|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 10/11/2008 10:31:37 AM PACIFIC |
 This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., steve-o, 14. Oct 2003 12:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Does anyone else find a lot of Sklansky/Malmuth to be empty theorizing that has little real world use? Does any one, in the heat of battle, stop to think, "I feel my hand has a 64% chance of winning, and there's a 38% chance my opponent is bluffing, and given the reverse implied pot odds of 6:1, I know that in this specific situation, 52% of the time a bet on the turn has a +EV of $6.32. Okay, I'll bet." Now, I've only been playing for a couple of months, but it seems like of a lot of Sklansky/Malmuth's theories reside in a perfect world where everyone is playing sound poker. But when I'm sitting in a card room, my decisions go more like this, "Well, this guy's on his tenth beer and drooling on himself, I think I'll call," or "This guy's hand is shaking so hard he can barely get his chips in the pot, I'd better fold." Those are extreme examples, but my question is, how much emphasis do you put into poker theory and statistics, and how much do you rely on feel? I've committed to memory the important odds, i.e. drawing to straights, flushes, etc., and I have a firm grasp on pot odds, but what are the truly important types of theory and stats, as opposed to the stuff that's just overkill? Or is none of it overkill, and I'm missing out on important stuff that could take my game up a notch? I'm sure there's a balance to be struck, but I'm just not experienced enough to have found it yet. Help me understand. :-) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., Angel, 14. Oct 2003 12:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 14. Oct 2003 12:34 steve-o wrote: Does any one, in the heat of battle, stop to think, "I > feel my hand has a 64% chance of winning, and there's a 38% chance my opponent > is bluffing, and given the reverse implied pot odds of 6:1, I know that in this > specific situation, 52% of the time a bet on the turn has a +EV of $6.32. Okay, > I'll bet." Sklansky does. :) I'm number oriented - a math geek but even so it doesn''t process like that at the table for me. I do however read, study, figure and calculate quite alot away from the tables - even to the extent that you described. That preparation when I hit the tables pays dividends because so much of that figuring and calculating has already been done and while I don't always recall the numbers - I do have a pretty good feel for it as a result and I can use my energy to concentrate on whether the that drunk is on his ninth or tenth beer and whether thats really drool or wasted beer. *g* | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., Stevolley2, 14. Oct 2003 12:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The genius in Sklansky/Malmuth is not in what they teach, it is how they teach you to think the game. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., modestmice, 14. Oct 2003 17:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 14. Oct 2003 12:34 steve-o wrote: > Does anyone else find a lot of Sklansky/Malmuth to be empty theorizing that has > little real world use? Does any one, in the heat of battle, stop to think, "I > feel my hand has a 64% chance of winning, and there's a 38% chance my opponent > is bluffing, and given the reverse implied pot odds of 6:1, I know that in this > specific situation, 52% of the time a bet on the turn has a +EV of $6.32. Okay, > I'll bet." > > Now, I've only been playing for a couple of months, but it seems like of a lot > of Sklansky/Malmuth's theories reside in a perfect world where everyone is > playing sound poker. But when I'm sitting in a card room, my decisions go more > like this, "Well, this guy's on his tenth beer and drooling on himself, I think > I'll call," or "This guy's hand is shaking so hard he can barely get his chips > in the pot, I'd better fold." Those are extreme examples, but my question is, > how much emphasis do you put into poker theory and statistics, and how much do > you rely on feel? I've committed to memory the important odds, i.e. drawing to > straights, flushes, etc., and I have a firm grasp on pot odds, but what are the > truly important types of theory and stats, as opposed to the stuff that's just > overkill? Or is none of it overkill, and I'm missing out on important stuff that > could take my game up a notch? I'm sure there's a balance to be struck, but I'm > just not experienced enough to have found it yet. Help me understand. :-) i totally understand where you're coming from steve-o. im not a math geek (unless u consider calculating odds and how much a trifecta will pay before the prices post) but thats the area i work most on in my game, the theory. i work on everything, but pay special attention to that area because it is the least interesting aspect to poker to me, therefore it could be my biggest hole. example, i once folded pocket jacks on the button with a $300 pot in a 3-6 game because there was a king and queen on the flop and turn AND preflop it was capped, flop it was capped, turn it was capped, so i sat there thinking, "im screwed, bigtime, my only out is a jack or 9 for a non nut str" so i folded. dumb