| |
Main
Date: 10 Feb 2009 07:20:37
From: WaltWhitman
Subject: Mortons Theorem
|
Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself
I am Large
I contain multitudes
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 13:44:46
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
"WaltWhitman" <a26c32e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
Although I'm no longer considered to know anything about anything
whatsoever, I can tell you that Morton's Theorem is often touted as an
exception to Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which states that any
time you take an action other than the one you would have taken had you seen
your opponents hole cards, you lose and your opponent gains. The FToP works
fine in heads-up examples, but is said to break down in some multi-player
situations where drawing hands may gain at the leaders expense.
However, it always seemed to me that the Morton exceptions to the FToP, as
stated, ignore the fact that if *all* of the cards are turned up, there is
still a best decision for the leader in the hand, and he or she still gains
or loses based on doing the right thing versus the wrong thing.
Perhaps Wayne can stop being a hater long enough to explain this to us all.
tvp
|
| | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 14:04:52
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
On Feb 10 2009 3:44 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> "WaltWhitman" <a26c32e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
>
> Although I'm no longer considered to know anything about anything
> whatsoever, I can tell you that Morton's Theorem is often touted as an
> exception to Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which states that any
> time you take an action other than the one you would have taken had you seen
> your opponents hole cards, you lose and your opponent gains. The FToP works
> fine in heads-up examples, but is said to break down in some multi-player
> situations where drawing hands may gain at the leaders expense.
>
> However, it always seemed to me that the Morton exceptions to the FToP, as
> stated, ignore the fact that if *all* of the cards are turned up, there is
> still a best decision for the leader in the hand, and he or she still gains
> or loses based on doing the right thing versus the wrong thing.
>
> Perhaps Wayne can stop being a hater long enough to explain this to us all.
>
> tvp
You are in essence correct. There is typically no FToP violation from the
perspective of the leader in the hand (although I believe there
potentially could be in an incredibly convoluted constructed case).
Typically the FTOP is violated because of a situation where the
correctness of one of the draw's decisions depends not just on the fact
that the cards are up, but also on the assumption that one or more other
draws will play correctly and can see all the cards.
This "I can make a better play if he helps me out, which he should because
it would be correct for him to do so" aspect is the part the FToP doesn't
quite capture.
Also, the horse race paradox effect is stronger in practice than it is in
theory because the draws have implied odds on their side - something the
FToP fails to account for because there are no implied odds when the cards
are face up.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 22:36:42
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:49a966xu8e.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 10 2009 3:44 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
> > "WaltWhitman" <a26c32e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
> >
> > Although I'm no longer considered to know anything about anything
> > whatsoever, I can tell you that Morton's Theorem is often touted as an
> > exception to Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which states that
any
> > time you take an action other than the one you would have taken had you
seen
> > your opponents hole cards, you lose and your opponent gains. The FToP
works
> > fine in heads-up examples, but is said to break down in some
multi-player
> > situations where drawing hands may gain at the leaders expense.
> >
> > However, it always seemed to me that the Morton exceptions to the FToP,
as
> > stated, ignore the fact that if *all* of the cards are turned up, there
is
> > still a best decision for the leader in the hand, and he or she still
gains
> > or loses based on doing the right thing versus the wrong thing.
> >
> > Perhaps Wayne can stop being a hater long enough to explain this to us
all.
> >
> > tvp
>
> You are in essence correct. There is typically no FToP violation from the
> perspective of the leader in the hand (although I believe there
> potentially could be in an incredibly convoluted constructed case).
> Typically the FTOP is violated because of a situation where the
> correctness of one of the draw's decisions depends not just on the fact
> that the cards are up, but also on the assumption that one or more other
> draws will play correctly and can see all the cards.
>
> This "I can make a better play if he helps me out, which he should because
> it would be correct for him to do so" aspect is the part the FToP doesn't
> quite capture.
>
> Also, the horse race paradox effect is stronger in practice than it is in
> theory because the draws have implied odds on their side - something the
> FToP fails to account for because there are no implied odds when the cards
> are face up.
Thank you, Wayne. I truly appreciate your contribution on this matter.
If I'd said all that, it would have just seemed like I was being the usual
know-it-all. Some people aren't sure they should even listen to anything I
have to say. But if you say it, it has more believability among the newbies.
(I feel I owe much karma to newbies, having beat some up so badly over the
years.)
As for the discussion of new things in poker, I am of the opinion that one
of the newest revelations (which hasn't even become popularized yet) is that
psychology dominates the numbers so thoroughly that *all* of these
strategies being discussed go out the window once you learn how to get into
someone's head.
