A big tournament advantage: Stupidity
Tom Weideman
quite serious, as you will see. Now obviously being a smart player helps
with tournament success in many ways. I'm not trying to tell you that the
only way to win tournaments is to be stupid - far from it - smarter players
will win in the long run. But what I will show you is that there are quite
common situations where your opponents knowing you aren't too bright can
greatly work to your advantage. Because of these advantages the "long run"
required for smarter players to assure a win can become even longer. Some
of these ideas apply to ring games as well, but even the concepts that apply
to both venues have a greater effect in tournaments. It's even possible
that a player can be stupid enough to take advantage of it, and at the same
time stumble upon a correct strategy for everything else (this is most often
true of "naturally aggressive" players), making him/her a winning tournament
player.
Situation #1: High low split
----------------------------
Suppose you are involved in a three-way hand in a tournament game involving
high-low split (either Omaha-8 or Stud-8). You figure that you and another
player have low draws, while the third player has a high hand. In such
situations, if the pot is not too big, it is frequently correct to throw
away your low draw if the opponent plays his, since you only stand to get
half the pot if you get there (or in some cases, 1/4 of it), you (typically)
have at best a 30-35% chance of getting there, and even if you get there,
you have to beat the other low draw's hand (which you'll do something like
half the time you both get there). Now obviously much of this depends upon
how smooth you are drawing, the dead cards out, how rough your opponent is
likely to draw, and so on, but nevertheless it can be a pretty bad spot at
times. Tournament situations (with % payouts) make this even worse, because
when two opponents get involved, you gain tournament equity by just
watching. Getting involved discards this equity, which means you
essentially have to pay an even greater price than you would in a cash game.
Okay, now here's where stupidity comes in. In such a situation, it is
typically a game of chicken. If both players are smart, then the first
player can get involved, locking out the second person (and hoping that the
second person doesn't "up the ante" of the chicken game by raising and
starting a whipsaw with the high hand). But if one of the two low draws has
no clue about what I describe above (and the other low draw knows he has no
clue), then the smarter of the two players has to just concede and fold.
It's like playing chicken against someone who is trying to commit suicide.
Situation #2: Super satellites
------------------------------
There are 9 players left in a super satellite, and 8 players get seats. You
are sitting two spots to the right of an idiot, and both of you have
medium-sized stacks. There is one short stack to your right, who can't
cover his blinds the next round. You have the button.
Now at a table full of smart players, no one gets involved against anyone
but the short stack, and even then people would rather have someone else try
to bust him. When this is the case, play is usually quite trivial: Everyone
folds to some late position player (usually the button, because people in
earlier positions typically worry that someone behind them with aces who has
them out-chipped will decide to go for it), who stacks off and takes the
blinds. He has to do this to keep pace, because when it is his turn with
the blinds, he has to surrender them. If he doesn't take his share and the
short stack survives a round or two, then HE becomes the short stack. First
one to get his money in wins the dead money.
But when you have the button, Mr. IQ-of-a-belt-buckle is in the big blind,
and he doesn't like to surrender his blind so easily. Once again, you are
forced to back off and not try to steal, especially if he has you
outchipped, and this greatly helps his cause and hurts yours.
General Comments
----------------
The general idea here is that in poker there are frequently situations where
"mutually-assured destruction" situations arise. These take place in cash
games as well as in tournaments, but the effects are amplified in
tournaments because of the tournament equity premium one has to pay to be
the "third man in". When a smart player is aware that he and a stupid
player are in the roles of the mutually-assured destructees, he is at a huge
disadvantage. If the idiot also happens to be loose and aggressive, the
problem is made that much worse, as the damage can be greater. The smart
player may then find himself having to play very tight and passively to
avoid these sorts of situations. This reduces his chances of moving up the
pay scale, but increases his chances of cashing overall such that his ev is
still higher than the dummy who is more likely to win it all but is much
less likely to cash.
Now of course the best of both worlds would be a person who is actually
intelligent but has fostered a persona of being dim-witted. I think this
would be hard to do, because eventually his actions will give him away, but
it might be possible to pull off for awhile.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate that these advantages associated with idiocy
are not sufficient to turn this person into a winning tournament player, but
if this person is already aggressive (a very important quality), fearless,
and has a little bit of card sense, this added edge can close the gap with
the strong players quite a bit, making overall tournament ev for good
players not as high as one might think.
Tom Weideman
Skimask555
>From: Tom Weideman zwi...@attbi.com
>Now of course the best of both worlds would be a person who is actually
>intelligent but has fostered a persona of being dim-witted. I think this
>would be hard to do, because eventually his actions will give him away, but
>it might be possible to pull off for awhile.
I've agreed with most everything you've said, especially this. I would say
though, that it is possiblie to pull it off for longer than just 'awhile'.
There are many winning tournament players on the crcuit today who fall directly
into this category. A perfect example of this would be Hon "Kamikaze" Le.
He is a super aggressive player that is feared by many of his peers. Not for
his playing ability or skill level, more because of the idea that he might do
something stupid against you. Example:
You are the chipleader in the SB against Hon Le who is second in chips in the
big blind with 7 players left in the tournament. The other five players have
really short stacks. Against any typically "smart" opponent you'd know that
they won't gamble foolishly, so if you raise and they re-raise,you can be sure
they have a strong hand. Not so with Hon Le, at least that's the image he
gives off.
Men Nguyen, John Bonetti, and Layne Flack to a lesser degree, also give off
this false image of stupidity, that gives them an advantage in winning the
"chicken game"
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
GROAN
> I've agreed with most everything you've said, especially this. I would say
>though, that it is possiblie to pull it off for longer than just 'awhile'.
>There are many winning tournament players on the crcuit today who fall directly
>into this category. A perfect example of this would be Hon "Kamikaze" Le.
>
> He is a super aggressive player that is feared by many of his peers. Not for
>his playing ability or skill level, more because of the idea that he might do
>something stupid against you. Example:
>
> You are the chipleader in the SB against Hon Le who is second in chips in the
>big blind with 7 players left in the tournament. The other five players have
>really short stacks. Against any typically "smart" opponent you'd know that
>they won't gamble foolishly, so if you raise and they re-raise,you can be sure
>they have a strong hand. Not so with Hon Le, at least that's the image he
>gives off.
>
> Men Nguyen, John Bonetti, and Layne Flack to a lesser degree, also give off
>this false image of stupidity, that gives them an advantage in winning the
>"chicken game"
>
>Daniel Negreanu
>www.fullcontactpoker.com
Hey Genius, you forgot to change your screenname back to
"DanielNegreanu" and kept it Skimask555 by mistake. That means YOU
(Daniel Negreanu) are Skimask555. And WOW what a surprise, this new
Skimask555 is making a huge effort to smear Annie Duke!! You know the
Annie Duke just hours after her very positive ABC interview:
Message 6 in thread
From: Skimask555 (skima...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Questions for Annie Duke about Aruba
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 2002-12-09 10:06:31 PST
>Rather a sad commentary in and of itself, that otherwise respectable
>prominent poker people might stoop to such 'non-disclosure agreement'
>cover-up (as seemingly quite possibly could indeed be the case here)
>about the prize money arrangements in a major tournament...
>
For sure. That's why I can't figure out why Annie or any of the other
pros involved wouldn't clarify what truly happened. They were
accussed of lying and have said nothing on rgp to clear up their name.
That leads me to believe that they are guilty as charged.
*And this one:
Message 10 in thread
From: Skimask555 (skima...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Questions for Annie Duke about Aruba
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 2002-12-09 09:59:31 PST
>You see some of us are moral based humans and we dont get involved
>with issues we dont care to be part of therefore we detach ourselves
>from such sitautions...
The pont of my question was valid. I'm trying to have a better
understanding of the morals of the pros who played in the event. It
doesn't seem like to much to ask of them and since Annie posts here I
don't see why she wouldn't want to clear her name in all of this.
*And of course this one:
Message 8 in thread
From: GROAN (mystoma...@ouch.com)
Subject: Re: Questions for Annie Duke about Aruba
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 2002-12-09 10:40:28 PST
On 09 Dec 2002 18:03:05 GMT, skima...@aol.com (Skimask555) wrote:
GROAN:
>>Christ. Its called a 'Non-Disclosure Agreement' and many business
>>deals use them regularly. If any premade deal between UB and the
>>players were made, I can guarantee you that signed NDAs were used.
>
Skimask555:
>So you wouldn't even be allowed to say no comment? If there is something they
>can't disclose what might that be? Why the need to be so secretive about these
>things. They were accussed so why wouldn't they want to clear there names.
>The questions are simple and the silence by the UB pros is deafening.
GROAN:
Your stupidity makes me GROAN. Obviously you don't get what an NDA's
function is. Here is a hint: you don't sign one and then talk about
something you just agreed you wouldn't talk about. You are a real
sharp cookie.
Now stop embarassing yourself with your ignorance and go supersize my
fries. Or are you a dealer at Binions?
*I'm extra proud I saw you as being a total idiot even then though I
didn't know it was you in disguise. You were also the originator of
the thread as "Ski Bum":
Message 1 in thread
From: Ski Bum (skima...@aol.com)
Subject: Questions for Annie Duke about Aruba
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 2002-12-08 07:11:41 PST
1.What happened in UB/Aruba? I see that you do post here and if I'm
not mistaken you took part in the pro event and are a UB
representative. Other than Russ Hamilton and Daniel Negreanu we
haven't heard any first hand accounts from the pros that took place in
the event. So could you give us a first hand account of what happened
there? All the other RGP posters claims are all but worthless since
they weren't even there. You were there so I'm sure you could set the
record straight. To be frank, I'm surprised you haven't up until this
point?
2.Did the pros play for $250,000 or not?
3.Were you asked to lie about how much they were really playing for,
and did you?
4.Did Phil Gordon get his money in Aruba?
5.Why didn't your brother play in the pro event?
6.If you can't answer any of these questions why not?
<end past skimask555/Ski Bum posts>
Hey Daniel, I don't EVER want to hear you condemning Russ of using
fake alias names on RGP to further his cause. You just proved
yourself to be the yellow coniving coward I always said you were.
HEY ULTIMATE BET - if you have any legal recourse, SUE THIS GUY! He
is obviously trying to smear you both by hidden 3rd party emails and
changed nickname posts. But you have a STRONG case that all the
recent 'bad press' regarding UB has originated from this guy. SUE
HIM.
Acesover
couldn't anyone copy his sign off thingy on the bottom of a posting?
Maybe you did it GROAN, and are just trying to smear Daniel's name. Or
maybe Daniel did do it and got busted. My point is, how do we find out?
Acesover
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
GROAN
wrote:
>This may be stupid, but how do we know that Daniel N is skimask555,
>couldn't anyone copy his sign off thingy on the bottom of a posting?
>
>Maybe you did it GROAN, and are just trying to smear Daniel's name. Or
>maybe Daniel did do it and got busted. My point is, how do we find out?
>
>Acesover
Look at all our respective 'headers' to see the path our messages to
RGP take. The others are from AOL, taking the same path in each case.
Mine are from Cox East.
Also look at tone, and agenda vs UB and Aruba.
For me at least, also weigh in stupidity of the end user. This is the
EXACT mistake I would predict from a newbie computer user and
generally uneducated guy (not just the nickname faking, but also the
"secret" emails to Ladd, the thing for Annie Duke, megalomanicail
spotlight jealousy, the possible ignoring of an NDA agreement - that
especially takes a stupid uneducated guy).
I also could not have possibly told you a damn thing about specific
tournament players because I don't play nearly enough to even know
these named players. I also don't care nearly as much as other do
about UB/Aruba, I just step in when people are being extremely stupid
and give them a nudge.
Finally, I don't care what you think. Believe whatever you want. I
KNOW *Daniel* knows I'm right, and thats all that *really* matters to
me. Hey Danny Boy, don't you hate that old GROAN knows you are stupid
and an uneducated high school drop out, and can smell your ignorance
like a fart in the car? His cowardice and fake halo makes my stomach
churn. He makes me GROAN.
Abdul Jalib
> This may be stupid, but how do we know that Daniel N is skimask555,
> couldn't anyone copy his sign off thingy on the bottom of a posting?
>
> Maybe you did it GROAN, and are just trying to smear Daniel's name. Or
> maybe Daniel did do it and got busted. My point is, how do we find out?
Have your lawyer send a letter to the ISP. Both AOL and Earthlink were
only too happy to give over names and addresses of rec.gambling.blackjack
posters when Doug Grant had his lawyer send them a letter. Mr. Skimask
is on AOL, so you're good to go.
--
Abdul
D
LOL. That sums up my tournament experiences pretty well. No wonder I lose.
:-)
"Tom Weideman" <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:BA1E15D6.219F2%zwi...@attbi.com...
Tom Weideman
> Men Nguyen, John Bonetti, and Layne Flack to a lesser degree, also give off
> this false image of stupidity, that gives them an advantage in winning the
> "chicken game"
Men's not very good at it, imo (I've always found his image enhancement
attempts to be very transparent). That's not to say that he's a genius,
mind you, because his antics don't show very much respect for the people he
is performing for, if he really thinks he is fooling them.
You are either wrong to put Bonetti into this category, or he is very, VERY
good at projecting this false image.
And I can only assume that when you say "to a lesser degree" regarding Layne
that you mean that it's not so much an act with him, and I'd agree.
