On small edges and self-defeating lines

[private joker]

Posting this essay in Small Stakes as opposed to General is questionable, but I'll leave that debate to the moderators and/or other posters.

I'd like to say a few words about certain players' lines as it relates to our overall goal, which is winning the most money in the long term. We achieve this goal by maximizing our winrate, which in turn is achieved by choosing the play with the highest EV at each point in the hand. There are an infinate number of ways to play any given session, since each hands presents us three initial decisions preflop (call, fold, raise) no matter what happens, and our actions in turn affect what other opponents do, which affects our future decisions, and soon we have a choose-your-own adventure spiderweb of possibilities over a large chunk of hands.

Part of being a winning player is pushing edges. As we get more experienced, we need to recognize spots where we have an edge, and thus take a line that maximizes EV based on that edge -- something amateurs might not see (for instance, if you play predictable ABC and make all your decisions as if in a vacuum against typical opponents, you may miss an opportunity based on reads, position, and table conditions to adjust and do something more creative). However, these edges can get smaller and smaller, and soon we run into the very fine line between small edges and plays which have a -EV. (For a better explanation of this statement, read Feeney's 2+2 book "Inside the Poker Mind," which -- while not perfect -- is a book I recommend due to some valuable overall concepts).

Some edges are so small that by choosing to push them, we adversely affect our overall EV in the long term. How? There are a few ways: 1) we misread the situation and take an action that appears to be a small edge but is actually a slight EV loss; 2) our skill is insufficient to push this edge -- we can't always pick an line so optimal that it squeezes every penny out of the edge, so we wind up making a high-variance play that has little-to-no impact on our winrate in the long term; 3) we suffer a slight emotional defeat when our play loses, and the consequences of playing under these emotions outweighs the EV we gained in that specific instance.

It's this third theory that I'll expand on. First of all, it's important to note that our money in poker comes from taking advantage of our opponents' bad play. This is obvious and probably doesn't bear repeating. But if you concentrate on the fact that you'll be a winning player if you make fewer mistakes than your opponents, you can see a larger picture: for each edge you try to push with some FPS or incomplete understanding of how to push that edge, you risk making a mistake that counters the Sklansky bucks you've earned from prior play.

With this in mind, think of those times when, for example, you're on the river in position and your opponent bets into you. You may think, based on previous hands and study away from the table, that the best line is to raise and fold to a 3-bet. Often times this clearly the case. But sometimes the best line is to just call. So let's say you're unsure. Raising and folding to a 3-bet may earn .02bb/100 more than calling, in the long run. So you do it, and you lose the hand and don't see a showdown. Now you second-guess yourself. You just saw a 16BB pot shipped to your opponent and you're not sure it was the right play. You spent 2BBs on the river and didn't even get to show down a K-high flush because you were sure he had the A-high. (This is a hypothetical -- I have no specific hand in mind, and I don't want to digress into a pokerstove analysis of how many bb's/100 you gain by one line over another in this situation).

You start to slip in judgment, and you're now subtly on tilt. Most players think if they're not steaming, they're not on tilt. Not true. Maybe the next hand you open-limp Axs in EP even though it's not a profitable play on your table, just because it has potential to win a big pot and you might see a cheap flop multi-way. This is -EV. Couple that with getting tied to a hand post-flop, and it's now more -EV. Was all of this worth pushing an edge that may or may not have existed when you chose the previous line? I don't think so.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not arguing against pushing small edges. But make sure the edges you're pushing are ones you've thought about repeatedly away from the table and can play those lines with confidence. If they're not, then stick to decisions that a) are equally or only *slightly* less profitable; and b) will not affect your future play in that session because of subtle emotional tilt.

It takes a whole lot of hands to get good at poker. I'm not up the skill level of some players at my level, who are more creative and who can confidently push every small edges. But I solidly beat the Party 2/4 and 3/6 games over many thousands of hands because I most often took lines that were within my comfort zone, were +EV, and did not open me up to an EV loss due to external factors outweighing the tiny profit in a specific situation. Only when you've reached a skill level over a whole lot of play that reveals an ability to suffer no EV loss by pushing the smallest of edges should you start playing complicated, high-variance lines that will increase your winrate in the long term. Until then, focus on what got you here: taking advantage of opponents' mistakes, and playing solid and smart poker.

An epilogue: for those of you who constantly try to push these very small edges, good for you. I hope to get there soon. I say this (and this applies to anyone who plays long enough to suffer bad downswings) -- even though your winrate will increase in the long term, remember that downward fluctuations in your play are the result of the balance of skill and luck inherent in Hold'em, and if that luck did not exist (the luck causing you to have downswings despite making correct decisions), the bad players would leave the game and you wouldn't even have a table at which to sit down.

[Borno]

great post PJ, thanks!

I am one of those players that frequently pushes those small +ev actions, INCORRECTLY.. and continuously do so to my detriment. I am trying to get better and begin to consistently win over many thousands of hands - but understanding situations properly, making safer plays at some times and doing what I know is +ev should be my priorities.

[weevil]

Great post. This expresses my thoughts lately very well.

[SomethingClever]

This is a great post. You've articulated some of the things I've thought about for a long time.

[Derek in NYC]

Nice post Joker. I'm also a player to trades EV for variance, when the incremental gain in EV is small enough that it may be within my own personal margin of error.

The only thing I would add to your otherwise excellent observations, is that the single best thing I have done for my game is undertake shorthanded play.

Short table play requires you play through more ambiguous situations where your "edge" is less clear. For instance, while full ring makes a lot of money from TPTK situations, shorthanded play requires you to showdown more marginal hands like middle pair, etc.

[thejameser]

vnh. i've been thinking alot about similar topics alot lately, especially the second theory. i think that it is conceivable that the optimal line of a given hand in a given circumstance for a given indiviual could be considered a fuction of that player's skill level. that would lead to the most profitable line for a player of a particular skill level to take to avoid exposure to poor judgement as a result of misinterpretation of information that a better player can analyze and optimize to a formulation for the most profitable play in the long term. proper poker is proper poker. obvious equity edges, even good equity edges, must necessarily be pushed for consistent long-term winning. but the smaller the edge, the more skill it takes to identify and to be profitable by taking advantage of it. so in a nutshell, can the proper play be relative to the players level of skill?

[jskills]

Dude - nice post.

Thanks for taking the time to put his together. It's great to see something thought out like this in the midst of all the strategic line discussions.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
(For a better explanation of this statement, read feeney's 2+2 book "Inside the Poker Mind," which -- while not perfect ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. It's perfect. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[bandfan]

excellent post

[AL5AcE]

Nice post. I've always held the same thought throughout my poker career. Making decisions that were within my comfort zone. Sometimes the emotional assurance and information we get while not pushing very small edges is more +EV.

I just want to add to your example where after raising and folding to a 3bet and second guessing yourself. I've been in situations where it happened just like that, and a few hands later I find out that my opponent was a total donk and I actually had a very good chance of having him beat on that river. I may have not seen it earlier because I was multitabling or something. That feeling sucks.

Oh, and Feeney's "Inside the Poker Mind" is actually my favorite poker book to date. It was simply refreshing to read a book like that. It's like Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" except on poker psychology. It basically outlined everything I was doing that helped me win outside of poker strategy.