Stop/Loss Limits in Limit Hold'em (Lee Jones please chime in with your thoughts)
The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent
Carson says this stuff is "over my head," but I think the problem is that we
continue to talk about two somewhat different things. I've read about this
extensively in the past few days, and the wisest of poker players including
Sklansky, Jones, Malmuth, Carson, Krieger, et al, disagree with each other
to varying extents.
The Krieger citation above is nearly identical to Joneses feelings on the
subject, both of which are based on Sklansky's writings to some extent.
I will grant that Carson is correct when he says, in effect, that we are not
robots and emotion has to be figured into statistical models. I'm not a
statistician, but in earning my MBA I took four stats classes and I cannot
remember any specific case study dealing with emotion as a factor. This is
probably because the closest we ever came to studying poker was in analyzing
the probabilities involved with rolling fair dies and unfair dies and
lottery numbers. We dealt mainly with business models.
So the question becomes this: If a robot or an individual whose play does
not vary according to mood swings and fatigue hits a bad streak or a hot
streak at a table, does leaving and later coming back change the trend?
Loss limits make sense to me for players who tend to go on tilt. It is just
obvious. People like that need to get up and walk away, and they no doubt
will benefit from having done so. But to me that is a different thing.
What I found ridiculous in the limit thread was the notion that you should
"quit while you're ahead." Krieger and others dismiss this by saying, yeah,
that will work but only if you never play poker again. To be fair, not
everyone in that thread advocated you should quit while you're ahead. But a
couple of people did and while Carson was congratulating them for buying
into his theories on the subject he did not emphasize the idiocy of this
particular notion.
I am sticking by my guns that for people who are grown up and can control
their emotions and know when they are not in the right frame of mind to play
that the stop/loss limit theory is a fallacious one.
truushot2
to be one of those conditions I'd think.
On Nov 27 2005 3:55 PM, The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent wrote:
>
> http://www.pokermagazine.com/Poker-Strategy/bankroll_management_lou_krieger.h
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Wm. Bradley
"The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent" <cat...@adfadjslf.com> wrote in message
news:oXpif.39965$1l6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
> Loss limits make sense to me for players who tend to go on tilt. It is
> just obvious. People like that need to get up and walk away, and they no
> doubt will benefit from having done so. But to me that is a different
> thing. What I found ridiculous in the limit thread was the notion that you
> should "quit while you're ahead." Krieger and others dismiss this by
> saying, yeah, that will work but only if you never play poker again. To
> be fair, not everyone in that thread advocated you should quit while
> you're ahead. But a couple of people did and while Carson was
> congratulating them for buying into his theories on the subject he did not
> emphasize the idiocy of this particular
Almost all serious poker players play better when well ahead. Add that to
the fact that if you are winning you are more likely to be playing bad
players, and "quitting while you are ahead" doesn't make much sense. Some of
my biggest wins have been 24-48 hour sessions, and once I do get almost all
the chips getting them back from me is usually like trying to break into a
vault. I've doubled big wins far more often than I've given it all back.
What intrigues me is that everyone on the internet claims they aren't
subject to mistakes/frustration/emotion when losing heavily. These special
players must spend all their time posting because in 35 years of poker I've
never actually observed one in real life. And don't forget the possibly that
if you are getting creamed you could be up against cheaters or (God forbid)
better players.
thenutlow
>
http://www.pokermagazine.com/Poker-Strategy/bankroll_management_lou_krieger.html
>
> Carson says this stuff is "over my head," but I think the problem is that we
> continue to talk about two somewhat different things. I've read about this
> extensively in the past few days, and the wisest of poker players including
> Sklansky, Jones, Malmuth, Carson, Krieger, et al, disagree with each other
> to varying extents.
>
> The Krieger citation above is nearly identical to Joneses feelings on the
> subject, both of which are based on Sklansky's writings to some extent.
>
> I will grant that Carson is correct when he says, in effect, that we are not
> robots and emotion has to be figured into statistical models. I'm not a
> statistician, but in earning my MBA I took four stats classes and I cannot
> remember any specific case study dealing with emotion as a factor. This is
> probably because the closest we ever came to studying poker was in analyzing
> the probabilities involved with rolling fair dies and unfair dies and
> lottery numbers. We dealt mainly with business models.
