DERB

[BradL]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also slightly absurd that his biggest advocates are people who have played virtually no hands against him.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are refering to me, i am neither an advocate of his nor do i believe that he should be written off as a lucky maniac. Also i have played 30/60 with him since the game was offered on more than 4 tables as well as 50/100 since the split.

Edit: You seem to be taking offense to the notion that there may be something to be learned from a player with a non-conventional sytle, even if his style does turn out to be a losing one.

Edit: Im not sure why i assumed you might be refering to me... you can pretty much disregard this post.

-Brad

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he is a marginal winner, but the supposition that he is the biggest winner in the game(expectation wise) is just absurd. It's also slightly absurd that his biggest advocates are people who have played virtually no hands against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

James,

As someone who as played a large number of hands against him, and someone who has gone on record as not seeing any genius in his post flop play, I would hardly say that I am an "advocate" of his.

However, as Brad pointed out, and I think many other people feel, there has to be something to be learned from his style. His success seems to be reasonably well documented, and when I sit on the 50/100's for 4-5 hours I notice almost all "pros" (most of whom I know see playing 20/40 or 30/60 because I assume they are breaking even at best) floundering between 1500 and 3500 in chips, all day. You glance at DERB's chip stacks and he's sitting with like 8k, 6k, 4k, and 10k - it's simply ridiculous. On the surface he appears to be doing something that the 16/12/2.5 style just can't (as in, literally impossible) do, regardless of how well you play post flop. It seems that his opponents are either unwilling to adapt to his style, or completely unable to exploit it.

I am hoping you'll elaborate more on the above and explain why you think he is only a marginal winner. You deny that what he is doing is working? You may indeed be correct, but I just don't see it.


Thanks,

Nigel

[ErrantNight]

shania smells like game theory... me likey... thanks

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also slightly absurd that his biggest advocates are people who have played virtually no hands against him.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. They have the least biased opinion and can evaluate his numbers freely. They aren't conditioned to believe he is a loser simply because he capped middle pair on the turn a few times against them.

Note: I'm not accusing you of having a clouded view of this. I just wanted to clear up the above fallacy.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify: The 3-bet the turn was simply an example of a game-theoretic adjustment that someone mentioned in this thread. My point isn't that DERB is making good plays - I have no idea. My only point is if any poker player adjusts the range of hands with which he makes a certain play to fare better against his opponents range of hands and corresponding actions, including taking into account the influence adjustments to his actions will have on his opponents' actions, then he is employing game theory.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's also slightly absurd that his biggest advocates are people who have played virtually no hands against him.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are refering to me, i am neither an advocate of his nor do i believe that he should be written off as a lucky maniac. Also i have played 30/60 with him since the game was offered on more than 4 tables as well as 50/100 since the split.

Edit: You seem to be taking offense to the notion that there may be something to be learned from a player with a non-conventional sytle, even if his style does turn out to be a losing one.

Edit: Im not sure why i assumed you might be refering to me... you can pretty much disregard this post.

-Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not referring to you.
-James

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's also slightly absurd that his biggest advocates are people who have played virtually no hands against him.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. They have the least biased opinion and can evaluate his numbers freely. They aren't conditioned to believe he is a loser simply because he capped middle pair on the turn a few times against them.

Note: I'm not accusing you of having a clouded view of this. I just wanted to clear up the above fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for "clearing this up" for all of us. It's not about evaluating the numbers. The numbers alone make it very likely that he is a big winner. Any high school kid could look at the numbers and arrive at that conclusion. What I'm saying is, the numbers don't get remotely close to telling the whole story with this player. There is plenty to be learned from this player, but emulating his style for full ring limit hold 'em is a losing proposition, in my opinion. It's also the opinion of J_V, paluka, 1800gambler, bk(any of you correct me if i am wrong), and pretty much every high limit player i know who has a decent number of hands vs. him. Why would so many players disagree with what seem to be completely damning evidence? I'm not sure. Maybe the jury is still out on DERB. Maybe his ace high call on the hand where he gets three-bet on the turn above was a good one. Anyways, I'm all set as far as arguing this point with people. It's obvious that neither side will budge and not obvious that both sides are even arguing about the same thing. I really don't feel very passionately about this as I hardly play limit currently, so you all can feel free to debate it!
-James

[adanthar]

I am not a limit expert, but I've looked through all of the DERB hands posted in this thread and, from that dozen or so, already see two common plays. At least one of them is something relatively difficult to exploit theoretically and unobservant opponents will never catch on. (Specifically, when he runs into resistance with any overpair, he's almost automatically raising when the board pairs. Coupled with his aggression on prior streets, he probably doesn't get reraised often.)

I have no idea how he plays outside of that, and some of those river calls are horrible. But I think he is at least attempting to study the game - either that, or being trained by someone who does.

[mmcd]

James,

FWIW I am sort of reserving judgement on the matter of DERB of being a "big winner" but I am pretty sure at this point that he is at the very least a winning player even if only marginally so. The fact that he is able to win at all in these games with that style is certainly worth looking into because it's so damn counterintuitive based on both my overall knowledge of the games he frequents and my specific knowledge of some of the crazy plays he makes.

I am certainly still open to the possibility, however, that there is something about the way his entire game fits together that enables him to be a big winner in these games. Clearly he makes lots plays that are most definately -ev in isolation, but obviously in a game as complex as limit holdem, ev doesn't exist in a vaccum and perhaps these plays are necessary components of an overall metagame that allows him to win big.

I think a detailed analysis of exactly where DERBs profit comes from (or perhaps more accurately stated, where he makes money that 17/12 types don't) would be VERY valuable. Unfortunately, I have neither the time, the requisite knowledge of database software, nor possibly even a sufficient level of expertise, to conduct such a study. The bitch of it all is that if someone does competantly conduct an analysis along these lines, and happens to find some very valuable insight, it's unlikely that it would ever end up getting posted here.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
James,

FWIW I am sort of reserving judgement on the matter of DERB of being a "big winner" but I am pretty sure at this point that he is at the very least a winning player even if only marginally so. The fact that he is able to win at all in these games with that style is certainly worth looking into because it's so damn counterintuitive based on both my overall knowledge of the games he frequents and my specific knowledge of some of the crazy plays he makes.

I am certainly still open to the possibility, however, that there is something about the way his entire game fits together that enables him to be a big winner in these games. Clearly he makes lots plays that are most definately -ev in isolation, but obviously in a game as complex as limit holdem, ev doesn't exist in a vaccum and perhaps these plays are necessary components of an overall metagame that allows him to win big.

I think a detailed analysis of exactly where DERBs profit comes from (or perhaps more accurately stated, where he makes money that 17/12 types don't) would be VERY valuable. Unfortunately, I have neither the time, the requisite knowledge of database software, nor possibly even a sufficient level of expertise, to conduct such a study. The bitch of it all is that if someone does competantly conduct an analysis along these lines, and happens to find some very valuable insight, it's unlikely that it would ever end up getting posted here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of what you said.
-James