|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2009 10:51:37 PM PACIFIC |
 The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, Hatchet Harry, 21. Dec 2002 06:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Just recently got around to reading "The Theory of Poker" and i've not managed to get past page 21 before my brain went into overload and I can't go any further. Problem is, I've just discovered the Fundemental Theorem of Poker, and I can't get my head round 1 of the examples. I beleive I have a good mathmatical and analytical brain, but I just can't grasp this particular concept. Strangely I think the answer is going to be simple, but rather than waste anymore of the few cells I've got left I figured I'd come to the sages for knowledge. The particular example is as follows $80 in the pot and you have 2 pair. You bet $10. Your opponet has a 4 flush. Do you want him to call or fold. According to the Theorem you want him to fold because he's 5-1 dog for making the hand but getting 9-1 odds for calling. Where I'm struggling, is if i'm making a $10 bet, I'm doing so with positive expectations as I'm favorite for my hand to stand up, so surely I want another $10 in the pot. I understand that my opponent is getting the correct odds to call, but surely this does not mean that I want him to fold. I think what I'm failing to fully grasp is that with the current odds i'm getting of 8-1 on my $10 bet, It would be more beneficial for me to take the pot there and then. If anybody can help me better understand this quandry it'd be much appreciated. Many thanks in advance Harry | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, Barbarian, 21. Dec 2002 10:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Let's make it simple and not consider any betting after this round. Also, I take the odds as given to me. If he folds, you get $90 ($80 + your $10 bet) EVERY time. That is $90 * 1.0 = $90. If he calls, you get $100 ($80 + $10 + $10) 5/6 times, and $0 1/6 times, so you get 5/6 * $100 = ~$83.33. $83.33 < $90, so you make more $ if he folds, hence you want him to fold. I hope that was good enough of an explanation. c//////|=========> Barbarian | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, Barbarian, 21. Dec 2002 10:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Simply put: If he has something to gain, you have something to lose. And the other way around. c//////|=========> Barbarian | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, Hatchet Harry, 21. Dec 2002 11:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Perfectly answered. I now have a total understanding, and I can also factor that the calculation would need to be changed a little in view that I can also improve to a full house. That said, It will take a while for me to get a feel for this, as up to now I've been happy to bet when I think i've got the best of it! My lazy brain thanks you very much. Cheers Harry | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, Ted Good, 21. Dec 2002 10:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You want him to fold because you have already won the hand. It is not worth risking the $80 in the pot against his 5-1 shot just to win $10 extra. The odds are correct for him to draw, consequently the inverse holds for you in this instance. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, The Fish, 21. Dec 2002 10:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "The particular example is as follows $80 in the pot and you have 2 pair. You bet $10. Your opponet has a 4 flush. Do you want him to call or fold. According to the Theorem you want him to fold because he's 5-1 dog for making the hand but getting 9-1 odds for calling. Where I'm struggling, is if i'm making a $10 bet, I'm doing so with positive expectations as I'm favorite for my hand to stand up, so surely I want another $10 in the pot." I think that the first gut response would be that you surely want him to call, because you have the nuts at that point, or I am assuming you do as you did not mention any other players. But I think Skalnsky is trying to illustrate that your opponent's mistakes are your rewards. You must look at it this way: your opponent is getting proper odds to call, whenever this is so you would rather see your opponent fold. Why? Because when your opponent takes those odds that have been laid for him he will recognize a profit in the longrun and so your opponent's profits are your losses. If your opponent folds, this is a mistake for him because he is getting proper odds. So you could think of it this way, your opponent either makes a mistake (by folding) and you make money over the long run or your opponent make the right choice (calls the bet) and you lose money over the long run. So why not forget about betting altogether? (I know you didn't ask this question but I figured I would explain it just in case) The reason you bet is because any odds are better than infinite odds. If you bet nothing your opponent gets a free card which means he is putting in $0 to win the pot; those are infinite odds! I think the key thing to remember is that you must think of this situation not in the short run but over the long run and also remember that this exampl is all about odds. I hope this has helped. Just a side note to this problem: The value of this two pair should be noted. Firstly, when your opponent doesn't make his flush he will surely fold when you bet into him (assuming heads up on the end, I would suggest that you always check to your opponent if all he had was a flush draw, your bet will scare him out,but if you check you may get him to try and steal the pot, although this only works on really odd players what do you have to lose? You can't make any money by betting into him because he will simply fold his four flush. Unless of course he is one of those players that wants to "keep you honest", but these players