
Main
Date: 09 Feb 2009 09:26:02
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

Doggy's thread is retarded (natch), so there's no point in posting this there. But here's a reasonable list of examples of new poker theory that's changed the game. I'll define new as postdating Theory of Poker and Holdem Poker For Advanced Players Game Theoretic:   The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" and "exploitative" play  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the effective proof that this solution applies to the real world below a certain stack depth Basic Mathematics:   The calculation of equity against a hand range (effectively impossible without a PC)  Tournament equity models (ICM etc.) and resulting retarded bubble strategies in badly structured tournaments Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading:  The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines and tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. Limit Holdem:   Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold.  practical short handed and headsup strategy (look at HPFAP to see what poor shape this was in not too long ago) NL Holdem:   SC numbers and related laterstreet concepts of commitment  Proof of the unavoidable advantage held by short stacks in mixed stack depth games and resulting strategies (ditto for PLO)  "Small ball" tournament strategy  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO not an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. I'm sure there are a lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. All of this stuff is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who refuse to keep up at a massive disadvantage. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com



Date: 12 Feb 2009 18:52:11
From: RichD
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 9, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote: > Game Theoretic: >  >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the > effective proof that this solution applies to the real world below > a certain stack depth This has been solved, mathematically? Can you elaborate?

 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 23:59:43
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

All the scoots have done is become addicted to gambling and basically ruined most of their lives. While 1 in a million makes the cut, the others will ruin their lives unless they come to their senses. WhyKnow Vinson and MORONPHY have absolutely nothing to offer poker except a calculator for math. Now, if they were playing props or showdown, they'd have a useful purpose. These two morons write as if they are privy to something. They are, the Emporers new clothes. Meanwhile they don't realize that poker was never this big and playing earned you far more than writing did. And why would a great player expose his tricks? How would a player expose his tricks/knowledge if he'd have written decades ago. Supersystem had so much BS in it that was known by all the good players and dozens of little people did the writing. Caro and Sklansky were struggling in those days. Joey Hawthorne didn't even write the lowball section, yet is credited with writing it. He told me so himself, as he was too coked up in those days. He took a briefcase into a Denny's after a drug deal with $250,000 in it. Left without it. Guess what? He never found it:). On Feb 18, 12:49=EF=BF=BDam, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote: > On Feb 17 2009 6:43 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point ou= t > > > it's nonsense. =EF=BF=BDIt can't be "understood" because there's noth= ing coherent > > > to understand. > > > Everything you write is NONSENSE. So here I am pointing out the > > nonsense you spew, just as you state. Perhaps you'd like to post some > > poker theory so I can destroy it? Care to debate me on poker theory? > > For someone who supposedly makes a living doing something else, you're > > sure on this site a lot. > > > Russ Georgiev > > >www.pokermafia.com > >www.pokerunchecked.com > >www.russgeorgiev.com > > Russ, > > All of our other squabbles aside , do you agree with my stance in this > thread that all the newer data collection methods and things have maybe > "fine tuned " the math , but has not yet provided anything "NEW" in the > way of successful poker tsrategy , that makes older theories obsolete or > secondary? > > I know these kids want to believe that they have "reinvented" poker > strategies and in fact have invented some that are bad .. but I contend > that they havent really "knocked any of the old (sucessful strategies) in > the dirt. they have invented new names for things that were discussed and > examined in the past , but not actually =EF=BF=BDusurped any old strategi= es. > > I dont believe they have offered anything new that wasnt in some way > adressed in the past, in some basic fashion. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 8:58=EF=BF=BDam, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wr= ote: > > > > This is the typical answer that you give when you don't understand = a > post. > > > > It's getting to be a onetrick pony show. > > > > When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point ou= t > > > it's nonsense. =EF=BF=BDIt can't be "understood" because there's noth= ing coherent > > > to understand. > > > > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/ > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > > > > =EF=BF=BD > > > RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities= . > Voltaire > > ______________________________________________________________________=EF= =BF=BD > RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com Hide qu= oted text  > >  Show quoted text  Hide quoted text  > >  Show quoted text 

 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 22:12:52
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

Whyknow Vinson makes Doogy look like a Saint. A Saint Bernard:). On Feb 17, 10:03=EF=BF=BDpm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com > wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:03:03 0800, "Wayne Vinson" > > <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: > > >> If you don't understand something just say so and I'll explain. > > >Bzzzzzt. Wrong. =EF=BF=BDYour job is to correct the mistakes you've alre= ady made. > >I have no interest in dealing with more from you until you do. > > This is very close to proof that you are 100% troll.

 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 16:43:37
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point out > it's nonsense. It can't be "understood" because there's nothing coherent > to understand. Everything you write is NONSENSE. So here I am pointing out the nonsense you spew, just as you state. Perhaps you'd like to post some poker theory so I can destroy it? Care to debate me on poker theory? For someone who supposedly makes a living doing something else, you're sure on this site a lot. Russ Georgiev www.pokermafia.com www.pokerunchecked.com www.russgeorgiev.com On Feb 17, 8:58=EF=BF=BDam, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote: > > This is the typical answer that you give when you don't understand a po= st. > > It's getting to be a onetrick pony show. > > When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point out > it's nonsense. =EF=BF=BDIt can't be "understood" because there's nothing = coherent > to understand. > > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > > =EF=BF=BD > RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com

  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 00:49:41
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 17 2009 6:43 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote: > > When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point out > > it's nonsense. It can't be "understood" because there's nothing coherent > > to understand. > > > Everything you write is NONSENSE. So here I am pointing out the > nonsense you spew, just as you state. Perhaps you'd like to post some > poker theory so I can destroy it? Care to debate me on poker theory? > For someone who supposedly makes a living doing something else, you're > sure on this site a lot. > > Russ Georgiev > > www.pokermafia.com > www.pokerunchecked.com > www.russgeorgiev.com Russ, All of our other squabbles aside , do you agree with my stance in this thread that all the newer data collection methods and things have maybe "fine tuned " the math , but has not yet provided anything "NEW" in the way of successful poker tsrategy , that makes older theories obsolete or secondary? I know these kids want to believe that they have "reinvented" poker strategies and in fact have invented some that are bad .. but I contend that they havent really "knocked any of the old (sucessful strategies) in the dirt. they have invented new names for things that were discussed and examined in the past , but not actually usurped any old strategies. I dont believe they have offered anything new that wasnt in some way adressed in the past, in some basic fashion. > > > > On Feb 17, 8:58ï¿½am, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: > > > This is the typical answer that you give when you don't understand a post. > > > It's getting to be a onetrick pony show. > > > > When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point out > > it's nonsense. ï¿½It can't be "understood" because there's nothing coherent > > to understand. > > > > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/ > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > > > > ï¿½ > > RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire ______________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 16:47:27
From: RichD
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 12, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote: > > > Game Theoretic: > > >  > > >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the > > > effective proof that this solution applies to the real world below > > > a certain stack depth > > > This has been solved, mathematically? =A0Can you elaborate? > > Given a stack depth and the rule that all actions must be > either push or fold, you can compute a table of the correct > percentage of pushes with any given hand from both > positions. =A0The resulting play is game theoretic optimal with > all that entails. Is this available in a form useable by humans? Why or when would this 'push or fold' rule be in effect?

