What if you knew everyone's hole cards? (continued) - Page 5

SossMan · #41 10-11-2005, 12:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever played a large buyin live tourney? Its not like you see on TV...

[/ QUOTE ]

No I havent. So maybe when the structure is slow and the stacks are deep then yes , knowing the opponents hole cards would let you win %99 of the time. It still seems like %99 of the time is way too high though.

And if the player tries too many risky manouvers like blowing people off their hand preflop eventually somebody will call in spite/desperation/resigning themselves to gambling with you since that is your only weakness. Then you are at the mercy of the odds for a tiny portion of your already huuuuuuuuge stack. .

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

#42 10-11-2005, 01:20 PM

I just saw that this thread has taken on a bit of a second wind. Here are my thoughts re some of the recent posts:

1) Benkahuna & SossMan commented on the implications of being able to deduce your opponents' playing styles. This is a very good point that I had given little thought. I wonder, though, about the fact that the opponents will fairly quickly notice that your playing style is to move at a lot of pots, but to avoid big confrontations. They'll also notice that you seem to be a very good player. Might this not put you in a position where enough of them will decide to use the "just move in" strategy that you could be forced to play big pots with "only" 80/20-type edges?

2) I had not thought at all about the large added advantage of knowing 20 cards instead of just two that are out of the deck. This observation definitely makes me raise my estimated win percent.

3) I wonder how large the gap would be between theoretical performance and real-life performance. My mental image has been that you would be able to look at your opponents' cards and see them as though they were face-up. But the pace and rhythm of the game would have to be normal, and your magical abilities do not include more time to think or an enhanced ability to remember cards or to process information quickly.

4) Both the quality and the quantity of the posts in this thread have made me less confident in my original instinct (and my "confidence" was shaky to begin with).

5) To wax philosophical, this thread had its genesis in my wondering a week or so ago how often someone would win a WPT-type event if he/she played "perfect poker." I also began to wonder what the range of Major League leading batting averages would be if every hitter knew beforehand what pitch every pitcher was (trying to) throw throughout the season. But that gets way too far OT.

SossMan · #43 10-11-2005, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Might this not put you in a position where enough of them will decide to use the "just move in" strategy that you could be forced to play big pots with "only" 80/20-type edges?

[/ QUOTE ]

More likely, they will simply stop playing pots with you. If they are really that good, then they will know that playing for 2nd place has better EV.

SossMan · #44 10-11-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To wax philosophical, this thread had its genesis in my wondering a week or so ago how often someone would win a WPT-type event if he/she played "perfect poker."

[/ QUOTE ]

By perfect poker, I assume you mean that they never get their chips in a -EV spot. They call w/ proper odds to draw, they bet when they have the best hand, they fold when they are behind and not priced in.
Obviously, playing perfectly without knowledge of your opponents holecards vs. playing perfectly with the knowledge of your opponents cards would require a drastic change in strategy.

SossMan · #45 10-11-2005, 01:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I also began to wonder what the range of Major League leading batting averages would be if every hitter knew beforehand what pitch every pitcher was (trying to) throw throughout the season. But that gets way too far OT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's an interesting thought experiment. If you don't mind, I'm going to post it in OOT (Other Other Topics).

#46 10-11-2005, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Might this not put you in a position where enough of them will decide to use the "just move in" strategy that you could be forced to play big pots with "only" 80/20-type edges?

[/ QUOTE ]

More likely, they will simply stop playing pots with you. If they are really that good, then they will know that playing for 2nd place has better EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here again, I don't really have a strong opinion. It's seemed to me that in the past couple of years a fair number of newer players in WPT type events have veered toward the Sklansky "move in with any pair or any ace" strategy when they know they're against a better player.

#47 10-11-2005, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To wax philosophical, this thread had its genesis in my wondering a week or so ago how often someone would win a WPT-type event if he/she played "perfect poker."

[/ QUOTE ]

By perfect poker, I assume you mean that they never get their chips in a -EV spot. They call w/ proper odds to draw, they bet when they have the best hand, they fold when they are behind and not priced in.
Obviously, playing perfectly without knowledge of your opponents holecards vs. playing perfectly with the knowledge of your opponents cards would require a drastic change in strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what I mean. One could argue that playing "perfect poker" includes reading your opponents perfectly since reading opponents is such an important part of the game. But this gets too metaphysical to mean much in a practical sense.

#48 10-11-2005, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also began to wonder what the range of Major League leading batting averages would be if every hitter knew beforehand what pitch every pitcher was (trying to) throw throughout the season. But that gets way too far OT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's an interesting thought experiment. If you don't mind, I'm going to post it in OOT (Other Other Topics).

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do. I look forward to reading people's thoughts on the subject.

SossMan · #49 10-12-2005, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also began to wonder what the range of Major League leading batting averages would be if every hitter knew beforehand what pitch every pitcher was (trying to) throw throughout the season. But that gets way too far OT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's an interesting thought experiment. If you don't mind, I'm going to post it in OOT (Other Other Topics).

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do. I look forward to reading people's thoughts on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

here it is w/ a bunch of replies:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...art=1&vc=1

(FYI, it's in the Sporting Events forum)

benkahuna · #50 10-12-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To wax philosophical, this thread had its genesis in my wondering a week or so ago how often someone would win a WPT-type event if he/she played "perfect poker."

[/ QUOTE ]

By perfect poker, I assume you mean that they never get their chips in a -EV spot. They call w/ proper odds to draw, they bet when they have the best hand, they fold when they are behind and not priced in.
Obviously, playing perfectly without knowledge of your opponents holecards vs. playing perfectly with the knowledge of your opponents cards would require a drastic change in strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry Greenstein has a nice way of distinguishing these two ideas that are similar enough to be difficult to differentiate.

The correct play is the one based on previous information about the player, the odds for the cards at hand based on the likely range of opponent's hands, and any adjustments you'd need to make for your tournament situation.

The perfect play is the play you would make if you knew your opponent's hole cards to get the most chips from him.