They all have in common the other important trait that I mentioned... They
are all extremely aggressive.
Tom Weideman
GROAN
>Have your lawyer send a letter to the ISP. Both AOL and Earthlink were
>only too happy to give over names and addresses of rec.gambling.blackjack
>posters when Doug Grant had his lawyer send them a letter. Mr. Skimask
>is on AOL, so you're good to go.
I encourage and welcome anyone to do this. I'm 100% sure of the
results. BTW, I'm on COX, not Earthlink.
P.S. Its a shame Abdul, you should not have come out of the "hall" so
openly. That was one of the best running gags over all of
rec.gambling.* history.
Tom Weideman
> I've agreed with most everything you've said, especially this. I would say
> though, that it is possiblie to pull it off for longer than just 'awhile'.
> There are many winning tournament players on the crcuit today who fall
> directly into this category.
Keep in mind that the "stupid act" is only effective against the smart
folks. If they run into someone who actually IS stupid, then the events I
described will not come to pass. People smart enough to be exploited by
stupid players (or those acting stupid) are also smart enough to see through
the act after a short time.
Tom Weideman
Graham Ribchester
house, you find yourself not welcome. Tell people you can beat poker, the
house doesn't care.
So your point is?
Ribs
"GROAN" <mystoma...@ouch.com> wrote in message
news:6s1ivuglm42s7q3l3...@4ax.com...
Earl
dividends later ....
Of course, I'd have to disagree with your approach to handling the
super-satellites in the scenario you described. If you make the final table
and they are giving 8 seats away, you don't have to be any smarter than a
bump on a log to sit on your hands. Unless you are the shortest stack at the
table, trying to steal the blinds at the final table of a super-satellite
might be the stupidest play in all of poker (for those who disagree with me,
save me the flames and simply continue to play your way).
Other than for a handful of players, I've always found the concept of "EV"
as applied to tournaments as being somewhat dubious. Even if someone plays
500 tournaments a year, I'm skeptical of the concept of EV -- the sample
size is too small, and any decent tournament player can run good for a few
years. Success begets success -- but a tournament player's EV for a few
years is not an accurate guage of the "long run" (if such a thing can exist
in the tournament arena). Your philosophy (which I agree with in the main)
toward the stupid players is one more reason why this is so.
Tom Weideman
> Yep, that underlay gutshot draw in the early rounds sure pays image
> dividends later ....
>
> Of course, I'd have to disagree with your approach to handling the
> super-satellites in the scenario you described. If you make the final table
> and they are giving 8 seats away, you don't have to be any smarter than a
> bump on a log to sit on your hands. Unless you are the shortest stack at the
> table, trying to steal the blinds at the final table of a super-satellite
> might be the stupidest play in all of poker (for those who disagree with me,
> save me the flames and simply continue to play your way).
Heh, you gotta love condescension from someone without a clue. Fine, we'll
agree to disagree, and you continue to play your way too, sir.
> Other than for a handful of players, I've always found the concept of "EV"
> as applied to tournaments as being somewhat dubious. Even if someone plays
> 500 tournaments a year, I'm skeptical of the concept of EV -- the sample
> size is too small, and any decent tournament player can run good for a few
> years. Success begets success -- but a tournament player's EV for a few
> years is not an accurate guage of the "long run" (if such a thing can exist
> in the tournament arena).
Someday I'm going to have to start keeping track of how many people that
feel they are qualified to post about "EV" proceed to demonstrate they
actually have no idea what it really is. Hint: Knowing what the letter "E"
stands for in that acronym would be a good start.
But setting aside the fact that you misused "EV", I agree with you that the
sample size needed to trust tournament results as a measure of playing
ability is enormous. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I've probably been the
most vociferous advocate of this position on rgp over the years.
Tom Weideman
Vince lepore
Good start. I've always wondered about you Tom. Whether you are just
another pretty mind or if you indeed know something of which you write
about. You make what appears on the surface to be valid claims
concerning tournament play. But I wonder if you are correct and how
you would go about proving your obvious speculative resoning. Stupid
play? How can play that is Effective be considered stupid? If a
specific type of play produces a better EV then why isn't it
considered Smart play? If the way you think a situation should be
played has less of a chance of producing a desired result then why
aren't you the stupid one? Did you ever consider the fact that you
just don't understand how to win at tourmnament play and just may
never get it? Don't feel alone, Sklansky and a lot of other math
weanies may be in the same boat.
People I know have told me that you have a PHD in math. I guess that
means you can pass a test. But how does that equate with knowing how
to play poker? Maybe you should back up your accusations about stupid
play with some facts and statistical results as to why the play you
refer to is stupid. I've heard you math guys are big on numbers. So
sh0w me the numbers.
As always, an admirer,
Vince
Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<BA1E72B1.21AA9%zwi...@attbi.com>...
PacPalBuzz
From: Tom Weideman zwi...@attbi.com
Date: Thu, Dec 12, 2002 10:30 AM
Message-id: <BA1E15D6.219F2%zwi...@attbi.com>
>>
<<"Okay, now here's where stupidity comes in. In such a situation, it is
typically a game of chicken. If both players are smart, then the first player
can get involved, locking out the second person (and hoping that the second
person doesn't "up the ante" of the chicken game by raising and starting a
whipsaw with the high hand). But if one of the two low draws has
no clue about what I describe above (and the other low draw knows he has no
clue), then the smarter of the two players has to just concede and fold. It's
like playing chicken against someone who is trying to commit suicide.">>
Interesting idea. However, it may not be a game of chicken at all because one
of the two may be bluffing.
But let's assume that you know the score with acey-deucy in Omaha-8 and your
opponent seems clueless. Although conceding the low draw to your opponent may
help your opponent, you also help yourself by withdrawing. And if your opponent
is truly clueless, eventually your opponent is more likely than you to make a
mistake and get knocked out of the tournament.
If you are a superior player, over the course of the tournament you concede
much more to poor players than a quarter of one pot you might have won.
For example, doesn't it often turn out in Omaha-8 that someone who either
doesn't know or doesn't card about opening hand selection plays trash and
scoops a pot you would have won if you had only played the trash hand that was
dealt to you?
But you know better than to play trash, and in playing wisely, you increase
your chances of winning. In your example, folding your nut low draw to an
opponent who you have correctly read as having the same nut low draw increases
your overall chance of winning the tournament.
I agree with you that it is frustrating when an opponent makes a seemingly
stupid play that costs you. However, don't you prefer that to the alternative
of playing in a game where nobody ever makes a poor play?
You beat players who play chicken and bet their hands when they should not by
waiting your turn to punish them and otherwise staying out of their way.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Bill Vanek
lepore) wrote:
> How can play that is Effective be considered stupid?
By being based on stupid reasoning, or none at all.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>>advantage: Stupidity
>>From: Tom Weideman zwi...@attbi.com
>
>>Now of course the best of both worlds would be a person who is actually
>>intelligent but has fostered a persona of being dim-witted.
You guys are spoiled from playing too high. These are routine
situations at lower limits that have to be factored into play every
hand. At the higher limits things tend to happen for a reason-- not
true at the lower limits, where things often happen randomly or even
for opposite reasons of what the player intended.
Just my 2 cents,
Wayno
JonCooke
Tit for tat is the accepted strategy between players who know what
they are doing.
Was it good play for Carlos to make it 4 with Q8 offsuit? It looked
good, certainly, but was pretty clearly a "non-cooperate" in the
prisoner's dilemma game. What will happen next time he and Mike square
off? Will they play a big all-in pot on tram tickets at their cost and
to the benefit of their opponents?
Can Carlos only win the WSOP once because of how he did it?
Simon White
wrote:
>Look at all our respective 'headers' to see the path our messages to
>RGP take. The others are from AOL, taking the same path in each case.
>Mine are from Cox East.
Please inform us, without getting aggressive or obscene or changing
the subject or evading the question or calling into question my or
anyone elses sexuality / integrity / identity / whatever, how you
identify this "Daniel", BY HIS HEADERS PURLEY, ignoring the content of
his message, from any other AOL user.
If you can't answer civily, don't.
--
Simon White
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
Faculty of Engineering
University of Southampton
Tom Weideman
> Tom,
>
> Good start.
Coming from you that means a lot. Heh.
> I've always wondered about you Tom.
Stop wondering. It's dangerously close to thinking and I don't want to be
responsible for you hurting yourself.
> Whether you are just
> another pretty mind or if you indeed know something of which you write
> about.
You are ill-equipped to make that judgement.
> You make what appears on the surface to be valid claims
> concerning tournament play.
I'd stick to what you think you see on the surface if I were you. Knowing
your own limitations is important.
> But I wonder if you are correct and how
> you would go about proving your obvious speculative resoning.
I assume you would "speculate" that 2+3=5. Can you prove that? Get back to
me when you know the difference between speculation and deduction.
> Stupid
> play? How can play that is Effective be considered stupid? If a
> specific type of play produces a better EV then why isn't it
> considered Smart play?
You seem to have a little problem with cause and effect. Logic-impaired
individuals typically do. Anyway, to answer your question, "Smart" in my
world is not defined by results, it is defined by understanding what is
going on and using that understanding to reach a goal. My point was that
some goals in poker can only be reached if others think you are stupid. If
you are smart, you need to deceive them to make them think you are stupid.
If you are stupid, you need them to believe the truth.
> If the way you think a situation should be
> played has less of a chance of producing a desired result then why
> aren't you the stupid one? Did you ever consider the fact that you
> just don't understand how to win at tourmnament play and just may
> never get it?
You really aren't very bright, are you? You think that when I post about
the success of stupid people in tournaments that it must be because I'm
complaining about my own inability to win, because, well, that's all that
your little world of bad beats and whiners is capable of grasping. The fact
is that I don't play tournaments at all for a variety of reasons that you
couldn't possibly grasp, and I was just describing a simple feature of poker
(as one poster pointed out is similar to the prisoner dilemma) that you
apparently can't grasp, no matter how close to the "surface" it is.
> Don't feel alone, Sklansky and a lot of other math
> weanies may be in the same boat.
Ah, now I see. You are one of those people who gets irritated whenever some
egghead says something about the game that you've learned from the school of
hard knocks. Indeed, there are a number of "math weenies" who, for whatever
reason, can't seem to translate that into good play. There is no way you
could possibly know if I am one of them, but it makes your world a brighter
place to think I am. Fine, I know you have very little going for you to
help support your self esteem, so I'll let you cling to this.
> People I know have told me that you have a PHD in math.
A person I know said that I'd like you if I met you in person. None of
these people are correct.
> I guess that
> means you can pass a test.
I'm sure PhD's everywhere would agree that this is an accurate summary of
what is needed to complete their degree. Do you actively seek out subjects
that you know nothing about so you that can comment, or are you just stupid
about everything?
> But how does that equate with knowing how
> to play poker?
I challenge you to find me a math PhD who claims that his/her degree equates
with knowing how to play poker. You are a sick man. When you read a post
by a math weenie, do you automatically add the words, "I know a lot about
math, therefore I am a expert poker player" to the front of their post? You
really need to get over your prejudices.
> Maybe you should back up your accusations about stupid
> play with some facts and statistical results as to why the play you
> refer to is stupid.
HEH. "Accusations." You really have no clue at all.
> I've heard you math guys are big on numbers. So
> sh0w me the numbers.
4 out of 5 dentists think that being stupid occasionally has its advantages
in tournaments. Your asking for mathematical proof of something that really
doesn't require more than common sense is laughable, but what makes me laugh
even more is that you would request something that is the equivalent of me
asking for someone to explain something to me in the language of sanskrit.
> As always, an admirer,
Hopefully I've remedied that with this post.
Tom Weideman
Shawn Nelsen
society. There are no "manners" here, just a bunch of "animals" trying to 1
up each other.
Maybe this group should be split into 2 groups, those that are civil, and
address the point at hand, and the personal, or "National Enquirer" group,
where everything goes, and the only rule is, there are no rules, just a
complete free for all.
Comments,
Shawn Nelsen
"Simon White" <smw...@ecs.soton.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3dfa28fa...@news.zen.co.uk...
Craig Permenter
to start, or engage, in *flame wars* or a long thread with numerous people
twisting and altering my statements to prove me incorrect.
A few weeks ago I posted a response to Peg's question to me about a three
handed game where two of the three are playing out of the same bankroll. My
statement was along the lines of " if three poker players of reasonably
equal talent are playing three handed and two of them are playing from the
same bankroll, the odd man out has no chance".
I received numerous replies. Most tried to build a strawman and attack it,
thereby proving me wrong. Many others tried to turn it into a math problem
or a computer simulation in their effort to rebut by post. I believe you
were one of the responders. I don't remember your exact response. It isn't
important. But, If you remember that thread, doesn't it bear a striking
resemblance to the thread you're involved in here? My thoughts on that
subject are the same as yours below. However this time you are on the
opposite side of the argument.
I have heard some make the claim that there is no problem that cannot be
expressed, or addressed, mathematically. I do not dispute, or agree, with
that statement.
Wouldn't you agree that the answer to some situations can be found in human
nature ( a member of a bankroll team WILL act in such a manner as to
increase said bankroll), and can suffer from over complication?
So my question is, do you truly disagree with the statement I made that day?
