DERB - Page 15

Khern · #**141** 11-04-2005, 03:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
one of the most meaningful strategy discussions in the entire forum.

- Andrew

[/ QUOTE ]

A comment from the previous DERB thread makes me think you know something we don't. Do you? And could you be prodded into throwing a bone.

John

LearnedfromTV · #**142** 11-04-2005, 03:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How is it?

While Game Theory is a tool you could use to study the effects of actions (particularly those you might describe as metagame actions) on the interactions between the players. Simply calling such an action or sequence of actions "game theory" is meaningless.

I actually read it as an implication that the player had done this research and was using the results accordingly. I find this to be as wild a speculation as claiming he can see my hole cards.

I will now stop derailing this entirely focused thread with my nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

The goal of any non-cooperative game theory problem is to formulate an optimal strategy that takes into account your opponents' optimal strategy, (and his adjustment to your strategy, and so on). Poker is a non-cooperative game. The set of hands with which "DERB" check-raises the turn on XYZ flop, W turn, after check-calling the flop could, in theory, be optimized based on the set of responses his opponents give to the check-raise, the frequency with which they give them, and the hands they hold when giving them. Because the set of all poker situations is irreducibly complex, it is hard to imagine someone being able to come up with a complete game-theoretic solution (in fact it is probably technically impossible), but every time you say something like, "he raises light, I'll adjust my 3-bet range" or "he continuation bets too often, I'll bluff-raise x % of the time", you are make a game-theoretic adjustment. When people in this thread claim that DERB is winning by, say, 3-betting the turn with a wide range such that his opponents make more incorrect folds than he loses by paying off, they are making a game-theoretic claim, whether they frame it that way or not. Brad was just pointing this out.

Poker is game theory. Using your actions to manipulate the situations in which your opponent will take certain actions in order to maximize the edge of your actions in those situations. "Manipulating hand ranges" is a phrasing you may have read on these boards before. This goes a lot deeper than the bluffing frequency example in Theory of Poker because the ranges of hands you and your opponent can hold interact in a much more complex way than "I'm first to act on the river with a monster or nothing... how often do I bluff?"

droidboy · #**143** 11-04-2005, 04:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
one of the most meaningful strategy discussions in the entire forum.

- Andrew

[/ QUOTE ]

A comment from the previous DERB thread makes me think you know something we don't. Do you? And could you be prodded into throwing a bone.

John

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a lot about some things, other things less so. Truthfully, I have no clue who this fellow is, I don't recall ever playing with him, and I'd have to dig in the threads to find his handle.

I have played a lot of poker though. The idea that there is a single winning style of play is false beyond reason. The fact that people can't even understand that players like DERB exist and win, and win a lot, goes a long way in illustrating how little some people know about poker.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com

Ulysses · #**144** 11-04-2005, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have played a lot of poker though. The idea that there is a single winning style of play is false beyond reason. The fact that people can't even understand that players like DERB exist and win, and win a lot, goes a long way in illustrating how little some people know about poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Khern · #**145** 11-04-2005, 05:02 AM

Thank you.

I have figured that there is more than one succesfull playing style. I thought maybe you had some insight as to the specifics. Not finding any, I'm much more motivation to consider it myself(whether or not I'm capable of producing anything useful).

John

Enon · #**146** 11-04-2005, 05:05 AM

In my previous post where I listed some Derb hands, I just viewed his biggest pots on down to find interesting ones. This time I looked through his losing hands.

Derb - BB

Party Poker 100.00/200.00 Hold'em (10 handed) link

Preflop:
2 folds, MP2 calls, 3 folds, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (3.00 SB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (3 players)
SB checks, BB bets, MP2 raises, SB folds, BB 3-bets, MP2 caps, BB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
BB bets, MP2 raises, BB 3-bets, MP2 caps, BB calls.

River: (13.50 BB) T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
BB checks, MP2 bets, BB calls.

