Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but your pot equity will also increase as players fold because it is pretty rare in a multiway pot for multiple players to have zero outs against you. If you flop top pair with no flush draw any pair will run you down about 10% of the time. If those pairs fold your pot equity increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if it is cool to quote myself but the one thing I wanted to add that I should have originally was the fact that you are sticking around to the river means you are more likely to have been helped by the flop and turn so that will increase your equity. I had kind of thought I had implied this originally but I had not.

In other words you have to look at the pot equity shifting as all other variables in time shift.

[TimTimSalabim]

I don't think you should always raise just because you have a pot equity edge, and JJ is very different from AA. Your equity edge is a lot smaller with JJ and you do have a primary concern about thinning the field, because JJ is not going to hold up very often multiway. If you raise from the BB with JJ you just build a bigger pot that will make it difficult for other hands to get away from on the flop. That's a good thing if you're holding AA, but if you're holding JJ, people can outdraw you with Ax Kx Qx in addition to the usual draws. And that can be very costly when you're out of position as well. And no I wouldn't wait for the turn to show aggression either, I'd do it on the flop as I previously stated, in order to knock out the likely Ax Kx draws (or have them draw to bad odds).

[MaxPower]

Tim,

I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about JJ.

I will refer you to the classic thread on this and you can make up your own mind.

Raising JJ in the blinds

[Kellon]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as it doesn't get 'personal' and is related to the content (as opposed to background or supposed qualifications) then i'm all for hearing EVERYTHING that D.S. has to say about these authors' articles and books and ideas.

I do appreciate D.S.'s reluctance to not want to create any waves though considering what we've been through before.
There have been times when he has 'honestly' presented his views and been blasted for it.

Obviously he wants to keep the topic on-point and not get too far off-track...and I think he was very fair in stating his opinions on these authors and their CP articles.

Moreover, I appreciate him coming on and presenting his ideas on just how significant the errors are in these articles. [--microbob]

[/ QUOTE ]

Also

[ QUOTE ]
Pointing out specific demonstrable errors in articles by authors considered experts is not being mean. Its akin to peer review in scientific writing; a way of protecting the integrity of a field of study. [--TransientR]

[/ QUOTE ]

My concern here is that DS has done neither of these things. All I see are bald assertions in his initial post, with no further explanation or discussion, that the three writers made serious and significant errors in their writings. I would love to read D.S.'s comments regarding the specific errors and his reasoning.

I can accept his wanting us to read the articles and think through them ourselves. But, he didn't point out any errors (he just said there were errors); he didn't do any anything that was even close to standard peer review. All he did was state a general opinion that there were significant errors in the articles, but didn't back up his opinion with any facts, examples, or discussion. Y'all wouldn't let anyone else get away with such things.

Please -- Before you jump all over me for attacking an icon, this is not intended as a personal attack on D.S. As I said at the beginning of my rant, I would love to read his specific criticisms and discussion of same.

[David Sklansky]

Because I just skimmed the articles while playing poker I may have very well missed a lot more errors. This is what I caught:

Bob Ciaffone- A pair is 17-1? One of two having a pair is 9-1? The right answers are about 16 and 7.5. He doesn't know the difference between odds and probabilities? And he writes for a magazine? That is nothing short of disgusting. And even though his error is small in this case, keep in mind how the same error would be much magnified if the numbers were smaller and he used his same flawed technique.

Lee Jones: He doesn't reraise on the turn because he thinks he has a tie and wants to keep the third guy in? What about the size of the pot? He doesn't bring that into the calculation. What about the fact that the guy might call a double bet? True it is theoretically right to just call if you are absolutely sure that he only has two outs and will defintely fold a raise. That's not the case here. And he doesn't claim it is. Three outs or more is a definite possibility. So is a cold call of two bets. Meanwhile he seems to imply that the fact that he will probably split the pot is a good reason to let him in. He seems to forget that it also means that he will only gain half the extra bet he gets out of the third guy so the two points approximately cancel each other out.

Jim Brier- I didn't check his math which some of you are saying is wrong. But he does use two flawed arguments to try to make his points. In the ATs case he says that he would mke the raise in late position and goes on to show a scenario where the late position raise helps you more than it does in the blinds. Granted. So what? How does that imply that the early position raise isn't still profitable? Where does he try to balance the downsides of being first with the upsides of putting all that extra money in the pot, both now and in future bets that would not have been called if you kept the pot smaller.

The fact of the matter is that not raising here is a terrible play. It seems so obvious to me that it astounds me that Brier would think differently.

As to his argument that you shouldn't make it three bets with the A4s, it didn't even mention the main reason we suggested it, to get a free card on fourth st. Making your ace out good was a secondary consideration. The play is wrong if your opponents are less than about 50-50 to give you that free card and we say it is "probably" the right move in our book. So unlike the AT recommendation, I have no problem with this play being criticized. But unless I skimmed so fast that I somehow missed it, I have a big problem with Brier criticizing the play without taking into account the free card aspect.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob Ciaffone- A pair is 17-1? One of two having a pair is 9-1? The right answers are about 16 and 7.5.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think writing 17-1 instead of 1/17 may qualify as a run-of-the-mill brain fart rather than a genuine conceptual misunderstanding.

[Kellon]

Thanks, David, for coming back and giving us the benefit of your insights. I, for one, sincerely appreciate it. These kinds of critiques, which in themselves generate further thought and discussion, are a considerable help, not only in the way we play the game but also in how we read other people's writings about poker.

[skp]

I agree. When I read Bob's article, I of course knew right away that Bob had the 17:1 wrong but I figured that there is no way that could be the unforgivable error that David had in mind.

He said 17:1 instead of saying 1 out of 17. Big deal.

[David Sklansky]

He said 17:1 instead of saying 1 out of 17. Big deal.

It is a big deal because of why he said it. And he goes on to prove his lack of understanding with his 9-1 comment. And he didn't just say it. He WROTE it.

Both of the two above posters who dismiss his mistake could certainly do a better job than Ciafonne in writing about poker. Why do they feel the need to downplay his errors? Keep in mind that many readers are not knowledgeable enough to recognize these mistkes. When they see these numbers they will not only believe them but might be led into the same conceptual error that Ciaffone made. Don't you think it is wrong to portray yourself as an expert if you don't know simple stuff and you know beginning readers expect that you do?

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bob Ciaffone- A pair is 17-1? One of two having a pair is 9-1? The right answers are about 16 and 7.5.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think writing 17-1 instead of 1/17 may qualify as a run-of-the-mill brain fart rather than a genuine conceptual misunderstanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the article?

Ciaffone wrote: "17-to-1 against" and "9-to-1 against"

These are odds. Not chances.

The correct answers are 16:1 (which means 16 to 1 against), and 7.5:1.

See the math in my Ciaffone's Error post.