|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 9/4/2008 10:25:07 PM PACIFIC |
 New Theory of Poker, Ashley Adams, 24. Mar 2003 19:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I've posted this elsewhere and I'm interested in what the folks in this discussion group think. Please offer me your opinions. It's time for a new theory of poker. I'm still putting it together. Here's what I've come up with off the top of my head for now. I'm submitting it to all of you players and thinkers for your analysis and reaction. NEW THEORY OF POKER It begins with accepting the fact that there is a right way to play every hand. If one were omniscient one would know, in any situation, whether to bet, check, call, raise or fold. It would not be a matter of opinion. It would be a matter of fact. Every time you make this correct move you are playing correctly. Every time you deviate from this correct move you are making a mistake and costing yourself money. Some mistakes cost more than others. But every mistake, no matter how small, costs you money. Getting your opponent to make a mistake, or finding opponents who make mistakes no matter what you do increases your profit as well. Making the correct move requires a number of pieces of information. Some are finite and 100% knowable. Others are not completely knowable and can only be estimated (in an honest game). The odds of improvement are finite and knowable. The probabililty of the hand you have beating the hand you estimate your opponent(s) has is knowable. Your opponent's cards are finite but not completely knowable and can only be estimated. What your opponent will do with his cards is unknowable and must be estimated. Becoming a skilled poker player requires an amalgamation of skills. You must be able to estimate accurately what your opponent's cards are. You must know what to do based on that knowledge. You must avoid having your opponent make the correct action and prompt him to make the wrong move. You can do this by: preventing him, with your action, from knowing what cards you have; preventing him from, with your action, from knowing what action you will take with the cards you have; or by finding opponents who do not know what to do with the cards they have no matter what you have or what you do with your cards. Your comments? Ashley Adams | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, Mike Quealy, 25. Mar 2003 01:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Ashley, I must say that your theory seems to make perfect sense. However, I would argue the following: THE NEW THEORY OF POKER ONLY APPLIES TO LIMIT POKER. I say this because, with regard to no limit poker, your claim that there is only one correct move at any given time is not quite true (in my opinion). The aim of every player in no limit poker should be to win as much money as possible. ie. to bust all of your opponents. There are several ways to achieve this in any situation. This is due to the fact that in no limit poker, you must play the man as much as you must play the cards and odds. No limit poker is not as technical as limt poker: there is no right or wrong move. The only way you can tell if you played a hand correctly is whether you extracted the most profit (or lost the least possible) in a pot. No limit poker strategy is more flexible than limit poker strategy. Any thoughts? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, Ashley Adams, 25. Mar 2003 03:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hmm. I think playng the man is part of knowing the right move. And there surely are more variables for NL and PL than in limit. And you are probably correct that any move that extracts all of your opponents money is a correct move. But the one that does it with the least risk to you is probably the MOST correct move. Understand what I am NOT saying. I am not saying that there is a right move for any two CARDS you have. You MUST take the situation you're in, whom you've playing with, when you're playing them, etc. into consideration. You might raise all-in with AJo in one situation and fold it in another situation. But, in ANY PARTICULAR UNIQUE situation, there IS a correct move -- at least a most correct move. Admittedly, because the extra variable of the amount of a raise occurs in PL and NL, there may be some raises that accomplish the same ultimate goal of getting you your opponent's entire stack. So raising $300--$3,000 might ALL be correct. Ashley Adams on 25. Mar 2003 01:41 Mike Quealy wrote: > Hi Ashley, > I must say that your theory seems to make perfect sense. > However, I would argue the following: > > THE NEW THEORY OF POKER ONLY APPLIES TO LIMIT POKER. > > I say this because, with regard to no limit poker, your claim that there is only one > correct move at any given time is not quite true (in my opinion). > The aim of every player in no limit poker should be to win as much money as > possible. ie. to bust all of your opponents. > There are several ways to achieve this in any situation. > This is due to the fact that in no limit poker, you must play the man as much as you > must play the cards and odds. > No limit poker is not as technical as limt poker: there is no right or wrong move. > The only way you can tell if you played a hand correctly is whether you extracted the > most profit (or lost the least possible) in a pot. > No limit poker strategy is more flexible than limit poker strategy. > Any thoughts? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, shorn, 25. Mar 2003 04:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think the most important thing you said was "the most correct play". Obviously, the object in both limit and NL is to win the most money, so whatever aggregation of individual decisions that you make that accomplishes that with the cards that you have end up being the correct decisions. Unfortunately, no one ever has perfect information at the table at all times (unless they are cheating), so the "correct" decision at a given time can only be quantified based on the information you have. To me, this means that there can be two "correct" decisions for each dilemma: the one to make with limited information and the one you would make with perfect information. These two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; however, together tey are collectively exhaustive (if that makes any sense). Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, stdioh, 25. Mar 2003 07:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 24. Mar 2003 19:03 Ashley Adams wrote: > I've posted this elsewhere and I'm interested in what the folks in this > discussion group think. Please offer me your opinions. > > It's time for a new theory of poker. I'm still putting it together. Here's > what I've come up with off the top of my head for now. I'm submitting it to > all of you players and thinkers for your analysis and reaction. > > NEW THEORY OF POKER > > It begins with accepting the fact that there is a right way to play every hand. > If one were omniscient one would know, in any situation, whether to bet, > check, call, raise or fold. It would not be a matter of opinion. It would be a > matter of fact. > > Every time you make this correct move you are playing correctly. Every time > you deviate from this correct move you are making a mistake and costing yourself > money. Some mistakes cost more than others. But every mistake, no matter how > small, costs you money. Getting your opponent to make a mistake, or finding > opponents who make mistakes no matter what you do increases your profit as > well. > > Making the correct move requires a number of pieces of information. Some are > finite and 100% knowable. Others are not completely knowable and can only be > estimated (in an honest game). The odds of improvement are finite and knowable. > The probabililty of the hand you have beating the hand you estimate > your opponent(s) has is knowable. Your opponent's cards are finite but not > completely knowable and can only be estimated. What your opponent will do with > his cards is unknowable and must be estimated. > > Becoming a skilled poker player requires an amalgamation of skills. You must > be able to estimate accurately what your opponent's cards are. You must know > what to do based on that knowledge. You must avoid having your opponent make > the correct action and prompt him to make the wrong move. You can do this by: > preventing him, with your action, from knowing what cards you have; preventing > him from, with your action, from knowing what action you will take with the > cards you have; or by finding opponents who do not know what to do with the > cards they have no matter what you have or what you do with your cards. > > Your comments? > > Ashley Adams I disagree with you that there is always one "correct play" and that you have to find out what it is. This is just a very Slotboom attitude and I think it's a bit crufty. The "best" move to make in a given situation depends on such subtle variables as your table image, each of your opponents' table images, and 1000 qualities of each player at the table. Thus the right move when you play a hand is decidedly different from the right move when I play the same hand, from time to time. Also, poker isn't about always trying to make the right move. Poker is about having your average move be the most right, but I think that you cannot maximise your average rightness without making some "wrong" moves - because sometimes making a slightly -EV play on this hand will bring me much more action on future hands. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, Mark, 25. Mar 2003 07:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > NEW THEORY OF POKER > > It begins with accepting the fact that there is a right way to play every hand. > If one were omniscient one would know, in any situation, whether to bet, > check, call, raise or fold. It would not be a matter of opinion. It would be a > matter of fact. > > Every time you make this correct move you are playing correctly. Every time > you deviate from this correct move you are making a mistake and costing yourself > money. Some mistakes cost more than others. But every mistake, no matter how > small, costs you money. Getting your opponent to make a mistake, or finding > opponents who make mistakes no matter what you do increases your profit as > well. Ashley, While I think everyone will agree with you in theory, i do have a problem with what your theory (as above) implies for actual situations. I think everyone can agree - if you knew all the variables for every poker equation there would be a right way and wrong way to play every hand. The problem is, no one can know all of the variables and therefore all plays are subject to human judgement and intuition. For example, ( assume i am using correct game theory) i am 95% sure that a player has a certain hand and i play accordingly. At the end of the hand i find out my opponent held something else. In your theory I played the hand wrong, but in practical application i did the RIGHT thing, with all known variables considered. Another problem I have with your theory is, in order for there to be a 100% correct way to play you would have to know how your opponents WILL play every hand with regards to bluffing. For example, i have the button and am 95% sure an opponent will fold if i bet, even though i have nothing. In this case i would bet 100% of the time, and i would expect to see a profit. I don't consider the 5 out of 100 times i bet and lose to be the wrong play. I think that every play you make can only be judged on the information available at the time of the play. To judge if you made the right play after you know what everyone's cards were, what everyone's actions were, and what the cards to come were, is not correct. Those factors can be used to help future decisions but are not useful to judge the previous play. While you can sit down and judge plays with all the variables known after the fact, all of the variables are not known at the poker table in the middle of a hand. Every play is made based on known facts AND assumptions. Every assuption will not be right and you will be forced to make incorrect plays occasionally. Another problem I have with the practical application of the theory is unless everyone shows you their cards you can never have all the facts. Since this is unlikely to happen you can never know if you made the 100% correct choice. Your theory is very sound, but i don't think it can be effectively put into practice. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, stdioh, 25. Mar 2003 10:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > Ashley, > > While I think everyone will agree with you in theory, i do have a problem with what > your theory (as above) implies for actual situations. > > I think everyone can agree - if you knew all the variables for every poker equation > there would be a right way and wrong way to play every hand. > > The problem is, no one can know all of the variables and therefore all plays are > subject to human judgement and intuition. > > For example, ( assume i am using correct game theory) i am 95% sure that a player > has a certain hand and i play accordingly. At the end of the hand i find out my > opponent held something else. In your theory I played the hand wrong, but in > practical application i did the RIGHT thing, with all known variables considered. > > Another problem I have with your theory is, in order for there to be a 100% correct > way to play you would have to know how your opponents WILL play every hand with > regards to bluffing. > > For example, i have the button and am 95% sure an opponent will fold if i bet, even > though i have nothing. In this case i would bet 100% of the time, and i would expect > to see a profit. I don't consider the 5 out of 100 times i bet and lose to be the > wrong play. > > I think that every play you make can only be judged on the information available at > the time of the play. To judge if you made the right play after you know what > everyone's cards were, what everyone's actions were, and what the cards to come were, > is not correct. Those factors can be used to help future decisions but are not > useful to judge the previous play. > > While you can sit down and judge plays with all the variables known after the fact, > all of the variables are not known at the poker table in the middle of a hand. Every > play is made based on known facts AND assumptions. Every assuption will not be right > and you will be forced to make incorrect plays occasionally. > > Another problem I have with the practical application of the theory is > unless everyone shows you their cards you can never have all the facts. Since this > is unlikely to happen you can never know if you made the 100% correct choice. > > Your theory is very sound, but i don't think it can be effectively put into > practice. > > Mark I think you hit the nail right on the head there Mark. Well thought out response. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, Nathaniel Brous, 25. Mar 2003 07:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hey Ashley, I can't get over what I perceive to be a flaw in this thinking. If you are omniscient (in order for there to be a factual correct move) then everything would be 100% "knowable." I don't think you can have one without the other. If you are omniscient, then you can make what a partially omniscient (say like knowing your opponents cards, but not knowing cards to come) people view as a mistake, such as drawing/raising to 2 outs without pot odds, yet show this mistake to be profitable. If you are not omniscient, then you can not possibly make the "factually correct play with assurance." Can't you remember winning hands, that you had know business being in? This is getting a bit hazy but I would be interested in your response. - Nathaniel Brous on 24. Mar 2003 19:03 Ashley Adams wrote: > I've posted this elsewhere and I'm interested in what the folks in this > discussion group think. Please offer me your opinions. > > It's time for a new theory of poker. I'm still putting it together. Here's > what I've come up with off the top of my head for now. I'm submitting it to > all of you players and thinkers for your analysis and reaction. > > NEW THEORY OF POKER > > It begins with accepting the fact that there is a right way to play every hand. > If one were omniscient one would know, in any situation, whether to bet, > check, call, raise or fold. It would not be a matter of opinion. It would be a > matter of fact. > > Every time you make this correct move you are playing correctly. Every time > you deviate from this correct move you are making a mistake and costing yourself > money. Some mistakes cost more than others. But every mistake, no matter how > small, costs you money. Getting your opponent to make a mistake, or finding > opponents who make mistakes no matter what you do increases your profit as > well. > > Making the correct move requires a number of pieces of information. Some are > finite and 100% knowable. Others are not completely knowable and can only be > estimated (in an honest game). The odds of improvement are finite and knowable. > The probabililty of the hand you have beating the hand you estimate > your opponent(s) has is knowable. Your opponent's cards are finite but not > completely knowable and can only be estimated. What your opponent will do with > his cards is unknowable and must be estimated. > > Becoming a skilled poker player requires an amalgamation of skills. You must > be able to estimate accurately what your opponent's cards are. You must know > what to do based on that knowledge. You must avoid having your opponent make > the correct action and prompt him to make the wrong move. You can do this by: > preventing him, with your action, from knowing what cards you have; preventing > him from, with your action, from knowing what action you will take with the > cards you have; or by finding opponents who do not know what to do with the > cards they have no matter what you have or what you do with your cards. > > Your comments? > > Ashley Adams > > > > > > > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, TOM WAGGONER, 25. Mar 2003 11:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I would say that it covers all the bases, and well written. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, Kevin J, 25. Mar 2003 14:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| How is this different from the "Old" Theory? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, Hatchet Harry, 25. Mar 2003 16:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I asked myself that after the first read, but after re-reading I believe it is different in that it's not just about having better cards. My take on it is that it takes into account the known (or percieved) actions of the other player. IE if a player constantly folds unless the flop hits him, is it a mistake to bet into him holding an inferior hand. Just my take, but that's the way i've perceived it. Regards HH | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: New Theory of Poker, Ashley Adams, 25. Mar 2003 18:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It recognizes that detection and deception are not the only important considerations in poker. Ashley Adams on 25. Mar 2003 14:29 Kevin J wrote: > How is this different from the "Old" Theory? | ||
| 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 |
|