The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
From: "Stephen H. Landrum" <sland...@pacbell.net>
Date: 1997/04/10
Subject: Re: Going Too Far & Implicit Collusion
Andy Morton wrote: The answer to this one is simple. Posts that require thought take > First, I also think this _type_ of post is the most fun on r.g.p., and > would love to see more. It was sort of frustrating that this post > languished for a week before it got its first response while 50 people > weighed in to straighten out the guy who wanted five pros at his table. time to respond to, and obviously ones that don't can be responded to immediately. I couldn't keep up with RGP if there were 20 seriously thought-provoking posts a day. > Not only that, but after 50 or so responses, it turns out he had a point It sure wasn't contained in his original post. > after all. > Anyway, I for one would be more of an active participant and Flames are unfortunately part of the nature of delayed electronic > less of a lurker on r.g.p. if the ratio of light to heat were a little > higher. communication. > Second, I totally agree with Erik's point that while the idea i Some of this is implicitly incorporated into the ideas of seat > presented is mathematically correct, the important question is how (or > even whether) it leads to changes in correct strategy. As I said in my > post, I think these situations (where you'd prefer some of your > opponents to fold, even if it's correct for them to do so) come up all > the time in a typical game. selection, hand selection, selective aggression, and pot size manipulation. It's also been discussed indirectly in the past as the concept of fish "schooling" for protection. Each of their individual calls is poor, but when they all call, they help each other more than they help the bettor. > I'm not sure how best to demonstrate that, however. Would it be at all I don't think convincing is as important as learning. It may be that > convincing if i just came up with some more examples of other situations > and repeated the calculation? the situation occurs less frequently than you feel it does, or it may occur in almost every hand that's played with 4 or more players. Better than examples would be some research. > I'm not sure, because each time someone That's the problem with examples, there are counterexamples. Without > could say, "yea, but what if instead of having 5 outs, your opponent is > drawing dead? then you'd want him in, not out." some demonstration of how often the examples apply, they are not good evidence for the assertions that these situations are frequent or rare. > Maybe there would be Again, the goal should not be convincing, but determining. > some way to run a few hundred hands of Holdem Master or something > similar with a calling station in the game. Then simply ask, for each > call he made, a) did he have correct odds to chase, and b) did his call > cost the leader any expectation? Would that be sufficient to convince > people these situations are common? > Is there a better way? Can't think of one at the moment. > Then, if these situations do come up, are they really all that serious? That's certainly a question to be addressed. > If i remember my example correctly, player B's fishy call on the turn Perhaps. It should be looked at with respect to the whole. B's fishy > can cost you up to more than 5% of your EV when you bet. That seems > pretty serious to me. calls are contributing hugely to your EV at other times, so it's important to see where it fits into the big picture. Is your bet -EV because B calls, or is your bet +EV but B's call just reduces the value of it? > Try telling a blackjack player he's losing up to Losing up to 5% relative to what? Many times the BJ player is making > 5% on some of his bets and i bet you get his attention real quick. a -EV play, because it is better than all the other choices which are also -EV. Splitting 8's against a dealer T is a -EV play, but it's better than standing or drawing, it's only +EV when compared to the alternatives. If he can make a different choice that improves his EV, then he'll be > Furthermore, even if we convince ourselves these situations come up Change "convince ourselves" to "learn" and I agree with you. > often enough and are potentially costly, then how do we exploit our > understanding? Are strategic changes (eg, play more drawing hands) more > useful than tactical ones (eg, checkraise the turn in a particular -- > situation)? I never would have thought of the implications of this > stuff on table image, but abdul's post makes at least some sense to me > and indicates that there may be all sorts of ways to exploit the things > we've been talking about here. "Stephen H. Landrum" <sland...@pacbell.net> You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||