The Banker vs. The Corporation: Let's Get Ready to Rumble
GoodFella
James L. Hankins
news:1112040338.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
http://www.cardplayer.com/barry-blog/?id=13&PHPSESSID=ff825938c01b909530356927d1a48500
A $40 meeelion dollar buy-in freezeout. What a spectacle. Anyone know if
they plan to televise it? This one for the ages.
San Te of the 36 Chambers
http://www.cardplayer.com/barry-blog/?id=13&PHPSESSID=ff825938c01b909530356927d1a48500
Andy must be feeling extremely confident if he has agreed to let the
corporation decide who plays and when. Is it possible that Andy and a
team of game theorists have found the solution for a truly optimal
strategy in heads-up limit poker?
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
San Te of the 36 Chambers
http://www.cardplayer.com/barry-blog/?id=13&PHPSESSID=ff825938c01b909530356927d1a48500
On a side note, does anyone know where Barry Shulman gets his hair cut?
I'd like to get a hairdo to match my turbo-charged camaro and patent
leather bowling bag.
-----
Octo
"San Te of the 36 Chambers" <exaynr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pbjmh2x...@recgroups.com...
> >
> http://www.cardplayer.com/barry-blog/?id=13&PHPSESSID=ff825938c01b909530356927d1a48500
>
> Andy must be feeling extremely confident if he has agreed to let the
> corporation decide who plays and when. Is it possible that Andy and a
> team of game theorists have found the solution for a truly optimal
> strategy in heads-up limit poker?
>
> ----
I have no idea if that's possible given current computing technology, but
even if Beal has solved HULHE, it would still be pretty much impossible for
Beal to implement it with a high degree of accuracy unless he gets to bring
a computer to the table or something.
OTOH it seems possible that the insights he would gain just from studying
the optimal strategy would be enough to make him the greatest heads-up
player in the world.
In any case he only needs to be better than the opponents he's actually
playing, who I'm sure are far from perfect
Tony Popejoy
Ok im making a line. The corporation -650 .........beal + 475. Terms must be
all limit hold'em. This is comical. This guy might be a genius, but he's the
wrong kind of genius. Messing with Doyle , Chip, Barry , or Chau, is a recipe
for disaster, even for those on a much higher level then Beal. Andy Beal is
without a doubt a genius, but on the green felt he is but a cub in a lions den
with these players. And yes i've played with all of them. Live with Barry, Chip,
and Chau, and a tournament with Doyle. Other than Chan who I personally have
trouble with, these guys are the best for a reason. Andy may have a PhD, im not
sure, but i'm damn sure that those i've mentioned above have a doctorates in
poker, and if Beal plays them long enough he will learn a valuable lesson. " You
don't pull on supermans cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't mess
around with the old lone ranger, and you don't fuck around with those i just
mentioned. Can he win in the short run, absolutly. He plays them long enough his
pride will get fucked with. I certainly admire his moxy though. I can't wait to
see this.
Tony Popejoy
On Mar 28 2005 3:05 PM, GoodFella wrote:
>
> http://www.cardplayer.com/barry-blog/?id=13&PHPSESSID=ff825938c01b90953035692
> 7d1a48500
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
James L. Hankins
"Tony Popejoy" <ttpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112081415$463...@recpoker.com...
Why does Beale insist on limit hold'em? That's just a slow death. He
should play no limit. I think a $40 million all-in bet would make even
Doyle flinch.
Howard Treesong
substantial dog. DS's view is that the corporation might be ahead by
an eyelash, and might in fact be behind. $40 million to the
corporation is big money; to Beal, that's discretionary spending.
I've played with most of those guys live as well. And they're at the
top of the game for a reason. But in their case, the reason at least
in part is that they're outstanding at ALL games, even newer stuff like
TD. LH is relatively formulaic and relatively limited; a smart guy
like Beal, with proper preparation and proper randomizing, might be
very close to optimal. Plus, if they're only playing four hours a day,
there's no stamina edge from substitutions.
-Howard Treesong
Michael Sullivan
> Why does Beale insist on limit hold'em? That's just a slow death. He
> should play no limit. I think a $40 million all-in bet would make even
> Doyle flinch.
As far as I can tell from reading a few articles when this first started
brewing, he wants to play limit for 3 reasons:
1. It's easier to approximate an optimal strategy for limit and he
believes he has done so.
2. He believes that most of the corporation is less strong at limit
than at no-limit because NL tournaments are where most of the action and
prestige is these days. I'm sure many of them are top notch limit
players too, but if he gets to pick, he might be able to find one who
isn't, or who will make a few crossover errors from lack of practice.
3. High limit is his own specialty. He claims to have held his own
against the best competition in limit games, but makes no such claim
about NL.
Michael
JDT
<j...@coylelaw.com[no spam]> wrote:
>Why does Beale insist on limit hold'em? That's just a slow death. He
>should play no limit. I think a $40 million all-in bet would make even
>Doyle flinch.
A poor player has a better chance at limit than no-limit if he is very
aggressive. Beale is aggressive--and he's learning. He would get
killed at no-limit and won't play it.
Raider Fan
> Here's the link for the follow up article:
>
>
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14637&m_id=65559
Wow. Andy's serious. 4/10 isn't far away.
