The Great Math -v- People Debate
Doug MacPherson
During the last year or so, I have learned that there is a special group
of people who post to the group with an incredible amount of mathematical
knowledge. Mike Caro's "Challenges" further promote the image of poker
being a math game. I understand how and why poker is a game of
mathematics. However, in practice, I cannot apply the math of poker to my
game except at the most basic level, and even then, I suspect that my
conclusions are often wrong. This is my shortcoming, I know, as I can
barely balance my checkbook. Ultimately, the endless discussions of very
important mathematical concepts regarding poker are totally lost on me.
Yet, somehow, I manage to win with little math and a lot of intuition and
knowledge of my opponents. Some might say, therefore, I'm lucky. I might
suggest that I'm playing a mathematically sound game based on intuition.
I really don't know. So, let me see if I can get some discussion going on
this.
My questions are:
1. Are you a people player or a math player or both?
2. What importance do you place on the method you have chosen?
3. What do you think are the advantages of your chosen discipline and the
disadvantages of the other?
4. Do you think that it's possible that you might be winning less money
than if you adopted the opposite discipline? Or would this be a toss-up?
My expectations are that many people will claim to be both a math player
and a people player, but my playing experience suggests this is not the
case: You either follow one discipline or the other. Though everyone, to
a certain degree, will incorporate both into their playing style.
Any thoughts? Just curious about this.
---Doug MacPherson
PS: I'm really very sorry if this post showed up seven thousand times on
your server. Still trying to get used to my new newsreader...
-Doug MacPherson
(Take away the "poofter" in my address and you can send e-mail to me...)
Richard Cavell
Doug, (I'll take away the 'poofter' as you asked)
I firmly believe that tells and reading hands are the main way to make money
at the game, and the better of the two capabilities. This part of my game has
improved substantially over my short career, and more than 80% of the time, I
can name my opponents' hole cards at the showdown (whether I'm in the hand or
not). I very rarely lose a showdown as a result.
That said, I can calculate my probabilities on-the-fly. I keep detailed notes
on the statistics of other people's play on a computer database. The math
isn't really that hard once you practise, and it's very important to know
whether you should be drawing/your chances of being beaten/how various ways of
disguising your hand will alter your reverse implied odds.
So, I say that the math is very important but the psychology is the main
game. In answer to your question, I am both a mathematician and a
psychologist, but I would rather be a psychologist if I had to choose.
KLBBrown
Doug,
I believe that the answers to your questions depend very much on the level of
the game being played. Some very sound strategies and plays that work well at
15-30 HE will simply not work at 3-6-12 and vice versa. It's my personal belief
that at the lower limit games (1-4-8-8, and 3-6-12 and even 10-20) that
mathematical principles should dominate your playing strategy. Knowing the pot
odds, how many outs you have, which starting hands to lay down in which
position, all these concepts will make or break your game at lower limit. Of
course, these are important at all limits, but IMO much more relevant at the
lower tables. At the higher end of the game (pot-limit and no-limit) it's my
studied opinion that people skills dominate player strategy. Knowing your
opponents style of play and his view of your style of play is the deciding
factor. As for my style, I follow a basic precept of mathematics and let my
intuition and player reads guide my play. Sometimes knowing that the pot odds
demand you lay down your hand, even though you _know_ your opponent is just too
tough to swallow. Ah, that's a discussion for another day...
KLB
Robert Copps
In article <34A09351...@student.unimelb.edu.au>,
r.ca...@student.unimelb.edu.au (Richard Cavell) writes:
>
>
> I firmly believe that tells and reading hands are the main way to make
> money
> at the game, and the better of the two capabilities. This part of my
> game has
> improved substantially over my short career, and more than 80% of the
> time, I
> can name my opponents' hole cards at the showdown (whether I'm in the
> hand or
> not). I very rarely lose a showdown as a result.
>
>
Very interesting, perhaps inspiring. >.80! I've never kept track of my own
skills in this department, but maybe quantifying them would help me to
focus and improve my score. Still 80 per cent seems huge. If I had thought
this were possible (and I hope it is) I would have put more effort.
Tells: But then it's possible that Richard is being a little subjectively
optimisitic here. Previous discussions, though far from negative, have not
been very encouraging as to putting a great deal of energy into searching
for tells.
Hand reading: Has anyone ever done any work on esitmating what percentage
of hands might be logically deducible from the play? What should we be
shooting for?
--Bob
stealthe_blind
In article <macpherd-231...@209-142-7-22.stk.inreach.net>,
macp...@inreach.poofter.com says...
>
>snipped
>
>Ultimately, the endless discussions of very important mathematical concepts
>regarding poker are totally lost on me.
>
>
And what might those mathematical concepts be that you are referring to?
Richard Cavell
Robert Copps wrote:
> Very interesting, perhaps inspiring. >.80! I've never kept track of my own
> skills in this department, but maybe quantifying them would help me to
> focus and improve my score. Still 80 per cent seems huge. If I had thought
> this were possible (and I hope it is) I would have put more effort.
Robert,
The reason why I can do this is because my opponents are so bad. We certainly
don't have the pokerplaying fraternity in Australia that you have in the USA.
Everything in Caro's book is to be found on the tables here in Melbourne, and
plenty more that I've picked up by myself. There are several pros here who can
read hands with greater accuracy than myself. Now, if we had a bunch of people
who had all read their S&M, learned how to read hands themselves, and actually
tried to win, I wouldn't be able to do it.
I've often wondered why some of you guys spend your time playing mostly against
other semi-professionals. What's the point? Find a fish tank. The purpose of
this game is not to become a brilliant player, or to beat every other person on
your level, it's to make money.
Richard.
Doug MacPherson
>> In article
<34A09351...@student.unimelb.edu.aur.cavell@student.unimelb.edu.au
(Richard Cavell) writes:
<<Claims of 80% hit-rate at putting opponents on hands snipped>>
Then:
In article <93706-8...@paralynx.com>, Robert...@mindlink.bc.ca
(Robert Copps) wrote:
> Very interesting, perhaps inspiring. >.80! I've never kept track of my own
> skills in this department, but maybe quantifying them would help me to
> focus and improve my score. Still 80 per cent seems huge. If I had thought
> this were possible (and I hope it is) I would have put more effort.
>
> Tells: But then it's possible that Richard is being a little subjectively
> optimisitic here. Previous discussions, though far from negative, have not
> been very encouraging as to putting a great deal of energy into searching
> for tells.
>
> Hand reading: Has anyone ever done any work on esitmating what percentage
> of hands might be logically deducible from the play? What should we be
> shooting for?