dumb dumb, if i knew anything about pot odds/implied odds i woulda called and took down the pot (of course i would lost many times, but that time i actually would won the pot) after that, i sensed something was wrong, and started studying mat crap more. poker IS math, pure and simple. whether i like it or not. "Some of the truly weakest players are those who think they know it all. Know-it-all-ism is one of the most exploitable weaknesses a player can have." --Steve Badger | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., shorn, 15. Oct 2003 11:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Ummm, hate to break it to you but wiuth that much action and two overcards to your pair, I don't care how much is in the pot...you have to fold. If you made that play 100 times, you would win around 4 times so each win would have to be 180 BB's to compensate for the lost 7.5 BB's on the other 96 hands. Definitely -EV... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., steve-o, 15. Oct 2003 12:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Shorn, I agree that pocket Js with two overcards on the board and tons of action is a no-brainer lay down, but you have the numbers to show exactly how much of a no-brainer it is in terms of EV, and this is at the root of my questions. In the long run, is it really important to know the expected EV of that scenario, or is it enough just to know that pocket Js are no good and that you should fold? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., shorn, 15. Oct 2003 12:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You don't need to know the exact math in % terms. However, it is the math that will allow you to make decisions that are close (which this one is not). So, one way that you can improve your game when it comes to very close decisions is to know the math cold. I remember a very good essay in Skalnsky on poker that talked about higher level thinking in poker. The first level is math only. The second level involves you thinking about what your opponent has. The third level takes it to you thinking about what your opponent thinks you have. The point of it all is that at the highest level, Game Theory needs to be used to determine what the correct play is. And what is Game Theory you ask? All math. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., steve-o, 15. Oct 2003 12:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Gotcha. Thanks for the reply, that's plenty to ponder. And I'll look for that Sklansky essay as well. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., DallasPokerFan, 15. Oct 2003 12:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hmm .. in this case, as in the vast majority (IMHO) of other cases, you don't need to know game theory to be able to make a correct decision. It's the X% of VERY close decisions, or the X% of games where you're up against real professionals, where all the uber-poker playing is helpful. Don't get me wrong, it is helpful, but you don't need to know all the angles to the gnat's arse to make the right decision enough times to be profitable. That being said, the more often you make the right decisions, the more profitable you will be, and the higher competition and stakes levels you can play in. All that is true. My point is, if it's the difference between winning $1,000 or $980 over a month's play, then don't waste your energy. Get some enjoyment out of the game. Of course, if it's the difference between winning $100,000 or $98,000 over a month's play, then you're doing yourself a favor by knowing all the uber-poker playing and all the angles to the gnat's arse. Some folks aspire to that, and more power to them. The vast majority of poker players don't, though, and it's those among this vast majority that buy Sklansky's books. In that light, Sklansky is writing a book for experts but marketing it to the casual player. Not good for long-run sales. At this stage, give me a book that allows me to enjoy the game, play very well, and win $980 a month. Thoughts? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., modestmice, 15. Oct 2003 16:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 15. Oct 2003 11:55 shorn wrote: > Ummm, hate to break it to you but wiuth that much action and two overcards to your pair, I > don't care how much is in the pot...you have to fold. If you made that play 100 times, > you would win around 4 times so each win would have to be 180 BB's to compensate for the > lost 7.5 BB's on the other 96 hands. Definitely -EV... actually, i posted the hand a couple years ago and it was nearly 100% out of many posts that i should have called. in this post i may not be completely accurate (i dont rememeber the hand perfectly) , but either way , its not the point. the point is i did have the odds to call for that and at the time didnt understand why. thanks | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., modestmice, 15. Oct 2003 17:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 15. Oct 2003 16:51 modestmice wrote: > on 15. Oct 2003 11:55 shorn wrote: > > Ummm, hate to break it to you but wiuth that much action and two overcards to your pair, I > > > don't care how much is in the pot...you have to fold. If you made that play 100 times, > > you would win around 4 times so each win would have to be 180 BB's to compensate for the > > lost 7.5 BB's on the other 96 hands. Definitely -EV... > > actually, i posted the hand a couple years ago and it was nearly 100% out of many posts that i > should have called. in this post i may not be completely accurate (i dont rememeber the hand > perfectly) , but either way , its not the point. the point is i did have the odds to call for > that and at the time didnt understand why. thanks > > now that i recall, i was open ended on the turn. there was a Q-10-X on the flop, 9 on turn and K on river. does this change things? thanks. sorry for the confusion, the exact hand as it occured wasnt my point, so i didnt write it out well. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., shorn, 16. Oct 2003 05:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It does change the scenario, but not much. Even with QTX flop, you still may need two cards to win (as someone is likely holding QQ or AK so a single J does you no good). In effect, with that much action you have to assume that someone holds AK, so you are really drawing to a 9/8 or 9/K turn/river. So, here is the math for that: 4/47 * 8/46 = .75% or 1.5% chance of hitting your runner runner. So, that translates into needing roughly 50-1 on 4 bets cold or 200 small bets in the pot on the flop. That's not possible even if all 10 players were in for 4 pre-flop and 4 on the flop (80). Now, you could argue that there are other turn river combinations that make you a winner (J/J or J/X or J/T), but only J/J GUARANTEES you a win here. You have to at least consider someone for QQ with capped preflop and post flop, so two of the three boat/quad scenarios lose you the pot. Also, someone could be in there with AJ, so you could lose to the higher str8 if the K/9 comes. Finally, what is the likelyhood that you will not have to call any bets on the turn to continue? With all that action, there is a 0% chance of that. So, your effective odds are most likely for calling 6 BIG bets to get there (4 small on the flop and 4 big on the turn). I guess the point is with two cards in the playing zone that are higher than yours and all that action going on, there is such a small chance that (1) you are ahead right now and/or (2) you will win that you must consider this a -EV play. I know that the stars were aligned and in the actual hand the runner runner came. BUT, that is completely irrelevant. In fact, if you had called all of those bets and raked in that pot, you have actually LOST in long-term expectation space. I hope this helps. Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., noiseboy, 15. Oct 2003 09:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Some of what S & M tries to teach is more useful for your away from the table analysis of whether you played something correctly. When you get a really good feel for the math of poker, you don't really think about it at the table, it just happens. "Instinct" in poker, is really just a cumulative effect of being in similar situations over and over again, which gives you an immediate insight when they come up that you don't have to think about. One thing I find interesting is that you can acheive the same goal by different means. For instance, Cloutier and McEvoy's works will make you a good player, and they don't really talk much about the math behind poker compared to S&M. They don't have any fancy charts of starting hands or convoluted calculations of what your implied odds may or may not be. But after you read their books, you pretty much know what to do in most poker situations and you have a framework to figure out what they don't cover. I think both the theoretical and the practical approaches are both good, and it's healthy to get a dose of both. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., DallasPokerFan, 15. Oct 2003 11:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sklansky and Malmuth's books seemed to me more of a stream of consciousness than real instruction .. there's very little that I personally have gotten out of reading them other than raising on the flop to see a free card .. which by the way is mostly effective. All the math and stuff, I think, is a little overkill in its accuracy. For example, there's essentially no difference in knowing that, after the flop, your higher pair is a 78.4% favorite or a 4-to-1 favorite .. the exactness is sometimes overrated, IMHO. The Rule-Of-4 and Rule-Of-2 estimates are close enough to make a decision, and you don't have to waste mental energy remembering a big table of odds. Similarly with all of Sklansky & Malmuth's other streams of consciousness, where they say something like, "if this and this, and if this, but not if that, then this, but only if this isn't and this is." It's too tiring to memorize, discounts intangible factors (like 10-beer-deep players), and wastes too much mental energy. For me, I always remember the 6 P's of making a poker decision: 1. Players. What kind of players are you up against? 2. Pot. What are the pot odds (roughly)? 3. Pips. What cards are showing, and what do you have? 4. Pile. How big is my own stack? 