Sincerely,
Craig Permenter
> 4 out of 5 dentists think that being stupid occasionally has its
advantages
> in tournaments. [ Your asking for mathematical proof of
something that really
> doesn't require more than common sense] is laughable, but what
makes me laugh
> even more is that you would request something that is the equivalent of me
> asking for someone to explain something to me in the language of sanskrit.
>
> > As always, an admirer,
>
> Hopefully I've remedied that with this post.
>
>
> Tom Weideman
>
"Tom Weideman" <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:BA1F6B3D.21B5D%zwi...@attbi.com...
zaq
Situation#1:
How do you know that playing against a good, AGGRESSIVE player won't
cost you more then playing against the dummy. Especially since you
probably can't read him that well.
Situation#2:
If he is that stupid why is he more likely to defend his own blind
then someone else's?
General idea:
Yes, the smart player has to adjust his play. So what? Instead of
beeing called only by hugh favorites he gets called more frequently
but by weaker hands. What is the difference?
And if he does worse against the stupid player, then the *smart*
players are even more stupid then the *stupid* player. Saying that
someone is stupid but aggressive sounds like saying he is stupid but
smart.
Daniel Negreanu (just kidding)
Kidpoker
Earl
The chance of someone winning multiple WSOP (championship) events in the
future is pretty remote -- and yes, that is why.
The surest way to get taken down in a tournament is to have an opponent make
a bad play and get lucky (I've often speculated that this is the main reason
why TDs implemented the rule of not exposing your hand during a tourney --
showing someone AA tends to kill the action and thus the variability of the
outcome).
But there's always a reason something is considered a "bad play", and
repeated maneuvers of that sort result in probability raising its ugly head.
The players winning big hands going uphill with hands like Q-8, Q-10, and
A-9 can win any given event because the "long run" isn't so relevant.
Earl
even replying. But I will gently suggest that you get some super-satellite
final table experience before making such bold assertions.
"Tom Weideman" <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:BA1E72B1.21AA9%zwi...@attbi.com...
Perry Friedman
Craig Permenter <craigs...@tca.net> wrote:
>Tom, I am responding to you politely and respectfully because I do not wish
>to start, or engage, in *flame wars* or a long thread with numerous people
>twisting and altering my statements to prove me incorrect.
>
>A few weeks ago I posted a response to Peg's question to me about a three
>handed game where two of the three are playing out of the same bankroll. My
>statement was along the lines of " if three poker players of reasonably
>equal talent are playing three handed and two of them are playing from the
>same bankroll, the odd man out has no chance".
>
>I received numerous replies. Most tried to build a strawman and attack it,
>thereby proving me wrong. Many others tried to turn it into a math problem
>or a computer simulation in their effort to rebut by post. I believe you
>were one of the responders. I don't remember your exact response. It isn't
>important. But, If you remember that thread, doesn't it bear a striking
>resemblance to the thread you're involved in here? My thoughts on that
>subject are the same as yours below. However this time you are on the
>opposite side of the argument.
Well, of course, you were completely wrong in your conjecture, as many
people convincingly pointed out. Barring any change from their normal
behaviour, two people playing from the same bankroll have no advantage
over the third.
Perry
GROAN
White) wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:03:17 GMT, GROAN <mystoma...@ouch.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Look at all our respective 'headers' to see the path our messages to
>>RGP take. The others are from AOL, taking the same path in each case.
>>Mine are from Cox East.
>
>Please inform us, without getting aggressive or obscene or changing
>the subject or evading the question or calling into question my or
>anyone elses sexuality / integrity / identity / whatever, how you
>identify this "Daniel", BY HIS HEADERS PURLEY, ignoring the content of
>his message, from any other AOL user.
>
>If you can't answer civily, don't.
Its a data point that must be considered in the whole of the
situation.
The original question was whether it was from me or someone else.
Obviously if Skimask555 originated from anywhere else OTHER than AOL,
then we can quickly dismiss it as not being from Danny Boy, as the
probability of it being fake is high. However, the exact server path
used in both Danny Boy's 'regular' posting and Skimask555 are
identical:
Danny Boy:
Path:news2.east.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
Skimask555:
Path:news2.east.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
You need to read that backwards - I'm on Cox, he is on AOL, so the
path is from right to left. Notice that the gateway is the same.
This is important because AOL is so huge that it will have many
different geographical servers using different gateways. The fact
that the gateway used is the same at least narrows it down to the same
geographical region. Note that your path will look different than
mine, but it will be identical in Skimask555 and Danny Boy's messages.
For more discussion on "Headers" and how they can be used to detect
multiple posts from the same person, see this thread where Barbara
Yoon tried it and failed. She has taken every opportunity possible to
deny it since then (which is telling in itself), but those of us who
saw the original posts (w/ Headers) and the proof know better. Its
just funny to see her denials like clockwork. In her case it was much
more definitively (admitedly) since her ISP was so different and
unique to RGP:
I also gave more of why this is from Denial N.(yes, Denial) and not
me, elsewhere in this thread. Look at Skimask555's message in this
thread. If you have any doubts about the tournament name-dropping
style of Denial's writing, search previous google posts.
Also, it was I who first said that Russ Hamilton and Bob Stupak were
probably greatly exagerating the amount of money that was played for
in their Travel Channel heads up match, and how that makes me doubt
Russ Hamilton as a saint and to therefore doubt what he says happened
at Aruba/UB. This actually helps Danny Boy's case.
Also, for those with poker skills, who else is so bitter and
attention-seeking that he would post anti-Annie Duke questions just
hours after universal praise for her ABC interview?
Maybe I can't 'convince' you Simon, and I don't really care to beyond
pointing out the facts at hand since we quickly run into the problem
of diminishing returns - I already have my opinion on what happened at
UB/Aruba and also of the stupidity and backstabbing nature of Danny
Boy (i.e. his "Doyle is a CHEAT" "Oh I was just kidding" stance). I
don't gain much from hiring a lawyer to show you. I also don't care
what you or others think since people will form their own opinions
regardless so its stupid to try to 'convert' others. Believe what you
will, I just point out some facts.
HOWEVER, Ultimate Bet has the resources, means, and motive (if Denail
is under any kind of NDA) to subpoena AOL and get the truth about
Skimask555. AOL will turn over that information - Abdul has confirmed
this about AOL. I know with 100% certainty that if UB took legal
action, I will not be affected in any way since I can say with 100%
certainty that I am not Skimask555 and do not have any agreements with
any corporation having to do with poker. If UB takes this action, I
hope Denial Boy can say the same, but as a guy with some computer and
people reading skills, I'm willing to book all action against him. It
all depends whether he is under an NDA and whether UB wants the legal
exposure since it will probably require THEM to list information that
they aren't comfortable with. The owners of these sites seem to want
to stay more hidden than Bin Laden, so it might not happen even if
Denial has an NDA with UB. But I would encourage them to sue Denial
if he is still under an NDA, the case against him is strong and it
would be so easy to prove with AOL under subpoena. Besides, its good
business.
Tom Weideman
> Tom, I no longer get too wound up about such statements. I considered not
> even replying. But I will gently suggest that you get some super-satellite
> final table experience before making such bold assertions.
My super-satellite final table experience is utterly irrelevant, so I won't
even address the fact that you have no idea how much of this experience I
actually have. There is nothing bold about the assertion that stealing the
blinds from players who are smart enough not to get involved is the right
thing to do, while doing so against someone stupid enough to get involved
with any hand is a poor play. If you can't see the simple logic behind
this, then I suggest you save your gentle suggestions for a topic that you
actually know something about, regardless of how much experience you have.
Tom Weideman
Tom Weideman
> Tom, I am responding to you politely and respectfully because I do not wish to
> start, or engage, in *flame wars* or a long thread with numerous people
> twisting and altering my statements to prove me incorrect.
People were trying to explain something to you by simplifying it for you
through analogy. It didn't work for some reason.
> Wouldn't you agree that the answer to some situations can be found in human
> nature ( a member of a bankroll team WILL act in such a manner as to increase
> said bankroll), and can suffer from over complication?
This is not what people were arguing with you. Specifically, the entire
argument was about this:
--------------------------
taken from this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=uttaamot79h
639%40corp.supernews.com
Brecher wrote:
> Assume they don't alter their play in any manner. To have an advantage
> against the other player(s), they have to win more money (or lose less) at
> the poker table. If they don't alter their play at all, then what exactly
> has changed (due to their bankroll sharing) that will cause them to win more
> from you or lose less to you?
>
> Answer: nothing.
You replied (in part):
Incorrect.
Three handed it doesn't matter if they alter their play or not.
--------------------------
If you want to insist that people on a common bankroll will always end up
colluding, and that that collusion will lead to a problem for the third
player, then that is completely different than the issue you raised above.
Some may still disagree with your assertion that every single human being
will decide to collude, but that is mainly a matter of opinion. The stuff
that was argued was not a matter of opinion.
Anyway, the link you've tried to make between your post and my argument
isn't even close. You are arguing human nature, and I was discussing a
simple, straightforward, logical deduction. I won't reiterate what that
deduction was, but it is very different from making a gut instinct assertion
about human nature.
Tom Weideman
Mike McClain
> If UB takes this action, I
> hope Denial Boy can say the same, but as a guy with some computer and
> people reading skills, I'm willing to book all action against him.
>
The evidence is extremely strong. You won't be getting any action
from me.
As I mentioned in another thread, all of the people slapping DN on
the back for not participating in the UB fiasco might want to
consider his motive for doing so. If his reason for not participating
in the freeroll was simply because a shot at $14k (or whatever it was)
was not enough money to entice him to work with somebody
that he holds a grudge against, then this should not be viewed as
an altruistic move.
Mike.
Vince lepore
Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<BA1F6B3D.21B5D%zwi...@attbi.com>...
>
> Stop wondering. It's dangerously close to thinking and I don't want to be
> responsible for you hurting yourself.
>
> > Whether you are just
> > another pretty mind or if you indeed know something of which you write
> > about.
>
> You are ill-equipped to make that judgement.
Tom you are a small minded man. Evidence above. It's o.k. though
since you feel I am ill-equipped to judge you don't concern yourself
with my opinion.
> I assume you would "speculate" that 2+3=5. Can you prove that? Get back to
> me when you know the difference between speculation and deduction.
I am willing to speculate or deduce as the case may be that your are
also unable to prove 2+3=5.
> > Stupid
> > play? How can play that is Effective be considered stupid? If a
> > specific type of play produces a better EV then why isn't it
> > considered Smart play?
>
> You seem to have a little problem with cause and effect. Logic-impaired
> individuals typically do.
You seem to be the one that so easily assumes that results have little
if any meaning. You seem to feel that because you are unable to grasp
the reason behind a certain type of play that it must be stupid. When
in fact yourlimited logical ability may be the problem.
>Anyway, to answer your question, "Smart" in my
> world is not defined by results, it is defined by understanding what is
> going on and using that understanding to reach a goal. My point was that
> some goals in poker can only be reached if others think you are stupid. If
> you are smart, you need to deceive them to make them think you are stupid.
> If you are stupid, you need them to believe the truth.
>
Did you ever consider the possibility that your "world" may be flawed?
> > If the way you think a situation should be
> > played has less of a chance of producing a desired result then why
> > aren't you the stupid one? Did you ever consider the fact that you
> > just don't understand how to win at tourmnament play and just may
> > never get it?
>
> You really aren't very bright, are you? You think that when I post about
> the success of stupid people in tournaments that it must be because I'm
> complaining about my own inability to win,
The truth at last! Your widdle ego is hurt! Oh pooh, that mean
idiot, me, has singed the stem cells of such a beautiful mind! How
dare me!
>The fact is that I don't play tournaments at all for a variety of
reasons that you couldn't possibly grasp,
Could it be that you are a loser? Or maybe you don't understand
"stupid" play? I can grasp these reasons. Can you?
> > Don't feel alone, Sklansky and a lot of other math
> > weanies may be in the same boat.
>
> Ah, now I see. You are one of those people who gets irritated whenever some
> egghead says something about the game that you've learned from the school of
> hard knocks.
Uh! Wrong o' headegg. Wrong about how I learned poker. I am a
disciple of Sklansky and Malmuth. I thought you knew that.
>Fine, I know you have very little going for you to
> help support your self esteem, so I'll let you cling to this.
Is this your way of bolstering the self esteem of your fellow man? Gee
I hope you are not a teacher or parent.
> > But how does that equate with knowing how
> > to play poker?
>
> I challenge you to find me a math PhD who claims that his/her degree equates
> with knowing how to play poker. You are a sick man. When you read a post
> by a math weenie, do you automatically add the words, "I know a lot about
> math, therefore I am a expert poker player" to the front of their post? You
> really need to get over your prejudices.
I admit that I mispoke here. I also admit that I am a sick man. I am
sick of idiots passing themselves off as poker authorities. Know
anyone that fits the bill? I mispoke because I challenged your poker
knowledge when this thread is about poker tournaments. Something you
readily admit that you refuse to particpate in. So from where does
your expertise on this subject come? Could it be from what you refer
to as "deduction"? The same thing that I call "speculation". I bet
that I am closer to the truth.
> > As always, an admirer,
>
> Hopefully I've remedied that with this post.
>
Yes, you have. Thanks.
Vince
Tom Weideman
> Uh! Wrong o' headegg. Wrong about how I learned poker. I am a
> disciple of Sklansky and Malmuth. I thought you knew that.