That's a good poser, and I know 80% is unreasonable. In fact, I *rarely*
put my opponents on a single hand exactly. I prefer to put them on ranges
of hands, and narrow these ranges as more information comes in. Sometimes
I can get as specific as "high-flush draw" or "ace-high flush," but I
think it is usually quite obvious at showdown time that they have these
hands.
In fact, one of the inherent problems with hold'em is that there are only
four betting rounds (I know, some draw players are smirking and going
"only?"). I think, at a minimum, it takes three rounds of betting to be
able to assess an opponent's hand, and even then it's more of an
approximation. One of the reasons for this is that, in terms of strategy,
the pre-flop and flop strategies are more for establishing an impression,
be it true or false, and the action does not necessarily correlate to the
strength of one's hand. Weaker players tend to be more obvious than
stronger players, and knowing the difference is important. Ultimately,
it's on the turn, I've often found, that the "real" strength of a hand
gets put to the test. Being able to read a board, betting patterns and
everything you know about a person to deduce an exact hand any earlier
than the turn I would suggest is a rare event, although I know some people
are terribly obvious.
What I think is important is not necessarily knowing exactly what your
opponent has (though I would love to have such great clairvoyance), but
instead knowing the approximate strength of the hand. If that is the
case, and I'm guessing that's what Richard was getting at, I don't find
80% too unreasonable.
Alan Bostick
Because I'm a math wonk, here's my analytical take on Math vs. People:
Suppose through observation and reading tells, a player has the knack of
knowing what his opponents' hands are likely to be.
This player has positive EV -- she knows when she's beat and can fold without
regrets; and knows when she has the best hand and can pump the pot.
If she also knows the mathematical side of poker, she knows when the pot
is laying the right odds for her to chase a draw; and she will know when to
manipulate the betting so that her opponents chasing their draws are making
mistakes. Doing this will enhance her EV significantly.
Now consider the player who is a complete math wizard. She knows the odds
and plays them for all they're worth. She, too, has a positive EV in the
low-limit games against clueless players; but the better her opponents, the
smaller her edge gets.
To ensure profitable play, the math wiz must develop skills at reading
her opponents. If she succeeds, she can be as successful as the psych wiz
who develops math skills. The naive math wiz stands to gain a lot more by
learning psych skills than does the naive psych wiz by learning math skills.
"Poker," as the man says, "is a game of people." It's also a game of math
and probability and figuring the odds. But the real way to make money in
poker is to understand people.
--
Alan Bostick | "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal."
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | T. S. Eliot, 1920
news:alt.grelb | "Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal."
| Lionel Trilling, 1962
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
MGCourtney
re: Accuracy rate in reading your opponents, and a question from R. Copps on
how much can be inferred about an opponent's hand using just logical induction
from the play.
I'd like to hear what some of the professionals who inhabit the
newgroup have to say about this question ... what kind of success rate do you
guys have in reading hands?
Here's some interesting info on the second half of the subject question, from
my own experience:
I've been playing the internet e-mail tourney, wrgpt7 (and, with some luck,
doing pretty well ... currently in 16th place of the 684 starters...). I've
found that I have been able to deduce what my opponents hold a great deal of
the time, using the play in the current hand, a study of my opponent's previous
plays, and some statistical analysis. As others have suggested, I find it best
to look at a broad range of potential hands and then narrow it down as play
progresses. However, of the range of potential hands, I also pick the one or
two that are the "most likely candidates" and base my responses mostly on the
assumption that they are what the opponent actually holds. I've been very
(pleasantly!) surprised to find that, most of the time, these "most likely"
hands turn out to be EXACTLY what my opponent is in fact holding.
Notice that in an e-mail tourney, there are no physical "tells" that
one can go by to help deduce what the opponent holds (although
one might be able to infer a bit by considering the opponents response time);
it has to be done by purely logical induction alone.
So, as a first order answer to the question, my experience so far has been that
one can in fact infer a great deal about the opponent's holding simply from
logical induction, without the aid of physical tells. Having tells available
(and being able to read them properly, of course!) further strengthens the
chances of being able to put someone on a hand. With lots of practice, an 80%
success rate (which at first glance appears so unrealistically optimistic) may
not be so terribly out of the question after all ....
- Mark.
MGCourtney
There is a third leg to the Math vs. People Debate.
Its Math vs. People vs. Logical Deduction.
The math part is used to figure the basic odds.
The people part can be used to figure out what your opponent's
cards are, based mostly on psychology and physical tells.
However, one can also infer a great deal about the opponent's
hand using logical deduction alone, regardless of physical tells
and psychology.
Bruce Schechter
Uh, what's the diff between math and logical deduction? Don't confuse math
with probability and statistics.
MGCourtney wrote in message
<19971226183...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
HitTheFlop
In article <19971226182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mgcou...@aol.com
(MGCourtney) writes:
> With lots of practice, an 80%
success rate (which at first glance appears so
>unrealistically optimistic) may
not be so terribly out of the question after
>all ....
So your right 80% of the time. Is this goint to save
you big money by making a lot of good laydowns
on the river? No, it can't. Any reasonable pot on
the river will contain at least 5 or (way) more big
bets. This will almost always give you pot odds
of at least 5-1 (and sometimes much higher) to
call. Now if you could be absolutely sure 80% of
the time and completely in the dark the other 20%
then you could make some good laydowns but
it just isn't so.
This is one of my own playing problems I'm
currently trying to improve. I have a very good
card reading ability but the games I'm in are wild
enough to produce some very large pots. I find it
almost impossible to get off a hand when there is
some small chance it can win and the pot is
offering 12-1 odds for a river call. You need to be
very sure you're beat, 92% sure. Thats a tough
standard to meet.
Best Luck,
Ed
Access to power must be confined to those who
are not in love with it. Plato
SloMoJoe21
>I'd like to hear what some of the professionals who inhabit the
>newgroup have to say about this question ... what kind of success rate do you
>guys have in reading hands?
>
>
I don't play poker on line but I do play bridge occasionally. I can often read
the strength or weakness of other players hands by the speed with which they
bid. How they bid will also yield clues. Just imagine if I could look at
them.
Doug MacPherson
I disagree with this, and I think that "logical deduction" crosses over
into the "people skills" boundary. (Also, as a matter of semantics, I
think the correct term here should be "logical induction.") The reason
for this crossover is that a bet or raise from a weak player typically
means something different than a bet/raise by a strong player under
completely identical circumstances. Therefore, without any "a priori"
knowledge of your opponent(s) play and skill set, I don't think it is
possible to deduce anything.