For instance, take the case of a made hand against two draws. If one of the
players has set up the leader to fold to checkraises (something that can be
tested and verified in other hands) then it can become right to checkraise,
fully expecting the leader to leave, and either win outright or at least get
headsup against the other draw. In fact, the more predictable the leader's
action, the more profitable it becomes for this player to seemingly totally
violate the FToP (based on knowledge existing outside and independent of
this particular hand) and try taking the lead him or herself even if he
*can* see the cards.
The fallacy of current poker thinking is IMO analyzing hands within a box.
They are not played inside a box. There is a heavy influence from the past
experience of the opponent being carried into every hand. Sometimes these
psychological concerns override all that math but these considerations are
rarely accounted for in any strategy discussion.
Of course, you do need to study all the math, because sometimes it *is*
working exactly like that, but it's no reason to ignore facts like this one:
If you get against a stuck player who is obviously getting frustrated,
raising to isolate him preflop and just taking the lead is a very profitable
play. He'll call when he shouldn't. Fold when he shouldn't. He'll figure
something out to make his situation worse often enough that none of the math
has anything to do with it. Throwing away even 83o would be a totally missed
+EV opportunity against some people. Barbara Galloway once confirmed that
this bit of advice made her a lot of money.
tvp
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2009 06:56:49
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
On Feb 11 2009 12:36 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
>>
> Thank you, Wayne. I truly appreciate your contribution on this matter.
>
> If I'd said all that, it would have just seemed like I was being the usual
> know-it-all. Some people aren't sure they should even listen to anything I
> have to say. But if you say it, it has more believability among the newbies.
> (I feel I owe much karma to newbies, having beat some up so badly over the
> years.)
>
> As for the discussion of new things in poker, I am of the opinion that one
> of the newest revelations (which hasn't even become popularized yet) is that
> psychology dominates the numbers so thoroughly that *all* of these
> strategies being discussed go out the window once you learn how to get into
> someone's head.
>
> For instance, take the case of a made hand against two draws. If one of the
> players has set up the leader to fold to checkraises (something that can be
> tested and verified in other hands) then it can become right to checkraise,
> fully expecting the leader to leave, and either win outright or at least get
> headsup against the other draw. In fact, the more predictable the leader's
> action, the more profitable it becomes for this player to seemingly totally
> violate the FToP (based on knowledge existing outside and independent of
> this particular hand) and try taking the lead him or herself even if he
> *can* see the cards.
>
> The fallacy of current poker thinking is IMO analyzing hands within a box.
> They are not played inside a box. There is a heavy influence from the past
> experience of the opponent being carried into every hand. Sometimes these
> psychological concerns override all that math but these considerations are
> rarely accounted for in any strategy discussion.
>
> Of course, you do need to study all the math, because sometimes it *is*
> working exactly like that, but it's no reason to ignore facts like this one:
> If you get against a stuck player who is obviously getting frustrated,
> raising to isolate him preflop and just taking the lead is a very profitable
> play. He'll call when he shouldn't. Fold when he shouldn't. He'll figure
> something out to make his situation worse often enough that none of the math
> has anything to do with it. Throwing away even 83o would be a totally missed
> +EV opportunity against some people. Barbara Galloway once confirmed that
> this bit of advice made her a lot of money.
>
> tvp
I think you over estimate your uselessness. I happen to like reading your
opinions.
I read Morton's Theorem last night and unless I misunderstood it, it is an
over complication of the fact that you want draws to be smart enough to go
away sometimes so you can win the damn pot. I don't know what qualifies
something as a theorem when it should be just common sense.
All this poker theory isn't worth a tinkers dam when the distribution of
cards doesn't cooperate.
Poker is 95% luck and I am shit out of it.
=============================================
Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier!
---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2009 05:50:01
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
On Feb 11 2009 12:36 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
> "Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:49a966xu8e.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Feb 10 2009 3:44 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >
> > > "WaltWhitman" <a26c32e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
> > >
> > > Although I'm no longer considered to know anything about anything
> > > whatsoever, I can tell you that Morton's Theorem is often touted as an
> > > exception to Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which states that
> any
> > > time you take an action other than the one you would have taken had you
> seen
> > > your opponents hole cards, you lose and your opponent gains. The FToP
> works
> > > fine in heads-up examples, but is said to break down in some
> multi-player
> > > situations where drawing hands may gain at the leaders expense.
> > >
> > > However, it always seemed to me that the Morton exceptions to the FToP,
> as
> > > stated, ignore the fact that if *all* of the cards are turned up, there
> is
> > > still a best decision for the leader in the hand, and he or she still
> gains
> > > or loses based on doing the right thing versus the wrong thing.
> > >
> > > Perhaps Wayne can stop being a hater long enough to explain this to us
> all.