Perfect, then I don't need to discuss anything more with you. Show them all
these posts we've exchanged and see what they say. I'm pretty sure their
reading comprehension and capacity for logic far exceeds yours, and maybe
the fact that you are their 'disciple' will allow them to get through to
you. I can pretty much guarantee you that they agree with me.
In fact, in the future when you feel compelled to respond to something I've
posted, just save me and rgp the trouble and go ask your mentors about it
first.
Tom Weideman
Barbara Yoon
>>> Ah, now I see. You are one of those people who gets irritated
>>> whenever some egghead says something about the game that
>>> you've learned from the school of hard knocks.
Vince lepore:
>> Uh! Wrong o' headegg. Wrong about how I learned poker. I am
>> a disciple of Sklansky and Malmuth. I thought you knew that.
Tom Weideman:
> Perfect, then I don't need to discuss anything more with you. Show them
> all these posts we've exchanged and see what they say. I'm pretty sure
> their reading comprehension and capacity for logic far exceeds yours,
> and maybe the fact that you are their 'disciple' will allow them to get
> through to you. I can pretty much guarantee you that they agree with me.
Uhh.....Tom.....that S&M would "agree" with you.....are you suggesting
that that's supposed to be *GOOD*, or something...?!
Tom Weideman
> Uhh.....Tom.....that S&M would "agree" with you.....are you suggesting
> that that's supposed to be *GOOD*, or something...?!
Uhhh......Barbara.....I would appreciate it if you wouldn't use me as a
launching pad for your personal gripes. I have my disagreements with S&M,
but this issue is so trivial that I feel confident of their reaction.
Tom Weideman
Vince lepore
>
> Perfect, then I don't need to discuss anything more with you.
Cop out! I don't need to ask S or M anything. I don't care if they
agree with me or not. I do believe however that they would probably
agree (with me) that people like you that have absolutely no
experience on a given subject (tournaments), should keep their (silly)
unprovable opinions to themselves. I doubt that you have any idea
whatsoever of what constitutes effective poker tournament strategy.
Your nothing but a windbag that has no way of proving if anything you
say about tournament play is correct or not. Shame on you for
claiming otherwise. And shame on you for trying to impress rgp with
how smart you are rather than how valuable the information you put
forth is. Your ego has gotten the best of you yet one more time. You
Albert wannabe!
If you read my original response you will find that my purpose was to
point out and discuss what you claim is "stupid" play may in fact be
approptiate tournament play. But your small mindededness and tunnel
vision will not allow you to see the forest.
Vince
Vince lepore
> >
>
> Uhh.....Tom.....that S&M would "agree" with you.....are you suggesting
> that that's supposed to be *GOOD*, or something...?!
As usual, Yoon, you ass does all your talking.
Vince
Tom Weideman
> Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<BA1FCA9C.21BF3%zwi...@attbi.com>...
>>
>> Perfect, then I don't need to discuss anything more with you.
>
> Cop out! I don't need to ask S or M anything. I don't care if they
> agree with me or not.
I agree that you are copping out. You didn't have to warn me.
> I do believe however that they would probably
> agree (with me) that people like you that have absolutely no
> experience on a given subject (tournaments), should keep their (silly)
> unprovable opinions to themselves.
But the fact that you have no knowledge whatsoever of my tournament
experience apparently has no relevance on statements like this. You
probably incorrectly drew this conclusion from my statement in this thread
that I don't play tournaments. Well I don't. Hmm, quite a puzzler. [Hint:
Maybe if I include the word "anymore" at the end of that statement you might
be able to figure it out.]
Oh, and btw you are definitely wrong. I'm quite sure that S&M would claim
that someone with no experience at something can draw simple logical
conclusions about it. I've never touched the sun, but I can say with
reasonable assuredness that it is hot.
> I doubt that you have any idea
> whatsoever of what constitutes effective poker tournament strategy.
The reason for that is simple: You wouldn't recognize effective strategy of
any kind if you saw it. You'd have to try something and get punished a
half-dozen times before you learned anything, sort of like an unhousebroken
puppy. That's why you think you need experience to draw even the simplest
conclusions.
> Your nothing but a windbag that has no way of proving if anything you
> say about tournament play is correct or not.
You are incapable of knowing the difference between "proof", "conjecture",
or "logical consequences", so it isn't surprising that you feel this way.
> Shame on you for
> claiming otherwise.
You are the one looking for proof of a tautology. Shame on me for believing
that you could understand something so trivial. Whoops, now shame on me for
lying that I ever believed this.
> And shame on you for trying to impress rgp with
> how smart you are rather than how valuable the information you put
> forth is.
Yes, I shouldn't have tried to show off by including that quantum field
theory like I did. What the hell are you talking about? If something as
simple as what I wrote went over your head, you'd be much better off just
keeping your mouth shut rather than claiming I was trying to show how smart
I was and demonstrating how stupid you are in the process.
> Your ego has gotten the best of you yet one more time. You
> Albert wannabe!
Huh?
> If you read my original response you will find that my purpose was to
> point out and discuss what you claim is "stupid" play may in fact be
> approptiate tournament play. But your small mindededness and tunnel
> vision will not allow you to see the forest.
You really are a piece of work. At no point whatsoever did I claim that any
play was stupid. I'll try to dumb it WAY down for you one last time: You
think that I am saying that IF someone makes a certain play, THEN that
person is stupid. But what I am saying is that IF a person is stupid, THEN
they might make that play. These are not equivalent statements. Try to
wrap your pea-sized brain around that, Vinny. If you can't, then go ask
someone for help. Almost anyone will do.
You have quite a knack for irony, claiming that I'm copping out while you
refuse to check with S&M, saying I can't know what I am talking about
because I have no direct experience when in fact you have no direct
knowledge of my amount of experience, and saying that I have tunnel vision
when you refuse to try to understand my premise despite my trying to explain
it to you twice (now three times).
As much as I've enjoyed helping you demonstrate your idiocy for rgp, I'm
going to have to ignore you now. Welcome to *plonk*sville. Say hi to
eleaticus for me.
Tom Weideman
William Loughborough
>
> Well, of course, you were completely wrong in your conjecture, as many
> people convincingly pointed out. Barring any change from their normal
> behaviour, two people playing from the same bankroll have no advantage
> over the third.
>
Since I sort of started the nefarious "sharing bankrolls=collusion" thread, I would like
to make one more comment about this matter: if their "normal behavior" is typical of most
humans (especially those who don't fling feces about), then they will both have and take
advantage over the third. Most of those who have defended token shares in one another insist
(protesteth too loudly?) that such action will in no way affect their play in an event - BUT
they are unsure whether they could maintain that if the share were 50%. I then wonder "how
about 40, 20, etc.?
The convincing "outpointing" starts with the premise that their play even could be unaffected
by their shared BR condition. So, if I accept the premise that they do nothing different because
of a shared BR there will be no advantage. However that seems a fairly absurd/unrealistic
premise from which to proceed.
love.
geezer
William Loughborough
> I doubt that you have any idea
> whatsoever of what constitutes effective poker tournament strategy.
I do.
1) Avoid entering them unless they are freerolls online and you have a few hours to kill.
2) Get into the side games surrounding them and wait for those who ignore "1)" to join your game.
love.
eleaticus
"William Loughborough" <lov...@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:1103_10...@news.gorge.net...
Bennett Niizawa
wrote:
>I know the subject line sounds like sour grapes,
On 13 Dec 2002 01:41:20 -0800, lepo...@hotmail.com (Vince lepore)
wrote:
>Good start. I've always wondered about you Tom.
RAISE
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:47:27 GMT, Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com>
wrote:
>Coming from you that means a lot. Heh.
RERAISE
On 13 Dec 2002 15:50:45 -0800, lepo...@hotmail.com (Vince lepore)
wrote:
>Tom you are a small minded man.
RE-RERAISE
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:34:22 GMT, Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com>
wrote:
>Perfect, then I don't need to discuss anything more with you.
RE-RE-RERAISE
On 14 Dec 2002 05:40:43 -0800, lepo...@hotmail.com (Vince lepore)
wrote:
>Cop out! I don't need to ask S or M anything.
RE-RE-RE-RERAISE
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:53:18 GMT, Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com>
wrote:
>As much as I've enjoyed helping you demonstrate your idiocy for rgp, I'm
>going to have to ignore you now. Welcome to *plonk*sville.
RE-RE-RE-RE-RERAISE
Hey, look! It's the rule of seven!
Vince lepore
Weideman you are full of crap! Did you or did you not write the
following.
"This reduces his chances of moving up the
pay scale, but increases his chances of cashing overall such that his
ev is
still higher than the dummy who is more likely to win it all but is
much
less likely to cash.
I know a fellow that is a pretty smart poker player, given that I am
able to recognize one. He played smart and finished in the money,
over 100k, in the WSOP. The winner of the WSOP, someone that everyone
that saw him play claimed that he didn't have a clue, won over 2
million. That's dollars o' genius one. Perhaps in your great deal of
prior tournament experience you somehow missed the fact that "cashing
overall" may just not produce a greater ev than to (occaisionally)
"win it all". Or is that too hard for your genius mind to understand?
> You really are a piece of work. At no point whatsoever did I claim that any
> play was stupid.
How about rereading the title of this thread.
I'll try to dumb it WAY down for you one last time: You
> think that I am saying that IF someone makes a certain play, THEN that
> person is stupid.
No I do not think that. But it's good to know that you can determine
what others are thinking. Must help you poker game.
> But what I am saying is that IF a person is stupid, THEN
> they might make that play. These are not equivalent statements.
And you had the balls to say "Huh?" to me. Talk about double talk! If
what you say here is true then why mention "stupid" in the first
place. You are now beginning to be funny or sad. I'm not sure which.
> Try to
> wrap your pea-sized brain around that, Vinny.
So in your genius mind, brain size determines intelligence. Hmmm....
interesting. Don't call me Vinny, that's reserved for my cousins.
>
> You have quite a knack for irony, claiming that I'm copping out while you
> refuse to check with S&M,
Mason does not play tournaments and I've read Sklansky's tournament
book. I don't need to ask them anything.
"saying I can't know what I am talking about"
I didn't say you "can't", I said you don't.
>Welcome to *plonk*sville. Say hi to
> eleaticus for me.
Don't try to get on my good side. It won't work.
Vince
eleaticus
> [Vince Lepore}, as much as I've enjoyed helping you demonstrate your
idiocy for rgp, I'm
> going to have to ignore you now. Welcome to *plonk*sville. Say hi to
> eleaticus for me.
What a spectacle! Tom "The Weasel/Weevil" Weideman - usually known as
'asshole' - facing off against Vince "The Limp" Lepore.
The Weasel states that it is stupid to keep raising with the nut low in O8
when someone else has it too, and says it gives the stupid one an edge
thereby.
Limpy perhaps said in his rant that if it gains an edge then it can be used
as an intelligent strategem.
Correctly, of course, if The Weasel is right. An obvious deduction from the
Weasel's thesis/theorem.
Essentially, The Weasel's argument boils down to: the first low player in
with a raise/bet takes the low if it hits and the other gets out ASAP.
Sounds like an intelligent +EV move to me.
But it does require the other low draws to be smart and give up.
Eleaticus
> Tom Weideman
Mike McClain
"Vince lepore" <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote :
>
> I know a fellow that is a pretty smart poker player, given that I am
> able to recognize one.
Your conditional is not met.
Vincent, almost every single point you've tried to make in this thread
is flawed. Additionally, you've shown no ability to reason or to
learn from somebody who knows more about the subject than
yourself. You have proven that debating with you is comepletely
futile, for you are incapable of following a path of logic.
At least, that's how I see it.
Mike.
Izmet Fekali
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:20:22 +0100, Vince lepore wrote:
> Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> Welcome to *plonk*sville. Say hi to
>> eleaticus for me.
>
> Don't try to get on my good side. It won't work.
You are being killfiled by Tom. You did get that part, right? I'm not sure...
--
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
Robert Ladd
bankroll, when playing against a third person, would not do things in their
best interest even if it's only subconsciously done.
The problem was that wasn't the premise of Craig's argument. The premise
was that even if they had no knowledge that they were playing from the same
bankroll, they would still be better off then the third person. That is
what we argued against in that thread.
In real life, the situation that they played the same bankroll and not know
it would be absurd. If a backer was controlling the bankroll and doling out
their take on a daily basis, he would make sure they know not to both be
donating from both sides of the bankroll to any other players. The backer
has a vested interest in keeping the two players informed about the nature
of the arrangement.
Obviously, the scenario where two play a shared bankroll without the benefit
of knowing it wouldn't be real world.
Robert Ladd
"William Loughborough" <lov...@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:1103_10...@news.gorge.net...
Robert Ladd
Robert Ladd
"Bennett Niizawa" <beando...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o4bnvucgo7e1gf0s0...@4ax.com...
Vince lepore
> Back off Vince, this field is too strong for you.
Izmet, please tell me what makes you think you are capable of
determining who is or isn't "strong" enough to weigh in on tournmanet
strategy. Where does your expertise come from?
> >> Welcome to *plonk*sville. Say hi to
> >> eleaticus for me.
> >
> > Don't try to get on my good side. It won't work.
>
> You are being killfiled by Tom. You did get that part, right? I'm not sure...
