Poker Essays Volume 2 ARCHIVED repost and more.

[DcifrThs]

First, here is the series since i don't know how to link it i'll have to paste it. I found it during my archive rummagings. god archives are great...and theres another one to come...:

Poker essays II by MM
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 November 1997, at 10:19 a.m.

Mason Malmuth's Poker Essays II is a fine book.

Most interesting , for me , were Pages 159 to 164.

MM describes how to save paying off at, or before, the end with Card Reading.

Then comes a guest essay why this idea might be wrong.

I would like to see MM's reply to this counter argument.

I'll give six to five he has one.

When I started playing Hold'em, after a few months, I saw that when the flush card hit, and I had NO Flush or Full house myself, I never won.

When I moved up in stakes, my opps noticed I noticed this.

At the new level, I noticed I never won, with an ordinary good hand, when checked raised on the Turn.

When I moved up in stakes, my opps noticed I noticed this.

Now what?

This must happen all the time as the opps get better.





Re: Poker essays II by MM
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@das.honeywell.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 November 1997, at 11:30 a.m.

This to me is a really interesting and elegantly phrased question. My compliments to the poster. Have they noticed that you noticed that they noticed ? I venture to say that as you move up in limits the answer to this question will be yes more often as I wonder how often the answer to the question I posed is yes.




Re: Poker essays II by MM
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 November 1997, at 4:44 p.m.


The cycle converges to game theory strategy.




Re: Poker essays II by MM
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 November 1997, at 8:58 p.m.

I think the answer to this is that part of playing poker well is the ability to constantly adjust, and frequently move to game theory betting and calling frequencies as David Sklansky points out.

Here's a simple example. You have been playing conservatively in a full ten handed hold 'em game which becomes short handed late at night. Now you find yourself frequently in position to attack the blinds and some of the remaining players are very tight, so you adjust and attack away. After about 30 minutes of this you begin to notice that they start to defend. Now you must adjust again.

I have found poker, especially as you move into the higher limits where the players are better, to be like this. Not only will you have to adjust while in the game, but you will need to adjust from day-to-day, week-to-week, etc,

The reason that I reproduced both of the essays on "Psychological Strength" in my book POKER ESSAYS is that I feel that they are both correct. The first one shows how you should play against opponents who are somewhat unaware, and too consistent and predictable in their play. The second one shows what can happen to you if you play that way and are up against the better players. Besides, when you go to "Moongate" wouldn't you rather be eating the lobster than the chow mein.


END REPOST:

Now,

what i have always wondered while reading those two essays was the fact that the second one consisted of "schmed" or whatever the character's name is SHOWING his fold whereas mason's essay simply suggests folding without showing.

if those players SEE you fold kings up on 4th then of course they'll invest the extra small bet w/ a 3straight/3flush etc. etc. on 3rd if they think you'll be more likely to fold and thus gain that equity worth vastly more than 1sb...but if you DONT show, then the K and the 7 on board looks like you just folded 'cause you were beat and thats it.

thus the better players dont have the opportunity to adjust to you and if they reraise and put in that extra bet all the time you're the one who comes out ahead of the adjustment process until they return and the cycle continues.

anyways, i would like to know what everyone thinks of this now-a-days.

thanks

-Barron