> > >
> > > tvp
> >
> > You are in essence correct. There is typically no FToP violation from the
> > perspective of the leader in the hand (although I believe there
> > potentially could be in an incredibly convoluted constructed case).
> > Typically the FTOP is violated because of a situation where the
> > correctness of one of the draw's decisions depends not just on the fact
> > that the cards are up, but also on the assumption that one or more other
> > draws will play correctly and can see all the cards.
> >
> > This "I can make a better play if he helps me out, which he should because
> > it would be correct for him to do so" aspect is the part the FToP doesn't
> > quite capture.
> >
> > Also, the horse race paradox effect is stronger in practice than it is in
> > theory because the draws have implied odds on their side - something the
> > FToP fails to account for because there are no implied odds when the cards
> > are face up.
>
> Thank you, Wayne. I truly appreciate your contribution on this matter.
>
> If I'd said all that, it would have just seemed like I was being the usual
> know-it-all. Some people aren't sure they should even listen to anything I
> have to say. But if you say it, it has more believability among the newbies.
> (I feel I owe much karma to newbies, having beat some up so badly over the
> years.)
>
> As for the discussion of new things in poker, I am of the opinion that one
> of the newest revelations (which hasn't even become popularized yet) is that
> psychology dominates the numbers so thoroughly that *all* of these
> strategies being discussed go out the window once you learn how to get into
> someone's head.
>
> For instance, take the case of a made hand against two draws. If one of the
> players has set up the leader to fold to checkraises (something that can be
> tested and verified in other hands) then it can become right to checkraise,
> fully expecting the leader to leave, and either win outright or at least get
> headsup against the other draw. In fact, the more predictable the leader's
> action, the more profitable it becomes for this player to seemingly totally
> violate the FToP (based on knowledge existing outside and independent of
> this particular hand) and try taking the lead him or herself even if he
> *can* see the cards.
Have either of you actually "played poker" in real games with humans ?
>
> The fallacy of current poker thinking is IMO analyzing hands within a box.
> They are not played inside a box. There is a heavy influence from the past
> experience of the opponent being carried into every hand. Sometimes these
> psychological concerns override all that math but these considerations are
> rarely accounted for in any strategy discussion.
>
> Of course, you do need to study all the math, because sometimes it *is*
> working exactly like that, but it's no reason to ignore facts like this one:
> If you get against a stuck player who is obviously getting frustrated,
> raising to isolate him preflop and just taking the lead is a very profitable
> play. He'll call when he shouldn't. Fold when he shouldn't. He'll figure
> something out to make his situation worse often enough that none of the math
> has anything to do with it.
And this has been happening for 40 years !!
Throwing away even 83o would be a totally missed
> +EV opportunity against some people. Barbara Galloway once confirmed that
> this bit of advice made her a lot of money.
>
> tvp
Any hand can be a +EV in the "perfect" circumstance, and we have known
that for over 30 years
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 14:40:28
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
Wayne, could you post a picture of yourself on your website? I need a
visual.
Thanks
On Feb 10 2009 4:04 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Feb 10 2009 3:44 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
> > "WaltWhitman" <a26c32e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
> >
> > Although I'm no longer considered to know anything about anything
> > whatsoever, I can tell you that Morton's Theorem is often touted as an
> > exception to Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which states that any
> > time you take an action other than the one you would have taken had you
seen
> > your opponents hole cards, you lose and your opponent gains. The FToP works
> > fine in heads-up examples, but is said to break down in some multi-player
> > situations where drawing hands may gain at the leaders expense.
> >
> > However, it always seemed to me that the Morton exceptions to the FToP, as
> > stated, ignore the fact that if *all* of the cards are turned up, there is
> > still a best decision for the leader in the hand, and he or she still gains
> > or loses based on doing the right thing versus the wrong thing.
> >
> > Perhaps Wayne can stop being a hater long enough to explain this to us all.
> >
> > tvp
>
> You are in essence correct. There is typically no FToP violation from the
> perspective of the leader in the hand (although I believe there
> potentially could be in an incredibly convoluted constructed case).
> Typically the FTOP is violated because of a situation where the
> correctness of one of the draw's decisions depends not just on the fact
> that the cards are up, but also on the assumption that one or more other
> draws will play correctly and can see all the cards.
>
> This "I can make a better play if he helps me out, which he should because
> it would be correct for him to do so" aspect is the part the FToP doesn't
> quite capture.
>
> Also, the horse race paradox effect is stronger in practice than it is in
> theory because the draws have implied odds on their side - something the
> FToP fails to account for because there are no implied odds when the cards
> are face up.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
=============================================
Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier!
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 11:07:25
From: Robert Ladd
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
"WaltWhitman" <a26c32e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
>
>
> I contradict myself?