>
> So the question becomes this: If a robot or an individual whose play does
> not vary according to mood swings and fatigue hits a bad streak or a hot
> streak at a table, does leaving and later coming back change the trend?
no
> Loss limits make sense to me for players who tend to go on tilt. It is just
> obvious. People like that need to get up and walk away, and they no doubt
> will benefit from having done so. But to me that is a different thing.
> What I found ridiculous in the limit thread was the notion that you should
> "quit while you're ahead." Krieger and others dismiss this by saying, yeah,
> that will work but only if you never play poker again. To be fair, not
> everyone in that thread advocated you should quit while you're ahead. But a
> couple of people did and while Carson was congratulating them for buying
> into his theories on the subject he did not emphasize the idiocy of this
> particular notion.
its not idiocy. You are seemingly making the mistake that peoples play is
only affected when they are losing. A lot of people unknowingly play
looser and worse, when they are winning, under the premise that 'oh well,
Im up $200, mite as well see a flop with this junk'
The reasons for quitting while you are ahead, are similar to those that
advocate quitting when you are behind
> I am sticking by my guns that for people who are grown up and can control
> their emotions and know when they are not in the right frame of mind to play
> that the stop/loss limit theory is a fallacious one.
people always over-estimate their own abilities. Ask RGP what they think
their EV in the wsop main event would be. I bet most of them would
over-value it rediculously. They also over-estimate their ability to
accumulate chips, hence them being so willing to turn down 55% chances on
the first hand. It makes sense that they are going to over-estimate their
ability to play poker without emotion.
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
torx
been before.
there are streaks, of course, but the next hand has the same probability
it should have, no matter if you're in the middle (which really you can't
say) of a losing streak.
so of course if you don't let the bad streak affect you at all then the
next hand you play will be the same as any other, and thus if you play it
well you will make money on it. same restrictions apply.
-Alexander Knopf
https://www.allinpoker.com/aip/registration/register.jsp?refCode=AKF040D
https://secure.pokerchamps.com/pokerpublic/arequest?acode=TORX
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
garycarson
The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent wrote:
>
> Carson says this stuff is "over my head," but I think the problem is that we
> continue to talk about two somewhat different things. I've read about this
> extensively in the past few days, and the wisest of poker players including
> Sklansky, Jones, Malmuth, Carson, Krieger, et al, disagree with each other
> to varying extents.
>
> The Krieger citation above is nearly identical to Joneses feelings on the
> subject, both of which are based on Sklansky's writings to some extent.
>
> I will grant that Carson is correct when he says, in effect, that we are not
> robots and emotion has to be figured into statistical models.
That's not what I said.
That's what Sklansky was partly arguing against, so you're just
assuming that's what I'm saying.
> I'm not a
> statistician,
Neither is Sklansky. I am.
>but in earning my MBA I took four stats classes and I cannot
> remember any specific case study dealing with emotion as a factor.
A factor in what? It's certainly a factor in how people actually make
deciions. There's lots and lots of stuff in business schools that use
statitical models to encorporate emotional behavior. Even economists
are starting to address that kind of stuff.
Are you telling me you're in an MBA program and you've never had a
teacher mention the idea of satisfycing?
> This is
> probably because the closest we ever came to studying poker was in analyzing
> the probabilities involved with rolling fair dies and unfair dies and
> lottery numbers. We dealt mainly with business models.
It's a fairly simple baysian model, that's pretty common in business
schools (I've taught in a couple of business schools and have sat on
comprehensive exam committees for MBA students)
>
> So the question becomes this: If a robot or an individual whose play does
> not vary according to mood swings and fatigue hits a bad streak or a hot
> streak at a table, does leaving and later coming back change the trend?
Of course not, there is no trend. I don't need to water the grass. I
know that becuase I assume it's green, therefore I know it' not brown
and I don't need to worry about watering it.
> Loss limits make sense to me for players who tend to go on tilt.
Whatever you call it, some players will sometimes deviate from their A
game. If you never do, then your special.
Nobody plays a perfectly stationary game. They might get distracted by
a bird flying around the room, causing them to miss a tell. It has
nothing to do with going on tilt or having an emotional reaction to a
loss. It simply has to do with sometimes playing less than your normal
perfect game.
If you ever play less than perfectly, even as often as 1/100th percent
of the time, then you would do better with a stop loss. The less
often you deviate from perfect play, the bigger the stop loss should
be.
It has nothing to do with tilt, nothing to do with changing the cards.
It has nothing to do with the cards at all.