Final Pot: 15.50 BB.
Results in white below:
MP2 has 3c 4c (a full house, Fours full of threes.)
BB has 7c 6c (two pairs, sevens and fours.)
MP2 wins 15.48 BB.


Derb - UTG+1

Party Poker 100.00/200.00 Hold'em (10 handed) link

Preflop:
1 folds, UTG+1 raises, 3 folds, CO 3-bets, Button caps, 2 folds, UTG+1 calls, CO calls.

Flop: (13.50 SB) K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (3 players)
UTG+1 checks, CO bets, Button raises, UTG+1 calls, CO 3-bets, Button calls, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (11.25 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (3 players)
UTG+1 bets, CO raises, Button 3-bets, UTG+1 caps, CO calls, Button calls.

River: (23.25 BB) T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (3 players)
UTG+1 checks, CO checks, Button checks.

Final Pot: 23.25 BB.
Results in white below:
UTG+1 has Jd Ac (a pair of jacks.)
CO has Jh Js (three of a kind, jacks.)
Button has Qh Th (a straight, nine to king.)
Button wins 23.23 BB.


Derb - SB

Party Poker 100.00/200.00 Hold'em (10 handed) link

Preflop:
8 folds, SB raises, BB calls.

Flop: (4.00 SB) A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB bets, BB calls.

Turn: (3.00 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB bets, BB raises, SB 3-bets, BB caps, SB calls.

River: (11.00 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB checks, BB bets, SB calls.

Final Pot: 13.00 BB.
Results in white below:
BB has 8s Ks (a flush, ace high.)
SB has Ad 5s (two pairs, aces and threes.)
BB wins 12.98 BB.


Derb - UTG, Lakerman - BB

Party Poker 100.00/200.00 Hold'em (8 handed) link

Preflop:
UTG raises, 5 folds, BB calls.

Flop: (4.50 SB) T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
BB checks, UTG bets, BB raises, UTG calls.

Turn: (4.25 BB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
BB bets, UTG calls.

River: (6.25 BB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
BB bets, UTG raises, BB 3-bets, UTG calls.

Final Pot: 12.25 BB.
Results in white below:
BB has Td Th (a full house, Tens full of eights.)
UTG has Jh Jd (two pairs, jacks and eights.)
BB wins 12.23 BB.


Derb - MP2

Party Poker 100.00/200.00 Hold'em (10 handed) link

Preflop:
UTG calls, 1 folds, MP2 calls, 4 folds, BB checks.

Flop: (3.50 SB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (3 players)
BB checks, UTG bets, MP2 calls, BB folds.

Turn: (2.75 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
UTG bets, MP2 raises, UTG 3-bets, MP2 caps, UTG calls.

River: (10.75 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
UTG checks, MP2 checks.

Final Pot: 10.75 BB.
Results in white below:
UTG has 6d 6s (two pairs, eights and sixes.)
MP2 has 5c 4c (two pairs, eights and fours.)
UTG wins 10.73 BB.

JasonP530 · #**147** 11-04-2005, 05:34 AM

This could be possible, but there are only so many hands that someone is willing to raise and fold to a 3 bet, and that a thin value raise(as was with the JJ hand below, which demands a fold to a 3 bet.) All those value raises turn -EV when you call a 3 bet there. I wouldn't think that many people's strategies include raising and folding a good/decent hand to a 3 bet, so 3 betting people in the hopes that they fold either the best hand, and then calling down in the hope that they are on a bluff is ridiculous.

Is there any way to manipulate the HH in some way to make it appear he is winning hands he is not?

mmcd · #**148** 11-04-2005, 06:24 AM

This link looks like it got lost in the thread since no one commented on it. Interesting to say the least.

#**149** 11-04-2005, 10:16 AM

This guy just sucks.
Given enough players, there will always be one of them who wins way more than he should. And most likely that would be one who plays too loose, since you can't win when you're folding. This time the lucky one seems to be Derb.

thejameser · #**150** 11-04-2005, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This link looks like it got lost in the thread since no one commented on it. Interesting to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting b/c Andy Prock is a member?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode