How much information about poker strategy is really available?

[patssoxceltsfan]

I actualy think that there is quite a lot of good literature in how to think at the table. The best two books are Harrington on hold-em. Super system 2 also contains a lot of good info, Brunson describes his style pretty well. It's a lot less mathamatical than Harrington's style, Brunson seems to focus on playing the man more than playing the cards but it gives a good look into an aggressive style.

The fact is that poker isn't chess, there isn't any calculation that tells you a guy will call a $150 bet but won't call $151 (there are calculations that will tell you that he's making a mistake if he calls the 151 though). There are only 52 cards and you'll see every combination of those in every position after only about 100 hours of play.

Poker is a huge guessing game, you read the cards, review the past action and make your best guess about what your opponent has and guess what to do from there. He then does the same. Fluctuations will be high in the short term but in the end the best guesser will win more money.

If there were some poker secret wouldn't we see a dominant poker champion? Wouldn't the same people win the money year after year after year instead of having huge fluctuations?

[AaronBrown]

Thanks for the kind words, and you're right about the transaction costs.

Still, you have to be careful about assuming that a guy who won some tournaments (a) did it by skill more than luck, (b) knows how he did it and (c) wants you to know as well. I agree that there are some helpful poker books out there, but I also recommend Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Taleb (disclaimer, he's a friend of mine, but he doesn't give me a cut on his book sales) to maintain healthy skepticism.

Ed Miller is a smart guy, a great player and a clear writer. But even so, I'd bet his book did more awakening than teaching. You can show a guy something, but if he doesn't have the talent, at best he can become an average player by diligent study. If someone has the talent, you just have to hint at the general principle, and he'll leap to the conclusion himself.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
The books I have found most helpful have not been from the most successful tournament players.

I also have great respect for good simulator programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate with names and authors, por favor...

[jester710]

I've asked myself this same question many times. I'd read about how Ted Forrest would crush stud games by playing hands no one else would dream of and playing them fast, and I'd feel like there was some secret that guys like Ted knew and I didn't. And Sklansky wasn't sharing.

However, I think that a big difficulty in learning poker from books is that they necessarily try to whittle the poker universe down to set, manageable situations, while the majority of tough decisions made at the table are situational. I have heard TJ Cloutier say on a few occasions that he never knows what he'll do with a given hand until he has it...and he's written several books. How can he give you "the secret" to playing AK if he himself doesn't know how he'll play it ahead of time?

I think it boils down to the massive experience these guys have, plus their absolute dedication to the game. I think the only common theme I've found in reading biographies of successful players is that they say something along the lines of, "I'd get cleaned out and spend the rest of the week thinking about the hands I played." Earlier in his career, Daniel Negreanu would go to the final tables of tournaments to meticulously study the play there. Things like that, combined with various natural talents (like TJ being able to remember the styles of anyone he's ever played with), are as close to a secret as I've found.

I do agree, however, that most revolutionaries in any given field become revolutionary by acting differently than anyone before them. You can see this in poker by looking how Chip Reese introduced a new style of stud hi/lo play to Vegas, or how Doyle revolutionized hold 'em. I've spent a great deal of time thinking about hands and styles, and trying to figure out a successful way to play that was completely new and unique. So far, no luck. I think the problem there might be the whole "genius" thing that I seem to lack.

Anyway, I think my answer in a nutshell to your question in a nutshell is: yes, we have all the pieces to the puzzle, but unfortunately the picture on the box keeps changing.

[ QUOTE ]
In chess Fischer played 1.e4 when almost all experts and champions played 1.d4 at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it was more split than you think. d4 was used by players who played positionally, and e4 for attacking. Fischer was a ruthless attacker.

[diebitter]

I agree that that each of the pros probably knows stuff or has formalised certain ways of playing with certain hands in a way they don't want to share.