What it has to do with is using all information at your disposal. If
at any given time the probabilty of you not playing perfectly is X > 0,
and you're an overall winning player, and if you are currently losing
this session, then the probability that you aren't playing perfectly is
Y > X.
That's it in a nutshell. And, that's statistical. The idea that your
results is a stationary process with a never changing process with
fixed mean and variance is not statistical, but it's a simple but
robust model which in this case simply ignore the actual statistical
evidence.
If you are a superman who never gets distracted by a bird flying into a
fan, then none of thi applys to you. But, it does apply to everybody
else.
btw, Kreiger is very misinformed about probability and things like
convergenge and the long run, anything he's written on this subject is
just a rewrite of something David said, and Kreiger has written some
huge bloopers on probability subjects. I'm not sure Jones has any
original thought on the subject. When David wrote about this he was
trying to make a point about silly money management schemes in vogue at
the time that mostly came from craps shooter, He wasn't arguing
against stop loss so much as he was arguing against what the common
usage and beleif about stop loss was at the time.
What David actually said was that if you know the game to be a good
game, you should stay even if you're losing.
What he left unsaid is that if you're losing you need very strong
counter evidence that the game is good in order to rationally conclude
that the game is good enough to stay.
It is just
> obvious. People like that need to get up and walk away, and they no doubt
> will benefit from having done so. But to me that is a different thing.
> What I found ridiculous in the limit thread was the notion that you should
> "quit while you're ahead."
Protecting your win is something that people do to satisfy a deviant
emotional need. It has nothing to do with a stop loss.
Setting a stop loss in relation to win though is a way to use a change
in result to detect in game conditions and it makes rational sense.
That's not the same thing as setting a stop loss in order to protect a
win, which is an irrational goal.
To be fair, not
> everyone in that thread advocated you should quit while you're ahead. But a
> couple of people did and while Carson was congratulating them for buying
> into his theories on the subject he did not emphasize the idiocy of this
> particular notion.
I might have agreed with some of what some people said. I didn't
congratulate anyone.
Irrational is not stupid. It's actually normal human behavior. Don't
they teach you anything in that busines school?
>
> I am sticking by my guns that for people who are grown up and can control
> their emotions and know when they are not in the right frame of mind to play
> that the stop/loss limit theory is a fallacious one.
People who are grown up realize that sometimes they aren't doing things
perfectly and sometimes they aren't doing things perfectly and they
don't have perfect judgement about that.
Only children harbor the illussion that they are indestructable.
People who are grown up will actually look at the data and interpret it
rationally.
My suggestion is to stay in school, because you don't know what you're
talking about. People who are perfect in every way tend to do much
better in school than in life.
Gary Carson
torx
since every hand is independant from anything that happened before (well
except the shuffling i spose :) the streak may end the next hand or it may
not, but it doesn't matter if you get up and play tomorrow or if you stay
and play ....
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
garycarson
torx wrote:
> every hand is an individual event and is not affected by anything that has
> been before.
But, what you know about the situation and you're playing skill is
improved by considering recent results.
That doesn't predict cards, but your behavior in the next 5 minutes is
often well predicted by your behavior in the last 5 minutes.
But, the OP is a superman who never makes mistakes, so recent events
don't improve your information about what he'll do in the near future.
He didn't make any mistakes in the last 5 minutes.
I"m talking about information, not causation.
Gary Carson
smellmuth
for an mba.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
garycarson
smellmuth wrote:
> gary, how do i learn about all this crazy modelling and whatnot. without paying
> for an mba.
Most business schools also have MS programs with concentrations in
Quantitative Business Analysis and they offer financial aid to those
students that involves tuition waivers.
I never paid tuition at a graduate school, and I accumulated a couple
hundred credit hours at three of them.
In my case, I learned a lot about statistical analysis and statistical
modelling from various part time jobs I got as a student. As an
undergraduate I worked on a non-linear regression model of silt
particle movement of a canal in Kuwait, on an econometric model with
non-stationary variance, on sampling plans for political polling, on an
LP model for Louiasiana collecting natural gas excise taxes in kind and
using existing pipeline capacity for storage and other stuff. In 69-72
a kid who understood statistical phrases and also knew Fortran and JCL
didn't have any trouble at all finding work. I spent a lot of evenings
having a beer at midnight with experienced stat and modeling guys after
working all night. I learned a lot. Fortran and JCL isn't such a
special skill any more and I doubt there are as many such opportunities
as there used to be.
