling and waiting to see what happens on the turn was the play. the luxury of my great position helped me greatly in my decision. so i really could see what happened on the turn, rather than make my play and then worry and see what happened on the rest of the flop. anyway im rambling. ill look at rick's post again later and see if i can make ass, er, i mean, sense of it at all.

[andyfox]

One of the problems I have with Rick's theorum is that there's a big difference between the difference between calling and raising and the difference between folding and calling. (Ssorry, about that sentence, it's the best I can do) If it's close between calling and raising, while sometimes you may cost yourself a pot by calling where you should raise, often you won't, and you may sometimes accidentally win a pot by raising when you should call. But if you fold when you should call, you've lost the entire pot tghat you might/should/would have won. It's gone, forever.

So while I may agree with Rick that it's better to be closer to the correct answer if it only affects whether you call or raise, it is better to be farther away, yet make the right decision, if it causes you to fold when you should call. Like, for example, in your hand.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope to find a simple way to quantify their disagreement (or agreement).

[/ QUOTE ]


The 'simple way' may be more difficult to achieve than it first seems. Not that an effort should not be made, far from it. I am, however, naturally skeptical and wonder about the actual practicality of what you are attempting.


[ QUOTE ]
If the choice is call or fold to a small bet, can't I ask someone who would call at what surcharge you would now fold. For example, if it is $60 to call and you would call, would you pay $70, $80, $90 and so on. If you would fold, would a $10, $20, $30 discount make it worth a call? I believe this will work well for this type of problem in order to determine how strongly people believe in their play.


[/ QUOTE ]


I am always for the most open-ended and widely ranging questions that are possible to ask. However, trying to quantify a person's 'belief in a play' is very tricky at best and can turn into a minefield of more ambiguity and argument instead of less. Though this is not necessarily so in this case, it is a common pitfall and outcome of such attempts. I certainly hope this is worth your time and effort. Again, I am just being a devil's advocate to; I hope, help you along and refine your ideas. I wish you success.


I plan on doing a rudimentary search for Abdul’s old post for the sake of my personal curiosity and nothing more. I have no money to pay anyone to look for me. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-Zeno

[bobgreen]

Poker decisions are quantized, like Andy Fox says "you can't call 60% of a bet". If Dynasty is right to call, he is closer to correctness, no matter what else he thinks. You can't be part right any more than an electron can ramp up its energy. But...
If it is really a close call with--say-ATs and Dynasty thinks it is a not-close call, and Clark thinks it is a close fold, then probably A9s, A8s, A7s really are close folds and Clark will be correct and Dynasty will be wrong on more occasions. Clark will make more money and so the long run is not quantized and closeness to correctness becomes significant.