Theory of Poker: Chapters 1-4 Discussion

[MEbenhoe]

Well this is the start of the Theory of Poker discussions. This is the overall heading and underneath I put 4 subtopics (1 for each chapter). The idea is to have all general discussion for the first 4 chapters under this heading and have chapter specific discussions under the chapter headings. For each chapter I tried to start the discussion out with some questions. Some of these questions are ones you should be able to easily understand and answer after having read these chapters. Other questions are meant to be a little more challenging and make you really think about and apply what you read. Hope what I came up with is sufficient to start this out.

[MEbenhoe]

These first two questions are concepts that should be simple, but often are forgotten by even experienced players:

Why will a good player experience more bad beats than an average or poor player?

Why are you usually not out to win the most pots in a poker game?

Applying what you’ve read now try to answer this:

Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[MEbenhoe]

First a simple question:

Why is Mathematical Expectation important to a poker player?

Now here comes the challenge working in what you should have learned about Mathematical Expectation and hourly rate:

On p. 11 Sklansky quotes Bob Stupak, “Having one-thousandth of one percent the worst of it, if he plays long enough, that one-thousandth of one percent will bust the richest man in the world.” We won’t use Bill Gates for this example, but assume a man with a $1 billion bankroll is playing a dice game in which the house has a 50.001% to 49.999% edge. If this man bets $1000 per roll of the dice and rolls 120 times per hour how long will it take him to go broke? Explain your answer. (Have fun with the math on this one)

[MEbenhoe]

This chapter contains one of the most important poker concepts ever, The Fundamental Theorem of Poker. The hand examples in this chapter are very important to study and make sure you understand why what Sklansky says is correct. The first question is derived from hand example 1:

You are playing in a NL Hold Em game. You hold J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. Your opponent holds K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. The board shows Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. At this point there is $1000 in the pot and you and your opponent both have a stack of $10000 in front of you. The pot is heads up. You bet $1000 on a semi-bluff (it’ll be covered later). According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker what is your opponents correct play (be precise) and why?

Another Fundamental Theorem question:

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Your opponent has A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. The board is A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[MEbenhoe]

This chapter may not be the most important chapter to many of you who only play Hold Em and don’t ever encounter antes, but some of its concepts can be applied to thinking about the blinds in Hold Em. I came up with two questions that are meant to simply make you think about the concept of the ante and the difference in a small ante vs large ante game:

Would you personally rather play in a small ante or large ante game and why?

In 7 card stud you are dealt (8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]) 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. Would you rather play this hand in a small ante or large ante game and why?

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
Why will a good player experience more bad beats than an average or poor player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because bad/poor players will draw out more on you than you will on them

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you usually not out to win the most pots in a poker game?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you chase to try to win too many pots you will loose. The bets you save are as important as the bets you win. The goal is to maximize your wins and minimize your loses. Each pot is just part of the overall “game”, your not out to win the pot, but to win the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Applying what you’ve read now try to answer this:

Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. My initial impression would be in an extremely weak-tight game where pots are small, and the players will lay down marginal hands. Seems like the only way to be profitable in this game is a to of blind stealing. Sounds like a wretched game to me.

It is also possible that he meant very loose games with very large pots. However, I think that going for "pots" in that game (as oppossed to sklansky $) may lead to overly LAGggy play. I think this is probably the part of SSH that people having problems with the application of that work are misusing. People just might be going a bit overboard on in their quest to get pot equity. Just because betting T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on the river on a board of 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]j [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] is your only way to win the pot, doesn't make it a good play, but if your goal was to simply win pots, you'd end up making this drastically -ev (in most circumstances) play often.

Of course, I could be hugely wrong.

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is Mathematical Expectation important to a poker player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Mathematical Expectation tells you win you have the best of it or when you don’t, therefore knowing the ME will show you if you are playing a certain hand correctly or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Now here comes the challenge working in what you should have learned about Mathematical Expectation and hourly rate:

On p. 11 Sklansky quotes Bob Stupak, “Having one-thousandth of one percent the worst of it, if he plays long enough, that one-thousandth of one percent will bust the richest man in the world.” We won’t use Bill Gates for this example, but assume a man with a $1 billion bankroll is playing a dice game in which the house has a 50.001% to 49.999% edge. If this man bets $1000 per roll of the dice and rolls 120 times per hour how long will it take him to go broke? Explain your answer. (Have fun with the math on this one)

[/ QUOTE ]

It’ll take him 83,333 hours to loose it all. (I think)

If he is betting $120,000 per hour (1000x120) then you multiply $120,000 x .001% to get 1.2 and then divide 1 billion by 1.2

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Expectation and hourly rate:

On p. 11 Sklansky quotes Bob Stupak, “Having one-thousandth of one percent the worst of it, if he plays long enough, that one-thousandth of one percent will bust the richest man in the world.” We won’t use Bill Gates for this example, but assume a man with a $1 billion bankroll is playing a dice game in which the house has a 50.001% to 49.999% edge. If this man bets $1000 per roll of the dice and rolls 120 times per hour how long will it take him to go broke? Explain your answer. (Have fun with the math on this one)

[/ QUOTE ]

So our hero loses $.02 per roll (wagers $100,000,000 per 100,000 rolls. Recoups $2000x49999 = $99,998,000. Loss of $2000 per 100,000 rolls = -$.02 per roll)

Each hour that is $2.4

so to lose $1bil he needs 1,000,000,000/2.4 = 41,666,666.6 repeating hrs. = 47,532 years, give or take (depending on leap year...)

Of course, I'm an idiot, and could well be wrong...

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

It’ll take him 83,333 hours to loose it all. (I think)

If he is betting $120,000 per hour (1000x120) then you multiply $120,000 x .001% to get 1.2 and then divide 1 billion by 1.2

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are wrong in two spots. First, the house edge is .002%, and second, he has $1bil, not $1mil to lose.