  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:22:01
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> Is this available in a form useable by humans? Yes, it's just a pair of tables with optimal push percentage from each position. The tables change somewhat with stack depth and would be different without reversed blinds. > Why or when would this 'push or fold' rule be in effect? In practice, when tournament becomes short stacked you will always push or fold. While it's not a rule of the game that you must do so, all other lines are worse so in practice you are in a push/fold situation. As such the tables would apply exactly. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com

   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:03:30
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 15 2009 3:22 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > > Is this available in a form useable by humans? > > Yes, it's just a pair of tables with optimal push percentage from each > position. The tables change somewhat with stack depth and would be > different without reversed blinds. > > > Why or when would this 'push or fold' rule be in effect? > > In practice, when tournament becomes short stacked you will always push > or fold. While it's not a rule of the game that you must do so, all other > lines are worse so in practice you are in a push/fold situation. As such > the tables would apply exactly. > You're confused. While it's true that the optimal value of a objective function defined on a feasible set defined by linear equations (a linear programming model of a game theory poker model) can always be found on a "corner" of the feasible set, that doesn't mean that every optimal solution will be on one of those corners. The corners in this case are push or fold. If the straight line drawn between "push" and "fold" is parrallel to the objective function then any linear combination of push or fold is optimal. If you find an optimal solution that is not on a corner then you are guarenteed that you can find an optimal solution on a corner (a corner solution with the same value as the original noncorner solution). Also, in a tournment it's never the case that blinds alternate  at some point the blinds will increase so if the big blind is $200 this time it could be the case that the small blind will be $300 next hand. But that's just about your model not relecting reality. My main point of this response is that you don't understand the characteristics of an optimal solution to the model.  : the next generation of webnewsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

    
Date: 15 Feb 2009 20:17:54
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 15 2009 3:03 PM, garycarson wrote: > On Feb 15 2009 3:22 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > > > > Is this available in a form useable by humans? > > > > Yes, it's just a pair of tables with optimal push percentage from each > > position. The tables change somewhat with stack depth and would be > > different without reversed blinds. > > > > > Why or when would this 'push or fold' rule be in effect? > > > > In practice, when tournament becomes short stacked you will always push > > or fold. While it's not a rule of the game that you must do so, all other > > lines are worse so in practice you are in a push/fold situation. As such > > the tables would apply exactly. > > > > > You're confused. > > While it's true that the optimal value of a objective function defined on > a feasible set defined by linear equations (a linear programming model of > a game theory poker model) can always be found on a "corner" of the > feasible set, that doesn't mean that every optimal solution will be on one > of those corners. > > The corners in this case are push or fold. If the straight line drawn > between "push" and "fold" is parrallel to the objective function then any > linear combination of push or fold is optimal. If you find an optimal > solution that is not on a corner then you are guarenteed that you can find > an optimal solution on a corner (a corner solution with the same value as > the original noncorner solution). > > Also, in a tournment it's never the case that blinds alternate  at some > point the blinds will increase so if the big blind is $200 this time it > could be the case that the small blind will be $300 next hand. But that's > just about your model not relecting reality. My main point of this > response is that you don't understand the characteristics of an optimal > solution to the model. More typical gary errors. Reread my post carefully, understand clearly why you're not actually replying to what I said, and then try again. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

     
Date: 16 Feb 2009 12:17:40
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:i06n66x0ap.ln2@recgroups.com... > More typical gary errors. Reread my post carefully, understand clearly > why you're not actually replying to what I said, and then try again. This is the typical answer that you give when you don't understand a post. It's getting to be a onetrick pony show.

      
Date: 17 Feb 2009 08:58:04
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> > This is the typical answer that you give when you don't understand a post. > It's getting to be a onetrick pony show. When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point out it's nonsense. It can't be "understood" because there's nothing coherent to understand. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

       
Date: 17 Feb 2009 18:34:42
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:st6r66xi2f.ln2@recgroups.com... >> >> This is the typical answer that you give when you don't understand a >> post. >> It's getting to be a onetrick pony show. > > When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point out > it's nonsense. It can't be "understood" because there's nothing coherent > to understand. You didn't point out anything. You just condescendingly asserted the existence of "errors" without identifying any errors. You know...pretty much the same thing you always do whenever someone responds indepth and with substance to one of your posts.

        
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:06:06
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> You didn't point out anything. You just condescendingly asserted the > existence of "errors" without identifying any errors. True. You're working under the mistaken impression that I want to make it easy on Gary. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com ______________________________________________________________________ * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

       
Date: 17 Feb 2009 09:13:10
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 17 2009 11:58 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > > > > This is the typical answer that you give when you don't understand a post. > > It's getting to be a onetrick pony show. > > When someone posts nonsense, the only correct response it to point out > it's nonsense. It can't be "understood" because there's nothing coherent > to understand. > If you don't understand something just say so and I'll explain. But when you keep insisting that things contain an "error" then the implication is that you understood it. If you keep trying to imply you understand something when you don't understand it then I'll continue to use technical jargon without explanation and we just get deeper into territory you don't understand. Now that I realize that my original thought that you don't understand any of this is correct I'll be less technicaL Let's back up some and see how much you understand about the basics of using models. When you talk about proving that a model is applicable to reality it's not clear what sense you mean by prove. You can't prove the validity of a model  you can measure the validity and compare the validity of two different models, but it's not something you prove. Does that sound like nonsense to you? Or do I need to explain what validity means? Did you read the chapter I posted about what a model is? It's a representation of reality, it's not reality.  looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com

        
Date: 17 Feb 2009 13:03:03
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> > > If you don't understand something just say so and I'll explain. Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Your job is to correct the mistakes you've already made. I have no interest in dealing with more from you until you do. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

         
Date: 17 Feb 2009 22:03:32
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:03:03 0800, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote: >> >> >> If you don't understand something just say so and I'll explain. > >Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Your job is to correct the mistakes you've already made. >I have no interest in dealing with more from you until you do. This is very close to proof that you are 100% troll.

