Comments on: I Think My Biggest Leak Is… http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html Training poker players into professional players Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:32:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Pawel http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8571 Pawel Wed, 23 May 2007 23:05:24 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8571 P.S. "and I would necessarily claim that one must be better from the other" Sorry - of course I meant I would not necessarily claim that one must be better from the other Pawel P.S.
“and I would necessarily claim that one must be better from the other”
Sorry – of course I meant I would not necessarily claim that one must be better from the other
Pawel

]]> By: Pawel http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8570 Pawel Wed, 23 May 2007 23:02:52 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8570 Gary, "It’s possible that those probabilities are such that calling isn’t higher EV than folding. But raising might well be even if calling isn’t. Check-raising might be better than betting. Calling and back raising might be better." I generaly completely agree with you here. I'm not sure however if we generally understand ourselves right. I don't take the EV as an ultimate guide whether to play a hand or not. I only agree (with what I have read about poker so far) with the definition of a strategy as the aim of maximizing ones overall winnings. So I would say that 'if this then do that' is a way of executing the goal. Also, I think that one can estimate EV of those different actions one may take, like for example folding equity etc. Still I mean in the given situation. From what you wrote in the last article it looks like you suggest using some other model for estimating what action is best. Of course I don't know any better yet then the approach I'm trying to describe, yet I don't mind learning, and I would necessarily claim that one must be better from the other. However, I quite don't agree with this statement: "In a wild and loose game you’re more likely to be beat or drawing dead." I think it's more likely that your opponents will rather be chasing gutshots and rising with trash hands and doing some crazy bluffs and doing some absurd slowplaying then betting the nuts. At least that is my experience so far and also it looks reasonable if we are talking about games where people play weak hands maniacally. Anyway, some good discussion seems to arise. All best Pawel Gary,
“It’s possible that those probabilities are such that calling isn’t higher EV than folding. But raising might well be even if calling isn’t. Check-raising might be better than betting. Calling and back raising might be better.”
I generaly completely agree with you here.
I’m not sure however if we generally understand ourselves right.
I don’t take the EV as an ultimate guide whether to play a hand or not. I only agree (with what I have read about poker so far) with the definition of a strategy as the aim of maximizing ones overall winnings. So I would say that ‘if this then do that’ is a way of executing the goal.
Also, I think that one can estimate EV of those different actions one may take, like for example folding equity etc. Still I mean in the given situation.
From what you wrote in the last article it looks like you suggest using some other model for estimating what action is best.
Of course I don’t know any better yet then the approach I’m trying to describe, yet I don’t mind learning, and I would necessarily claim that one must be better from the other.
However, I quite don’t agree with this statement: “In a wild and loose game you’re more likely to be beat or drawing dead.”
I think it’s more likely that your opponents will rather be chasing gutshots and rising with trash hands and doing some crazy bluffs and doing some absurd slowplaying then betting the nuts. At least that is my experience so far and also it looks reasonable if we are talking about games where people play weak hands maniacally.
Anyway, some good discussion seems to arise.
All best
Pawel

]]> By: Math and Poker, Gary Carson http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8568 Math and Poker, Gary Carson Wed, 23 May 2007 20:45:08 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8568 [...] the comments section of an Ed Miller post I mentioned earlier Pawel quotes Dr Zen Dr Zen, “on a paired flop, the EV of drawing to a flush is reasonable if no [...] [...] the comments section of an Ed Miller post I mentioned earlier Pawel quotes Dr Zen Dr Zen, “on a paired flop, the EV of drawing to a flush is reasonable if no [...]

]]> By: Gary Carson http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8567 Gary Carson Wed, 23 May 2007 20:08:59 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8567 btw, keeping a focus on the model rather than the thing itself works fine for soils engineers or electrical engineers. Not so well for industrial engineers (who work with man/machine systems). btw, keeping a focus on the model rather than the thing itself works fine for soils engineers or electrical engineers. Not so well for industrial engineers (who work with man/machine systems).

]]> By: Gary Carson http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8566 Gary Carson Wed, 23 May 2007 20:06:55 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8566 His history gives strong evidence that he can't be trusted. He has behaved very badly in the past for no reason other than to try to please Mason. Maybe he's grown up. I don't know. He says he has. I see no need to assume he has. I don't see a benefit from taking such a path. It's not his association with 2+2 publishing that's the problem. It's his behavior and things he's said. John Feeney, for example, is someone I'd trust. I even trust David, although to a limited extent. I haven't posted on 2+2 since Ed was about 12, so of course he didn't personally delete any of my posts on 2+2. It's not about probability. It's about personal trust. I don't trust him and have never seen him do anything to suggest I should. That's just as true today as it was a year ago. He's had opportunity to show he has changed his stripes and has not taken the opportunity. He says he has changed, but he's not done anything to show it. His history gives strong evidence that he can’t be trusted. He has behaved very badly in the past for no reason other than to try to please Mason.

Maybe he’s grown up. I don’t know. He says he has. I see no need to assume he has. I don’t see a benefit from taking such a path.

It’s not his association with 2+2 publishing that’s the problem. It’s his behavior and things he’s said. John Feeney, for example, is someone I’d trust. I even trust David, although to a limited extent.