Consider the possibility you're in a game where there is a curtain which
hides the identity of your opponents and yourself. Bets are announced by
an impartial "dealer" who announces each bet/raise with a "Player 1 bets,
player 2 folds, player 3 calls..." Your first few hands are bound to be
based solely on "mathematical" principles, in that your hand selection
will be proper and conform to the knowledge you possess.
However, after a few hours of observation, you will eventually begin to
see that Player 1 is actually a weak player with a loose-aggressive
playing style, Player 2 is strong, tight and aggressive... Essentially,
you will begin to make judgements based on a priori observations, and it
is based on these observations and judgements, that you begin to make
assumptions about the holdings of your opponents. In essence, you have
used analogous induction to logically infer what your opponent(s) holdings
are.
And, of course, the greater the accuracy (i.e., the greater your ability
to evaluate your opponents), the greater the win rate that you enjoy.
---Doug Macpherson
In article <19971226183...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Bruce Schechter
Part of the problem is just what you call psychology and what you call math.
Figuring out who is loose-agressive, etc. is really a mathematical
problem--that is, you can determine it by watching which hands your opponent
plays and how he plays them. We use terms like maniac, which sound
psychological but are really just labels for playing strategies. Once you
have your labels in place you use logic--a branch of mathematics, last I
checked--to deduce the probabilities that they are holding certain hands.
Psychology, I suggest, enters into the game in the form of tells and in
second-order and above reasoning -- you know, "he thinks, that I think that
he thinks I think that he thinks I'm bluffing and she thinks that I think
that he thinks I have a strong hand and everyone thinks this is taking far
too long and I better call for time, but If I do they'll think that I...
Doug MacPherson wrote in message ...
StealTheBlind
In article <macpherd-231...@209-142-7-22.stk.inreach.net>,
macp...@inreach.poofter.com says...
>>
>>snipped
>>
>>Ultimately, the endless discussions of very important mathematical concepts
>>regarding poker are totally lost on me.
>>
>>snipped
>>
StealTheBlind says...
>And what might those mathematical concepts be that you are referring to?
I still wonder about what are the mathematical concepts are that you are
referring to. At any rate I have more questions.
In article <macpherd-261...@209-142-8-57.stk.inreach.net>,
macp...@inreach.poofter.com says...
>
>I disagree with this, and I think that "logical deduction" crosses over
>into the "people skills" boundary. (Also, as a matter of semantics, I
>think the correct term here should be "logical induction.") The reason
>for this crossover is that a bet or raise from a weak player typically
>means something different than a bet/raise by a strong player under
>completely identical circumstances. Therefore, without any "a priori"
>knowledge of your opponent(s) play and skill set, I don't think it is
>possible to deduce anything.
>
>Consider the possibility you're in a game where there is a curtain which
>hides the identity of your opponents and yourself. Bets are announced by
>an impartial "dealer" who announces each bet/raise with a "Player 1 bets,
>player 2 folds, player 3 calls..." Your first few hands are bound to be
>based solely on "mathematical" principles, in that your hand selection
>will be proper and conform to the knowledge you possess.
>
Are you saying that a mathematical player doesn't try and read his opponents?
Maybe the gist of what you are saying is that you can't apply "mathematical
concepts" to reading players. Your point is not clear to me why this runs
counter to using "mathematical concepts."
>However, after a few hours of observation, you will eventually begin to
>see that Player 1 is actually a weak player with a loose-aggressive
>playing style, Player 2 is strong, tight and aggressive... Essentially,
>you will begin to make judgements based on a priori observations, and it
>is based on these observations and judgements, that you begin to make
>assumptions about the holdings of your opponents. In essence, you have
>used analogous induction to logically infer what your opponent(s) holdings
>are.
>
Are your arguing that mathematically orientated players won't make these
inferences? Again maybe your point is that you can't apply "mathematical
concepts" to make these inferences.
>And, of course, the greater the accuracy (i.e., the greater your ability
>to evaluate your opponents), the greater the win rate that you enjoy.
It isn't clear as to how you leave math out of this process. You stated earlier
that the 80% figure for naming hole cards wasn't realistic. You try to evaluate
the strength of an opponents hand and the closer you get to the river the better
idea you have. If your pot odds are 12-1 (is this one of the mathematical
concepts?) and you know that your opponent is a 4-1 favorite to have you beat
then shouldn't you call. I'm just not sure we aren't dealing with a lot of
vagueness here.
>
>---Doug Macpherson
>
StealTheBlind
I think I finally figured out where you are coming from. I think what you are
trying to say in your original post is that the abstract poker problems and
situations that are presented on this forum (such as Mike Caro's poker
challenges) that involve sophisticated mathematical concepts don't have a lot of
relevance to every day poker games that one encounters. Did I get this right?
Patti Beadles
Let me turn the question around. You have $10K, and the option to
back one of two players in a poker game.
The first player sometimes draws to gutshots when the pot doesn't
warrant it, and he has a vague notion that if he's drawing to a flush,
he'll hit it less than half the time. But somehow, he always knows
when you missed your draw, and you can never tell what he has... he
might be raising with aces, or with 9-3 no pair.
The second player always knows to the dollar how much is in the pot.
He can calculate in his head exactly how often his gutshot straight
flush draw will beat the set you just flopped, and he'll play
accordingly. But he's not terribly tricky, and you usually know where
he's at.
Which player would you invest in?
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | "I trust you. It's just
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | that I'm scared of you."
Patti Beadles
In article <34A32288...@student.unimelb.edu.au>,
Richard Cavell <r.ca...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>I've often wondered why some of you guys spend your time playing mostly against
>other semi-professionals. What's the point? Find a fish tank. The purpose of
>this game is not to become a brilliant player, or to beat every other person on
>your level, it's to make money.
Sometimes I do it to improve my skills. Yesterday I was in Reno, and
wound up in a moderately tough 3-6 game (yes, they really exist) at
the Hilton. My first inclination was to cash out after about half an
hour, but I realized that it had been a while since I'd played in a
tough ring game, and I wanted the practice.
Highlight of the session: flopping quad tens, and getting somebody to
pay me off on the end. In the games I'm used to, that wouldn't have
been a problem... pocket deuces would've gone at least three bets with
me on the flop, with A7 calling along for the ride.
Alan Bostick
In article <19971226192...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
hitth...@aol.com (HitTheFlop) wrote:
> In article <19971226182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mgcou...@aol.com
> (MGCourtney) writes:
>
> > With lots of practice, an 80%
> success rate (which at first glance appears so
> >unrealistically optimistic) may
> not be so terribly out of the question after
> >all ....
>
> So your right 80% of the time. Is this goint to save
> you big money by making a lot of good laydowns
> on the river? No, it can't. Any reasonable pot on
> the river will contain at least 5 or (way) more big
> bets. This will almost always give you pot odds
> of at least 5-1 (and sometimes much higher) to
> call. Now if you could be absolutely sure 80% of
> the time and completely in the dark the other 20%
> then you could make some good laydowns but
> it just isn't so.
It depends on how one goes wrong in putting hands on opponents.
Not too long ago, playing AJs in late position, I flopped J T 6 rainbow.
Nice flop, with the backdoor straight potential to soften the threat of
someone else's straight draw. The solid player who was under the gun
bet out, and I raised. He reraised me. Ruh-roh. My first thought was
he held two pair. I called to see what the turn would bring: a four --
no help to me. UTG bet again and I folded. Lucky for him, he had two
other customers who were willing to chase, and he showed pocket sixes at
the river.
I was wrong about the hand he held, but I was still was right that it
was a hand that had me beat. I think I played that hand close to
perfectly, although I haven't actually done the math to see whether
paying to see the river card would have been a +EV play if I were
correct about my opponent's holding. (Hmmm -- I had only three outs,
the aces, because another jack could be serious trouble. The pot would
have to offer odds of 15:1 or better to justify calling the turn. Good
laydown.) And in reality, of course, I would have been drawing dead.
>
> This is one of my own playing problems I'm
> currently trying to improve. I have a very good
> card reading ability but the games I'm in are wild
> enough to produce some very large pots. I find it
> almost impossible to get off a hand when there is
> some small chance it can win and the pot is
> offering 12-1 odds for a river call. You need to be
> very sure you're beat, 92% sure. Thats a tough
> standard to meet.
How much of your particular problem is due to not being able to tell
when some clown holds 42o against your AK when the flop comes K 8 4,
the turn A, and river 4? It's *lots* easier to put good players on
hands than bad ones.
StealTheBlind
In a short handed game or heads up contest Player 1.
In a ten handed ring game that is fairly loose Player 2.
In article <pattibEL...@netcom.com>, pat...@netcom.com says...
>
>Let me turn the question around. You have $10K, and the option to
>back one of two players in a poker game.
>
>The first player sometimes draws to gutshots when the pot doesn't
>warrant it, and he has a vague notion that if he's drawing to a flush,
>he'll hit it less than half the time. But somehow, he always knows
>when you missed your draw, and you can never tell what he has... he
>might be raising with aces, or with 9-3 no pair.
>
>The second player always knows to the dollar how much is in the pot.
>He can calculate in his head exactly how often his gutshot straight
>flush draw will beat the set you just flopped, and he'll play
>accordingly. But he's not terribly tricky, and you usually know where
>he's at.
>
>Which player would you invest in?
>
SendAlive1
>Let me turn the question around. You have $10K, and the option to
>back one of two players in a poker game.
>Which player would you invest in?
>
>
Neither. Staking other poker players is a losing proposition.
Dan Cahillane
I don't mean to attack anyone, but I can't help but think many of you
spend too much time analyzing theoretical situations, and less time
playing real poker for real money. I'm certainly not the greatest player
in the world, but I've been playing since about age 8. I've always
managed to come out ahead-whether it be at home, Vegas, card rooms,
etc. I've never read a book, or studied the odds beyond what 'feels'
right based on prior experience-the players that over emphasize math vs.
feel for the game are usually very predictable and scare easily. Math is
very important, but you've got to play, play, play.
StealTheBlind
Attack is hardly the right word. Your post one of the few in this thread that I
can make any sense out of. I think that players who play by the seat of their
backends are self delusional by stereotyping players, who use math and learn
theory, as math nerds that are tight and timid. This is mainly because the seat
of the pants players don't want to make any effort in those directions.
Stereotype away if you have to do that to convince yourself that yours is the
only way to go. Meahwhile back at the tables that are a lot of winning players
who combine theory, math, and experience to make a lot of money. You say math
is important. Why would you say that when you don't use it yourself and you are
a winning player?
Richard Cavell
Doug MacPherson wrote:
> What I think is important is not necessarily knowing exactly what your
> opponent has (though I would love to have such great clairvoyance), but
> instead knowing the approximate strength of the hand. If that is the
> case, and I'm guessing that's what Richard was getting at, I don't find
> 80% too unreasonable.
Yes, that's more what I meant. If there's four to a straight on the board, I can
tell you who has the bottom card and who has the top one by the river, and I'm
sure you can too. I can't read people's minds, of course. I can't identify rank
and suit of cards which are face down simply by looking at them. But I can tell
you right before the showdown who holds the winning hand 80% of the time. One
thing that I often do (as I've mentioned), is to spend hours on the rail watching
people's hole cards and how they play. They will often show them to me in a
mateship gesture. I then try to learn the patterns in how they play and how they
move.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If you guys are having trouble
picking up tells, then your cardrooms must be tougher than mine. I'm usually the
only person on my table who knows who Mike Caro is. Sometimes I'm the only
person who realises that to make a full house, there must be a pair on the
board. Last night I played with a crew I've seen around but haven't played with
before. They played for 7 hours and lost $1500 in total. After that time, one
of them questioned the dealer's call at a showdown, and found out that you don't
have to use both of your hole cards, and half of the table reacted in amazement.
They didn't know. And if you think I'm kidding, fly down here and join me at the
table. I'm talking about 2-4 and 3-6 games. We have 50-100 games which are
obviously much different.
Last night I was playing with a reasonably aware player. I basically stared at
him the entire night. I flopped a full house. The river card made two pair on
the board, and this guy's neck stiffened up in an obvious
I've-just-won-the-lottery tell. I checked and folded with the second nut (or
third nut if I didn't have one of those cards which was paired on the board) full
house. He through over his quads proudly, thinking I had called.
Some players have often told me that it's easier to read players when you're not
in the hand. Do any of you find that this is the case? I find it easier to read
them when I'm in the hand, personally. Part of the reason why is that I often go
for extended sessions. I usually play for more than 10 hours. My record is 30
hours straight. To do this, I need to think about anything but poker when I'm
not in the hand. If I fold my hand preflop, I usually get up and walk around.
It is not good for your game to play when tired, of course, but sometimes the
game is so good it would be overall -ve ev to leave and come back after a sleep.
Here begins some philosophy, because I'm fired about this issue. I believe that
it is possible for a human to play poker perfectly. I think that it is entirely
possible to win at any game without a rake very consistently. We usually don't
win because either we make mistakes, or the rake sucks up our advantage. And I
think that too many people will not give credit to that. They instead say that
you can only play so well, or that a moderate advantage is all you need and
there's no point analysing people for tells when you're already making 1 BB/hr.
Rubbish. If you're making 1 BB/hr, you should be able to make 2. (Assuming that
your opponents are making enough mistakes, which would not be true for the
Mirage, for example). I bet that one of the poker masters (Caro, Sklansky, etc)
could sit in your seat and play better than you (and the same goes for me). And
one of the reasons is that they read hands better. They know that you should bet
with a set. They know how to calculate pot odds just like you. So what makes
them better? Because they can adjust their perception of what is a great hand
and what is a poor hand according to their perception of their opponents'
strength. Sometimes bottom pair will win, and you need to be an expert to
realise that when it happens. Most people wouldn't.
I think that part of being able to read hands is having the confidence to trust
your own thoughts. You have to resist the temptation to 'hope', or to gamble.
Think about roulette players. The first time they play, they will put money on
red, 'hoping' that it comes up. Of course it is a completely random event. And
they know that. And then, as they play more and more and become mesmerised by
the flashing lights and the piped muzak, that 'hope' merges into belief. People
who have played roulette for more than a year will often put money down and tell
you that they 'know' that it's going to come up. They record the numbers which
have come up so far and they now 'know' that a certain part of the wheel is
slightly more likely. But, at the same time, they also know deep down inside
that it is completely random. But that true knowledge becomes part of the hazy
'knowledge' that they can win at roulette on their gut feelings. The boundary
becomes fuzzy, and eventually they reach a point where it is obvious to them that
they can predict the numbers which will come up on the roulette wheel with
slightly more accuracy than the house odds. There are literally hundreds of
people right now in your casino who 'know' that they can beat roulette. And this
explains why I think that some poker players lose despite having the capacity to
win. Cognitive dissonance.
Poker players are prone to this cognitive dissonance too, of course. And you
need to believe that you are prone to it too and that there is cognitive
dissonance going on inside your head whether you like it or not. Even if someone
has read their S&M, there is still that tendency to 'know' that you are a winner
without any proof, or to 'know' that your hand is the winning one when you're
ignoring the obvious signals. You 'know' that your JT suited is worth a call
against two raises from pro players before the flop. You 'know' that your
opponent is a worse player than you, and 'therefore' he doesn't have the straight
that he's representing. You 'know' that you have a small chance in the showdown,
so you might as well call.
How many times have you thought 'I think he has me beaten', but called anyway?
How many times have you called your pocket aces all the way to the river when
your opponent's was basically screaming to you that they had a set, straight or
flush? And then got mad at yourself for doing it?
This is cognitive dissonance. This is deliberately blocking from your mind the
knowledge or suspicion that you are beaten, to try to win. People want to
believe that they do not have opposition at the game, so they pretend that they
don't, and believe that they don't. Only slightly, but there is that blocking
activity going on inside their heads. New players will often spend the entire
game staring at their hole cards and the board. I spend the entire game staring
at THEM. Even experienced players will tend to ignore their opposition. Notice
I'm only talking about a tendency. This is because that habit has been
consciously worn away - but it's still there. As long as it's still there,
you're not playing your best game.
Mr. Sklansky wrote that he finds pleasure in making a good fold. I certainly do
too, and I think it's a profitable attribute. I look for every opportunity to do
it.
Please begin the flaming.
Richard.
SendAlive1
I think you need to get some sleep.
William Chen
This debate seems silly to me. First I think all winning players
have some amount of both skills. Which skill is more important
is really a recursive question because it depends on which skill
you tend to rely on?
For example, there is plenty of vague discussion about "reading hands."
Well do you generally read hands through tells and psychology or do
you apply logical reasoning, past history and maybe Bayes' Theorem?
Often you come to the same conclusion with both, so it's hard to tell
which skill you benefitted from.
For bluffing/calling do you try to read your opponents or try to get
your oppoenents to act in certain ways? Or do you use game theory
and make each play with the same emotional detachment?
Or for semibluffs you need an estimate of your opponent's likelihood of
folding to a bet. This estimate comes from your knowledge of people while
the final calculation of whether to semibluff or not is mathematical.
In article <pattibEL...@netcom.com>,
pat...@netcom.com (Patti Beadles) wrote:
>Let me turn the question around. You have $10K, and the option to
>back one of two players in a poker game.
>
>The first player sometimes draws to gutshots when the pot doesn't
>warrant it, and he has a vague notion that if he's drawing to a flush,
>he'll hit it less than half the time. But somehow, he always knows
>when you missed your draw, and you can never tell what he has... he
>might be raising with aces, or with 9-3 no pair.
>
>The second player always knows to the dollar how much is in the pot.
>He can calculate in his head exactly how often his gutshot straight
>flush draw will beat the set you just flopped, and he'll play
>accordingly. But he's not terribly tricky, and you usually know where
>he's at.
>
>Which player would you invest in?
>
>-Patti
Frankly, neither. Although in a loose game with many bad players, the second
player might be a good bet.
Bill
StealTheBlind
I guess we should cross the word Great out. Change it to:
The Math -v- People Debate
In article <687mrd$7...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, William says...
Dan Cahillane
I was afraid I may have come off sounding to absolute in my views. Of
course I have studied the game, and I realize all aspects are important.
My main point was indeed that being well-rounded in your approach is
vital and a one-dimensional player is easy to spot. I just feel that
number one in importance is playing time experience. I think plying time
gives you a good perspective one what's important to learn and what is
not as crucial. It's just that sometimes when I read some of these
threads, I see some people get so in depth in their analysis I can't
help but wonder if they spend too much time analyzing and not enough
time playing against real people.
Will Hyde
Patti Beadles wrote:
>
> Let me turn the question around. You have $10K, and the option to
> back one of two players in a poker game.
>
> The first player sometimes draws to gutshots when the pot doesn't
> warrant it, and he has a vague notion that if he's drawing to a flush,
> he'll hit it less than half the time. But somehow, he always knows
> when you missed your draw, and you can never tell what he has... he
> might be raising with aces, or with 9-3 no pair.
>
> The second player always knows to the dollar how much is in the pot.
> He can calculate in his head exactly how often his gutshot straight
> flush draw will beat the set you just flopped, and he'll play
> accordingly. But he's not terribly tricky, and you usually know where
> he's at.
>
> Which player would you invest in?
It is impossible to consistently take the worst of it and win. No
amount of flash or pizazz, no level of skill at reading body english or
attitude will make a winner of the fool who persistently takes the short
end on pot odds. God couldn't repeatedly put a hundred dollars into a
two hundred dollar pot to draw to a straight or flush he must make to
win. Umm, well, maybe God could, but I can't and you can't.
On the other hand, the player who always knows both what the odds on his
money are and what are the odds against making the hand he needs (knows
what the pot odds are) and never pays a price to draw to a hand where
the odds against making it are longer than the odds (including implied
odds) on the money, will consistently beat most any game.
The best percentage player is the best player. Odds are the foundation
upon which all games of chance are built, anyone who says he doesn't
know what the odds are but is a consistent winner anyway, is a liar. He
lies about what he knows or he lies about being a winner.
Would you give me six-to-five on the flip of a coin?
The most important question you ever have to answer is the first one:
Should I play this hand...?
Okay, of course I would argue that way, I wrote Percentage Hold'em and
The Lowball Book (also long on percentages) after all. But first I
played poker (played percentages) for a living for thirty years. Point
being, of course, that long-term success starts with a solid foundation.
Here in California's famous no-foldem games, a monkey can win with no
other skill if he is always aware of the odds and plays them.
Ask r00lbot about that.... :)
--
________________________________________________________________________
__________ LADY LUCK IS A FICKLE BITCH, AND HER NAME IS KARMA __________
______________________ http://www.whitestone.com _______________________
Abdul Jalib
Dan Cahillane <djca...@iupui.edu> writes:
I disagree. If you learn to play better via mathematical analyses
or anything else, this will pay off *each* time you play, play,
play, so even a tiny improvement means big bucks in the long run.
In L.A., most of my opponents play, play, play 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, and when they go on vacation I find them playing 24
hours a day at the Mirage in Vegas. On the whole, I make money from
these people, even though they have vastly more experience than my
sizable experience. Most of them are bad to mediocre players, though
very few of them remain megafish. If you play, play, play, you're
going to drool, drool, drool, not learn, learn, learn, unless you
also spend a lot of time thinking, thinking, thinking about the game.
I have a degree in mathematics. Despite this, I'd have to say I do
very little math explicitly in the course of play. Only within the
last year have I even started to bother with counting the pot exactly
each hand. Sometimes I rely on an "intuitive" feel from past
experience. But I'd have to say my primary weapon is my analytic
ability: the logical analysis of my options, my opponents' possible
reactions, what possible hands my opponents might hold, what
they think I think they have, etc. Sometimes I chart out the whole
course of the rest of the hand, or several possible courses
of the rest of the hand, while I'm pretty sure my fishy opponents
are thinking only about what to do on the current round, sometimes
only thinking about their own hand.
Where math comes in is that math can supply a deeper understanding of
the game, which can be applied in a less precise analytic/logical
style at the tables. An example that comes to mind is "Morton's Theorem".
The mathematics of this theorem are normally too complex to apply at the
tables, but you can easily apply the concept, which is when you have the
best hand versus multiple opponents, you often want some of them to
*correctly* fold; conversely, when you have a big draw, you normally
want to keep the other draws in, because the bad draws are actually
taking some money from the leader and giving it to you, as well as
donating directly to you themselves. If I had spent more time on
such mathematical analyses in the past instead of playing, playing,
playing, I would probably be a better player today, which would
carry forward for the rest of my lifetime of playing, playing, playing.
--
Abdul Jalib
Patti Beadles
In article <34A839...@whitestone.com>,
Will Hyde <mrh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>It is impossible to consistently take the worst of it and win. No
>amount of flash or pizazz, no level of skill at reading body english or
>attitude will make a winner of the fool who persistently takes the short
>end on pot odds. God couldn't repeatedly put a hundred dollars into a
>two hundred dollar pot to draw to a straight or flush he must make to
>win. Umm, well, maybe God could, but I can't and you can't.
I think it all boils down to how you define taking the worst of it.
If you define it purely in terms of mathematical odds of making the
hand, then I think you're missing the bigger picture.
Let's say, for example, that I have an open-ended straight draw on the
turn, and there are 3.5 BB in the pot. Do I call? If my only way of
winning the pot is to make the hand, bet, and take down the pot
without being called, then the answer is no.
If I'm pretty sure to get one big bet out of my opponent when I make my
hand, then it's a prety close decision (unless I'm doing the math wrong
at 3:30 in the morning, in which case adjust the pot size so that this
makes sense.) If I'm pretty sure to get two big bets out of him, it's
an easy call. OK, so much for implied odds 101. What else is there?
If I can push my opponent off of his hand when an overcard falls, even
if it doesn't hit me, then I have (at least) a call. And if I can
probably push him off his hand even if a blank hits, then you bet your
ass I'm in there.
I saw a great display of this once from a guy in La Center,
Washington. The guy was far short of brilliant when it came to
mathematical poker skills, but I'm sure he was a consistent winner in
this game, 'cause he was extremely good at reading players and acting
accordingly.
One hand, he was in the big blind. The flop was basically
uninteresting except that there was a flush draw possible. One woman
bet, and everybody folded except him. The turn was more junk, she
bet, he called. The river was more garbage, no flush possible. He
came out firing, and her cards hit the muck. He flashed me his cards
as he tossed them in-- 7 high, no pair. "I knew she was on a flush
draw, and she'd fold almost anything if she didn't hit the flush."
Over the course of the evening, the guy would put people on hands with
amazing accuracy... on a board where both a straight and flush were
possible, he correctly identified that the person betting had just
made two pair, and told me that he'd call a raise even if a fourth
flush card hit.
If your analysis of taking the best/worst of it only factors in whether
or not you'll make the best hand, then I think you're missing a big
part of poker. What if you had a perfect read on all of your
opponents? Would you even need to look at your cards?
>Would you give me six-to-five on the flip of a coin?
Can I win the five times in ten tosses that it comes up heads, and one
time that it comes up tails 'cause I can make you think it's heads? If
so, yes.
Robert Fagen
Will Hyde (w...@whitestone.com) wrote:
: Would you give me six-to-five on the flip of a coin?
Can I choose the coin?
More seriously, I agree with Patti about being able to manipulate and read
the other players being able to make up for going in with a disadvantage
in the numerical sense.
See my other post about "doubling down" with 74 offsuit in another
thread for an example. I think I pushed the middle position player
off of middle pair with my bottom pair. I'm not certain, but that's
the way I'd read the hands involved and that's how it came out.
Rob
--
Rob Fagen 650-432-8101 | "F0 0F C7 C8 - The Four Bytes Of The Apocalypse"
fa...@bigfoot.com | - Mel Harper, a.s.r
I represent only myself|
Richard Cavell
SendAlive1 wrote:
> I think you need to get some sleep.
Ha, ha. Thank you. I did indeed get some sleep. But I hope that I
made myself clear. I am sure that a lot of people could read hands
better than they do, but they don't want to read hands because they
don't want admit that they're beaten when they have a good hand. I
think that reading hands and tells is the best improvement one could
make to one's game if one had read the books. It's about the only thing
that can be improved, frankly. We all know the groups and we all know
when to bet, when to slowplay, etc. Now, can we learn how to know our
opponent's hole cards? That would be most lucrative.
Thanks for your comment. ;-)
Richard.
Lee Jones
In article <pattibEM...@netcom.com>,
Patti Beadles <pat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <34A839...@whitestone.com>,
>Will Hyde <mrh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[Will and HeyPatti have been arguing the value of knowing the numbers vs.
knowing the players. Patti said]
>What if you had a perfect read on all of your opponents? Would you even
>need to look at your cards?
I think this is the crux of the matter. Suppose you had magic glasses [1]
that would let you see your opponents' cards, but they couldn't see yours,
and wouldn't know you could see theirs. With such glasses, I would expect
to be able to crush *any* poker game. I'd have to look at my cards sometimes,
but not all the time, for sure.
A person with such glasses wouldn't need, IMHO, much knowledge about odds
and such, and could routinely take the *mathematically* worst of a situation,
knowing that she had other outs (i.e. persuading her opponent that he was
beaten).
I'm not going to argue that players ought not to know the odds, but given a
choice of a computer that would tell me the exact probabilities of every
situation or those magic glasses, I'd take the glasses every time.
Regards, Lee
[1] Not the infamous magic glasses of the short-stack argument. They're
trade-marked by Abdul or somebody.
--
Lee Jones | "Though it's cold and lonely in the deep dark night,
le...@sgi.com | I can see paradise by the dashboard light."
650-933-3356 | -Meatloaf
Andrew Morton
Patti Beadles wrote:
> I think it all boils down to how you define taking the worst of it.
....
> I saw a great display of this once from a guy in La Center,
> Washington. The guy was far short of brilliant when it came to
> mathematical poker skills, but I'm sure he was a consistent winner in
> this game, 'cause he was extremely good at reading players and acting
> accordingly.
>
> One hand, he was in the big blind. The flop was basically
> uninteresting except that there was a flush draw possible. One woman
> bet, and everybody folded except him. The turn was more junk, she
> bet, he called. The river was more garbage, no flush possible. He
> came out firing, and her cards hit the muck. He flashed me his cards
> as he tossed them in-- 7 high, no pair. "I knew she was on a flush
> draw, and she'd fold almost anything if she didn't hit the flush."
heh, I learned how to play cards in La Center a few years back, and I
probably know this guy. I sort of wonder what I thought of his play then.
Anyway, I think your point is well taken that poker isn't simply about
knowing the odds of making your hand. However, your example illustrates an
important point:
_Given_ the assumptions implicit in this guy's quote above, then he made
mathematical mistakes in taking advantage of his read on his opponent.
Namely, he should certainly have check-raised the turn and then bet the
river. Since his opponent has only ~9 outs to make her hand, he would be
getting much the best of it in this spot. I think this is a good example of
how understanding both the math and people side of poker is so important, in
that these skills frequently work synergistically with each other.
Regards,
andy
Will Hyde
Patti Beadles wrote:
>
> In article <34A839...@whitestone.com>,
> Will Hyde <mrh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >amount of flash or pizazz, no level of skill at reading body english or
> >attitude will make a winner of the fool who persistently takes the short
> >end on pot odds. God couldn't repeatedly put a hundred dollars into a
> >two hundred dollar pot to draw to a straight or flush he must make to
> >win. Umm, well, maybe God could, but I can't and you can't.
>
> hand, then I think you're missing the bigger picture.
Jesus, Patti, do I have to define taking the worst of it? I don't
think so, I'm sure you know what taking the worst of it is....
> Let's say, for example, that I have an open-ended straight draw on the
> turn, and there are 3.5 BB in the pot. Do I call? If my only way of
> winning the pot is to make the hand, bet, and take down the pot
> without being called, then the answer is no.
>
> If I'm pretty sure to get one big bet out of my opponent when I make my
> hand, then it's a prety close decision (unless I'm doing the math wrong
> at 3:30 in the morning, in which case adjust the pot size so that this
> makes sense.) If I'm pretty sure to get two big bets out of him, it's
> an easy call. OK, so much for implied odds 101. What else is there?
None of any of what you've said above this point would make a lot
of sense if you had included the next paragraph of my response before
inserting your comments. My next paragraph made it clear that I
am including implied odds in my statements.
"If I'm pretty sure to get one big bet out of my opponent...." Are
you not calculating the odds on that? Isn't that what implied odds are?
> If I can push my opponent off of his hand when an overcard falls, even
> if it doesn't hit me, then I have (at least) a call. And if I can
> probably push him off his hand even if a blank hits, then you bet your
> ass I'm in there.
"If I can...." If you can calculate the odds on that correctly then
perhaps you can win without looking at your hand....
> If your analysis of taking the best/worst of it only factors in whether
> or not you'll make the best hand, then I think you're missing a big
> part of poker. What if you had a perfect read on all of your
> opponents? Would you even need to look at your cards?
Nope, prolly not. But a perfect read is beyond my abilities, except
in a few random and probably rare instances.
In the example you gave (wiseguy wins pot with river bet because he
knew the Live One was drawing to a flush that didn't get there) your
wiseguy was calculating the odds on his opponent's chances of making
the flush she was drawing to, when he called the turn bet. If that
third flush card had fallen on the river he was history and he knew
it.... But he knew what the odds on that were ... at least he knew
they were "pretty long" against (in his favor).
> >Would you give me six-to-five on the flip of a coin?
> Can I win the five times in ten tosses that it comes up heads, and one
> time that it comes up tails 'cause I can make you think it's heads? If
> so, yes.
Patti, you're kidding, right?
-will
Will Hyde
> >In article <34A839...@whitestone.com>,
> >Will Hyde <mrh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> knowing the players. Patti said]
>
> >need to look at your cards?
>
> that would let you see your opponents' cards, but they couldn't see yours,
> and wouldn't know you could see theirs.
> [...]
> I'm not going to argue that players ought not to know the odds, but given a
> choice of a computer that would tell me the exact probabilities of every
> situation or those magic glasses, I'd take the glasses every time.
