Theory of Poker: Chapters 1-4 Discussion

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Antes have even more of an effect than that:

Many games have differing blind structures.

For example, the Party 3-6 game has a 1/3 blind structure, the 5-10 game has a 2/5 blind structure, the 10-20 game has a 5/10 (1/2) blind structure, and the 15/30 has a 10/15 (2/3) blind structure.

If you don't adjust your play for those blind changes you'll be missing out on a lot of expectation. For example, you must tighten up in the 3-6 game due to an initial pot of only $4, or 2/3 BB. Whereas in the 15-30 game, you must loosen up considerably (and it shows in the "field") as the blinds now constitute 25/30, or 5/6 BB.

Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes -- very well illustrated, when written out like that.

- UW

[sethypooh21]

These notes reminded me of my thoughts on a few of these points. Just wanted to throw my hat in here.

[ QUOTE ]
Here are my "notes" from the reading (namely, concepts I highlighted for discussion).

CHAPTER ONE:
- Excellent players are more often drawn out on because bad players play bad hands badly -- that's the definition of being drawn out on. If you're the one sucking out on someone, you should be ashamed of your play, not consoled by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Important to distinguish 'sucking out' from 'getting there with a draw given correct odds'. Calling ace high to the river and spiking your ace in a small pot = bad. Hitting one of your 9 flush cards on the river in a 5 way pot = good play. Heck being in a 5-way pot with nutflush draw = good, but we get there later [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

- Do not become attached to winning pots. Stay focused on +EV play, instead of chasing down every pot you feel "married" to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Must remind myself of this every time my AKs bricks and I get raised on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]

- "So long as you remain a big favorite, you should stay, even if it means using toothpicks to prop up your eyelids." This line here is my justification for my 32 hour sessions at 2-4 B&M. If you're conscious and read 2+2, you're still a big favorite at B&M 2-4. Since I don't get to play live often, and I'm a favorite even stone-dead tired, I stay even if I have to "prop my eyes open with toothpicks". However -- if/when I move up, this will become less and less true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The caveat proceeding this statement is insanely, massively, (absurdly, even?) huge and enormous. I think if they do a new addition of the book this paragraph should be taken out. If you have to pry your eyes open with toothpicks, your edge is almost assuredly gone, and unfortunaltely, you are not in a state to realise same.

[ QUOTE ]

CHAPTER TWO:
- The $klansky Dollar. "Anytime you make a bet with the best of it, where the odds are in your favor, you have earned something on that bet, whether you actually win or lose the bet."

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe revise this slightly to 'getting the better of it,' as demonstrated by the correctness of pumping big draws in multi-way pots.

[ QUOTE ]
- Being happy with a well-played losing session. When discussing a good fold, Sklansky states "I actually derive pleasure from making a good fold even though I have lost the pot. ... You should be happy when it occurs." This is a psychology of poker type point, but very important for beginners to learn and regular players to remember.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lesson as difficult as the "married to pots" lesson above.

*snip*
[ QUOTE ]

CHAPTER THREE:
- The Fundamental Theorem of Poker. I don't have many comments on this, as I don't think it's that complicated, actually. But it's an important concept that should always, always, always be kept in mind. Reading the examples really brings home the intracacies of the Theorem.

[/ QUOTE ]

So simple and yet so unbelievably difficult.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Important to distinguish 'sucking out' from 'getting there with a draw given correct odds'. Calling ace high to the river and spiking your ace in a small pot = bad. Hitting one of your 9 flush cards on the river in a 5 way pot = good play. Heck being in a 5-way pot with nutflush draw = good, but we get there later [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course -- by definition to me, sucking out means making a hand when you were not getting proper odds to remain in it. Someone who had odds isn't "sucking out," they're playing well.