Do yourself and me a favor, if you feel like slinging insults my way
just add me to your *plonk*sville also.
Vince
Vince lepore
Vince.
Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<BA1F8DC9.21BA2%zwi...@attbi.com>...
Bill Vanek
lepore) wrote:
Good strategy - just get everyone who disagrees with you to
killfile you, and you'll never be wrong again. Why didn't I
think of that?
Vince lepore
> killfile you, and you'll never be wrong again. Why didn't I
> think of that?
Maybe you don't think so good. Ever think of that? BTW show me in
Izmet's post where he disagrees with anything I've said. Maybe you
don't read so well either.
Vince
Vince lepore
point is flawed. Nice touch. Tell me why you believe the genius Tom
Wiedeman knows more about tournament strategy than I do? BTW - your
inputs into this discussion have been, well to put it bluntly - non
existent. gee I wonder why?
Vince
Vince lepore
Your post really irked me. For one thing I don't believe that you
have a clue of what Weideman is trying to do here with this post
concerning tournament play. If you've read any of his posts in the
past and responses to them you would realize that his primary reason
for posting this garbage was that his tender widdle ego has been
singed over and over again.
I feel for him. I really do but life is tough so I challenged him to
please give us reason to listen to a non tournament player about
tournament strategy. Read his post again. Does he not speak with
authority when he writes. I just asked where that authority comes
from that's all. He has made it very clear that he does not play
tournaments. That seems to be important to him. So how is it that
when he is challenged he now says that I am making an outrageous
assumption that because he doesn't play tournaments that he never
played tournaments. He's right I made that assumptiuon. But instead
of telling us that he indeed has tournament experience he leaves one
to assume that he used to play them. He never says that he did.
Isn't it just as important to say that yes I've played it the past but
don't play anymore and these are my reasons. Especially when one is
trying to "show us lesser folks" the way. Maybe you can't see through
the elusive egotistical Mr. Weideman but don't fault me for not buying
his crap without some evidence that he knows what he's talking about.
If you wish to blindly follow his thoughts then that's your business.
Vince
Izmet Fekali <iz...@fekali.com> wrote in message news:<0001HW.BA21B2B4...@news.siol.net>...
A. Prock
>
>> I assume you would "speculate" that 2+3=5. Can you prove that? Get back to
>> me when you know the difference between speculation and deduction.
>
>I am willing to speculate or deduce as the case may be that your are
>also unable to prove 2+3=5.
While I believe that Tom's PhD was in physics (not math),
I'm fairly certain, that if he were so inclined, he could --
as anyone with a BA in math could do -- in fact, prove that
2+3=5.
It's not that hard to prove.
- Andrew
Peg Smith
clear the hell away when my betters are arguing, lol.)
I think I understand Tom's point very well, because I've seen it so often,
especially in on-line tourneys. For example:
When I have nut low on the flop (with no backup) in an O8 tourney against two
other opponents who are showing their willingness to jam, and I know one of
them will keep jamming with nut low, I HAVE to fold rather than let myself get
chopped to shit. The idiot's poor play, by getting me out, has become a good
play for him; but getting me out and protecting his share of the pot wasn't his
intention. All he knows is that he has nut low and he wants to get as much
money as possible in the pot; getting chopped up doesn't even enter his mind.
I can also relate to Tom's description of play late in a tournament, when
there's a short-stack. Everything he wrote made perfect sense to me. A poor
player can often gain an advantage (in SOME situations) BECAUSE of the good
player's adjustment to that poor player.
Okay, flame away.
Peg
Izmet Fekali
(in message <bbdd5c2d.0212...@posting.google.com>):
> Izmet,
>
> Your post really irked me.
I'm sorry. I hope we can still be friends. I'll be in Vegas in Jan.
> For one thing I don't believe that you
> have a clue of what Weideman is trying to do here with this post
> concerning tournament play.
I believe I do. Here's what I believe Tom's intention was, heck,
I can quote him from his original post:
"...I'm not trying to tell you that the
only way to win tournaments is to be stupid - far from it - smarter players
will win in the long run. But what I will show you is that there are quite
common situations where your opponents knowing you aren't too bright can
greatly work to your advantage."
> If you've read any of his posts in the
> past and responses to them you would realize that his primary reason
> for posting this garbage was that his tender widdle ego has been
> singed over and over again.
Tom has ego problems and I do too. Nevertheless, I have never seen it
cloud his logic.
-snip-
>... but don't fault me for not buying
> his crap without some evidence that he knows what he's talking about.
The evidence is right there in his posts. You can't beat logic.
> If you wish to blindly follow his thoughts then that's your business.
It's my business even if I don't. You are a slick talker, but it's lost
on me. Save it.
-snippety snip-
I'll try one attempt at showing you what Tom is saying.
In his first post he sayz: "... what I will show you
is that there are quite common situations where your opponents knowing
you aren't too bright can greatly work to your advantage."
Then he gives examples that you (Vince) didn't buy. Then there was
that Chicken game analogy in another post which I liked, again lost
on you. I really liked it, made me think...
In the game of Chicken (driving fast cars into each other, see who
chickens out) the most terrifying opponent is the one who is known
to be STUPID. The one who will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER chicken out,
even when he *knows* he is against an even stupider player this time
(this other guy will accelerate at the point of collision, unfasten his
seat belt, wearing a gallon of napalm tied to his chest). This is
the type you'll NEVER want to play Chicken against. Why?
Because they are fucking morons!!!
I do understand your point of view too, Vince. You are saying that
if a stupid play has high EV, doesn't it then become a smart play?
It must! Hey, it's profitable!
I don't think so. I will never be the crazy guy in the Chicken game.
Remember the Cuban Missiles Crisis? What if the Russians were stupid
enuff? Kennedy has to back off, period. CCCP : USA = 1 : 0.
Mike McClain
"Vince lepore" <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote :
>
> Could it be possible that your the one with flawed reasoning? Every
> point is flawed. Nice touch.
It wasn't meant to be a 'nice touch'. I began to respond to your post,
and noticed that I was typing something about every sentence that you
wrote. I realized then that there was no point in doing so.
> Tell me why you believe the genius Tom
> Wiedeman knows more about tournament strategy than I do?
I didn't say that, but if this conversation were the only information
available to me, then that is the only conclusion I could make. Tom's
thoughts have had a foundation of logic, while you've demonstrated
nothing but a senseless attack. You've clearly got a personal
problem with Tom, which is fine, but I thought I should let you
know that it might be clouding your judgement. Then again, it
might not be.
> BTW - your
> inputs into this discussion have been, well to put it bluntly - non
> existent. gee I wonder why?
Actually, I sent Tom some email telling him I liked his post. His
ideas were spot-on, well-described, and extremely complete, so
I had nothing to add to it. When you got involved, then I had a
little something to work with. Actually, too much to work with.
Mike.
Earl
play in a super-satellite. His analysis, while correct from the standpoint
of "stupid" players making errors that cost you money, used a poor example
to demonstrate it in the case of a super-satellite. Unless you are the short
stack, an attempt to steal blinds in that situation would show incredibly
poor judgment. I recall one very good player who lost 5 WSOP
super-satellites in a row from the final table because he wasn't wise enough
to stay out of the pot once he got there.
"Peg Smith" <pegsm...@aol.comnocrap> wrote in message
news:20021215165032...@mb-da.aol.com...
Tom Weideman
> Unless you are the short
> stack, an attempt to steal blinds in that situation would show incredibly
> poor judgment.
Let me try a different tack, Earl. Consider the following situation:
You are at the final table of a NLH super-satellite, with 9 players left and
8 places getting paid $10k. You have T600. The blinds are T100-T200.
There is one player with just T100 left, one other player with T600, and
everyone else at the table has various amounts more than T600. You post
your big blind. Everyone folds around to the button, who is the other
player with T700, and he moves in. The small blind folds. With what hands
do you defend your blind?
I'll go out on a limb and assume that you would (correctly) fold every hand
you could hold, including pocket aces. I also assume you would do the same
if you were the small blind (and your stack could be crippled by the T700
loss). That being the case, if you, as the button, knew that the blinds are
thinking as you would, why wouldn't you steal their blinds?
Okay, so maybe you aren't certain they are thinking that way, and you can't
see an upside. But there is an upside! Suppose you don't steal their
blinds when you are the button, and someone does steal yours when you are in
the blinds. If the short stack survives his blinds (he only needs to win
his big blind hand), now YOU need to survive the blinds! It didn't have to
be this way. You could have just maintained the status quo by taking the
free blinds that you had coming to you.
But wait! What if the blinds that you want to steal are being played by
people you believe to be idiots that probably don't realize (as you do when
you are in the blinds) that their best play is to lay low and wait for the
short stack to bust out? Well, if you know they are that dumb (or think
there is a reasonable chance that they are), then you can't risk trying to
steal their blinds. This hurts your chances (and helps the chances of the
stupid players in the blinds). Note that I am not saying that the blinds
have to actually BE stupid for this to come about, only that you have to
think they are dumb enough to defend their blinds. Of course, one way that
this can come about is for them to actually be this stupid. Another way is
to put on a convincing act that they are this clueless.
So in a sense I agree with you, that stealing the blinds in this situation
can be a really dumb play, but ONLY if you think the blinds are stupid
enough to actually defend (but even then defending is much dumber than
trying to steal). If you think they grasp the idea of this endgame
situation, then it is certainly correct to try to pad your tenuous lead on
the short stack if you can.
Tom Weideman
Scott N
I don't understand the argument here. This is obvious.
Maybe you shouldn't have used the term "stupid" to describe the players
who choose to defend here. I think that is what set this whole thing
off. Maybe "Ignorant" or "unknowledgeable".
Scott N
KrisppyKreme
lepo...@hotmail.com (Vince lepore) writes:
>Your ego has gotten the best of you yet one more time.
It's awfully arrogant to speak about yourself in the second person.
Krisppy Kreme
Craig Permenter
have more money when I quit than when I started.
What is yours?
"Perry Friedman" <frie...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:atdhh3$8in$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <uvkh5li...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Craig Permenter <craigs...@tca.net> wrote:
> >Tom, I am responding to you politely and respectfully because I do not
wish
> >to start, or engage, in *flame wars* or a long thread with numerous
people
> >twisting and altering my statements to prove me incorrect.
> >
> >A few weeks ago I posted a response to Peg's question to me about a three
> >handed game where two of the three are playing out of the same bankroll.
My
> >statement was along the lines of " if three poker players of reasonably
> >equal talent are playing three handed and two of them are playing from
the
> >same bankroll, the odd man out has no chance".
> >
> >I received numerous replies. Most tried to build a strawman and attack
it,
> >thereby proving me wrong. Many others tried to turn it into a math
problem
> >or a computer simulation in their effort to rebut by post. I believe you
> >were one of the responders. I don't remember your exact response. It
isn't
> >important. But, If you remember that thread, doesn't it bear a striking
> >resemblance to the thread you're involved in here? My thoughts on that
> >subject are the same as yours below. However this time you are on the
> >opposite side of the argument.
>
>
> Well, of course, you were completely wrong in your conjecture, as many
> people convincingly pointed out. Barring any change from their normal
> behaviour, two people playing from the same bankroll have no advantage
> over the third.
>
> Perry
>
Craig Permenter
"Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kGUK9.61892$jf7.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
> I think it would be absurd to think that two people that shared the same
> bankroll, when playing against a third person, would not do things in
their
> best interest even if it's only subconsciously done.
>
> The problem was that wasn't the premise of Craig's argument. The premise
> was that even if they had no knowledge that they were playing from the
same
> bankroll, they would still be better off then the third person. That is
> what we argued against in that thread.
Robert, I don't remember that as being the basis of my statement. I don't
think I said anything about them not knowing that they were playing from the
same bankroll. But as I read your statement below I believe you see my
though process from the very beginning. It simply goes against human nature
to act against one's on best self interest.(increasing bankroll for poker
players)
>
> In real life, the situation that they played the same bankroll and not
know
> it would be absurd. If a backer was controlling the bankroll and doling
out
> their take on a daily basis, he would make sure they know not to both be
> donating from both sides of the bankroll to any other players. The backer
> has a vested interest in keeping the two players informed about the nature
> of the arrangement.
>
> Obviously, the scenario where two play a shared bankroll without the
benefit
> of knowing it wouldn't be real world.
True enough.
Craig Permenter
> Craig Permenter wrote:
>
> > Tom, I am responding to you politely and respectfully because I do not
wish to
> > start, or engage, in *flame wars* or a long thread with numerous people
> > twisting and altering my statements to prove me incorrect.
>
> through analogy. It didn't work for some reason.
Perhaps it was because they were wrong?
>
> > Wouldn't you agree that the answer to some situations can be found in
human
> > nature ( a member of a bankroll team WILL act in such a manner as to
increase
> > said bankroll), and can suffer from over complication?
>
> This is not what people were arguing with you. Specifically, the entire
> argument was about this:
>
> --------------------------
> taken from this post:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=uttaamot79h
> 639%40corp.supernews.com
>
> Brecher wrote:
>
> > Assume they don't alter their play in any manner. To have an advantage
> > against the other player(s), they have to win more money (or lose less)
at
> > the poker table. If they don't alter their play at all, then what
exactly
> > has changed (due to their bankroll sharing) that will cause them to win
more
> > from you or lose less to you?
> >
> > Answer: nothing.