5. Probability. What, roughly, are my chances of making a draw/my opponent making a draw? 6. Pollyanna. What are the intangibles? Is someone on a rush, etc. By going over these six things, which can be done quickly and accurately-enough, you don't waste all your time thinking of scenarios outlined in Sklanky's book .. instead, you think mostly about the most important factors. Thoughts? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., steve-o, 15. Oct 2003 12:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks, Dallas, that's good info, and subconciously, I think I ask myself all 6 of those questions when I'm in a hand, though I don't think I've seen it articulated like that before. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., DallasPokerFan, 15. Oct 2003 12:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks! Would you believe I actually made that mnemonic up? The principles, of course, I didn'tmake up, but the mnemonic, I did. Cool, huh? <pats self on back> | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., noiseboy, 15. Oct 2003 12:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that's a good framework for the types of things you should be thinking about at the table. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., noiseboy, 15. Oct 2003 12:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that's a good framework for the types of things you should be thinking about at the table. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., steve-o, 15. Oct 2003 12:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Great post, noiseboy. I see what you're saying, and I think I'll write down your definition of instinct. It's a classic. :-) I'll also get a hold of Cloutier's book, just to get a different perspective. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., LJH, 15. Oct 2003 10:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| STEVE-O, WOW A WHOLE TWO MONTHS AND YOU ARE CRITICIZING TWO OF THE TOP PLAYERS AND AUTHORS. YOU NEED SOME HUMILITY AND ALSO TO LOOK INTO YOURSELF. LJH | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., steve-o, 15. Oct 2003 11:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| ...which is why I posed the questions. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., KJo, 15. Oct 2003 11:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| LOL- good answer. Eli on 15. Oct 2003 11:16 steve-o wrote: > ...which is why I posed the questions. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., shorn, 15. Oct 2003 12:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I will disagree with most of the players below and state that I think a mastery of the mathematical aspects of the game is essential to building a winning base from which to deviate. I am not naive...poker is by and large a situational game, but in order for you to be able to deviate from "correct book play" to be successful, you have to know the book cold. Otherwise, you will be flying blind most of the time. As far as the cold hard numbers, approximations will do fine most of the time. But, the best way (IMO) to ensure success is to master the basic fundamentals which will actually lead you to making correct deviation decisions when they are called for. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., Phish, 15. Oct 2003 13:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In my opinion, the Sklansky and Malmuth literature are essential to an aspiring poker player. Sklansky does have a tendency to get too mathematical, but they're just 'proofs' of the validity of his concepts. You don't need to think 'I have 37% of having....' Nobody thinks like that at the table. In fact, you can even ignore his mathematical 'proofs' and just take his strategic advice and concepts as given and play accordingly. They're almost never wrong. And I agree with Shorn that basic odds and probability are the foundations upon which to build a winning poker game. When you first start out, you'll be playing small stakes with a lot of clueless calling stations. To beat those games requires basic mathematics. Play good hands, don't chase when the odds don't favor it. Pour the money in when you have the best of it (best hand or if the number of players calling are greater than the odds against making your hand). That's it. Very mathematical. Make your money at these stakes by not giving your opponents action when the math is not in your favor and make them pay you off when it is. This solid foundation in math/probability will remain important as you move up. Only when you're playing 3-handed 100/200 or higher can you jettison much of the math and rely on other skills. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: This may be heresy, but I have to ask..., Schuster, 17. Oct 2003 12:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree Shorn. I think one of the most valuable parts of my game is quick math thinking, especially in no limit play. When I can put an opponent on a weighted range of hands and then figure out my chances of winning based on that with reasonable accuracy, I feel a lot more comfortable calling a big bet or folding. Even if you can't do this sort of thing at the table, you should look at a lot of examples away from the table and try to get a general feel for it. Your game will improve and your bankroll will thank you. Lee | ||
| 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 |
|