[ QUOTE ]
The caveat proceeding this statement is insanely, massively, (absurdly, even?) huge and enormous. I think if they do a new addition of the book this paragraph should be taken out. If you have to pry your eyes open with toothpicks, your edge is almost assuredly gone, and unfortunaltely, you are not in a state to realise same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd agree, in any game except the low-limits live. You can nearly run on autopilot in these games and remain a winning player getting the better of it. The response naturally is "if you're good enough to do that, it's time to move up" but I think it's obvious that you can't do that without a proper roll for a higher limit -- and there are various reasons why you may not be able/ready to supply that bankroll from your other income. In this singular case, I think it may be worth to play far longer than you normally should, simply because you're still a winning player, and the sooner you build that roll, the better. Naturally it is better to err on the side of caution -- I just think you can be less cautious in this circumstance (one I currently find myself in as a college student playing low-limit live).

[ QUOTE ]
So simple and yet so unbelievably difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like they say about the game of Hold Em, you can understand the Theorem of Poker in ten minutes, but you'll never be finished improving your ability to apply it.

- UW

[As Zehn]

MEbenhoe

Nice job putting the questions together. Sorry I wasn't available earlier to actively participate. Looking forward to the next session.

[Nemesis]

Both are able to gain on the flop because ONE or more lost money pre-flop. There is now dead money in the pot. The flush draw is making money because there is enough dead money for him to call unprofitable bets to more than break even. The other person is making money because he has more of a pot equity edge than the flush when heads up, therefore he's making money on each bet that goes in.

[AKQJ10]

One point that AFAIK hasn't been mentioned yet, possibly because it seems so obvious, is this:

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you are playing $1-limit poker at the kitchen table or pot-limit poker at the Stardust in Las Vegas, whether you are playing poker for fun or for a living, once a week or every day, you have to understand that the object of the game is to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, i would argue that part of the reason we can win long-term is precisely because winning money isn't universally accepted as the object of the game. Lots of people play for the thrill of gambling or of beating long odds to lay on a bad beat on the river. Those people aren't playing rationally by Sklansky's value system (which i and most of us, and for that matter every known poker book, share) but they're playing very consistently with their own objectives. Gary Carson really drives home this point in The Complete Book of Casino Poker: People play poker for different reasons, and the better you understand your own motives in contrast to others', the better chance you have of winning.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of people play for the thrill of gambling or of beating long odds to lay on a bad beat on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point... plenty of people actually derive pleasure out of depending on luck, versus good play. This is also why casinos are making money. It's a slow process, eliminating this thrill of winning despite the odds (we always like an underdog in this country). However, I'm slowly growing to be upset when I suckout on someone because I played incorrectly.

Now not getting upset at someone for sucking out on ME (a +EV situation, if they're getting money in with the worse of it), that takes a lot more work... good thing for online poker.

- UW

[AKQJ10]

One very important point from this chapter is that a "mistake" in Sklansky's terminology isn't referring to someone playing poorly based on all available information. It's simply playing differently than you would have if you had known all the cards. Keep that in mind if you're ever tempted to criticize someone for making a "Sklansky-mistake". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Also, Ebenhoe, after our PM exchange i looked back at the examples in the book and you're correct that Sklansky indirectly refers to pot odds and semibluffing, although he doesn't really flesh them out. He writes,
[ QUOTE ]
...[Y]ou bet, trying to represent aces. If your opponent knew what you had, his correct play would be to raise you so much it would cost too much to draw to a flush or a straight on the last card, and you would have to fold. (Emphasis added)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be far preferable to make up an example not involving these two concepts, rather than to sorta-introduce them without introducing them. I'll look closer at the other 5 examples and see if they have the same limitation.

[SeppDeitrich]

answers:

1: a good player will get into more situations where he has an edge in a hand, so he will lose more hands where he had an edge.

2: because the goal of poker is to win money, not pots. You do not want to be in a pot when it is not profitable to be there.

3: A verry weak/tight game. If the opposition is timid enough you can win the most money by playing your marginal hands agressively and buying alot of pots. Typically this game condition happens on the bubble in a tournament, not in a cash game, although anything is possible.

[SeppDeitrich]

Sepp says:

1) mathematical expectation is important because the amount of money a poker player wins (or loses) over the long term is roughly equal to the sum of the expectations of all the plays he makes.

2) the ev of a single roll is 1000$ * .00001= .01$

so he will lose 1.20$ per hour of game time. so he will go broke in about 95 000 years