>
> You replied (in part):
>
> Incorrect.
> Three handed it doesn't matter if they alter their play or not.
Each and every time a poker player is forced to take action I always assume
they will take the action that most increases their chance of success. I
believe that is a very safe assumption. My play is altered every time I play
because every situation is different.
I suppose I could have ( and evidentialy should have) taken more time and
went into greater detail, but I considered it very elemental.
The bankroll players do not need signals, they do not need to raise the odd
man into the other. Nothing so overt. Simply sit down and play poker in such
a manner as to get up with more chips than you sit down with is all it
takes. That is not altering my play, would it be altering yours?
> --------------------------
>
> If you want to insist that people on a common bankroll will always end up
> colluding, and that that collusion will lead to a problem for the third
> player, then that is completely different than the issue you raised above.
> Some may still disagree with your assertion that every single human being
> will decide to collude, but that is mainly a matter of opinion. The stuff
> that was argued was not a matter of opinion.
>
> Anyway, the link you've tried to make between your post and my argument
> isn't even close. You are arguing human nature, and I was discussing a
> simple, straightforward, logical deduction. I won't reiterate what that
> deduction was, but it is very different from making a gut instinct
assertion
> about human nature.
>
>
> Tom Weideman
>
Barbara Yoon
> Consider the following situation:
> You are at the final table of a NLH super-satellite, with 9 players left and
> 8 places getting paid $10k. You have T600. The blinds are T100-T200.
> There is one player with just T100 left, one other player with T600,
> and everyone else at the table has various amounts more than T600.
> You post your big blind. Everyone folds around to the button, who
> The small blind folds. With what hands do you defend your blind?
> I'll go out on a limb and assume that you would (correctly) fold
> every hand you could hold, including pocket aces.
Tom.....if in the situation you describe here, you were to fold your aces,
and then if the short stack were to lose in his big blind, then you're in
-- but if the short stack were to survive his blinds, then you too would
need to get through your own next blinds, and so on.....so what are you
estimating as the probabilities for those possibilities...?!
Mike McClain
"Craig Permenter" <craigs...@tca.net> wrote :
>
> >
> > Incorrect.
> > Three handed it doesn't matter if they alter their play or not.
>
> Each and every time a poker player is forced to take action I always assume
> they will take the action that most increases their chance of success. I
> believe that is a very safe assumption. My play is altered every time I play
> because every situation is different.
> I suppose I could have ( and evidentialy should have) taken more time and
> went into greater detail, but I considered it very elemental.
A persona's 'strategy' is the collection of all of the decisions he will
make in all of the situations. Just because two people both raise with
AA preflop, it does not mean that they are playing with the same
strategy, just that both of their strategies share the same action for
that particular situation. You are not 'altering your play' for each
situation, you are using your method of play to determine what action
to take for each situation. The final decision is not your strategy.
When one strategy includes the play of somebody else in a different
manner than another strategy, then these two strategies are different.
If you sometimes use one strategy, then switch to the other, you have
'altered your play'.
> The bankroll players do not need signals, they do not need to raise the odd
> man into the other. Nothing so overt. Simply sit down and play poker in such
> a manner as to get up with more chips than you sit down with is all it
> takes. That is not altering my play, would it be altering yours?
>
Craig... we made it extremely clear what it meant to be 'altering your
play'. The example of not knowing that you were splitting with
somebody was meant to point out to you just what our definition
of 'not altering your play' meant. I don't know how we could have
been more clear.
When you make a poker decision playing in a non-collusive manner,
you are attempting to maximize your stack size. If you are making a
decision in an effort to maximize the sum of your stack size and that
of another player, your decision (ie call,, fold, raise, bet) is sometimes
going to be different thasn it would have been in the non-collusive
situation.
Just because both methods have a similar trait (ie, maximizing personal
profit), it would be quite a stretch to claim that both are an equivalent
strategy. If one person had the ability to pass through cars, would
you say that his strategy for crossing the street would be the same as
yours, simply because both allow you to cross the street without dying?
Shit... I used an analogy to try to make a point.
Anyway, at this point, you've claimed that the results of the shared
bankroll will cause their poker decisions to change. So finally,
after all this time, we are able to recognize that we were arguing two
different points.
So we are not disagreeing anymore, but I am perplexed as to how
this could go on as long as it did, when we made every effort to make
sure that our definition of 'not altering your play in any way' was
well-defined. To be quite honest, I think you've altered your
definition. As support for this, your post quoted above also
conatined the following:
> Incorrect.
> Three handed it doesn't matter if they alter their play or not. And by the
> way, that is a huge "IF".
Why would you discern 'that is a huge IF' fi you felt that the shared
bankroll meant it was given that they would alter their final actions?
Then, you said the following:
> Here is a secnario for you. Odd man out turns top pair with A kicker. One of
> the bankroll buddies has nut straight draw, one has nut flush draw. If
> EITHER of them hits they BOTH win. Does that not increase their odds of
> beating the third player?
You act as though the mere holding of these draws by the shared bankroll
puts the top-pair at a disadvantage that he would not be at had the other
two not been sharing a bankroll. If every poker decision (again, from the
set of {raise, call, bet, check, fold}) is identical in this hand as it would
be if these two were not sharing a bankroll, then the top-pair has not
suffered in any way.
If you disagree with this, then we still disagree, and you are still wrong.
And I'm willing to leave it at that once again.
Mike.
Tom Weideman
I don't know why I am bothering, because you're being so obtuse that I doubt
there's any chance I'll get through, but what the hell...
Craig Permenter wrote:
> Tom Weideman wrote:
>> People were trying to explain something to you by simplifying it for you
>> through analogy. It didn't work for some reason.
>
> Perhaps it was because they were wrong?
They weren't. But I can see you that are either unwilling or unable to
abstract enough to understand an analogy that burns away all the unnecessary
information and focuses on the issue, so I will simply approach this
directly, without using analogy.
>> You replied (in part):
>>
>> Incorrect.
>> Three handed it doesn't matter if they alter their play or not.
>
> Each and every time a poker player is forced to take action I always assume
> they will take the action that most increases their chance of success. I
> believe that is a very safe assumption. My play is altered every time I play
> because every situation is different.
> I suppose I could have ( and evidentialy should have) taken more time and
> went into greater detail, but I considered it very elemental.
>
> The bankroll players do not need signals, they do not need to raise the odd
> man into the other. Nothing so overt. Simply sit down and play poker in such
> a manner as to get up with more chips than you sit down with is all it
> takes. That is not altering my play, would it be altering yours?
This almost clarifies your position, but there is still a little wiggle
room, which I would like to eliminate to make sure we are talking about the
same thing.
I want you to think about two sessions of poker. These sessions are almost
identical to each other. Both last for exactly 200 hands. Both are
3-handed - You, me, and someone else. The only difference between the two
sessions is that in session #1 the third player is "George", a friend of
yours who shares a bankroll with you, and in session #2 the third player is
"Bill", who neither of us knows. It turns out that Bill learned how to play
from George, and they actually play exactly the same in every situation that
arises in a holdem game.
Also, let's imagine (don't tell me this isn't possible, I know that, just
bear with me) that both sessions have the same hands dealt throughout. What
I mean is that hand #1 of session #1 lays out exactly the same as hand #1 of
session #2 (everyone has the same cards in the same positions with the same
board). If George was not sharing a bankroll with you, then I hope you
agree that the two sessions are guaranteed to follow identical actions in
every hand, because they are identical in every way. And everyone will have
the same amount of money at the end of one session as they do at the end of
the other.
Okay, now my question is, will the actions in the two sessions still be
identical when George shares a bankroll with you, or will George alter his
play from what he would normally do? That is, will George and Bill still
play identically as before?
Rather than just post this question and wait for your response, I'll just
finish...
Every single person who was arguing against you was saying that if George's
actions were not different from Bill's despite the bankroll sharing, then
the bankroll sharing does not hurt the third player (me). I would think
this was pretty obvious. End of discussion.
Every one of those posters arguing with you conceded that IF YOU MUST INSIST
that it is just human nature for George to alter his play because of the
common bankroll (whether that different play was obvious or subtle is
irrelevant), then yes, the third player could get hurt. But your belief
that this is human nature is just an opinion, and some people posted their
opposing opinion that it is possible for people to play on a common bankroll
without altering their play. This difference of opinion cannot be resolved,
and everyone needs to agree to disagree. End of discussion.
My intention in this post was to attempt to clear up waters that you have (I
believe unintentionally) muddied by confusing the two issues I described
above. I can think of nothing further to say to clarify the issue: If you
believe that two players playing on a common bankroll always will alter
their play to benefit that bankroll from how two identical players would
play when not on a common bankroll, then we are just left with a difference
of opinion and there is nothing more to discuss. If you think that just the
mere fact that they are pooling their resources will change outcomes (and
there is some evidence that you believe this from your posts), then you are
just plain wrong, and since this is my best effort, there is still nothing
left to discuss.
Tom Weideman
Tom Weideman
This is a complicated situation, and perhaps I was a bit sloppy about coming
up with an easy-to-calculate situation, but I had hoped that the reader
would understand the main point, which had little to do with the specifics
of the example I chose. Since your penchant for picking nits requires me to
do so, I will restate it in a more vague manner:
There are situations (which I will no longer attempt to detail as it gets
very complicated and Barbara will require me to do all the math to prove it)
in super-satellites where your chances of finishing in the money are greater
than ~85% if you just fold everything in the blinds to a raise. (This
number is approximately the probability of AA winning heads up against a
random hand.) When this situation comes up, if you know the big blind is
aware of it, you can safely steal his blind with any two cards, because he
is better off surrendering than taking you on with only an 85% chance of
winning with his AA.
I am very sorry for having to state that such situations exist (and for
implying that they are fairly common, especially when the blinds get high)
without providing proof. If the reader doesn't believe me, then I guess
I'll have to live with that, because there is no way I am going to take the
time to give a detailed proof of this.
Tom Weideman
Craig Permenter
suppose I was being less than through in my explanation. I consider it
elementary that it is impossible for someone to not be aware that they are
playing from a common bankroll and act accordingly. To me, a person would
have to consciously act against their own self best interest to do
otherwise. Where are we going to find poker players like that ?
That was my first post of poker content here. I learned a great lesson. In
the future I will be more precise with even the most elemental of subjects.
There is a little more to follow.
"Mike McClain" <mmcclain_...@omsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ueoL9.16713$K5.1826@fe01...
I agree. But why? I only made one statement origionaly.
I also said in another secondary statement that I was not referring to a
math problem or computer simulation. Most of these hands will not go three
handed to the river. That sentence didn't seem to gather as much of your
attention.
>
> If you disagree with this, then we still disagree, and you are still
wrong.
> And I'm willing to leave it at that once again.
>
>
>
> Mike.
>
Well evidentialy we have boiled this down to my secondary statement that the
bankroll players don't have to alter their play. I agree that that wasn't
very well put or explained on my behalf. You must have chosen to ignore
another secondary statement I made that this wasn't a math quiz or a
computer simulation. Nitpicking and parsing of words aside I stand by my
origional (or reasonably close to it I am not going to search for it) and
factual statement of " If three poker players of reasonably equal talent are
playing poker and two of them are sharing a bankroll the odd man out has no
chance".
>
Craig Permenter
> Craig,
>
> I don't know why I am bothering, because you're being so obtuse that I
doubt
> there's any chance I'll get through, but what the hell..
Whenever someone holds a different position than yours are they always
being obtuse or just wrong ?
>
> Craig Permenter wrote:
>
> > Tom Weideman wrote:
>
> >> People were trying to explain something to you by simplifying it for
you
> >> through analogy. It didn't work for some reason.
> >
> > Perhaps it was because they were wrong?
>
> They weren't. But I can see you that are either unwilling or unable to
> abstract enough to understand an analogy that burns away all the
unnecessary
> information and focuses on the issue, so I will simply approach this
> directly, without using analogy.
Strawman analogies that change the origional statement do not refute the
origional statement.
Your point is clear Tom, but strawman analogies do not refute origional
statements.
>
> Rather than just post this question and wait for your response, I'll just
> finish...
>
> Every single person who was arguing against you was saying that if
George's
> actions were not different from Bill's despite the bankroll sharing, then
> the bankroll sharing does not hurt the third player (me). I would think
> this was pretty obvious. End of discussion.
Not every person arguing against my statement was doing so from that angle.
Some made up their own statement and then attacked it as proof that mine was
wrong. That is a different angle.
>
> Every one of those posters arguing with you conceded that IF YOU MUST
INSIST
> that it is just human nature for George to alter his play because of the
> common bankroll (whether that different play was obvious or subtle is
> irrelevant), then yes, the third player could get hurt. But your belief
> that this is human nature is just an opinion, and some people posted their
> opposing opinion that it is possible for people to play on a common
bankroll
> without altering their play. This difference of opinion cannot be
resolved,
> and everyone needs to agree to disagree. End of discussion.
I agree it is an opinion. It is an opinion formed from emphrical evidence
gathered over 26 years of dealing with people in the business world and
playing holdem poker.