I haven’t posted on 2+2 since Ed was about 12, so of course he didn’t personally delete any of my posts on 2+2.

It’s not about probability. It’s about personal trust. I don’t trust him and have never seen him do anything to suggest I should. That’s just as true today as it was a year ago.

He’s had opportunity to show he has changed his stripes and has not taken the opportunity. He says he has changed, but he’s not done anything to show it.

]]> By: jamleeco http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8565 jamleeco Wed, 23 May 2007 17:58:30 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8565 Gary, Question. And since tone is hard to detect on-line, I'm not saying this in a smartassy way, but in the vain of self-examanation of your own thought processes. You made a public statement here that Ed can't be trusted not to delete because of laying down with dogs etc. etc. Is that making a linear assumption about non-linear human behavior? Other factors involved besides he was part of 2+2, ie. he doesn't post there anymore, he started his own strategy discussion site, he never personally deleted any of your posts, etc. Would these factors affect the probability of Ed deleting your posts on his site? Gary,

Question. And since tone is hard to detect on-line, I’m not saying this in a smartassy way, but in the vain of self-examanation of your own thought processes.

You made a public statement here that Ed can’t be trusted not to delete because of laying down with dogs etc. etc. Is that making a linear assumption about non-linear human behavior? Other factors involved besides he was part of 2+2, ie. he doesn’t post there anymore, he started his own strategy discussion site, he never personally deleted any of your posts, etc. Would these factors affect the probability of Ed deleting your posts on his site?

]]> By: Dr Zen http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8554 Dr Zen Tue, 22 May 2007 23:09:31 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8554 Pawel, yes, I understand the theory, but my understanding is that Gary believes Ed underestimates the importance of game conditions and applies the model too strictly (in the terms you used, he ignores the specific circumstances: just like a soil scientist applying a model of soil and not giving any mind to the soil he actually has). Separating "circumstances" from "strategy" is nonsense though. That's exactly what Gary is berating here. Pawel, yes, I understand the theory, but my understanding is that Gary believes Ed underestimates the importance of game conditions and applies the model too strictly (in the terms you used, he ignores the specific circumstances: just like a soil scientist applying a model of soil and not giving any mind to the soil he actually has). Separating “circumstances” from “strategy” is nonsense though. That’s exactly what Gary is berating here.

]]> By: Doctor Razz http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8549 Doctor Razz Tue, 22 May 2007 18:24:38 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8549 "I agree with nfactor13, I think the key to this “paradox” is implied odds." That is exactly the key. That's why we need people like Ed to guide us thru post flop play. “I agree with nfactor13, I think the key to this “paradox” is implied odds.”

That is exactly the key. That’s why we need people like Ed to guide us thru post flop play.

]]> By: Pawel http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8548 Pawel Tue, 22 May 2007 18:20:52 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8548 Dr Zen, "on a paired flop, the EV of drawing to a flush is reasonable if no one has flopped the boat or quads and terrible if they have" Because you can never know for 100% if someone has a boat, or if someone is drawing to a bigger flush along with you, you need to make a play that has the biggest EV on average, and because game conditions change, you have to make assumptions. Reassuming, you try to make a biggest EV play on average under given circumstances. How certain one can be to be against a boat or a quads is on the circumstances part, not on the strategy part. I think there's a good example worth checking in 'The Mathematics Of Poker', pages 4-5. Best regards, Pawel Dr Zen,
“on a paired flop, the EV of drawing to a flush is reasonable if no one has flopped the boat or quads and terrible if they have”
Because you can never know for 100% if someone has a boat, or if someone is drawing to a bigger flush along with you, you need to make a play that has the biggest EV on average, and because game conditions change, you have to make assumptions. Reassuming, you try to make a biggest EV play on average under given circumstances.
How certain one can be to be against a boat or a quads is on the circumstances part, not on the strategy part.
I think there’s a good example worth checking in ‘The Mathematics Of Poker’, pages 4-5.
Best regards,
Pawel

]]> By: JJS http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html/comment-page-1#comment-8547 JJS Tue, 22 May 2007 17:55:43 +0000 http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/limit-hold-em/i-think-my-biggest-leak-is.html#comment-8547 I agree with nfactor13, I think the key to this "paradox" is implied odds. In Dr. R's simplified example the pot size is 5 SB on the flop and it's one SB to you. 5:1 pot odds seems to imply a call. However this is a small pot and its likely to get bigger, so you have to think about future betting and implied odds. We are only getting 2:1 on our money on all future bets (there are only 2 other players in the hand) so implied odds say that we should have at least 33% equity to continue. If you only have 20% equity then clearly the flop call is -EV and should not be made. Pot odds is an important poker concept but it's not whole game, by far. I agree with nfactor13, I think the key to this “paradox” is implied odds.

In Dr. R’s simplified example the pot size is 5 SB on the flop and it’s one SB to you. 5:1 pot odds seems to imply a call. However this is a small pot and its likely to get bigger, so you have to think about future betting and implied odds.

We are only getting 2:1 on our money on all future bets (there are only 2 other players in the hand) so implied odds say that we should have at least 33% equity to continue. If you only have 20% equity then clearly the flop call is -EV and should not be made.

Pot odds is an important poker concept but it’s not whole game, by far.

]]>