Pokernomics

[jim leach]

Great! If anyone can do something really cool with this data, it's Levitt.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I think the project itself is a great idea, I must admit that I am a little skeptical. Do we really want a book floating around that analytically tells people how to play better? Personally, I prefer it if everyone else doesn't know how to play better.

And yes I recognize that many people will point out that ToP and HPAP are already available to make people better, but nonetheless, I would rather not conribute to someone who is going to point out the flaws in bad players and teach them how to play better.

Am I alone on this issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you think he's getting in the way of data? I kind of doubt it's going to be millions of 3BB/100 at 15-30 or 30-60. probably a lot of 0-1bb/100 at 2-4. (I pulled out and sent just enough low limit hands from last year to get the book for curiosity's sake. good luck to him.)

[shermn27]

Maybe I am just paranoid and the people who read this book won't be the people I win money from anyway. One difference between this book and two-plus-two books is that this book is (I am assuming) going to contain actual data from actual hands of play and give answers that are EMPIRICALLY based. Two-plus-two books don't present analyzed data sets and do not claim to have an empircal basis. They only claim to be theoretical and as such require interpretation and thought. Not just any idiot can pick up ToP and HPAP and instantly become good at poker. They must truly understand the theoretical basis and then apply it.

With empirical data however, I fear that direct formulas (at least moreso than already exist) for play can be developed and understood by those who cannot figure out poker theory. That is the difference between this book and the others, empiricism vs. theory.

But I have since agreed with you. I am just paranoid.

[mosta]

I agree with you that the prospects of rigorously empirical (or for that matter analytical) study would be very interesting and of course unprecedented. (2+2 books are sometimes called scientific, but they aren't at all. not that I think they're wrong or bad, they just depend on the author's intutions (which tend to be very good), not research/data or proof.) thing with the pokernomics guy is I don't think he knows anything about poker. he's not going to tease out the subtle interrelationships of position and reverse implied odds. I think he'll probably conclude something like, never raising and always raising are bad, so raise a medium amount of times. but I don't dismiss your fear--that's why I submitted such inconsequential data.

[jim leach]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I think the project itself is a great idea, I must admit that I am a little skeptical. Do we really want a book floating around that analytically tells people how to play better? Personally, I prefer it if everyone else doesn't know how to play better.

And yes I recognize that many people will point out that ToP and HPAP are already available to make people better, but nonetheless, I would rather not conribute to someone who is going to point out the flaws in bad players and teach them how to play better.

Am I alone on this issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you think he's getting in the way of data? I kind of doubt it's going to be millions of 3BB/100 at 15-30 or 30-60. probably a lot of 0-1bb/100 at 2-4. (I pulled out and sent just enough low limit hands from last year to get the book for curiosity's sake. good luck to him.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on! Send him all of it. What difference will it make? Why in the world do you get on 2+2 and talk about poker if you aren't interesting in learning more about the game?

Also, keep in mind - even if you hate the idea of Levitt doing this study, what he's doing is createing a huge database that will be publicly available once the study is published. That'll be hugely valuable for poker theorists.

[jim leach]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that the prospects of rigorously empirical (or for that matter analytical) study would be very interesting and of course unprecedented. (2+2 books are sometimes called scientific, but they aren't at all. not that I think they're wrong or bad, they just depend on the author's intutions (which tend to be very good), not research/data or proof.) thing with the pokernomics guy is I don't think he knows anything about poker. he's not going to tease out the subtle interrelationships of position and reverse implied odds. I think he'll probably conclude something like, never raising and always raising are bad, so raise a medium amount of times. but I don't dismiss your fear--that's why I submitted such inconsequential data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on people. Enough with the "Levitt doesn't know anything about poker." You have no basis for thinking this. You know absolutely nothing about Levitt's knowledge of poker.

And besides, keep in mind, that this project also exists to create a huge database on poker hands. Like has been mentioned, there has never been an empirical study on poker. All that exists is (a) theory, (b) monte carlos imulations and (c) anecdotes. This fills a major gap.

Fish, also, are really unlikely to read Levitt's study for help about poker. Check out any of his published papers. They are not lightweight.