As a graduate student I was either a part time student with a full time
university job, or a full time student with enough fellowship money
that I could get by without working. Plus, in prepreation for becoming
a poker professional, I had a wife with a job.
Gary Carson
John Forsberg
> So the question becomes this: If a robot or an individual whose play does
> not vary according to mood swings and fatigue hits a bad streak or a hot
> streak at a table, does leaving and later coming back change the trend?
Of course it does, you haven't specified the opponents. The longer he loses the
higher the probability that he's outclassed.
> Loss limits make sense to me for players who tend to go on tilt.
It also makes sense for people who aren't extremely good at gauging their EV,
and most people aren't. The bigger your loss the larger the probability you're
not good in terms of EV. That's really not something you can argue (it's basic
statistics) and Sklansky certainly would back it up.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
John Forsberg
> advocate quitting when you are behind
Yeah, but they're a lot weaker. Then you only have the deterioation of your own
play as a detriment while bayes' theorem indicates you're in a good game (as
opposed to indicating you're in a bad game when you're losing).
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
John Forsberg
On Nov 27 2005 11:23 PM, torx wrote:
> every hand is an individual event and is not affected by anything that has
> been before.
Ok, I go all-in 10 hands in a row for $1k in a 5-10 blind game. Now it's the
eleventh hand and I move in and you hold 99 what do you do?
Still want to claim that every hand is an individual event?
TD Lowball
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> What David actually said was that if you know the game to be a good
> game, you should stay even if you're losing.
>
> What he left unsaid is that if you're losing you need very strong
> counter evidence that the game is good in order to rationally conclude
> that the game is good enough to stay.
Infact, in Gardena in mid 1970s, John Fox, Art Sathmary and several
other people collected a mountain of data about this very subject. John
Fox has categoricaly stated, based on the evidence, that if you get
stuck 1.5 buyins in a game you are always better off switching to
another game, and even better off if you stop playing for a while and
get some rest.
Seriously, I urge everyone to ignore Gary's advice about stop losses and
the baysian implications of losing. My profits depend on it.
TD Lowball --
garycarson
Gary
thenutlow
> > The reasons for quitting while you are ahead, are similar to those that
> > advocate quitting when you are behind
>
> Yeah, but they're a lot weaker. Then you only have the deterioation of your
own
> play as a detriment while bayes' theorem indicates you're in a good game (as
> opposed to indicating you're in a bad game when you're losing).
yeah, I dont know why I didn't include that. I felt like something was
missing when I was writing the post. Good addition
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
torx
completely full of shit.
congratulations, read my post again.
On Nov 28 2005 1:33 AM, John Forsberg wrote:
> On Nov 27 2005 11:23 PM, torx wrote:
>
> > every hand is an individual event and is not affected by anything that has
> > been before.
>
> Ok, I go all-in 10 hands in a row for $1k in a 5-10 blind game. Now it's the
> eleventh hand and I move in and you hold 99 what do you do?
>
> Still want to claim that every hand is an individual event?
-Alexander Knopf
https://www.allinpoker.com/aip/registration/register.jsp?refCode=AKF040D
https://secure.pokerchamps.com/pokerpublic/arequest?acode=TORX
------
torx
but to spell it out for someone who doesn't want to get the point
yes every hand is an individual event THE CARDS are not affected by your
prior performance, and if you still wanna argue that one i'm likely not
bothering to respond again.
On Nov 28 2005 1:33 AM, John Forsberg wrote:
> On Nov 27 2005 11:23 PM, torx wrote:
>
> > every hand is an individual event and is not affected by anything that has
> > been before.
>
> Ok, I go all-in 10 hands in a row for $1k in a 5-10 blind game. Now it's the
> eleventh hand and I move in and you hold 99 what do you do?
>
> Still want to claim that every hand is an individual event?
-Alexander Knopf
https://www.allinpoker.com/aip/registration/register.jsp?refCode=AKF040D
https://secure.pokerchamps.com/pokerpublic/arequest?acode=TORX
-------
garycarson
torx wrote:
> to answer your question tho, yes.
> but to spell it out for someone who doesn't want to get the point
>
> yes every hand is an individual event THE CARDS are not affected by your
> prior performance, and if you still wanna argue that one i'm likely not
> bothering to respond again.
That's right. But what you orginally said was ambigouis.