>
> My intention in this post was to attempt to clear up waters that you have
(I
> believe unintentionally) muddied by confusing the two issues I described
> above. I can think of nothing further to say to clarify the issue: If you
> believe that two players playing on a common bankroll always will alter
> their play to benefit that bankroll from how two identical players would
> play when not on a common bankroll, then we are just left with a
difference
> of opinion and there is nothing more to discuss. If you think that just
the
> mere fact that they are pooling their resources will change outcomes (and
> there is some evidence that you believe this from your posts), then you
are
> just plain wrong, and since this is my best effort, there is still nothing
> left to discuss.
I am not sure the waters were muddied my me. I believe it quite possible
they were muddied by those who modified, and/or added qualifiers to) my
origional statement.
I also understand now that your contention was with a secondary statement I
made that was not very well thought out or explained. The one referring to
altering play. Mea Culpa. I also made a secondary statement that this
wasn't a math problem or a computer simulation. That statement didn't seem
to capture your imagination with regards to the validity of my origional
statement.
I agree to a friendly disagreement here. It is inconceiveable to me, that
when push comes to shove, that a common bankroll will not alter what a
person conceives (even subconsiously) is the right action (no moral
attachment here).
> Tom Weideman
>
Robert Ladd
Tom's description for the situation is the best one I've seen so far. If
(and you seem to have a problem with me saying "if", but it goes to the
heart of the question) two players play the same bankroll WITHOUT ANY
KNOWLEDGE that they are doing so, then the 3rd player is at no disadvantage
whatsoever. He is just one of three players playing poker. His bankroll is
up or down the same amount whether the other two find out later they were
really playing the same bankroll or not.
Now the other situation. On my previous post in this thread, I stated that
two people that were knowingly playing off the same bankroll would
definitely be working in their best interest at all times, and would
therefore alter their play to try and take as much as possible from the 3rd
player. After thinking about it there are probably many situations that two
players playing off the common bankroll might not play to their best common
interest besides the obvious that they just might not know how to collude
well, and end up winning less than if they didn't try to collude.
Robert Ladd
"Tom Weideman" <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:BA235D06.21E5D%zwi...@attbi.com...
Mike McClain
"Craig Permenter" <craigs...@tca.net> wrote :
> Mike I am perfectly willing to agree with every thing you have said here.
Okay, I think we've neared the end of this thread.
> I
> suppose I was being less than through in my explanation. I consider it
> elementary that it is impossible for someone to not be aware that they are
> playing from a common bankroll and act accordingly. To me, a person would
> have to consciously act against their own self best interest to do
> otherwise. Where are we going to find poker players like that ?
There are some people that would not rob from another person even
if he was assured 100% that he would not get caught or harmed in
any way. Do you not know any of these people?
Again, I've used an analogy, damn me, but my point is that there are
some people that could share a bankroll at the same table and not
alter their play in a collusive manner. I've seen those people. They
usually go to the extreme to make sure that everybody knows they
are clean, to the point of costing themselves money.
Not everybody has a utility that only includes their own self-interest.
Some of us actually care enough about other people to include them
in that utility. Some of us with that utility actually play the game called
poker. I'm sorry to hear that those people do not exist in Texas.
So, by your logic, isn't the act of not finding a partner also going
against your own self-interest? So you seem to be claiming that every
single person that plays poker has either found some partners, or he
is currently on the hunt for those partners, since after all, every poker
player must be out to maximize his own best interests.
>
> Well evidentialy we have boiled this down to my secondary statement that the
> bankroll players don't have to alter their play. I agree that that wasn't
> very well put or explained on my behalf. You must have chosen to ignore
> another secondary statement I made that this wasn't a math quiz or a
> computer simulation. Nitpicking and parsing of words aside I stand by my
> origional (or reasonably close to it I am not going to search for it) and
> factual statement of " If three poker players of reasonably equal talent are
> playing poker and two of them are sharing a bankroll the odd man out has no
> chance".
>
I'd be willing to let you step out of this with the claim that you did not
state your intent well enough, except that you had to accuse us of picking
nits. The conversation has enough evidence in there to show that we
did not just confuse each other's stance... for example, you mentioned
that the two-some had twice as many opportunities to get dealt AA.
That's also the case when the two are not altering their actions
in any manner, and it makes no difference. So either you are wrong
about that point, or you really did mean that it makes a difference even
if they did not alter their actions.
You also stated:
> The reason they have such a HUGE advantage is because THEY ARE
> GOING TO CUT UP THE MONEY AFTER THE GAME.
Again, if two people do not alter their actions in any way, then it
does not matter that they are going to cut up the money. You
state that this is the REASON they have the advantage, and that
simply is not the case.
So while you claim we are picking nits over a single statement that
you made, that is not the case at all. You supported this statement
with quite a few other statements. You posted about a dozen times
in the previous threads, you had plenty of opportunity to realize that
we were not talking the same language, and yet you persisted in
trying to support the statement in the translation that we had made.
If you no longer agree with that statement, then fine, but I don't think
it's fair to claim that you never really felt that way in the first place.
I'd let you get away with it though, if you can do it without claiming
that I was picking nits.
Mike.
Ken M
Where the hell you been? I haven't seen one of your posts in a looong time. I
always enjoyed them.
Tom Weideman
>
> "Tom Weideman" <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:BA235D06.21E5D%zwi...@attbi.com...
>> Craig,
>>
>> I don't know why I am bothering, because you're being so obtuse that I doubt
>> there's any chance I'll get through, but what the hell..
>>
> Whenever someone holds a different position than yours are they always
> being obtuse or just wrong ?
They are not all being obtuse, but if my position is opposite to theirs,
then of course I think they are wrong. Otherwise why would I take an
opposite position?
You, on the other hand, seem to have just one line of defense: You call
everyone's arguments "strawman analogies" or "nitpicks", even when they are
not analogies and go straight to the heart of the question at hand. (And
btw, analogies when they are used properly as they were to try to explain
this to you are usually very effective teaching devices. I only spent more
time on this subject avoiding analogy because I was fascinated that the use
of analogy seemed to be completely ineffective with you.) You are either
unable to see the issue clearly enough to boil it down to its essence
yourself, or you are blowing smoke so you don't have to admit you are wrong.
Whether intentional or not, you are indeed being obtuse. I posted what I
did to make the whole issue as crystal clear as possible, so that you could
either pretend the whole thing was a big misunderstanding, or you could
shoot yourself in the foot. You apparently chose the latter, so my work
here is done.
Tom Weideman
Vince lepore
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:19:17 +0100, Vince lepore wrote
> (in message <bbdd5c2d.0212...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > Izmet,
> >
> > Your post really irked me.
>
> I'm sorry. I hope we can still be friends. I'll be in Vegas in Jan.
Whatever, I always chop blinds.
> I believe I do. Here's what I believe Tom's intention was, heck,
> I can quote him from his original post:
>
> "...I'm not trying to tell you that the
> only way to win tournaments is to be stupid - far from it - smarter players
> will win in the long run. But what I will show you is that there are quite
> common situations where your opponents knowing you aren't too bright can
> greatly work to your advantage."
Now I see the problem. You really believe that the above quote makes
sense or in your words "is logical".
>
> Tom has ego problems and I do too. Nevertheless, I have never seen it
> cloud his logic.
>
Maybe you need glasses.
> I'll try one attempt at showing you what Tom is saying.
>
> In his first post he sayz: "... what I will show you
> is that there are quite common situations where your opponents knowing
> you aren't too bright can greatly work to your advantage."
>
> Then he gives examples that you (Vince) didn't buy. Then there was
> that Chicken game analogy in another post which I liked, again lost
> on you. I really liked it, made me think...
Why are you accusing me of not buying his examples? You are beginning
to mimic Weideman. Inventing facts to bolster your position. I guess
that these type of tactics are logical and can be effective. I just
thought better of you. I guess a little of Weideman has rubbed off.
>
>
> I do understand your point of view too, Vince. You are saying that
> if a stupid play has high EV, doesn't it then become a smart play?
> It must! Hey, it's profitable!
>
>
> I don't think so. I will never be the crazy guy in the Chicken game.
>
Maybe you don't read so well either. If you notice the statement you
refer to is posed in the form of question not a fact. I don't know
whether you have played tournaments or not. In my tournament
experience I have been forced to make plays that I would consider
"stupid" in live game play. Tommy boy took my questioning as an
attack on his intelligence. It wasn't. I was questioning
his experience and how it related to what he calls stupid play.
Weideman and your problem is that you believe that if a play appears
to be stupid that it cannot be the logical thing to do. That is
completely wrong especially in tournament play and probably in the
game of chicken too! You both seem to be more interested in calling
names and slinging mud than sticking to the issue. More interested in
protecting your ego than seeking the truth. Sad.
Vince
Vince lepore
Peg,
Hi. The title of this thread is what drew me to it in the first
place. Since you say that you understand Weideman's point, please
explain How you feel that "Stupidity" is a big tournament advantage?
I don't.
Vince
Scott N
news:bbdd5c2d.02121...@posting.google.com:
> pegsm...@aol.comnocrap (Peg Smith) wrote in message
> news:<20021215165032...@mb-da.aol.com>...
>
> Peg,
>
> Hi. The title of this thread is what drew me to it in the first
> place. Since you say that you understand Weideman's point, please
> explain How you feel that "Stupidity" is a big tournament advantage?
> I don't.
>
> Vince
>
>
A while back, Daniel N hit upon this point but to a somewhat different
degree and to a different "tone". I will search for it and try and post it
later as a reference, but I think it correlates pretty well to this
discusion/debate. And had we all not flamed him so much, RGP might still
have him to jump in here himself.
He mentioned on how tournament players are able to put themselves in
slightly poor situations and make tiny mistakes that end up being
advantageous Tourny Plays but over time would kill them in live high limit
play. He mentioned that they just sometimes aren't aware or accepting of
that fact and this numbing down effect gives them a big advantage in
Tourny's. This is what I think Tom was referring to as "being Stupid" but
came across wrong??
But for some reason I completely understood (and agree) with Tom on this
from Post 1.
Scott N
Mike McClain
"Scott N" <bigs...@linuxmail.org> wrote :
>
> A while back, Daniel N hit upon this point but to a somewhat different
> degree and to a different "tone". I will search for it and try and post it
> later as a reference, but I think it correlates pretty well to this
> discusion/debate. And had we all not flamed him so much, RGP might still
> have him to jump in here himself.
>
Actually, Scott, I believe that Daniel did reply in this thread. He was
the first to respond, as the nick 'Skimask555'.
Mike.
Peg Smith
>Peg,
>
>Hi. The title of this thread is what drew me to it in the first
>place. Since you say that you understand Weideman's point, please
>explain How you feel that "Stupidity" is a big tournament advantage?
>I don't.
>
>Vince
Hi, Vince!
I don't remember Tom saying it was a "big" advantage, but I'll admit I'm
getting older and more senile every day; my recollection is that he said it
could be an advantage in some situations.
Peg
Peg Smith
pegsm...@aol.comnocrap (Peg Smith) writes:
>Hi, Vince!
>
>I don't remember Tom saying it was a "big" advantage, but I'll admit I'm
>getting older and more senile every day; my recollection is that he said it
>could be an advantage in some situations.
I'm also full of cold medicine (and a shot of Cuervo, merely for medicinal
purposes), so I didn't equate "big advantage" with the title of the thread.
Duh. Despite the title, though, I still got the impression that Tom was
referring to advantages gained in certain situations, not an overall tournament
advantage. If I've misunderstood, I'll bow out of this discussion as gracefully
as possible and beg everyone's forgiveness for my impertinence. :-)
Peg (achoo!) Smith
KrisppyKreme
>Do yourself and me a favor, if you feel like slinging insults my way
>just add me to your *plonk*sville also.
>
>Vince
Are you being ignored over on 2+2? Terrible feeling, isn't it?
Krisppy Kreme
KrisppyKreme
lepo...@hotmail.com (Vince lepore) writes:
>I challenged him to
>please give us reason to listen to a non tournament player about
>tournament strategy.
I thought I killfiled Razzo, but he keeps sneaking back with new identities.
Krisppy Kreme
KrisppyKreme
writes:
>Of course, one way that
>this can come about is for them to actually be this stupid.
Are you talking about Vince Lepore?
Krisppy Kreme
KrisppyKreme
<bigs...@linuxmail.org> writes:
>Maybe you shouldn't have used the term "stupid" to describe the players
>who choose to defend here. I think that is what set this whole thing
>off. Maybe "Ignorant" or "unknowledgeable".
>
>Scott N
You know, I've about had it with political correctness. If someone is stupid,
then that's what they are. Deal with it.
Krisppy Kreme
Scott N
news:20021217040219...@mb-cb.aol.com:
{laughing}
What I would have liked to said, but fell victim to correctness.
Damnit
BUT, and I'd hate to nitpick, being "unknowledgeable" is NOT the same as
being "Stupid". Stupid means mentally uncapable of being knowledgeable.
Almost really not their fault.
stu-pid
1 Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2 Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3 Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a
stupid mistake
unknowledgeable
adj : lacking information or knowledge; "an unknowledgeable assistant"
[syn: ignorant, unknowing, unwitting]
Darryl Parsons
with all your observations and it is indeed eye-opening to see that
stupidity has its advantages in certain situations.
To me it is obvious that the negative reactions you are getting are
caused by some people assuming you are a calling them stupid when it
is crystal clear that this is not the case. It just points out an
area of hypersensitivity in these individuals and if I were you I
wouldn't get too concerned about it.