         
Date: 17 Feb 2009 21:56:11
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 17 2009 3:03 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > > > > > > If you don't understand something just say so and I'll explain. > > Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Your job is to correct the mistakes you've already made. > I have no interest in dealing with more from you until you do. > > Wayne Vinson > http://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com TRANSLATION ... In Emily Litella's best voice "nevermind " Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire  * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

         
Date: 17 Feb 2009 18:40:07
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:79lr66x9fk.ln2@recgroups.com... >> >> >> If you don't understand something just say so and I'll explain. > > Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Your job is to correct the mistakes you've already made. > I have no interest in dealing with more from you until you do. LOL!

 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 21:57:37
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 12 2009 8:52 PM, RichD wrote: > On Feb 9, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: > > Game Theoretic: > >  > >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the > > effective proof that this solution applies to the real world below > > a certain stack depth > > This has been solved, mathematically? Can you elaborate? Given a stack depth and the rule that all actions must be either push or fold, you can compute a table of the correct percentage of pushes with any given hand from both positions. The resulting play is game theoretic optimal with all that entails. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 08:29:11
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 13 2009 12:57 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > On Feb 12 2009 8:52 PM, RichD wrote: > > > On Feb 9, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: > > > Game Theoretic: > > >  > > >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the > > > effective proof that this solution applies to the real world below > > > a certain stack depth > > > > This has been solved, mathematically? Can you elaborate? > > Given a stack depth and the rule that all actions must be either push or > fold, you can compute a table of the correct percentage of pushes with any > given hand from both positions. The resulting play is game theoretic > optimal with all that entails. > > Game theory models are about as far away from real world situations as you can get. Models which set artifical limits on available actions to simplify computation are not the real world. Your assertion that "this solution applies to the real world" is just nonsensical. ______________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

   
Date: 13 Feb 2009 10:04:26
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> > Game theory models are about as far away from real world situations as you > can get. > > Models which set artifical limits on available actions to simplify > computation are not the real world. > > Your assertion that "this solution applies to the real world" is just > nonsensical. False, Gary. Review your post, spot your 3 errors, tell me what they are, and then we can continue. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com ____________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com

    
Date: 13 Feb 2009 12:59:59
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:aapg66x9bj.ln2@recgroups.com... >> >> Game theory models are about as far away from real world situations as >> you >> can get. >> >> Models which set artifical limits on available actions to simplify >> computation are not the real world. >> >> Your assertion that "this solution applies to the real world" is just >> nonsensical. > > > False, Gary. Review your post, spot your 3 errors, tell me what they > are, and then we can continue. I'm still waiting for the details on the prosecution in Texas that you claim was based on playing poker as a group. Why would Gary want to respond to a person who just makes shit up, goes about his merry way, and never acknowledges any mistakes?

     
Date: 13 Feb 2009 12:00:26
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> Why would Gary want to respond to a > person... You're mistakenly assuming I want a response from gary. The fastest way to make someone as ignorant as he is go away is to ask them to correct their mistakes. It's like making a kid who can't spell look the words up in the dictionary. After about three goes at it, they start crying. In gary's case he'll just go lose money at poker. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com _____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of webnewsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

      
Date: 13 Feb 2009 15:29:54
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 13 2009 3:00 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > > Why would Gary want to respond to a > > person... > > You're mistakenly assuming I want a response from gary. The fastest way > to make someone as ignorant as he is go away is to ask them to correct > their mistakes. It's like making a kid who can't spell look the words up > in the dictionary. After about three goes at it, they start crying. > LOL I used to actually make a living applying the results of mathematical models to real world decisions. Plus I used to teach this stuff in college. I have no idea if I made any mistakes in the post, although I doubt that I did. But it doesn't even matter  mathematical models of human interaction simply do no prove anything about the read world confrontation being model. Such models can be helpful in informing read world decisions and in some cases you can improve decisions by blind application of the model result. I don't think you understand the maning of words such as "mathematics", "model", "theory", "prove", "reality", etc. ________________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com

       
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:23:40
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 13 2009 5:29 PM, garycarson wrote: > On Feb 13 2009 3:00 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > > > > Why would Gary want to respond to a > > > person... > > > > You're mistakenly assuming I want a response from gary. The fastest way > > to make someone as ignorant as he is go away is to ask them to correct > > their mistakes. It's like making a kid who can't spell look the words up > > in the dictionary. After about three goes at it, they start crying. > > > > LOL > > I used to actually make a living applying the results of mathematical > models to real world decisions. Plus I used to teach this stuff in > college. > > I have no idea if I made any mistakes in the post, although I doubt that I > did. But it doesn't even matter  mathematical models of human > interaction simply do no prove anything about the read world confrontation > being model. Such models can be helpful in informing read world decisions > and in some cases you can improve decisions by blind application of the > model result. > > I don't think you understand the maning of words such as "mathematics", > "model", "theory", "prove", "reality", etc. More mistakes in this post. Didn't anyone ever tell you that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging? You can start by correcting your previous mistakes then we'll deal with this post. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  : the next generation of webnewsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

     
Date: 13 Feb 2009 11:20:46
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 13 2009 1:59 PM, James L. Hankins wrote: > "Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:aapg66x9bj.ln2@recgroups.com... > >> > >> Game theory models are about as far away from real world situations as > >> you > >> can get. > >> > >> Models which set artifical limits on available actions to simplify > >> computation are not the real world. > >> > >> Your assertion that "this solution applies to the real world" is just > >> nonsensical. > > > > > > False, Gary. Review your post, spot your 3 errors, tell me what they > > are, and then we can continue. > > > > I'm still waiting for the details on the prosecution in Texas that you claim > was based on playing poker as a group. Why would Gary want to respond to a > person who just makes shit up, goes about his merry way, and never > acknowledges any mistakes? In Texas if 5 or more chop up the rake it becomes a felony gambling house operation charge. He might have read about something like that and completely misunderstood the charge and the factual basis for the charge. There's a lot that he just doesn't understand. He doesn't intentially make stuff up, he's just not very bright. _____________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 22:41:41
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 12 2009 11:57 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > On Feb 12 2009 8:52 PM, RichD wrote: > > > On Feb 9, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: > > > Game Theoretic: > > >  > > >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the > > > effective proof that this solution applies to the real world below > > > a certain stack depth > > > > This has been solved, mathematically? Can you elaborate? > > Given a stack depth and the rule that all actions must be either push or > fold, you can compute a table of the correct percentage of pushes with any > given hand from both positions. The resulting play is game theoretic > optimal with all that entails. > ABSOLUTE FUCKIN JIBBERISH > > Wayne Vinson > http://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire ____________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

