Moneyball for Poker?

[nkrienke]

I just finished reading "Moneyball". For those of you who are unfamiliar, it basically explains how many statistics that are calculated for baseball are essentially useless. The people on the inside of the game encourage base-stealing, bunting, among other tactics that are counteractive to how baseball should be played to maximize efficiency.

After reading it, it got me thinking about poker. Does anyone know of common plays in poker (check-raising, slow-playing, idk what else...) that are statistically counteractive to a player making money, even though they may be popular among professionals or the typical player?

Just a topic for thought...let me know your ideas.

[jacketz14]

After the World Series of Poker aired this year on ESPN, some people have begun to think that checking or betting in the dark is good poker. This move does nothing to make you money, other then perhaps creating a favorable table image.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who are unfamiliar, it basically explains how many statistics that are calculated for baseball are essentially useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, except the exact opposite...

the point of 'Moneyball' (I too have recently read it) is that scouting and personal experience are "essentially useless" and that the real value comes in stats.

to over-simplify things, i've always viewed sabermetrics (sp?) as +/- EV as applied to baseball. basically how a leadoff walk can increase the number of runs you can expect to score in an inning. likewise, a leadoff K decreases it.

[nkrienke]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who are unfamiliar, it basically explains how many statistics that are calculated for baseball are essentially useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was, even those on the inside of the game of baseball do not understand that batting average, RBI, among other statistics are not fair indicators of a players values.

As far as bunting and stealing is concerned, the managers were trying to "formulate" runs instead of just playing the odds so that they would be in their favor.

This is how I got thinking of poker. I began to wonder if there were tactics (slow playing being the most obvious to me) where players were trying to "formulate" too large of profits instead of simply playing odds to their maximum efficiency.

We all know there is much more to poker than odds, but that doesn't change the possibility that some plays, no matter how good you are, are counterproductive to making money in the long run.

Thoughts...

[Jazza]

my top vote goes to drugs

[Louie Landale]

Its well known that bunting (except for Pitchers) and base stealing reduce the overall number of runs your team is likely to get: more runs are scored with a runner on 1st with no outs than a runner on 2nd with one out. These tactics greatly increase your chances of scroring exactly one run, but reduce the chance of you having a big scoring inning.

Note this reality: one run makes a BIG difference late in the game when the score is one run difference: either you tie or go ahead by two runs. And this one: most games are won with a big scoring inning.

The book's conclusion (that I infer from your post) in incorrect. More correct would be to suggest that tese tactics should be avoided early in the game, but should be employed late in a close game.

And there is no meaningful correlation to limit poker. There's no difference between winning by 5 runs and winning by 1 run in a ball game, but there sure is such a difference between winning by $500 and winning by $100 at poker.

And to change topics a little bit: there are a lot of other trivial issues at baseball that make the game interesting but rarely turn a loss into a win. No. Baseball is hitting and pitching. Football is blocking and tackling. Poker selective, solid, bet'm when you've got 'm and fold 'm when you don't. Most of that other stuff (fee cards, bla bla bla) don't add up much.

- Louie

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
Its well known that bunting (except for Pitchers) and base stealing reduce the overall number of runs your team is likely to get: more runs are scored with a runner on 1st with no outs than a runner on 2nd with one out. These tactics greatly increase your chances of scroring exactly one run, but reduce the chance of you having a big scoring inning.

Note this reality: one run makes a BIG difference late in the game when the score is one run difference: either you tie or go ahead by two runs. And this one: most games are won with a big scoring inning.

The book's conclusion (that I infer from your post) in incorrect. More correct would be to suggest that tese tactics should be avoided early in the game, but should be employed late in a close game.

And there is no meaningful correlation to limit poker. There's no difference between winning by 5 runs and winning by 1 run in a ball game, but there sure is such a difference between winning by $500 and winning by $100 at poker.

And to change topics a little bit: there are a lot of other trivial issues at baseball that make the game interesting but rarely turn a loss into a win. No. Baseball is hitting and pitching. Football is blocking and tackling. Poker selective, solid, bet'm when you've got 'm and fold 'm when you don't. Most of that other stuff (fee cards, bla bla bla) don't add up much.

- Louie

[/ QUOTE ]

True they don't add up to much, but there is virtually nothing that adds up to much in poker. Virtually all of users gains come from small edges applied again and again, especially in limit poker.


There are lots of things in poker that people give way too much emphasis too. There are 2 things that will never get enough however - Game Selection and Bankroll Management.
If there was a book as good as Theory of Poker and all it's topics were about Game Selection skills I would rate it better than TOP. Bankroll management is a close 2nd. I can't think of anything more pathetic than great players who are broke. Unfortunately some people enjoy gambling for gambling's sake and lead exciting lives plagued with highs and lows. I'm all for going for the brass ring, but be truthfull about the consequences. Always be prepared to lose and have back up plans.