The phrase "The hand" can mean the cards. Or it can mean all the
events that occur from the intial cut to shoving the pot. Generally,
"The hand" means all the events, and "my hand" means the cards.
When you speak of the "next hand you play" (which is the phrase you
used) that doesn't usually mean the same thing a "next hand you're
dealt".
So, most of us didn't understand your rather cryptic meaning. That
tends to happen when you use non-standard English.
Gary Carson
A. Prock
>So the question becomes this: If a robot or an individual whose play does
>not vary according to mood swings and fatigue hits a bad streak or a hot
>streak at a table, does leaving and later coming back change the trend?
You are only stating half the problem.
There are multiple factors at play here, but they
can easily be divided into "us vs. them". If "us"
does not change in any way and if "them" does not
change in any way, then your EV will remain identical.
But that's not the way the world works. As our
environment changes we adapt.
If there's on thing that poker players are known
for, it's their overconfidence. Many winning players
log a lot of hours during which they are playing
at negative expectation.
As Gary Carson said, Bayes rule indicates that if you are
one of those players, then the time to get up is
when you are losing.
That's not to say that you should get up after you
lose a hand, but if you find that you are struggling,
and keep losing, you should seriously consider getting
up.
This is an important skill. So important that Tommy
Angelo phrases his game selection philosophy in those
terms:
"Game selection to me is not so much about getting in
games when I have way the best of it as it is about
getting out of games when I don't."
- Andrew
garycarson
A. Prock wrote:
> This is an important skill. So important that Tommy
> Angelo phrases his game selection philosophy in those
> terms:
>
> "Game selection to me is not so much about getting in
> games when I have way the best of it as it is about
> getting out of games when I don't."
>
He makes a very good point there.
It's something I wish I was better at.
Gary Carson
John Forsberg
> prior performance, and if you still wanna argue that one i'm likely not
> bothering to respond again.
Ok, I didn't realize you went to that much trouble to state a completely obvious
point that only people with severe probabilistic deficiencies wouldn't
immiediately get. So yes, 2+2 = 4.
I assumed you were perpetuating the common fallacy that poker hands (as in a
complete hand of betting and all that jazz) are independent events which is
often used to justify over-simplifying the game.
torx
my point was (trying to make it clear this time)
that if you play the hand right, this again is a matter of debate i
suppose what the right play is, but then in limit the options are more or
less limited, with regards to table conditions, table image, opponents,
etc, the probability that you will make money on the hand (or not lose
any) is the same as any other time you get dealt the same hand, no matter
the bad streak you had the last 500 hands.
-Alexander Knopf
https://www.allinpoker.com/aip/registration/register.jsp?refCode=AKF040D
https://secure.pokerchamps.com/pokerpublic/arequest?acode=TORX
-----
garycarson
torx wrote:
> my mistake, as you noted.
> my point was (trying to make it clear this time)
>
> that if you play the hand right, this again is a matter of debate i
> suppose what the right play is, but then in limit the options are more or
> less limited, with regards to table conditions, table image, opponents,
> etc, the probability that you will make money on the hand (or not lose
> any) is the same as any other time you get dealt the same hand, no matter
> the bad streak you had the last 500 hands.
That's not true.
The cards you get won't be effected. Maybe what you do won't be
effected. But, the outcome will be effected because the recent history
will effect how your opponents respond. So that means that if you
continue to play "perfectly" you won't play the hand the same way
because you'll be reacting to changes in your opponents behavior.
History matters. Recent history matters a lot. There's more to the
game than what cards get dealt.
Aren't you listening?
Gary Carson
torx
it also seems that many people believe (also in the original post) that
it's better to get up when you're on a losing streak, because it may be
over when you play a day later or a week later or etc.
so yes i made the point clear that there is no such thing as a bad streak,
that somehow alters the outcome of a hand (how the cards fall), or the
winning percentage of aces heads up.
yes, after reading the OP i felt the need to state the (to you completely
obvious, and thus useless) point.
On Nov 28 2005 2:41 AM, John Forsberg wrote:
> > yes every hand is an individual event THE CARDS are not affected by your
> > prior performance, and if you still wanna argue that one i'm likely not
> > bothering to respond again.
>
> Ok, I didn't realize you went to that much trouble to state a completely
obvious
> point that only people with severe probabilistic deficiencies wouldn't
> immiediately get. So yes, 2+2 = 4.