   
Date: 13 Feb 2009 06:24:08
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> ABSOLUTE FUCKIN JIBBERISH Nope. You just don't understand it. Which has been the point of all these threads really. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com ________________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com

 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 19:16:58
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 12 2009 9:52 PM, RichD wrote: > On Feb 9, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: > > Game Theoretic: > >  > >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the > > effective proof that this solution applies to the real world below > > a certain stack depth > > This has been solved, mathematically? Can you elaborate? Asking Wayne to elaborate on a mathematical proof is like asking Mikeo to elaborate on a distinction between fact and paranoid delusions. _____________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com


Date: 10 Feb 2009 18:31:27
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 9 2009 12:26 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > Doggy's thread is retarded (natch), so there's no point in posting this > there. But here's a reasonable list of examples of new poker theory > that's changed the game. I'll define new as postdating Theory of Poker > and Holdem Poker For Advanced Players > > Game Theoretic: >  >  The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" and > "exploitative" play >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the effective proof > that this solution applies to the real world below a certain stack depth > > > Basic Mathematics: >  >  The calculation of equity against a hand range (effectively impossible > without a PC) >  Tournament equity models (ICM etc.) and resulting retarded bubble > strategies in badly structured tournaments > > Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading: >  > The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines and > tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. > > Limit Holdem: >  >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. >  practical short handed and headsup strategy (look at HPFAP to see what > poor shape this was in not too long ago) > > > NL Holdem: >  >  SC numbers and related laterstreet concepts of commitment >  Proof of the unavoidable advantage held by short stacks in mixed stack > depth games and resulting strategies (ditto for PLO) >  "Small ball" tournament strategy >  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO not > an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) > > > So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. I'm sure there are a > lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. All of this stuff > is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who refuse > to keep up at a massive disadvantage. > > Wayne Vinson > http://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com Game theory, optimization theory, Bayes theorem, equity calculations, etc are not poker theories for any kind of meaningful definition of what a theory is. I'd recommend chapter 10 of The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker for a discussion of what a poker theory is. http://garycarson.blogspot.com/2009/02/theoriesofpoker.html Part of that chapter is below <blockquote > In most fields it's not unusual for researchers or analysts to blur the distinction between the theory of some phenomena and a model based on the theory. That's particularly true in the poker literature. A theory of poker and a model of poker, however, are really distinct things, and I think it's important to understand that distinction when you're thinking and learning about poker. What is a theory? A theory has three characteristics: descriptive, explanatory, and predictive. None of these characteristics are necessarily explicit or even complete in any particular theory. A good theory is usually one that can be simply stated in one or more straightforward declarative sentences that has desirable implications for describing, explaining, or predicting observed behavior of the phenomena under study. A good theory doesn't need to do all three of these things. A good theory, however, does need to have some strong explanatory power. A theory that doesn't help us understand the game doesn't really help all that much. An example is a simply stated theory of poker is: Poker is a struggle among the players for the rights to the ante. This theory doesn't lend much towards describing poker. It doesn't tell us how the betting is structured to facilitate the struggle among the players. It doesn't tell us how to determine which player ends up with the pot. The theory does have some explanatory power for the first round of betting. It explains why it's usually best to limit your opening hands to those hands with self contained power rather than those that have value through drawing power. Since it does not address the pot growth that comes from multiple betting rounds, it adds nothing to an explanation of the value of hands like Jack, 10 suited in Hold 'Em. The theory has some predictive power, but not much. A theoretical prediction for poker should provide us with a prescription for play  it should tell us something about the best way to play the game. For poker variants with multiple betting rounds, like Hold 'Em, it just doesn't do that. It does help us predict things like a tight range of likely hands that a knowledgeable player who opened from early position might have. An example of a theory with a different kind of predictive power is: Money flows from bad players to good players. This theory doesn't have much descriptive power; it doesn't tell us who the good and bad players are. Assuming we have some other method to identify good and bad players, it does help us predict the outcome of a poker session. In fact, I used a simple mathematical model of that theory to develop the recommendations in Chapter 8 for when a single really bad player in a game can make an otherwise unprofitable game profitable. What is a Model? A model is a structured representation of a theory. It's descriptive of the theory, not necessarily descriptive of the phenomena. Often we can use a model to derive the predictive elements of a theory. A model might be in the form of an explicit mathematical statement, or it might just be a conceptual structuring. An example is a game theory model of the Pokerisastrugglefortheantetheory. You can use a game theory model to derive a list of opening hands by position. In relatively tight games, where it's typically headsup after the first round of betting we can use that same game theory model to determine the hands with which we should be willing to call an opening bet. We can extend the use of the same model to determine when to bet, call, or bluff on the river. </blockquote >  * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 20:28:10
From:
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 10, 9:08=A0pm, "RussGeorg...@aol.com" <RussGeorg...@aol.com > wrote: > Gary, don't you know who you're talking to? It's Whyknow Vinson. > Everyone wants to know why he's so smart in poker. His brother is > Iknow Vinson and together they make up the rare exception two heads > aren't better than one. Of course, KNOWONE has ever heard of Whyknow. Maybe if you put the two heads together, it might make an ass?

 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 19:08:12
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

