Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-14-2005, 12:16 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

Getting your opponents to make mistakes is only part of outplaying them. The other half is to avoid making mistakes yourself.

If you are a 3:1 favorite with a pair versus overcards, and can choose whether to put in 1 or 2 bets on the flop, then you are making a mistake if you choose to put in 1 bet rather than 2.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-14-2005, 12:36 AM
TTChamp TTChamp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Job Hunting
Posts: 517
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

[ QUOTE ]
Um, people in this thread have said its 6:1 to hit an overcard to make a pair. This is simply not true. First of all, 6.7:1 is a lot different than 6:1 in the long term. This is epecially true once you discount outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea that was my fault. I wrote this while I was tired.

Very good responses so far (although the someraulting one seemed a little cocky for some one with 10 posts).

BTW, some one asked about donk bet. A donk bet is when a player who is out of posiiotn bets into the in postiion player who bet or raised the last round. The idea is that the more "standard" play would be to c/r the guy because he will most likely bet.


I think I have an idea of where my reaoning was bad, but I wanted to write this post to get a better idea of how to exploit inforamtion to get the most money out of a hand.

In this case, we are in good shape because based on the information villian has he should bet the flop. We know that his informaiton is wrong (because we know our hand more precisely than he does), and we exploit that to get two bets in the pot by c/r vice donking.

I still stand by my postion that the villian played "mistake free" poker when he bets the flop. He is acting in a manner that shows the most profit based on the information he has at the time. The same is also true when he calls the flop c/r.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-14-2005, 12:52 AM
TTChamp TTChamp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Job Hunting
Posts: 517
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

Excellent post Gelford, although I think you have some math errors.

[ QUOTE ]
Now one last thing comes to mind, what if we assume, that if Hero donks then Villian would realize, that he is behind and not getting the proper odds and just lay his hand down, would Hero prefer taking the pot there or is it better to go for the checkraise (yes, we know villian to be an agressive player, that always bets on the flop, so we are totally ignoring, that Villian might check and take a free card)


[/ QUOTE ]

You hit on what got me asking these questions in the first place. Given what we know about Villina's range, would we prefer to c/r and have him stay in the pot or donk and have him fold?

Can some no limit tourny players chime in on this point? I think it comes up often in no limit where you have the option to bet out and get a guy to fold, or c/r a guy all-in and get a guy tied to the pot because he is getting the right odds to call. The c/r will win you more chips over the long haul, but you will also be eliminated from the tourny more often.

As for limit HE, over the long term we will make more money when we c/r and he stays in, eventhough he is not making a mistake (by any defintion) when he calls the c/r.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-14-2005, 01:10 AM
sweetjazz sweetjazz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 95
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

[ QUOTE ]
I still stand by my postion that the villian played "mistake free" poker when he bets the flop. He is acting in a manner that shows the most profit based on the information he has at the time. The same is also true when he calls the flop c/r.

[/ QUOTE ]

The relevant defintion of "mistake" for the analysis of this hand according to the FTOP is playing other than you would have if you could see your opponent's hand. In that sense, betting with AJ in the hand you described is a mistake.

As Sklansky CLEARLY POINTS OUT in TOP, this is an unusual sense of the word "mistake". The villain did not play badly here, because there is no way he could determine your hand. He played well, but he made a mistake from the point of view of the TOP. Just as calling with four of a kind on the river when your opponent has a royal flush is a mistake, though obviously not a bad play in general.

Nowhere in TOP does Sklansky ever suggest it is possible to play mistake-free poker. The goal is simply to make less mistakes than your opponents do.

In keeping with the way Sklansky discusses TOP, your "paradox" is resolved by noting that while the villain made a theoretical mistake from the point of view of people who know what the hole cards are, his play was obviously not a bad one given the information available to him.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-14-2005, 01:48 AM
TTChamp TTChamp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Job Hunting
Posts: 517
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still stand by my postion that the villian played "mistake free" poker when he bets the flop. He is acting in a manner that shows the most profit based on the information he has at the time. The same is also true when he calls the flop c/r.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The relevant defintion of "mistake" for the analysis of this hand according to the FTOP is playing other than you would have if you could see your opponent's hand. In that sense, betting with AJ in the hand you described is a mistake.