seem to be rare more rare than players who might try and steal the put at the end, in my experience.) Secondly, there are two cards that will make his flush but that will also give you a full house (assuming your two pair does not consist of two of his flush cards). This, in my opinion, is the real power of your two pair, besides the obvious fact that it was the best hand at one point. The reason this is so powerful is because your opponent may be blinded by the fact that he made his hand, which usually happens quite a bit in my experience (your opponent is so excited to see that flush card that he comes out betting and raising without analyzing the board and is unwilling to worry about better hands), especially with straights and flushes. Your opponent may not even think about your possible full house. So all you have to do is either bet into him, pretending to be ignorant of his flush, or check raise, whatever play figures to make the most. In other words the power is the situation; your opponent improves to what he thinks is the nuts, but in actuallity he improves to the second best hand. It doesn't take much to realize this is a very profitable situation for you. Anyway, hope this helps and that may last extra analysis wasn't too boring, thought I would throw it in because two pair started to sound a little negative at the end of my first analysis. So I hope I have clarified something for you. Take it easy, Ben | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Read this Before my other post!! plz, The Fish, 21. Dec 2002 10:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sorry didn't see the other posts when I was typing this out, I would go with their explanatinos they are shorter and better, to put it simply ... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Read this Before my other post!! plz, jon seal, 22. Dec 2002 00:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 21. Dec 2002 10:37 The Fish wrote: > Sorry didn't see the other posts when I was typing this out, I would go with their > explanatinos they are shorter and better, to put it simply ... > Fish , you do make the important comment regarding the reason behind betting even though the flush draw has got the pot odds beat with the main pot , he still should not be given a free card In fact , in this case you can think of this $10 bet as a side bet that is giving you an 80% return profit. I think Harry's confusion comes in the 2 seperate issues of wanting the flush draw to fold yet betting into a pot that contains good implied odds for the flush draw. And seperat the two issues makes it clearer. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Read this Before my other post!! plz, jon seal, 22. Dec 2002 00:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You think as me on this one , but it is so hard to put the theory in as few words as possible !?!? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, anthony genovese, 21. Dec 2002 10:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| This is my opinion and I have been playing poker for years. I rely on gut feelings and reading my player and using common sense. I have won at many tables and I have broken up many home games because I ran others broke. I have to say , I throw odds out the window and play the hand like it is. I have won with full houses at least 6 hands in a row. and I can say the same for other hands as well. If a strong oppenent bets big with a face card higher than my pair I go out the pot , I do not chase hands. people lose plenty money for chasing hands. closing for now but will return . | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, Hatchet Harry, 21. Dec 2002 11:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The poker sage's have come up trumps again. cheers for the help! Regards Harry | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, jon seal, 22. Dec 2002 00:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 21. Dec 2002 06:27 Hatchet Harry wrote: > Just recently got around to reading "The Theory of Poker" and i've not managed > to get past page 21 before my brain went into overload and I can't go any > further. > > Problem is, I've just discovered the Fundemental Theorem of Poker, and I can't > get my head round 1 of the examples. I beleive I have a good mathmatical and > analytical brain, but I just can't grasp this particular concept. Strangely I > think the answer is going to be simple, but rather than waste anymore of the few > cells I've got left I figured I'd come to the sages for knowledge. > > The particular example is as follows > $80 in the pot and you have 2 pair. You bet $10. > Your opponet has a 4 flush. Do you want him to call or fold. > > According to the Theorem you want him to fold because he's 5-1 dog for making > the hand but getting 9-1 odds for calling. > > Where I'm struggling, is if i'm making a $10 bet, I'm doing so with positive > expectations as I'm favorite for my hand to stand up, so surely I want another > $10 in the pot. > > I understand that my opponent is getting the correct odds to call, but surely > this does not mean that I want him to fold. > > I think what I'm failing to fully grasp is that with the current odds i'm > getting of 8-1 on my $10 bet, It would be more beneficial for me to take the pot > there and then. > > If anybody can help me better understand this quandry it'd be much > appreciated. > > Many thanks in advance > Harry > Dear Harry, You need to look at this hand over 5 hands , 4 of which you will win and one that you will lose if he calls If he calls you win 4 and lose 1: So you win 4x$90=$$360 , but you lose 1x$10 , net gain of $350 If he folds you win all 5 hands: So you win 5x$80 , net gain of $400 Clearly you want him to fold as you will be $50 better of over 5 hands that is $10 per hand if he folds, but he probably wont given the pot odds. Hope this clears it up , Theorem of Poker is the best book for the basics and intermediate strategies , read it fully , time and time again. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, TOM WAGGONER, 22. Dec 2002 23:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's pretty simple, You would rather he fold and you win the 80 bucks, instead of him calling, adding only an additional 10 dollars to the pot with the chance of one in five of beating your two pair. Anytime you have a chance of winning a pot uncontested, it is better than having to earn it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, RickyK, 23. Dec 2002 17:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| One further point on a purely theoretical level... If the figures for winning were an assured $1,000,000 or 80% chance of a $2,000,000 win, how does this change your perspective. It is obvously from a mathmatical perspective best to go for the 80% chance at $2000,000 ( the assured $1,000,000 will net you on average $1,000,000 the other bet an average of $1,600,000). However i bet most of you ( apart from those lucky people who have won the WSOP and whom sleep on piles of money / don't need to be on this site getting tips ) will go for the definite $1,000,000, why do you do this ? Because value for money decreases the more of it you have ( hey i did learn something a university ), according to the marginal utility of money. Dont really know the relevance of all that, it just occured to me that's all. Cheers Rich | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, Snorbolus, 24. Dec 2002 09:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The reason that I would choose the certainty of $1,000,000 over an 80% chance of $2,000,000 is because I feel that I am unlikely to have many opportunities to make such a choice. This is unlike most poker decisions, where you are likely to be presented with many similar opportunities in the future. If there are few trials then variance becomes much more significant. Indeed, if I was offered 100 opportunities each with an 80% chance to win $20,000 or the certainty of $1,000,000 then I would be more inclined to try my luck with the 80% chances. Snorbolus on 23. Dec 2002 17:20 RickyK wrote: > One further point on a purely theoretical level... > > If the figures for winning were an assured $1,000,000 or 80% chance of a $2,000,000 > win, how does this change your perspective. It is obvously from a mathmatical > perspective best to go for the 80% chance at $2000,000 ( the assured $1,000,000 will > net you on average $1,000,000 the other bet an average of $1,600,000). > > However i bet most of you ( apart from those lucky people who have won the WSOP and > whom sleep on piles of money / don't need to be on this site getting tips ) will go > for the definite $1,000,000, why do you do this ? Because value for money decreases > the more of it you have ( hey i did learn something a university ), according to the > marginal utility of money. > > Dont really know the relevance of all that, it just occured to me that's all. > > Cheers > Rich | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, RickyK, 26. Dec 2002 09:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| As i said purely theoretical just to illustrate the declining marginal utility of money. A concept overlooked by poker players when it is extremley valid. on 24. Dec 2002 09:30 Snorbolus wrote: > The reason that I would choose the certainty of $1,000,000 over an 80% chance of > $2,000,000 is because I feel that I am unlikely to have many opportunities to make such a > choice. This is unlike most poker decisions, where you are likely to be presented with > many similar opportunities in the future. > > If there are few trials then variance becomes much more significant. Indeed, if I was > offered 100 opportunities each with an 80% chance to win $20,000 or the certainty of > $1,000,000 then I would be more inclined to try my luck with the 80% chances. > > Snorbolus > > on 23. Dec 2002 17:20 RickyK wrote: > > One further point on a purely theoretical level... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, Snorbolus, 26. Dec 2002 10:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| RickyK, I hope that you don’t think I was being snippy with you. I thought that your post was interesting (I think that this whole thread is one of the best that I have read). I got to thinking about what would influence my decision in the situation that you described and posted about that. Sorry if my post came across differently. Snorbolus on 26. Dec 2002 09:38 RickyK wrote: > As i said purely theoretical just to illustrate the declining marginal utility of money. A > concept overlooked by poker players when it is extremley valid. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, RickyK, 26. Dec 2002 15:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Don't worry mate didnt take any offence at all !! Can anyone though work out the relevance of this concept in the way we play poker ? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, jon seal, 27. Dec 2002 09:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Basically poor players and those playing above their bankroll will be negatively influenced by your principle. sometimes when I have been playing in PL or NL games I have noticed this theorem affecting my decision making , generally negatively I believe although on occasion it has protected me. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: The Fundemental Theorem of Poker, uncanick, 28. Dec 2002 06:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Another way to view this example is to reverse the positions. Would YOU be correct in calling a $10 bet ? Wouldn't your opponent wish you to fold? Occasionally we get so caught up in the play of specific hands that we ignore the basic concepts. Thanks for the heads-up,harry. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|