Gary, don't you know who you're talking to? It's Whyknow Vinson. Everyone wants to know why he's so smart in poker. His brother is Iknow Vinson and together they make up the rare exception two heads aren't better than one. Of course, KNOWONE has ever heard of Whyknow. On Feb 10, 6:31=EF=BF=BDpm, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.ed= u > wrote: > On Feb 9 2009 12:26 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > > > > > > > Doggy's thread is retarded (natch), so there's no point in posting this > > there. =EF=BF=BDBut here's a reasonable list of examples of new poker t= heory > > that's changed the game. =EF=BF=BDI'll define new as postdating Theory = of Poker > > and Holdem Poker For Advanced Players > > > Game Theoretic: > >  > >  The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" a= nd > > "exploitative" play > >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the effective pro= of > > that this solution applies to the real world below a certain stack dept= h > > > Basic Mathematics: > >  > >  The calculation of equity against a hand range (effectively impossibl= e > > without a PC) > >  Tournament equity models (ICM etc.) and resulting retarded bubble > > strategies in badly structured tournaments > > > Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading: > >  > > The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines a= nd > > tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. > > > Limit Holdem: > >  > >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. > >  practical short handed and headsup strategy (look at HPFAP to see wh= at > > poor shape this was in not too long ago) > > > NL Holdem: > >  > >  SC numbers and related laterstreet concepts of commitment > >  Proof of the unavoidable advantage held by short stacks in mixed stac= k > > depth games and resulting strategies (ditto for PLO) > >  "Small ball" tournament strategy > >  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO = not > > an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) > > > So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. =EF=BF=BDI'm sure th= ere are a > > lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. =EF=BF=BDAll of t= his stuff > > is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who ref= use > > to keep up at a massive disadvantage. > > > Wayne Vinson > >http://cardsharp.org/ > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > > Game theory, optimization theory, Bayes theorem, equity calculations, etc > are not poker theories for any kind of meaningful definition of what a > theory is. > > I'd recommend chapter 10 of The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker for a > discussion of what a poker theory is. > > http://garycarson.blogspot.com/2009/02/theoriesofpoker.html > > Part of that chapter is below > > <blockquote> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD In most fields it's not unusual f= or researchers or analysts to blur the > distinction between the theory of some phenomena and a model based on the > theory. =EF=BF=BDThat's particularly true in the poker literature. =EF=BF= =BD A theory of > poker and a model of poker, however, are really distinct things, and I > think it's important to understand that distinction when you're thinking > and learning about poker. > What is a theory? > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD A theory has three characteristic= s: descriptive, explanatory, and > predictive. =EF=BF=BD None of these characteristics are necessarily expli= cit or > even complete in any particular theory. =EF=BF=BD A good theory is usuall= y one > that can be simply stated in one or more straightforward declarative > sentences that has desirable implications for describing, explaining, or > predicting observed behavior of the phenomena under study. =EF=BF=BDA goo= d theory > doesn't need to do all three of these things. =EF=BF=BDA good theory, how= ever, > does need to have some strong explanatory power. =EF=BF=BDA theory that d= oesn't > help us understand the game doesn't really help all that much. > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD An example is a simply stated the= ory of poker is: =EF=BF=BDPoker is a struggle > among the players for the rights to the ante. =EF=BF=BDThis theory doesn'= t lend > much towards describing poker. =EF=BF=BD It doesn't tell us how the betti= ng is > structured to facilitate the struggle among the players. =EF=BF=BDIt does= n't tell > us how to determine which player ends up with the pot. > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD The theory does have some explana= tory power for the first round of > betting. =EF=BF=BDIt explains why it's usually best to limit your opening= hands to > those hands with self contained power rather than those that have value > through drawing power. =EF=BF=BDSince it does not address the pot growth = that > comes from multiple betting rounds, it adds nothing to an explanation of > the value of hands like Jack, 10 suited in Hold 'Em. =EF=BF=BD > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD The theory has some predictive po= wer, but not much. =EF=BF=BDA theoretical > prediction for poker should provide us with a prescription for play  it > should tell us something about the best way to play the game. =EF=BF=BDFo= r poker > variants with multiple betting rounds, like Hold 'Em, it just doesn't do > that. =EF=BF=BD It does help us predict things like a tight range of like= ly hands > that a knowledgeable player who opened from early position might have. = =EF=BF=BD > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD An example of a theory with a dif= ferent kind of predictive power is: > Money flows from bad players to good players. =EF=BF=BDThis theory doesn'= t have > much descriptive power; it doesn't tell us who the good and bad players > are. =EF=BF=BDAssuming we have some other method to identify good and bad= players, > it does help us predict the outcome of a poker session. =EF=BF=BD In fact= , I used > a simple mathematical model of that theory to develop the recommendations > in Chapter 8 for when a single really bad player in a game can make an > otherwise unprofitable game profitable. > What is a Model? > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD A model is a structured represent= ation of a theory. =EF=BF=BD It's descriptive of > the theory, not necessarily descriptive of the phenomena. =EF=BF=BDOften = we can > use a model to derive the predictive elements of a theory. =EF=BF=BDA mod= el might > be in the form of an explicit mathematical statement, or it might just be > a conceptual structuring. =EF=BF=BD > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD An example is a game theory model= of the > Pokerisastrugglefortheantetheory. =EF=BF=BDYou can use a game theo= ry model > to derive a list of opening hands by position. =EF=BF=BDIn relatively tig= ht games, > where it's typically headsup after the first round of betting we can use > that same game theory model to determine the hands with which we should b= e > willing to call an opening bet. =EF=BF=BDWe can extend the use of the sam= e model > to determine when to bet, call, or bluff on the river. =EF=BF=BD</blockqu= ote > > > =EF=BF=BD > * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com Hide q= uoted text  > >  Show quoted text 

 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 19:06:54
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> Game theory, optimization theory, Bayes theorem, equity calculations, etc > are not poker theories for any kind of meaningful definition of what a > theory is. You're a funny man, Gary. I don't think I'd bother reading your book if someone provided me with a free copy and paid me my hourly rate to do so. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com _____________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com


Date: 10 Feb 2009 16:30:10
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

I admit Doogy gets in over his head. But, you Whyknow? Who ever heard of Whyknow Vinson? No one I know and I know about everyone who's anyone in poker. You, Moronphy and now Fellknit are a click (clack). You may have intelligence, but it's not in the world of poker. I want my pipes fixed, I call a hooker or a plumber:), depending on the pipes. I want poker info, you'd be on page 32347895736108826262626 in the book. I'd be dead before I got to the page you're on. Whyknow? I don't know On Feb 9, 9:26=EF=BF=BDam, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote: > Doggy's thread is retarded (natch), so there's no point in posting this > there. =EF=BF=BDBut here's a reasonable list of examples of new poker the= ory > that's changed the game. =EF=BF=BDI'll define new as postdating Theory of= Poker > and Holdem Poker For Advanced Players > > Game Theoretic: >  >  The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" and > "exploitative" play >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the effective proof > that this solution applies to the real world below a certain stack depth > > Basic Mathematics: >  >  The calculation of equity against a hand range (effectively impossible > without a PC) >  Tournament equity models (ICM etc.) and resulting retarded bubble > strategies in badly structured tournaments > > Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading: >  > The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines and > tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. > > Limit Holdem: >  >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. >  practical short handed and headsup strategy (look at HPFAP to see what > poor shape this was in not too long ago) > > NL Holdem: >  >  SC numbers and related laterstreet concepts of commitment >  Proof of the unavoidable advantage held by short stacks in mixed stack > depth games and resulting strategies (ditto for PLO) >  "Small ball" tournament strategy >  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO no= t > an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) > > So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. =EF=BF=BDI'm sure ther= e are a > lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. =EF=BF=BDAll of thi= s stuff > is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who refus= e > to keep up at a massive disadvantage. > > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > > =EF=BF=BD > RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com