As Sklansky CLEARLY POINTS OUT in TOP, this is an unusual sense of the word "mistake". The villain did not play badly here, because there is no way he could determine your hand. He played well, but he made a mistake from the point of view of the TOP. Just as calling with four of a kind on the river when your opponent has a royal flush is a mistake, though obviously not a bad play in general.

Nowhere in TOP does Sklansky ever suggest it is possible to play mistake-free poker. The goal is simply to make less mistakes than your opponents do.

In keeping with the way Sklansky discusses TOP, your "paradox" is resolved by noting that while the villain made a theoretical mistake from the point of view of people who know what the hole cards are, his play was obviously not a bad one given the information available to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is how I see poker: the best you can do is put your opponent on a range of hands and act in a manner that shows the most profit (or least loss) based on the range you have put him on. This process has both scientific and artistic aspects.

The "art" of poker is being able to put your opponent on a range (including the possiblity that he is bluffing) based on his past actions. This requires experience, observation, and good judgement and is extremely challenging. I would guess that most players at my limit (including me) only superficially understand this aspect of poker.

The "science" of poker is being able to choose the best action based on your opponent's hand range. The science of poker is deterministic and mathematical, but challenging from a calculational point of view. There is always one correct action based on a given hand range.

When a given hand is viewed from the point of view of the fundamental TOP, there is one right play, and it is impossible for two players to both play a hand correctly. For example, in a HU NL game, the sb goes all-in with AA, the BB looks down and has KK. By the fundamental TOP the BB is making a "mistake" by calling.

But this is useless from a practical point of view (I know that is heresy, hopefully I don't get banned). From a practical point of view, the BB puts the SB on a range of hands (e.g. TT-AA, and AQ-AK, and a 5% chance of a bluff) and notes that KK is profitable against this range. Therefor the BB should call. Let's use the words "error free" to describe the BB's play with KK since there seems to be a lot of objection to the words mistake-free.

It is possible for both players to play a hand "error-free". In the context of the FTOP, it is not possible for both players to play "mistake free" poker (save split situations).

I would like to see replies from anyone who disagrees with the last paragraph (including you David!).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-14-2005, 02:02 AM
TTChamp TTChamp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Job Hunting
Posts: 517
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

Aaron, thanks for the response. I have always liked your posts on here.

I'm not seeing a direct connection to poker in these examples. These are deterministic examples. There is no information defecit in a coin flip or a card draw. I think you are simply addressing the aspect of chance in poker.

In other words you are adressing the fact that you must not consider only what the outcome of any given trial is, but instead you must consider what is correct over every possible trial.

In the examples you gave, the other guy is making a bad bet. He may get lucky here or there, but in the long run he will lose money. In my example the villian will make money over many trials when he bets his AJ on the flop. He will also make money when he calls the c/r on the flop. So the coing flip guy has made a bad choice, while the AJ guy has made a profitable choice.

Also, I have a couple questions on your scenarios:

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you have a fair coin that everyone knows is fair. Someone agrees to bet $2 against your $1 that it will come up heads. If you take this bet you profit, regardless of what happens on the coin flip. You make $0.50 expected value when you make the bet, heads you lose $1.50, tails you make $1.50.


[/ QUOTE ]

Last sentence is a typo right.


[ QUOTE ]
Now suppose you draw a random card from the deck and keep it face down. Another person offers to bet you $1 even money that he can draw a higher card. The minute he says this, you are ahead $0.1267.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we are winning when he draws the same card????
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-14-2005, 07:45 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

Nolimit is well nolimit .. given that you suspect the flop just missing Villian your raise would be such, that you would offer him odds, that are wrong with his draw, so that he would make yet another mistake by calling.

Harrington has alway advocated that you should make to large bets in to limit, because you just push villian out, it is better to offer Villian potodds, that while they are wrong they are still tempting, you want him to make another mistake.

Here Hero could make a mistake by paying villian off big time in the end if Villian hits thus giving Villian impied odds to hit.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-14-2005, 12:35 PM
Nomad84 Nomad84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 194
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

[ QUOTE ]
When a given hand is viewed from the point of view of the fundamental TOP, there is one right play, and it is impossible for two players to both play a hand correctly. For example, in a HU NL game, the sb goes all-in with AA, the BB looks down and has KK. By the fundamental TOP the BB is making a "mistake" by calling.