Hell, I'm a newbie, and already have learnt a few tricks that I wouldn't share - mainly types of bluffs in certain situations that have proven to very +EV for me (within my playng style). I'm sure many of the pros know stuff like what circumstances a post-oak bluff (or whatever it is) or whatever type of bluff you want is most +EV, for example. I'm also sure this knowledge is strongly grounded in their playing style, so even if they revealed it, it would only be of use if you play like that too (or if you're playing someone of that style that you've seen try that particular bluff etc before)

Also, I've researched the nature of 'experience' to postgraduate level, and it must be said, the more experienced a person is in any field, the harder it is to articulate that experience (eg who's better at explaining how to drive, someone who's just got their licence, or a driver of 30 years' experience?). so even if they wanted to, many would be hard-pushed to articulate their decision-making.


Also, I'm sure they are very good at reading players, and pay a lot of attention a lot of the time to every hand, and they're used to playing conditions in a way relatively new players are not.

If it's a good book - and there are enough good books out there - I have no reason to doubt the author's sincerity. Doyle Brunson somewhat addresses this topic in his foreward to Greenstein's Ace on the River , actually; he recalls a time when a player busted him from a tournament, thanked Doyle for improving game so much with Super/System , and had his picture taken with the old man. Doyle wrote that he still doesn't know what motivated him to share his secrets, but that he did, and now he can just laugh at other authors (like Greenstein) who will inevitably be taken down by the players they've helped to improve. Super/System really was a selfless act: Doyle has said that after he wrote it, everyone started to play more aggressively, especially against him. He was getting re-raised for pots that he used to be able wrestle for himself. I think Doyle is just a good guy who had a lot to share.

Same with Harrington. On his website, Barry Greenstein tells a story about Harrington in a major tournament: it was the final table, and Harrington proposed that they split the money evenly. Not because Harrington didn't have an edge, because of course he did, but because he said they could invest the money, and everyone would be rich. Harrington even offered investment counselling as the players were whittled off. The other players wanted to be instant millionaires, though, and refused the deal right to the end. Action Dan won. Harrington on Hold 'Em is a gift from a talented and benevolent player.

So there are no shortage of authors who couldn't make it as players, and players who have no interest in being authors. Can't blame either group. Even still, the best books have sprung from authors who were willing to overlook self-interest, and tell (almost) all. They won't teach you everything, but they'll save you years of beats.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
From another field, I offer an old example I used to use in finance class, I'm sure you could update it. If you pick your stocks at random, you would do better than the market 50% of the time. There were approximately 1,024 (I cheated a little) open-end public mutual funds in the 1980s that invested in stocks. By chance, you would expect 1 to beat the market 10 out of 10 years. None did. 10 should have beaten the market 9 out of 10 years. None did. 45 should have beaten the market 8 out of 10 years, 3 did, and all three managers wrote books about how smart they were.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons that they might not do as well as a randomly chosen portfolio is that the mutual funds have certain constraints on the types of stocks and on the number of stocks they can invest in, and in what ratios. So the completely random portfolio may not be one that they could have chosen. A fair test would compare the performance of each mutual fund to that of a portfolio chosen randomly within the same constraints as the fund. Do you know the results of any study like this?

Also, did all 1024 funds invest exclusively in stocks, or did some invest in bonds too? Equity funds would typically be expected to under perform the s&p.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were some poker secret wouldn't we see a dominant poker champion? Wouldn't the same people win the money year after year after year instead of having huge fluctuations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what sort of secret you're looking for (sounds like magic almost), but given the strong luck factor in poker and more prevalent in tournaments than in ring games I think consistent tournament winning would be very unlikely. The best you can do is look at tournaments over the longest term possible, hope it's statistically significant, and assign player skill levels based on those results.

[Shandrax]

The fact alone that Men the Master, Howard Lederer and Barry Greenstein have trained players from basically zero to championship-level shows that there is something the average player can't learn from books. I simply doubt that they were just incredibly lucky to chose the most talented people in the world to work with.