Date: 10 Feb 2009 10:44:10
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

There's a main concept a person like you has no concept about. That being the following. All of this was known by the best players previously, but not printed as poker players as a whole play poker and don't write. Plus, one little oll book on theory isn't going to make any poker player much. JUst because the theories weren't in print, doesn't mean they weren't known. It just meant that more money can be made using them in cash games than writing a book. Same as Magicians or Illusionists. Basically everything is the same if you know the tricks. If you don't, anything fools most. Russ Georgiev www.pokermafia.com www.pokerunchecked.com www.russgeorgiev.com On Feb 9, 9:26=EF=BF=BDam, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote: > Doggy's thread is retarded (natch), so there's no point in posting this > there. =EF=BF=BDBut here's a reasonable list of examples of new poker the= ory > that's changed the game. =EF=BF=BDI'll define new as postdating Theory of= Poker > and Holdem Poker For Advanced Players > > Game Theoretic: >  >  The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" and > "exploitative" play >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the effective proof > that this solution applies to the real world below a certain stack depth > > Basic Mathematics: >  >  The calculation of equity against a hand range (effectively impossible > without a PC) >  Tournament equity models (ICM etc.) and resulting retarded bubble > strategies in badly structured tournaments > > Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading: >  > The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines and > tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. > > Limit Holdem: >  >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. >  practical short handed and headsup strategy (look at HPFAP to see what > poor shape this was in not too long ago) > > NL Holdem: >  >  SC numbers and related laterstreet concepts of commitment >  Proof of the unavoidable advantage held by short stacks in mixed stack > depth games and resulting strategies (ditto for PLO) >  "Small ball" tournament strategy >  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO no= t > an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) > > So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. =EF=BF=BDI'm sure ther= e are a > lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. =EF=BF=BDAll of thi= s stuff > is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who refus= e > to keep up at a massive disadvantage. > > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > > =EF=BF=BD > RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com


Date: 09 Feb 2009 18:34:28
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 9 2009 11:26 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > Doggy's thread is retarded (natch), so there's no point in posting this > there. But here's a reasonable list of examples of new poker theory > that's changed the game. I'll define new as postdating Theory of Poker > and Holdem Poker For Advanced Players > > Game Theoretic: >  >  The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" and > "exploitative" play >  The solution of pushorfold heads up NL holdem and the effective proof > that this solution applies to the real world below a certain stack depth > > > Basic Mathematics: >  >  The calculation of equity against a hand range (effectively impossible > without a PC) >  Tournament equity models (ICM etc.) and resulting retarded bubble > strategies in badly structured tournaments > > Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading: >  > The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines and > tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. > > Limit Holdem: >  >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. >  practical short handed and headsup strategy (look at HPFAP to see what > poor shape this was in not too long ago) > > > NL Holdem: >  >  SC numbers and related laterstreet concepts of commitment >  Proof of the unavoidable advantage held by short stacks in mixed stack > depth games and resulting strategies (ditto for PLO) >  "Small ball" tournament strategy >  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO not > an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) > > > So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. I'm sure there are a > lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. All of this stuff > is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who refuse > to keep up at a massive disadvantage. > > Wayne Vinson > http://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com OK .. now that you have used all that flowery syntax to compile a list .simply break any one of them down , explain the basics , and tell me how you know that the desired results were not pursued or examined by others 30 years ago and tell me the improvements made or how it makes the old 'strategies" obsolete or faulty Compiling a list of "renamed theories" , and posting them means absolutely nothing .. it is their effects that are important. Show me an alteration or reversal of any strategy What you have done is simply list several modern days celebrities and claimed that they are superior to celebrities of yesteryear (celebrities being ideas) You remind me of every virgin who gets laid .. they cant wait to tell someone about the "great new thing " they discovered IT ISNT NEW .. IT IS ONLY NEW TO THE VIRGIN !! Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire  * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 07:20:07
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 9 2009 8:34 PM, FangBanger wrote: > OK .. now that you have used all that flowery syntax to compile a list > ..simply break any one of them down , explain the basics , and tell me how > you know that the desired results were not pursued or examined by others > 30 years ago > > and > > tell me the improvements made or how it makes the old 'strategies" > obsolete or faulty Tournament ICM equity calcs that must run on a computer. A program like SNG Power Tools is a great example. Any questions? Oh, and before you make a comment on SNG Power Tools please make sure you know what it is. We don't want another "read the rsp's" moment here...  Morphy xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com http://www.donkeymanifesto.com "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" igotskillz "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely obfuscating what's going on." Official RGP Mantra  RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 07:34:39
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 10 2009 9:20 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote: > On Feb 9 2009 8:34 PM, FangBanger wrote: > > > OK .. now that you have used all that flowery syntax to compile a list > > ..simply break any one of them down , explain the basics , and tell me how > > you know that the desired results were not pursued or examined by others > > 30 years ago > > > > and > > > > tell me the improvements made or how it makes the old 'strategies" > > obsolete or faulty > > Tournament ICM equity calcs that must run on a computer. A program like > SNG Power Tools is a great example. Any questions? Oh, and before you > make a comment on SNG Power Tools please make sure you know what it is. > We don't want another "read the rsp's" moment here... OK .. Once again , this is a data gathering device. Simply having a new power tool doesnt get the holes drilled , at some point someone must use the tool. How does this device alter the game strategy? You can use it to see how you stand after a series of events , but how does it alter past strategies? Almost every response is a list of things that do not alter "at the table' strategies in any way shape or form . And no one has cited anything that has been "replaced" by any new strategy >  > Morphy > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com > > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" igotskillz > > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely > obfuscating what's going on." Official RGP Mantra Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire  : the next generation of webnewsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 07:47:32
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 10 2009 9:34 AM, FangBanger wrote: > OK .. Once again , this is a data gathering device. Simply having a new > power tool doesnt get the holes drilled , at some point someone must use > the tool. > > How does this device alter the game strategy? You can use it to see how > you stand after a series of events , but how does it alter past strategies? > > Almost every response is a list of things that do not alter "at the table' > strategies in any way shape or form . > > And no one has cited anything that has been "replaced" by any new strategy I see where you're coming from here. In its purest sense, holdem hasn't been altered in any way since the days where the SB/BB came in. 2 hole cards, 5 cards up, betting rounds, etc. So in that sense nothing has changed. But with tools so readily available such as SNG Power Tools, various ICM calcs, even the instructional videos on sites like pxf, the game has changed. So many people understand the math down to the finest points that while the underlying math and rules haven't changed, the overall knowledge has changed so much that the game is vastly different now than it was even 5+ years ago (premoneymaker basically).  Morphy xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com http://www.donkeymanifesto.com "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" igotskillz "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely obfuscating what's going on." Official RGP Mantra  * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