>
> I assumed you were perpetuating the common fallacy that poker hands (as in a
> complete hand of betting and all that jazz) are independent events which is
> often used to justify over-simplifying the game.
-Alexander Knopf
https://www.allinpoker.com/aip/registration/register.jsp?refCode=AKF040D
https://secure.pokerchamps.com/pokerpublic/arequest?acode=TORX
_____________________________________________________________________
The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent
> My suggestion is to stay in school, because you don't know what you're
> talking about. People who are perfect in every way tend to do much
> better in school than in life.
Carson, if you don't grade my math I will not grade your spelling and
grammar. I said I was not a statistician. I graduated from the University
of Texas. That was years ago, and although I made A's in those classes,
I've forgotten more than I ever learned. I admit it. You're a statistician
and I respect that.
I was trying to start an intelligent discussion in a different thread to
bring others into the debate who couldn't see it buried in the previous
thread. I would also like to see guys like Lee Jones and Lou Krieger come
in here and defend their positions that are clearly in opposition to your
own. You have a loyal following in here and I think that's great. I just
see holes in your theory.
John Forsberg
On Nov 28 2005 2:21 AM, The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent wrote:
> I would also like to see guys like Lee Jones and Lou Krieger
Logically the only thing there is to argue about is the size of the effect
Carson is talking about. Lee Jones doesn't post here any more, but if he did I'd
bet that he agrees since he was a programmer and good with probabilistic stuff
and logic. As for Lou Krieger you really shouldn't pay attention to what he is
saying when it comes to math stuff it's not his area of expertise.
I'm guessing their position was intended to try to combat superstitions with a
simpler (but flawed) model for the people who don't know their way around stat
101 and might think that the cards are not independent.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
torx
> > suppose what the right play is, but then in limit the options are more or
> > less limited, with regards to table conditions, table image, opponents,
> > etc
the above is what i wrote, and let me spell it out for you !
of course your table image changes, along with other factors, including
how your opponents react, and therefore i have included that in the above
post, again i apologize for not making it more clear, but to answer your
question, yes i am listening.
---
Mrs. LHE
On Nov 27 2005 8:21 PM, The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent wrote:
> (snip)
>
> I was trying to start an intelligent discussion in a different thread to
> bring others into the debate who couldn't see it buried in the previous
> thread.
That's funny, because I get the distinct impression that you started another
thread because you weren't getting enough "atta boy" responses in the previous
thread.
>I would also like to see guys like Lee Jones and Lou Krieger
>come in here and defend their positions that are clearly in >opposition to your
>own.
What reason do they have to defend their positions? Because you've asked them
to? They've all made contributions to the poker world by writing books that
reflect their individual philosophies about the game of poker and how it might
best be played to be profitable. If all of them agreed on each and every point,
there would never have to be more than one book written about poker.
> You have a loyal following in here and I think that's great. > I just
> see holes in your theory.
Fine. Then don't take his advice on this subject. Take Sklansky's advice.
It's that simple. Why continue to belabor the point when you're already
convinced that you know the correct answer? Because you're the guy at the poker
table who just doesn't know when to give up, and that particular characteristic
of yours translates into your everyday life?
Now, let me fill you in on a couple of other small details...
I am not a "self-appointed poker guru" as you suggested in the other thread, nor
am I one of "those people" who tilt easily. When someone asks me a direct
question, I respond with what I feel is the best answer based on my personal
experience -- not based on what I've read in a book (although I will certainly
not hesitate to quote an author if the situation calls for it).
I don't have the education or experience to debate a topic like stop loss limits
with Gary Carson, David Sklansky, or most anyone else for that matter. What I
do have is innate knowledge of my own strengths and weaknesses, and this is
largely what I base my game (and advice to others) upon. If you ever hope to
have one iota of success in this game, I would suggest that you identify and
deal with your own.
Finally, it seems that you tend to give more respect to the opinions of those
who have written poker books. If that's true, it's no wonder you're so
confused. Setting a stop loss in limit poker is one of many issues upon which
various authors disagree. Here's something else to consider: not all
successful professional poker players have written books about poker and not all
authors who have written books about poker are successful professional poker
players.
- Mrs. E
The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent
> Fine. Then don't take his advice on this subject. Take Sklansky's
> advice.
> It's that simple. Why continue to belabor the point when you're already
> convinced that you know the correct answer? Because you're the guy at the
> poker
> table who just doesn't know when to give up, and that particular
> characteristic
> of yours translates into your everyday life?
