Now David, I am angry!!!!

[Moovyz]

I just read your most recent post about a simple tournament question regarding playing Q,J under the gun. Many answerred your question with their opinions. One, who gets kudos from me, said "it depends".

You then posted that you were angry that no one did the math. You said something to the effect that it's simply a math question. I'm sorry, but IMHO YOU are wrong!

It IS NOT always about math. Yes, possesing mathematical ability is essential to winning poker. But it is not the only thing that makes a winning player great.

In the example shown let's say for example that the correct answer is to raise. Mathematically correct or not, if you had just raised the last 3 times you were under the gun, it changes things because someone, not doing the math, may play differently due to your previous action. Don't you see this?

The correct answer is almost always "it depends" to any poker question. Yes, math may swing a decision one way or another, but it doesn't mean that making correct mathematical decisions will ALWAYS result in winning that hand.

Once again, I agree that math is important. And no one here will argue that you are the best at this aspect of poker. But you are not correct in saying that it is ONLY a math question.

Someone recently asked why you don't win any big tourneys. You said that you play $300-$600 daily. In limit, your math works best. But your math means less in NL and in tournies.
It's much more about situational poker. Playing the player. Playing the situation. Perhaps this is why you don't sit on top of the NL tourney circuit.

I think it's time you stopped berating players about the math. You are perhaps mathematically correct +/- a few % about the hands you may use for example, but it isn't the only answer!

I know you're going to respond that your comments are based on "correct play as it applies to poker theory" but you are going to make many good players into robots by doing this. I'd really like to see you admit one day that "it depends" may be an alternative answer to "mathmatically correct".

Very respectfully yours, Glen

[felson]

Oh no.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read your most recent post about a simple tournament question regarding playing Q,J under the gun. Many answerred your question with their opinions. One, who gets kudos from me, said "it depends".

You then posted that you were angry that no one did the math. You said something to the effect that it's simply a math question. I'm sorry, but IMHO YOU are wrong!

It IS NOT always about math. Yes, possesing mathematical ability is essential to winning poker. But it is not the only thing that makes a winning player great.

In the example shown let's say for example that the correct answer is to raise. Mathematically correct or not, if you had just raised the last 3 times you were under the gun, it changes things because someone, not doing the math, may play differently due to your previous action. Don't you see this?

The correct answer is almost always "it depends" to any poker question. Yes, math may swing a decision one way or another, but it doesn't mean that making correct mathematical decisions will ALWAYS result in winning that hand.

Once again, I agree that math is important. And no one here will argue that you are the best at this aspect of poker. But you are not correct in saying that it is ONLY a math question.

Someone recently asked why you don't win any big tourneys. You said that you play $300-$600 daily. In limit, your math works best. But your math means less in NL and in tournies.
It's much more about situational poker. Playing the player. Playing the situation. Perhaps this is why you don't sit on top of the NL tourney circuit.

I think it's time you stopped berating players about the math. You are perhaps mathematically correct +/- a few % about the hands you may use for example, but it isn't the only answer!

I know you're going to respond that your comments are based on "correct play as it applies to poker theory" but you are going to make many good players into robots by doing this. I'd really like to see you admit one day that "it depends" may be an alternative answer to "mathmatically correct".

Very respectfully yours, Glen

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your comments in general, but the problem is you HAVE to understand the mathmematical component of the game before you even begin to start thinking about the "what if's".

BTW, whether or not you raised the last three times UTG has nothing to do wtih the mathematically correct play...it's all about expectation on each random event and if you don't understand that, then you need to think about it before you post again.

BTW, as far as David trying to turn players into robots, I can see how it comes off that way, but I do truely feel that David's intent is to alert players to the fact that the mathmetical aspect of the game is HIGHLY important as many new players definitely do not understand that.

[cornell2005]

he explained why it was a math problem. you havnt addressed that point or tried to refute it, so this post has little point.

[SossMan]

I stated this in the original thread, but I'll do it again here.
Given enough variables, it's all a math problem. Accurately appraising those variables are the skills that are non-math. However, once those variables are determined (or are assumed, as in David's theoretical questions) the only thing left to do is the math.
There are two sets of skills that good tourney players need to develop. The first is what to do given a certain set of variables: the math. The second is accurately assessing the variables: the "feel".

-sossman

[DonkeyKong]

It may technically be a pure math problem but doing the math involves estimates and when you use estimates, there is error. If the math is compelling, you have to go with the math. It is when the math is close that you have to use non-math skills.

In the stated problem, what hands others will call you with cannot be calculated exactly. This automatically makes for error in your estimate.

This is similar to finance. An asset is worth the present value of future cash flows. This sounds great but it is highly sensitive to your assumptions in your discounted cash flow model. A real-estate project or a stock price might be worth X or it might be worth 1.5x because of simple assumption differences (discount rate, revenue forecast, expenditure forecast, tax rate forecast etc...).

This is NOT a pure math problem but like finance, it is certainly based on math. Knowing the math is crucial fundamentals so David is definitely correct to pound on that but even he should insert the proper caveats and not come off like this is ONLY math. Surely he understands the challenges to an all-math approach.

[David Sklansky]

The question as it stands is almost pure math. All the world class players realized that. Even those with less than adequate math skills. How much math applies to poker in general is another story. My comments are about the stated problem only. In that problem it is highly unlikely that players will call with A9 or K9 or fold 88 or AQ. That's all the non math knowledge you need.

Meanwhile let me go on record as stating this:

The only players who really have a right to argue with me about the importance of math to poker are those who know how to do the math. And there are plenty of players who both know how and think math is less important than I do. Howard Lederer, Mike Caro, etc (Chris Ferguson on the other hand is on the other extreme, I believe). But those who argue against math they do not know how to do can not be taken seriously. Even world class players (who would do even better if they learned math). There are two obvious reasons. One is that they don't really understand the power of mathematical analysis. Two is that they are almost certainly biased against the power of math to help poker decisions because it would be better for them if their opinions were true.

[David Sklansky]

But your math means less in NL and in tournies.
It's much more about situational poker. Playing the player. Playing the situation. Perhaps this is why you don't sit on top of the NL tourney circuit

The opposite is true. Because only tournaments involve lots of all in situations and because there is less big bet bluffing except at the very end.

If I concentrated on tournaments I would be among the top twenty in the world. And my EV for the year would be less than the better 60-120 players.

[Ipodkid]

If I concentrated on tournaments I would be among the top twenty in the world. And my EV for the year would be less than the better 60-120 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

PROVE IT. Play me heads up sit n goes on Full Tilt...I am one of the best online players in world and will play any stakes any game and I assure you over 100 games you end up a 75% LOSER David.

[blackaces13]

David,

One thing that stands out to me about your original question is that neither yourself nor any of the big names that you mention have taken the time to work out the actual problem. Why is that? Is it because although it would be fairly straightforward to do with a pencil and paper in 10 minutes, it is exceedingly difficult and impractical to figure it out in your head in 2 minutes or less?

The reason I think this is important is because at the poker table, or better yet in the online world of many of today's tournaments, it is simply impossible to correctly work out a math problem which which requires time consuming calculations. You have to make rough estimates and come to a decision in often times 30 seconds online or whatever is reasonable live, 3 minutes or so I guess.

You chastised people for responding, "by the seat of their pants", but if the question is too dificult to get a precise mathematical answer in a live game anyway then what relevance does the correct mathematical solution have? I would imagine that what separates a lot of great poker players from just good ones is how close their approximations are at the table which allow them to work things out quickly enough to be considered by the seat of their pants.

The ability to arrive at the "correct" answer doesn't help much if you need more than a few minutes to get there does it?