    
Date: 10 Feb 2009 16:13:23
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 10 2009 9:47 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote: > On Feb 10 2009 9:34 AM, FangBanger wrote: > > > OK .. Once again , this is a data gathering device. Simply having a new > > power tool doesnt get the holes drilled , at some point someone must use > > the tool. > > > > How does this device alter the game strategy? You can use it to see how > > you stand after a series of events , but how does it alter past strategies? > > > > Almost every response is a list of things that do not alter "at the table' > > strategies in any way shape or form . > > > > And no one has cited anything that has been "replaced" by any new strategy > > I see where you're coming from here. In its purest sense, holdem hasn't > been altered in any way since the days where the SB/BB came in. 2 hole > cards, 5 cards up, betting rounds, etc. So in that sense nothing has > changed. > > But with tools so readily available such as SNG Power Tools, various ICM > calcs, even the instructional videos on sites like pxf, the game has > changed. So many people understand the math down to the finest points > that while the underlying math and rules haven't changed, the overall > knowledge has changed so much that the game is vastly different now than > it was even 5+ years ago (premoneymaker basically). ABSOLUTELY FALSE.. not gonna throw any insults around and I appreciate the 'reasonable discourse" , but simply saying "it is different wont work here. Here are 2 silly examples .. when CocaCola first came out it had cocaine in it , and was presumed safe .. later after more research it was changed because it was unsafe . Cigarettes .. when they came out .. they were marketed a soothing pastime , SAFE FOR ALL.. after research we know what we know now . Simply stating that there are scads of "data" gathering vehicles , and therefore poker has changed may be well intended, but it doesnt hold water. I dont care what kind of line up there is sitting at the table.. aggressive , 4 drunks , 7 tights , 3 hookers and 4 crack heads .. it has been dealt with before. And it doesnt matter if you talk about SNG's as they had them back in 198485.. they were called '"shootouts". They were winner takes all ,and some had breakdowns . These variances were dealt with properly , and poker went on . Here is another point .. most of the "good shit" written about poker has come form those over the age of TVSM.. that should say something about "modern strategy".. The only thing moderbn about it is that it is now "written" instead of passed on in conversations that used to be held around a mirror , with razor blades , and rolled up 100 dollar bills There is no accepted 'winning" strategy that didnt exist 30 years ago > >  > Morphy > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com > > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" igotskillz > > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely > obfuscating what's going on." Official RGP Mantra Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire  * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

     
Date: 11 Feb 2009 06:03:18
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:3qh966xaqf.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Feb 10 2009 9:47 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote: > >> On Feb 10 2009 9:34 AM, FangBanger wrote: >> >> > OK .. Once again , this is a data gathering device. Simply having a new >> > power tool doesnt get the holes drilled , at some point someone must >> > use >> > the tool. >> > >> > How does this device alter the game strategy? You can use it to see how >> > you stand after a series of events , but how does it alter past >> > strategies? >> > >> > Almost every response is a list of things that do not alter "at the >> > table' >> > strategies in any way shape or form . >> > >> > And no one has cited anything that has been "replaced" by any new >> > strategy >> >> I see where you're coming from here. In its purest sense, holdem hasn't >> been altered in any way since the days where the SB/BB came in. 2 hole >> cards, 5 cards up, betting rounds, etc. So in that sense nothing has >> changed. >> >> But with tools so readily available such as SNG Power Tools, various ICM >> calcs, even the instructional videos on sites like pxf, the game has >> changed. So many people understand the math down to the finest points >> that while the underlying math and rules haven't changed, the overall >> knowledge has changed so much that the game is vastly different now than >> it was even 5+ years ago (premoneymaker basically). > > ABSOLUTELY FALSE.. not gonna throw any insults around and I appreciate the > 'reasonable discourse" , but simply saying "it is different wont work > here. > > Here are 2 silly examples .. when CocaCola first came out it had cocaine > in it , and was presumed safe .. later after more research it was changed > because it was unsafe . > > Cigarettes .. when they came out .. they were marketed a soothing pastime > , SAFE FOR ALL.. after research we know what we know now . > > Simply stating that there are scads of "data" gathering vehicles , and > therefore poker has changed may be well intended, but it doesnt hold > water. > > I dont care what kind of line up there is sitting at the table.. > aggressive , 4 drunks , 7 tights , 3 hookers and 4 crack heads .. it has > been dealt with before. Doggie, what you fail to understand is that today it can be diagnosed correctly and dealt with CORRECTLY. > > And it doesnt matter if you talk about SNG's as they had them back in > 198485.. they were called '"shootouts". They were winner takes all ,and > some had breakdowns . These variances were dealt with properly , and poker > went on . > > Here is another point .. most of the "good shit" written about poker has > come form those over the age of TVSM.. that should say something about > "modern strategy".. The only thing moderbn about it is that it is now > "written" instead of passed on in conversations that used to be held > around a mirror , with razor blades , and rolled up 100 dollar bills > > There is no accepted 'winning" strategy that didnt exist 30 years ago Yeah there is. And it's been shown to you several times.

      
Date: 11 Feb 2009 05:08:04
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 11 2009 12:03 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote: > "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:3qh966xaqf.ln2@recgroups.com... > > On Feb 10 2009 9:47 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote: > > > >> On Feb 10 2009 9:34 AM, FangBanger wrote: > >> > >> > OK .. Once again , this is a data gathering device. Simply having a new > >> > power tool doesnt get the holes drilled , at some point someone must > >> > use > >> > the tool. > >> > > >> > How does this device alter the game strategy? You can use it to see how > >> > you stand after a series of events , but how does it alter past > >> > strategies? > >> > > >> > Almost every response is a list of things that do not alter "at the > >> > table' > >> > strategies in any way shape or form . > >> > > >> > And no one has cited anything that has been "replaced" by any new > >> > strategy > >> > >> I see where you're coming from here. In its purest sense, holdem hasn't > >> been altered in any way since the days where the SB/BB came in. 2 hole > >> cards, 5 cards up, betting rounds, etc. So in that sense nothing has > >> changed. > >> > >> But with tools so readily available such as SNG Power Tools, various ICM > >> calcs, even the instructional videos on sites like pxf, the game has > >> changed. So many people understand the math down to the finest points > >> that while the underlying math and rules haven't changed, the overall > >> knowledge has changed so much that the game is vastly different now than > >> it was even 5+ years ago (premoneymaker basically). > > > > ABSOLUTELY FALSE.. not gonna throw any insults around and I appreciate the > > 'reasonable discourse" , but simply saying "it is different wont work > > here. > > > > Here are 2 silly examples .. when CocaCola first came out it had cocaine > > in it , and was presumed safe .. later after more research it was changed > > because it was unsafe . > > > > Cigarettes .. when they came out .. they were marketed a soothing pastime > > , SAFE FOR ALL.. after research we know what we know now . > > > > Simply stating that there are scads of "data" gathering vehicles , and > > therefore poker has changed may be well intended, but it doesnt hold > > water. > > > > I dont care what kind of line up there is sitting at the table.. > > aggressive , 4 drunks , 7 tights , 3 hookers and 4 crack heads .. it has > > been dealt with before. > Doggie, what you fail to understand is that today it can be diagnosed > correctly and dealt with CORRECTLY. And it was 30 years ago. > > > > > And it doesnt matter if you talk about SNG's as they had them back in > > 198485.. they were called '"shootouts". They were winner takes all ,and > > some had breakdowns . These variances were dealt with properly , and poker > > went on . > > > > Here is another point .. most of the "good shit" written about poker has > > come form those over the age of TVSM.. that should say something about > > "modern strategy".. The only thing moderbn about it is that it is now > > "written" instead of passed on in conversations that used to be held > > around a mirror , with razor blades , and rolled up 100 dollar bills > > > > There is no accepted 'winning" strategy that didnt exist 30 years ago > Yeah there is. > And it's been shown to you several times. Name one ! People keep listing "data collectors' but never say how they affect the end product Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire  : the next generation of webnewsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