Maybe on your side there is a bit of "it sucks to be so smart yet to
have such a difficult time being successful at poker", but on their
side its the other way around. If I had to choose between being smart
and being successful at poker, I'd take the brains in a nanosecond.
Brains are forever whereas poker success comes and goes like the wind.
I hope you continue to make such posts because it is ideas like these
that add to the pool of knowledge in a meaningful way.
Darryl Parsons
Vince lepore
> A while back, Daniel N hit upon this point but to a somewhat different
> degree and to a different "tone".
He mentioned on how tournament players are able to put themselves in
> slightly poor situations and make tiny mistakes that end up being
> advantageous Tourny Plays but over time would kill them in live high limit
> play. He mentioned that they just sometimes aren't aware or accepting of
> that fact and this numbing down effect gives them a big advantage in
> Tourny's. This is what I think Tom was referring to as "being Stupid" but
> came across wrong??
>
It came accross wrong because this is not what Weideman said or in my
opinion meant. What Daniel says is more in line with my views. In
tournaments to be successful one may need to do things that appear
"stupid" but in fact are appropriate actions given the situation.
This is what Weideman jumped all over me for bringing up in this
thread. That is why I challenged his ability to define effective
tournament strategy and asked for a brief description of his
tournament experience. His response by attacking me, I believe, shows
his inadequacies when it comes to discussing tournament strategy.
Quite frankly he has not given me any reason to doubt my first
impression. That is, that he does not know what he is talking about.
Vince
Izmet Fekali
(in message <bbdd5c2d.02121...@posting.google.com>):
> You both seem to be more interested in calling
> names and slinging mud than sticking to the issue.
I have never called you names. I am in disagreement with you and
you are taking it personally. There is no reasoning with you.
--
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
Daniel Testa
Tom, even if George does not alter his play, you still need to account
for the possibility that you might alter your own play in this
analogy.
eleaticus
that there is a big advantage, although the is probably what he meant.
Eleaticus
"Peg Smith" <pegsm...@aol.comnocrap> wrote in message
news:20021217013332...@mb-cs.aol.com...
Vince lepore
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 4:30:07 +0100, Vince lepore wrote
> (in message <bbdd5c2d.02121...@posting.google.com>):
>
>
> > You both seem to be more interested in calling
> > names and slinging mud than sticking to the issue.
>
> I have never called you names. I am in disagreement with you and
> you are taking it personally. There is no reasoning with you.
Izmet,
You wrote:
"Back off Vince, this field is too strong for you.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:20:22 +0100, Vince lepore wrote:
> Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> Welcome to *plonk*sville. Say hi to
>> eleaticus for me.
>
> Don't try to get on my good side. It won't work.
You are being killfiled by Tom. You did get that part, right? I'm not
sure..."
Are these blurbs meant as compliments? Advice? Sticking to the issue?
In my opinion they are misplaced sarcasm meant to demeanor. I am
better at taking a joke than you will ever be. So I usually know when
things that are said are meant in a humorous way. I don't believe you
meant them in any other way than as "mud slinging". You have proven
my point. Your latest message "There is no reasoning with you (me)",
just adds to my side. You are the mighty logical one. Anyone else is
just unreasonable. Even when they have fact on their side. You are a
Weideman clone, aren't you. Oh well life goes on. Try the kill file.
Then you can reason with yourself.
Vince
Paul Phillips
Vince lepore <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In my opinion they are misplaced sarcasm meant to demeanor.
I am reminded of people who use penultimate to mean "more than ultimate!"
>I am better at taking a joke than you will ever be.
As incisive a paradox as you are ever likely to author.
--
Paul Phillips | They were incurable in that free imaginary area.
Future Perfect | -- mahir
Empiricist |
pal, i pill push |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Vince lepore
It's like playing chicken against someone who is trying to commit
suicide.
To which Izmet commented:
> The evidence is right there in his posts. You can't beat logic.
> Then he gives examples that you (Vince) didn't buy. Then there was
> that Chicken game analogy in another post which I liked, again lost
> on you. I really liked it, made me think...
>
> In the game of Chicken (driving fast cars into each other, see who
> chickens out) the most terrifying opponent is the one who is known
> to be STUPID. The one who will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER chicken out,
> even when he *knows* he is against an even stupider player this time
> (this other guy will accelerate at the point of collision, unfasten his
> seat belt, wearing a gallon of napalm tied to his chest). This is
> the type you'll NEVER want to play Chicken against. Why?
> Because they are fucking morons!!!
>
>
> I do understand your point of view too, Vince. You are saying that
> if a stupid play has high EV, doesn't it then become a smart play?
> It must! Hey, it's profitable!
>
>
> I don't think so. I will never be the crazy guy in the Chicken game.
Am I the only one that sees what the problem is with this analogy?
The two genius's that cite this analogy and how it relates to poker
tournament play obviously don't. But as claimed over and over again
here on rgp they are logical people and smart guys too. I can excuse
Izmet after all he didn't start it he just followed his leader. As
Izmet states above in the game of chicken, play is "(driving fast cars
into each other, see who chickens out)"
Maybe someone should tell Izmet that the guy that wins is one that
jumps out last. It's the only way to win. Since this is an analogy
that is being used to demonstrate poker tournament play what does it
tell us? Well unless my logic is flawed it says that the only one
that can win the poker tournament is the "fucking moron" that Izmet
refers to. Why? Because the moron is willing to go the distance to
win. Izmet and Weideman may just be, well, to plain chicken to do (or
know) what is necessary to win. Maybe it's why Weideman doesn't play
tournamments anymore. I don't know for sure. Just a guess.
But I will say that in my experience playing tournaments advancing
has always meant playing somewhat differently than playing in live
games. I do not claim to be an expert at tournament play. I am not
saying one should play stupid poker. I am asking if what may appear
as stupid play or unorthodox play should be incorporated into ones
strateggy. I am asking a question not stating a fact as Mr, Weideman
has done here. That's all.
Vince
Bill Vanek
lepore) wrote:
>Maybe someone should tell Izmet that the guy that wins is one that
>jumps out last. It's the only way to win. Since this is an analogy
>that is being used to demonstrate poker tournament play
But it wasn't that at all. It was an example of another
situation outside of poker where stupidity can gain one the
advantage. You are self-destructing.
Izmet Fekali
(in message <bbdd5c2d.02121...@posting.google.com>):
> Izmet Fekali <iz...@fekali.com> wrote in message
> news:<0001HW.BA24F465...@news.siol.net>...
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 4:30:07 +0100, Vince lepore wrote
>> (in message <bbdd5c2d.02121...@posting.google.com>):
>>
>>
>>> You both seem to be more interested in calling
>>> names and slinging mud than sticking to the issue.
>>
>> I have never called you names. I am in disagreement with you and
>> you are taking it personally. There is no reasoning with you.
>
>
> Izmet,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Back off Vince, this field is too strong for you.
>
This is me irritated reading your posts. This was not meant as an insult.
>
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:20:22 +0100, Vince lepore wrote:
>
>> Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>> Welcome to *plonk*sville. Say hi to
>>> eleaticus for me.
>>
>> Don't try to get on my good side. It won't work.
>
> You are being killfiled by Tom. You did get that part, right? I'm not
> sure..."
>
> Are these blurbs meant as compliments? Advice? Sticking to the issue?
> In my opinion they are misplaced sarcasm meant to demeanor.
You are a very sensitive man. I apologize. I thought you didn't know
what *plonk* means. Made me giggle, sorry for that too.
Now go read your rgp posts. See if there's room for an apology or two.
Izmet Fekali
> Weideman clone, aren't you.
Oh, I forgot,... I'd appreciate it if you stopped calling me names.
Vince lepore
> On 17 Dec 2002 18:44:05 -0800, lepo...@hotmail.com (Vince
> lepore) wrote:
>
>
> >Maybe someone should tell Izmet that the guy that wins is one that
> >jumps out last. It's the only way to win. Since this is an analogy
> >that is being used to demonstrate poker tournament play
>
> But it wasn't that at all. It was an example of another
> situation outside of poker where stupidity can gain one the
> advantage. You are self-destructing.
>
your "You are self-destructing" comments. Are you a psychologist?
You certainly fit with these two. If someone points out something
that may not be in line with their views that person has something
wrong with them. They picked a situation in which the only possible
winner is the "fucking moron" to back up their claims. Am I making
that up? Yes you are correct this moron's method gives him an
advantage. He win's. Now the point is that the discussion is about
poker tournaments not playing chicken. So now let's go to the point
of discussion.
Weideman is always pointing to logic so maybe it's applicable here.
The moron's advantage makes him a winner at chicken. See? So the
Moron's method makes him a winner in poker tournament. Follow? So
my point is that maybe the moron's play should be looked at more
closely to ensure that the play is in fact moronic. furthermore I
don't believe that either Weideman nor Izmet have looked at poker
tournament strategy close enough to determine just what or what is not
effective. Now I throw you in with them also.
Vince
Randy Hudson
> Am I the only one that sees what the problem is with this analogy?
Perhaps. Why don't you explain what the problem is with this analogy, as
you see it?
> Maybe someone should tell Izmet that the guy that wins is one that
> jumps out last.
A player "folds" in Chicken by swerving out of the other's path. The one
who swerves last wins. If neither swerves, both lose. If a player, in
plain sight of the other, removes the steering wheel from his car and throws
it out the window, the other, seeing that the steering-wheel-thrower cannot
possibly swerve first, has a choice of ways to lose: swerve himself, or
crash. He no longer can win.
Now, it is, on the face of it, stupid to throw away one's steering wheel.
Yet that "stupid" play, against a normally intelligent opponent, will win.
It's equivalent to the button's all-in raise in the supersatellite
situation.
How can the other player defeat that strategy? In Chicken, suppose you
thought your opponent was too stupid to understand the implications of you
throwing away your steering wheel. If you can convince him of that, you've
prevented his making that winning play, as now it appears to him not to be a
winning play. As the button, if you think the big blind might be too stupid
to fold to your all-in raise, then you may not be able to make that raise
(if you're uncertain, then perhaps you can't make the raise with your worst
hands).
> the only one that can win the poker tournament is the "fucking moron" that
> Izmet refers to.
There's more to tournament poker than the game of Chicken; Tom's original
post referred to the "Big Advantage" that the Chicken-winning image could
provide, but didn't assert that was the only, or even most important,
quality necssary for winning.
> I am asking if what may appear as stupid play or unorthodox play should be
> incorporated into ones strateggy.
I think Tom has shown that having a "Stupid" image can be useful in
tournament, just as the "illusion of action" can be useful in live games.
--
Randy Hudson <i...@panix.com>
jw_steve
"Vince lepore" <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbdd5c2d.02121...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Weideman is always pointing to logic so maybe it's applicable here.
> The moron's advantage makes him a winner at chicken. See? So the
> Moron's method makes him a winner in poker tournament. Follow? So
> my point is that maybe the moron's play should be looked at more
> closely to ensure that the play is in fact moronic. furthermore I
> don't believe that either Weideman nor Izmet have looked at poker
> tournament strategy close enough to determine just what or what is not
> effective. Now I throw you in with them also.
>
> Vince
Vince, what they are describing is actually pretty straightforward game
theory, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. The chicken analogy
is apt. Another analogy is a red light. We reach an equilibrium of stop
at a red light when someone is coming the other way because the assumption
is that the person coming the other way will go. Without the law creating
the
assumption, we'd reach the equilibrium of both of us stopping everytime.
The only way you as a rational actor can go is if you know the other
person will stop. Now let's say you come to an intersection where a "stupid"
person refuses to obey the law and runs the red light every time. Now you
have
an additional bit of information that forces you into only two options,
either
stop when the other person goes, or go when the other person goes.
The "stupid" person forces you to stop as a rational actor and he gets
to go while you stop making him get the best possible outcome.
What you seem to be suggesting is that it could be smart to be the stupid
person. In a reputation game, this may be possible as maybe the -EV of
him crashing the first couple times would be worth doing it in order to
establish the image. This seems plausible, depending on what the
ramifications of the behavior is from his perspective. Even if true,
however,
it does not change the fact that truly stupid people will make the same
play, so what you are saying does not contradict their point.
In fact, I know it is plausible because I did an exercise in negotiation
where person 1 was given $10 allowed to put a certain amount in
an envelope. Person 2 could accept the envelope and 1 would get to
keep the rest or Person 2 could reject it and they both got nothing.
Now only a "stupid" person would reject any amount of free money.
I was Person 2 and I convinced 1 that I was a stupid person
(spiteful) and that if he didn't give me at least $6 I would reject it.
This was only a one off and I was the only person in the class to
actually get >$5. I turned the table on Person 1 and made him
as a rational actor give me >50%.
It is actually an interesting discussion because it would be worth
discussing how you may or may not be able to exploit this effect
in poker. It is dangerous because you as a smart person making
these plays may run into truly stupid people and cause yourself
-EV (the example of ramming and jamming the nut low when you
are quartering). That being said, I suspect empirically they are
correct that this effect is almost exclusively created by stupid people
in tournament poker.
-jw steve
JTAutry
is the more moronic one. So the wife jumps out at the last minute, leaving
the husband no time to get out and thus he wins the game but dies in a
hideous car crash and the wife gets all his belongings, including whatever
they bet on the game of chicken.
JT
"Vince lepore" <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbdd5c2d.02121...@posting.google.com...