Blah blah blah.
Look, I'm no Hellmuth or Raymer, but I am a winning player. I've read many
books on the subject and I consider myself a student of the game. Carson
has written a book both widely acclaimed and widely ridiculed, which almost
always equals success for any writer. But I do dispute him on this one
point, and I would like to see other authors comment. I see things have
changed over the years and none of those guys post here anymore. They have
receded into the black hole known as 2+2. :)
John Forsberg
On Nov 28 2005 6:42 AM, The Dead Man In Yossarian's Tent wrote:
> But I do dispute him on this one
> point,
You don't need to know any author's opinion to do that. Just outline why you
don't think a players losses shouldn't influence his or hers belief about a
tables profitablity.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
torx
....
-Alexander Knopf
https://www.allinpoker.com/aip/registration/register.jsp?refCode=AKF040D
https://secure.pokerchamps.com/pokerpublic/arequest?acode=TORX
_____________________________________________________________________
Michael Sullivan
> after reading the OP i didn't think that the point was so obvious ....
> it also seems that many people believe (also in the original post) that
> it's better to get up when you're on a losing streak, because it may be
> over when you play a day later or a week later or etc.
> so yes i made the point clear that there is no such thing as a bad streak,
> that somehow alters the outcome of a hand (how the cards fall), or the
> winning percentage of aces heads up.
But getting up is the right thing to do when you are losing by enough
and don't have specific very strong counter evidence that the game is
good.
There are two general categories of possible reasons for losing:
1) bad luck
2) you are a loser in that game for whatever undetermined reason (on
tilt, tired, better players than you think, cheating, etc.).
In the first case, whether you get up or not is irrelevant, it changes
nothing.
In the second case, getting up changes everything -- you stop losing.
The key is that you don't know which case it is.
The longer and deeper your bad streak, the more likely the reason (or at
least part of the reason) fall into the second category, and the more
evidence you need of the first to be willing to stay. At some level of
loss, it's just not worth it to stay no matter what you think is going
on.
Michael
Michael Sullivan
> I was trying to start an intelligent discussion in a different thread to
> bring others into the debate who couldn't see it buried in the previous
> thread.
If you're trying to start an intelligent discussion, it would help if
you actually read and tried to understand the responses you get.
> I would also like to see guys like Lee Jones and Lou Krieger come
> in here and defend their positions that are clearly in opposition to your
> own. You have a loyal following in here and I think that's great. I just
> see holes in your theory.
What holes? You haven't mentioned any. You've managed to
mischaracterize the theory, and then poke holes in the straw man
argument.
I suppose it would be useful if Lee Jones posted on this as well,
because maybe you'd pay attention when TheAuthority[tm] tells you what
other people have been telling you already.
Even if he doesn't set a stop loss for himself, or advocate that others
do, I doubt he'd disagree with the basics of what GC is saying, just the
playing decision (and if so, it would be interesting to hear his
reasons).
Michael
garycarson
Michael Sullivan wrote:
>
> Even if he doesn't set a stop loss for himself, or advocate that others
> do, I doubt he'd disagree with the basics of what GC is saying, just the
> playing decision (and if so, it would be interesting to hear his
> reasons).
>
>
What it depends on is your prior, the probabilty that you won't be
playing your A game during a random session. The bigger that number is
the more you should tend to quit. Our hero claims to have a prior with
that probabilty of zero. Thats' the degenrate case where it doen't
matter what you do and your recent results have no information content.
Gary Carson
RustyJay
is dead on center about this one.
It comes down to the simple axiom: limit your loses, let your winnings
ride.
I can't tell you how many times I've turned bad sessions into
disastrous sessions because, despite losing, the game is good, I'm
playing well, blah blah blah. Alternatively, when I winning, I have
been much more likely to quit to 'lock in the win' and hence feel good.
BS!! It should be just THE OPPOSITE.
Bottom line is we are human, and losing does affect our play and
judgement. Plus the longer you play the more tired you get and the
softer your judgement becomes. Also, there's the notion (I think
Sklansky or Caro introduced) of a 'misery threshold'. Once you blow
through a threshold of loss that is reasonable for the session, your
judgement really can get off and subsequent loses seem to matter less
and less....look out below if this happens.
The game isn't going anywhere and even if the particular fish du jour
may not be in the next game, there will be other tasty fillets to
replace him/her.