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
GoodFella
oneo...@yahoo.com
outstanding at ALL games, even newer stuff like TD. LH is relatively
formulaic and relatively limited; a smart guy like Beal, with proper
preparation and proper randomizing, might be very close to optimal."
Most of the top pros excel in NL tournaments and 4-10 handed ring games
of limit holdem, NL/PL holdem, pot-limit Omaha, Omaha-8, razz, stud,
stud-8, and triple draw. Heads-up limit holdem requires a very
different skill set than those other forms of poker, and even a world
class player in full-game limit holdem won't necessarily be one of the
strongest heads-up players. And it wouldn't suprise me if Beal was
working on an approximation to a game theory solution (completely
solving holdem is unrealistic) that would be very close to
unexploitable.
mrch...@aol.com
>
http://www.cardplayer.com/barry-blog/?id=13&PHPSESSID=ff825938c01b909530356927d1a48500
You guys make a lot of great points and this is an interesting topic
for so many reasons - figuring out the value of a bigger bankroll,
figuring out how much "genius" and "success" count for when learning
poker, whether an amateur has a better chance against a pro at limit or
no-limit, etc.
I've played poker with Andy and talked with him and the pros in great
detail about their games. It's easy either to give Andy way too much
credit (e.g., he's developed some computerized approximation of game
theory that has made hold 'em beatable) or way too little credit (e.g.,
he's a rich guy without sufficient regard for money, he has no chance).
My book about the game, THE PROFESSOR, THE BANKER, AND THE SUICIDE KING
comes out on June 2 (you can see/preorder it on Amazon.com). Although I
wanted to mention the book for "promotional purposes," it's nearly 2
months from publication so any pitching I do now is way premature. But
I'm fascinated by the subject - that's why I wrote a book about it! -
so I wanted to contribute to what's already an excellent discussion:
1. Andy considers limit hold 'em a game of greater skill, though I
emphasize that he is focused on skills he can develop or "approximate."
Determining optimal strategy, knowing all the odds, figuring out the
"right" perccentage for bucking the odds to randomize play, making
yourself difficult for opponents to read: those are the kinds of skills
he feels he can develop. No-limit involves difficult skills, skills he
feels less comfortable developing. Also, he LIKES the idea that limit
hold 'em is an incremental game, that any small edge takes a lot of
repetitions to show itself. More important, when playing the best in
the world, you can make a mistake without being punished with your
entire bankroll.
2. Andy has worked very hard on his game. He has played over a thousand
hours heads-up (maybe much more), a lot of this at very high stakes. He
has written programs to tell him the odds of every situation, and
studied them for many, many hours.
3. There is no doubt that he is a better ultra-high-stakes limit hold
'em player than many of the world's best poker players. Both Ted
Forrest and Barry Greenstein told me they thought Andy outplayed them
the last time they played. Some other top, top players have never beat
Andy, or have substantial losing records. As Phil Ivey said after
playing Andy for two straight days and breaking even, "He's no slouch."
Barry Greenstein told me on several occasions they he regards the pros
as favorites against Andy, but not by very much.
4. Part of the edge that pros have over everyone else, at least as
important in pure Super/System-Sklansky/Malmuth type card playing
skill, is KNOWING HOW TO GAMBLE. "Making the game" is what they
sometimes call it. It's the art and science of knowing what
circumstances give one side or the other the advantage, and
handicapping accordingly. When you hear the story about Doyle Brunson
winning a humongous golf bet when he was no longer able to walk without
crutches, it was knowing how to make the game, not skill at golf, that
won him the money. Andy is a professional at weighing circumstances,
assigning them percentages, and acting accordingly; that's how he's
become so wealthy at event arbitrage. But in this arena, he's no match
for someone like Doyle Brunson, and he knows it. That's why there's so
much bickering over where to play, or who can make substitutions, or
how many hours a day to play. The bottom line is that if the players
get everything the way they want it, they should be a significant
favorite. If any gets everything the way he wants it .... Well, the
last time that happened, he won $12 million in one day.
Naturally, I hope you look for my book on Amazon or after June 2. But
what I really want to do is contribute to an interesting discussion. I
hope you don't mind my mentioning my additional interest in all this.
Michael Craig
King of the Off Deuce
Sullivan) wrote:
>Why does Beale insist on limit hold'em?
Because Doyle insists on capping the stakes.
"PB is not Peg."
James L. Hankins
<mrch...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1112241517.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Interesting. Please add me to your list to contact when the book comes out.
I will probably buy it.
Octo
"James L. Hankins" <j...@coylelaw.com[no spam]> wrote in message
news:F5e2e.52310$3z.6698@okepread03...
>
> "Tony Popejoy" <ttpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112081415$463...@recpoker.com...
>>
>> Ok im making a line. The corporation -650 .........beal + 475. Terms must
>> be
>> all limit hold'em. This is comical.
This is not comical. I don't normally do sports wagers but you are laying
4.75:1 against Beal, correct?
I will probably take those odds for around 10k, maybe more, if you are
serious, but first I want to see what exactly the final terms of the game
are, if it even goes. The Cardplayer articles tell us next to nothing -
omitting for example what limits they are playing.
GoodFella
http://www.cardplayer.com/barry-blog/?id=17
And Mike Craig, (author of the upcoming "The Professor, The Banker, and
the Suicide King") if you're reading this, we know who the first two
are, but who's "The Suicide King"? Looking forward to your book.