>
Heh, no shit. But the computer exists, the glasses don't.
Although in all my years at the Cameo Club in Palo Alto, there was a
house rule against any kind of tinted glasses being worn in a game,
because of "daub" (substance invisible to the naked eye, only person who
can see it is the one who put it there and has the glasses of the
correct tint to see it).
Geez, Lee, do you wear tinted glasses when you play...? :)
Patti Beadles
Will Hyde <mrh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Patti Beadles wrote:
>> I think it all boils down to how you define taking the worst of it.
>> If you define it purely in terms of mathematical odds of making the
>> hand, then I think you're missing the bigger picture.
> Jesus, Patti, do I have to define taking the worst of it? I don't
>think so, I'm sure you know what taking the worst of it is....
I think you're missing my point, Will.
A lot of the arguments that I see define taking the worst of it in
terms of finishing with the best hand. And in poker, the odds of
making the hand and the odds of winning the pot are *not* the same
thing, since you can often win a pot without having the best cards.
But I can't quantify that... it doesn't plug neatly into equations,
so I can't come up with a tidy little formula that lets me calculate
exactly what my probability of winning the hand is. For that, I have
to rely on intuition and experience.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not advocating that one give up mathematics.
I play mostly low-limit holdem, which is a game where you nearly
always win by making the best hand and the only real skill involved is
knowing when you have the best hand or correct odds to draw, with a
secondary dose of extracting extra bets out of your opponents when you
do hit. But I also know that's not all there is to poker, and
sometimes the basic probability of the cards is secondary.
>> >Would you give me six-to-five on the flip of a coin?
>> Can I win the five times in ten tosses that it comes up heads, and one
>> time that it comes up tails 'cause I can make you think it's heads? If
>> so, yes.
>Patti, you're kidding, right?
I'm neither kidding nor serious... I'm bending your example to
illustrate my point.
Abdul Jalib
le...@diver.engr.sgi.com (Lee Jones) writes:
> [1] Not the infamous magic glasses of the short-stack argument. They're
> trade-marked by Abdul or somebody.
Andy Latto holds the patent on the short stack magic glasses.
--
Abdul Jalib wearing the hat of | May you rush throughout the New Year,
Professional Degenerate Gambler| except when you play at my table.
AbdulJ@#delete#PosEV.com | (Delete "#delete#" to reply via email.)
StealTheBlind
In article <pattibEM...@netcom.com>, pat...@netcom.com says...
> ... snipped
>I think you're missing my point, Will.
>
>A lot of the arguments that I see define taking the worst of it in
>terms of finishing with the best hand. And in poker, the odds of
>making the hand and the odds of winning the pot are *not* the same
>thing, since you can often win a pot without having the best cards.
>
This is correct. Odds of winning the pot estimates can also be made, however.
>But I can't quantify that... it doesn't plug neatly into equations,
>so I can't come up with a tidy little formula that lets me calculate
>exactly what my probability of winning the hand is. For that, I have
>to rely on intuition and experience.
>
This statement is absolutely not true. You can certainly estimate your chances
of a bluff succeeding, the EV of a semi-bluff, etc. And you can quantify the
various plays mathematically.
>Don't get me wrong... I'm not advocating that one give up mathematics.
>I play mostly low-limit holdem, which is a game where you nearly
>always win by making the best hand and the only real skill involved is
>knowing when you have the best hand or correct odds to draw, with a
>secondary dose of extracting extra bets out of your opponents when you
>do hit. But I also know that's not all there is to poker, and
>sometimes the basic probability of the cards is secondary.
>
You need hand reading skills in these games as well. Reading hands should be
easier with a lot of players.
> snipped ...
Patti Beadles
In article <68c4of$l...@drn.zippo.com>, <StealTheBlind> wrote:
>This statement is absolutely not true. You can certainly estimate your chances
>of a bluff succeeding, the EV of a semi-bluff, etc. And you can quantify the
>various plays mathematically.
Yes, estimates. But not precise calculations. If I toss a few
numbers around, I can tell you exactly how often the gutshot straight
flush draw that I flopped will beat your set, assuming we both stay to
the river... how many decimal places would you like with that?
The math of "will I get paid off when I hit?" and "can I push him off
the hand if the board gets scary?" isn't nearly as accurate. For that,
I'm forced to use a number system that contains the elements usually,
probably not, maybe a third of the time, and a few related digits.
Certainly, I can decide that "probably" equates to .8 probability, and
do the math from there. But I'm still just estimating, and the
accuracy of my final number is heavily dependent on the reliability of
my people-reading skills.
And except in the case of a player who is so predictable that you can
assign 0 or 1 probability, the error is going to be pretty huge. At
the table, the only numbers I'm really going to use to define player
actions are 1, 0, and maybe .5 for something that isn't close to either
extreme.
StealTheBlind
>>This statement is absolutely not true. You can certainly estimate your chances
>>of a bluff succeeding, the EV of a semi-bluff, etc. And you can quantify the
>>various plays mathematically.
>
>Yes, estimates. But not precise calculations. If I toss a few
>numbers around, I can tell you exactly how often the gutshot straight
>flush draw that I flopped will beat your set, assuming we both stay to
>the river... how many decimal places would you like with that?
>
Yeah but you can plug an estimated range and see where the profit is and ...
Never mind.
Bruce Schechter
Abdul Jalib wrote in message ...
>Dan Cahillane <djca...@iupui.edu> writes:
. An example that comes to mind is "Morton's Theorem".
>The mathematics of this theorem are normally too complex to apply at the
>tables, but you can easily apply the concept, which is when you have the
>best hand versus multiple opponents, you often want some of them to
>*correctly* fold; conversely, when you have a big draw, you normally
>want to keep the other draws in, because the bad draws are actually
>taking some money from the leader and giving it to you, as well as
>donating directly to you themselves. If I had spent more time on
>such mathematical analyses in the past instead of playing, playing,
>playing, I would probably be a better player today, which would
>carry forward for the rest of my lifetime of playing, playing, playing.
>
>--
>Abdul Jalib
Very interesting. Could you please expand a little on Morton's theorem? What
other mathematical results have helped you in thinking about poker?
Brian Harty
G'day fellas,
If I'm playing with a table full of mugs the tells I find pretty
reliable are:
1) If they check they don't like their hand.
2) If they bet or raise they do like their hand.
The problem with the second tell is it can be hard to figure out what
they've got because the silly buggers don't know what is a good hand.
You have to have the absolute nuts or be a genius to know where you are.
Brian.