Now, I 'try' to use the rule of thumb of not losing more than you can
win in the next sesssion or two. For limit games this equates to about
30 BBs.
Interestingly, I recently saw Ivey mentioned this issue (players not
quitting when they're losing) as his #1 pick for the biggest mistake
players make - in one of those newfangled Full Tilt TV show thingies.
Conclusion: Stop Loss is an excellent tool. The problem for me, still,
is sticking to it.
-RJ
art_classmn
control
their emotions and know when they are not in the right frame of mind to
play
that the stop/loss limit theory is a fallacious one."
OK. People who have absolute control of their emotions and complete
self-awareness of their current frame of mind have no use for stop/loss
theory.
So, Spock has no use for the theory. Wait, unless he is in amok time.
Shoot. Even Spock tilts sometimes.
Palooka
If the "other thread" was the one in which you kindly gave me advice about
the 30 bb, firstly I would like to say many thanks for taking the trouble to
do so. It makes sense, and I will follow it.
Thanks also to DMIYT. I fully appreciate that mathematically it is all one
long session, but as Gary points out, there are other considerations.
Besides which, assuming we all agree that mathematically it is irrelevant
when we stop and start, why shouldn't we stop and start when we feel most
comfortable? Mathematically there is no difference, but it means I will be
playing my A game* (or near to it) more of the time. The cards won't be
better or worse but my results might be.
Sincerely,
Palooka
*Poor at best but better than the B
Palooka
news:438a500f$0$4935$8026...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
> Tommy Angelo phrases his game selection philosophy in those
> terms:
>
> "Game selection to me is not so much about getting in
> games when I have way the best of it as it is about
> getting out of games when I don't."
>
suffered two (all-in) bad beats in today's freeroll tournament, but having
rerun them through your program, it turns out I was barely above 50% both
times.
Thanks again and warmest regards,
Palooka
Mrs. LHE
Palooka,
If anyone feels comfortable risking more than 30 BB in a session, then of course
that's fine as long as he or she is still playing their best game.
However, what's important to keep in mind is that it can be difficult to make up
more than 30 BB in one session. If someone is comfortable playing for two or
three sessions knowing they are still behind, then it shouldn't be a problem.
Most of us, however, play better when we're even, ahead, or just a little
behind.
- Mrs. E
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Lee Jones
On Nov 27 2005 4:32 PM, A. Prock wrote:
> This is an important skill. So important that Tommy
> Angelo phrases his game selection philosophy in those
> terms:
>
> "Game selection to me is not so much about getting in
> games when I have way the best of it as it is about
> getting out of games when I don't."
Heh. Andrew Prock quoting Tommy Angelo. A statement can't get a much better
pedigree than that.
I'm afraid to say much here, simply because Tommy's statement sums it up, but at
the risk of piling on...
Yes, of course, emotion has to figure into your decision to stay. Simply
because it bears on your EV. No carbon-based player that I'm aware of plays
his/her A-game all the time. If such players exist, I truly hope I never run
into them.
It is worth considering the point that if you continue to lose, you may -EV
(because of the quality of the competition and/or your current mental state).
For that reason (and its counterpart on the other side), you should be more
inclined to get up when you're losing than when you're winning.
Regards, Lee
Milner
> It is worth considering the point that if you continue to lose, you
> may -EV
> (because of the quality of the competition and/or your current mental
> state).
> For that reason (and its counterpart on the other side), you should be
> more
> inclined to get up when you're losing than when you're winning.
We all look forward to seeing this section of your book changed to reflect
this feeling in the fourth edition of your limit text where you will
hopefully say, "I was wrong about the one session theory."
Lee Jones
On Nov 30 2005 9:08 AM, Milner wrote:
> "Lee Jones" wrote in message
No, I wasn't wrong about the "one session" theory. Which isn't to say I might
not have been wrong about other things, but I'm comfortable with that
statement. It helps dispel some widely-held myths about the game (and gambling
in general).
Once you've staked out that mathematically true ground, then you can put in the
(important) psychological windage of whether you're playing your "A" game. Or
for that matter, whether even your "A" game is enough to give you an edge at
that particular table. For reference, I point you to page 245 of the WLLH 3rd
edition, where I say:
> One of the first questions that new players ask is "When should I get up from
> a session?" There are two different answers, depending on whether you
> look at the question statistically or psychologically.
And then I answer both versions of the question.
Regards, Lee