> Very well then I contradict myself
> I am Large
> I contain multitudes
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
>
When it rains, it pours.
Robert Ladd
|
| | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 14:13:18
From: Jon
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
>
> Do puns ever go good?- Hide quoted text -
>
The last 10 puns I read none of them did. In other words, no pun in
ten did.
-jon
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 16:25:30
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
"Jon" <Prestius@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:d68d37c5-358e-4b21-ab33-a85af16d759d@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> Do puns ever go good?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> The last 10 puns I read none of them did. In other words, no pun in
> ten did.
>
> -jon
teehee
|
| | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 14:01:26
From:
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
On Feb 10, 1:04=A0pm, "Will_gamble" <a1...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 10 2009 12:53 PM, Will_gamble wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10 2009 12:07 PM, Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> > > "WaltWhitman" <a26c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > >news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
>
> > > > I contradict myself?
> > > > Very well then I contradict myself
> > > > I am Large
> > > > I contain multitudes
>
> > > When it rains, it pours.
>
> > > Robert Ladd
>
> > Such and evil Ladd
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier!
>
> Crap, a good pun gone bad. =A0'AN' =A0Why doesn't spell check know what I=
mean?
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier!
>
> -----=A0
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do puns ever go good?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 10:53:08
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
On Feb 10 2009 12:07 PM, Robert Ladd wrote:
> "WaltWhitman" <a26c32e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
> >
> >
> > I contradict myself?
> > Very well then I contradict myself
> > I am Large
> > I contain multitudes
> >
> When it rains, it pours.
>
> Robert Ladd
Such and evil Ladd
=============================================
Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier!
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 11:04:41
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
On Feb 10 2009 12:53 PM, Will_gamble wrote:
> On Feb 10 2009 12:07 PM, Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> > "WaltWhitman" <a26c32e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:5ji866x97a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
> > >
> > >
> > > I contradict myself?
> > > Very well then I contradict myself
> > > I am Large
> > > I contain multitudes
> > >
> > When it rains, it pours.
> >
> > Robert Ladd
>
> Such and evil Ladd
>
>
> =============================================
>
> Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier!
Crap, a good pun gone bad. 'AN' Why doesn't spell check know what I mean?
=============================================
Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier!
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 09:06:06
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
On Feb 10 2009 9:20 AM, WaltWhitman wrote:
> Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
>
>
> I contradict myself?
> Very well then I contradict myself
> I am Large
> I contain multitudes
Morton's theorem is the horse race paradox applied to (primarily stud)
poker.
http://cardsharp.org/gambling-wisdom-the-horse-race-paradox/
http://cardsharp.org/let-them-in-or-keep-them-out-the-horserace-paradox-poker/
Those should help although I don't refer to Morton's theorem by name.
Morton's theorem can also be though of as a counterexample to the
fundamental theorem of poker in cases where there are more than two
players in the pot and the horse race paradox applies.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 13:37:39
From: Chuck Schacher
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:uoo866xs6b.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 10 2009 9:20 AM, WaltWhitman wrote:
>
>> Any body care to explain?(WAYNE?)
>>
>>
>> I contradict myself?
>> Very well then I contradict myself
>> I am Large
>> I contain multitudes
>
> Morton's theorem is the horse race paradox applied to (primarily stud)
> poker.
>
> http://cardsharp.org/gambling-wisdom-the-horse-race-paradox/
> http://cardsharp.org/let-them-in-or-keep-them-out-the-horserace-paradox-poker/
>
> Those should help although I don't refer to Morton's theorem by name.
>
> Morton's theorem can also be though of as a counterexample to the
> fundamental theorem of poker in cases where there are more than two
> players in the pot and the horse race paradox applies.
>
> I read the explinations in the links you provided, and they are convoluted
> and hard to understand. A better and easier to understand explination can
> be found in Wickapedia.
Chuck
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ------
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
>
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 17:00:32
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
On Feb 10 2009 3:37 PM, Chuck Schacher wrote:
Chuck.. good to see you back
have you seen the threads where i challenge to concept of "modern poker
strategies"?
Basically , I say that there are no new winning poker strategies , that
werent implemented by the winners 30 years ago.
There are more data collection devices but as far as any new strategies
disproving or making any successful "old" poker strategies obsolete .. I
say that it hasnt happened !!
You are computer savy and you have been beating poker for over 25 years ..
I want to hear your thoughts.
ty
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2009 13:51:44
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Mortons Theorem
|
> I read the explinations in the links you provided, and they are convoluted
> and hard to understand. A better and easier to understand explination can
> be found in Wickapedia.
>
> Chuck
Only one problem - Wikipedia's explanation appears to contain at least one
error - I stopped reading at that point. Believe what you like of course.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
|