But this is useless from a practical point of view (I know that is heresy, hopefully I don't get banned). From a practical point of view, the BB puts the SB on a range of hands (e.g. TT-AA, and AQ-AK, and a 5% chance of a bluff) and notes that KK is profitable against this range. Therefor the BB should call. Let's use the words "error free" to describe the BB's play with KK since there seems to be a lot of objection to the words mistake-free.

It is possible for both players to play a hand "error-free". In the context of the FTOP, it is not possible for both players to play "mistake free" poker (save split situations).

I would like to see replies from anyone who disagrees with the last paragraph (including you David!).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are failing to consider the difference between strategic and mathematical mistakes that Xhad mentioned in his post. As a result, you are entirely wrong that it is impossible for both players to play a hand mistake free. If I have AA and I know that my opponent has KK, then I am going to bet. No FTOP mistake so far. If I have KK and my opponent just pushed all in preflop, ordinarily, I would call for the reasons you mentioned. My hand is better than the range I put him on. That would be a FTOP mistake if he had AA. However, if I knew he had AA, then I would fold. That would be the mathematically correct play unless I was BB and he (or I) had a very small stack. While it isn't likely for someone to lay down KK in this spot, it would be the correct play. If BB lays down the KK, then neither player has made a FTOP mistake. It wouldn't lead to a very interesting game, and it certainly wouldn't be a profitable game, but it is possible for two players to both make the correct play in a hand.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-14-2005, 02:42 PM
TTChamp TTChamp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Job Hunting
Posts: 517
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a given hand is viewed from the point of view of the fundamental TOP, there is one right play, and it is impossible for two players to both play a hand correctly. For example, in a HU NL game, the sb goes all-in with AA, the BB looks down and has KK. By the fundamental TOP the BB is making a "mistake" by calling.

But this is useless from a practical point of view (I know that is heresy, hopefully I don't get banned). From a practical point of view, the BB puts the SB on a range of hands (e.g. TT-AA, and AQ-AK, and a 5% chance of a bluff) and notes that KK is profitable against this range. Therefor the BB should call. Let's use the words "error free" to describe the BB's play with KK since there seems to be a lot of objection to the words mistake-free.

It is possible for both players to play a hand "error-free". In the context of the FTOP, it is not possible for both players to play "mistake free" poker (save split situations).

I would like to see replies from anyone who disagrees with the last paragraph (including you David!).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are failing to consider the difference between strategic and mathematical mistakes that Xhad mentioned in his post. As a result, you are entirely wrong that it is impossible for both players to play a hand mistake free. If I have AA and I know that my opponent has KK, then I am going to bet. No FTOP mistake so far. If I have KK and my opponent just pushed all in preflop, ordinarily, I would call for the reasons you mentioned. My hand is better than the range I put him on. That would be a FTOP mistake if he had AA. However, if I knew he had AA, then I would fold. That would be the mathematically correct play unless I was BB and he (or I) had a very small stack. While it isn't likely for someone to lay down KK in this spot, it would be the correct play. If BB lays down the KK, then neither player has made a FTOP mistake. It wouldn't lead to a very interesting game, and it certainly wouldn't be a profitable game, but it is possible for two players to both make the correct play in a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I should have been more precise. I was speaking of hands that get to SD. There is no way for both players to get to SD playing "mistake-free" in the context of the FTOP (save split possibilities). There is the possibility for both to play "error-free" and get to SD.

Agreed?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-14-2005, 04:13 PM
Nomad84 Nomad84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 194
Default Re: The paradox of making money from opponents mistakes

[ QUOTE ]
Good point, I should have been more precise. I was speaking of hands that get to SD. There is no way for both players to get to SD playing "mistake-free" in the context of the FTOP (save split possibilities). There is the possibility for both to play "error-free" and get to SD.

Agreed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, refer to Xhad's distinction between strategic and mathematical mistakes. It is possible to get to showdown without making strategic mistakes, according to Xhad's definition (I think), but it is typically not possible to get to showdown in a non-split pot without someone making a mathematical mistake. Someone has to have a losing hand, and calling with a losing hand is a mathematical mistake.

Of course, it is possible to get to showdown without making any mathematical mistakes if one player is hopelessly shortstacked and the money goes in before the river. If player A has an equity edge, he can bet correctly. If the all-in bet is small enough, player B may still have sufficient pot equity to justify a call, even if he does not currently have the best hand. In this case, the hand could make it to showdown without either player making a mathematical mistake.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.