    
Date: 10 Feb 2009 09:02:58
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> I see where you're coming from here. In its purest sense, holdem hasn't > been altered in any way since the days where the SB/BB came in. 2 hole > cards, 5 cards up, betting rounds, etc. So in that sense nothing has > changed. > > But with tools so readily available such as SNG Power Tools, various ICM > calcs, even the instructional videos on sites like pxf, the game has > changed. So many people understand the math down to the finest points > that while the underlying math and rules haven't changed, the overall > knowledge has changed so much that the game is vastly different now than > it was even 5+ years ago (premoneymaker basically). > >  > Morphy > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com > > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" igotskillz > > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely > obfuscating what's going on." Official RGP Mantra This is what I'm getting at with my comment about modern strategy clarifying concepts. The concept of a "bubble" has been around for ever. Tools like SnGPT that highlight the exact effect of the bubble on correct play are new. Previously the situation was handled by intuition, and most people's intuition was wrong. Tournaments with big bubbles are still a horrible idea though. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com _____________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

     
Date: 10 Feb 2009 16:52:25
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 10 2009 11:02 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > > I see where you're coming from here. In its purest sense, holdem hasn't > > been altered in any way since the days where the SB/BB came in. 2 hole > > cards, 5 cards up, betting rounds, etc. So in that sense nothing has > > changed. > > > > But with tools so readily available such as SNG Power Tools, various ICM > > calcs, even the instructional videos on sites like pxf, the game has > > changed. So many people understand the math down to the finest points > > that while the underlying math and rules haven't changed, the overall > > knowledge has changed so much that the game is vastly different now than > > it was even 5+ years ago (premoneymaker basically). > > > >  > > Morphy > > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com > > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com > > > > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" igotskillz > > > > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely > > obfuscating what's going on." Official RGP Mantra > > This is what I'm getting at with my comment about modern strategy > clarifying concepts. The concept of a "bubble" has been around for ever. > Tools like SnGPT that highlight the exact effect of the bubble on correct > play are new. Previously the situation was handled by intuition, and most > people's intuition was wrong. OK .. lets adress the "bubble " issue .. dont think for a second that any strategy relating to "robbing close to the bubble " (because everyone has tightened up), or any number of strategies like that were invented on the internet . THEY WERE NOT . Situations arose , they were dealt with .. when people fucked up , they talked about it , and they changed what they did . I would be willing to bet that there isnt a single situation regarding a "bubble " that wasnt examined 30 years ago . > > Tournaments with big bubbles are still a horrible idea though. > > Wayne Vinson > http://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire ______________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com

      
Date: 10 Feb 2009 17:06:32
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

> OK .. lets adress the "bubble " issue .. Wrong thread doggy. This one's not for you. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com ________________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com

 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 20:41:16
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 9 2009 8:34 PM, FangBanger wrote: > nothing of value This thread isn't for you. If I wanted your idiotic responses I would have posted in your thread. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  * killfiles, watchlists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 20:44:34
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 9 2009 10:41 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote: > On Feb 9 2009 8:34 PM, FangBanger wrote: > > > nothing of value > > This thread isn't for you. If I wanted your idiotic responses I would > have posted in your thread. you take "lame" to a whole new level > > > Wayne Vinson > http://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire  looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com


Date: 09 Feb 2009 14:08:46
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

At the very least, the ones I've left in below are things I got lectured on by "old timers" long before the "poker explosion". .. > Game Theoretic: >  >  The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" and > "exploitative" play .......... > > Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading: >  > The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines and > tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. (Old timers talk about this in terms of knowing what your opponent is capable of, and taking that into account when interpreting actions) > > Limit Holdem: >  >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. (This, admittedly, was often underemphasized in hold'em, but it's second nature to any stud player. Gary Carson went on about it at length for hold'em quite a while ago.) ........... > > NL Holdem: >  .......... >  "Small ball" tournament strategy (I remember Dave Keiser ranting about learning to play loosely the right way as a tournament strategy on rgp at least 7 years ago) >  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO not > an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) (I think this even gets a brief nod in S/S) > > > So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. I'm sure there are a > lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. All of this stuff > is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who refuse > to keep up at a massive disadvantage. > > Wayne Vinson > http://cardsharp.org/ > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > So I'm back to saying that Ray Zee's "You have to play poker well" is the joker in this analysis. A lot of what we might consider new was formerly hidden in that "well," and the value of a lot of what gets written depends on the ability of the student.

 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 23:12:03
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

This is one post you won't get any arguements from me on. You take a holdem expert and pit him against a stud expert and have them play a Holdem/Stud mix. The holdem player hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of winning. To become a great player, one must conquer stud poker, then progress. Otherwise you'll be a specialist. Over the decades, poker changes and evolves. If one isn't knowledgeable on all games, or have the ability to assimhilate the knowledge quickly, he'll be begging for bucks. As soon as something is learned, it becomes stagnant. NLH will soon be gone like all games come and go. Stud games have never left in my life time. The best players always want a variation of games. On Feb 10, 4:33=EF=BF=BDpm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote: > On Feb 10 2009 9:53 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > > > > > > > "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > >news:3t5766xv66.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > On Feb 9 2009 1:08 PM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > > > >> At the very least, the ones I've left in below are things I got lect= ured > > >> on > > >> by "old timers" long before the "poker explosion". > > > ................. > > > >> > Limit Holdem: > > >> >  > > >> >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behin= d and > > >> > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share = of > > >> > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. > > > >> (This, admittedly, was often underemphasized in hold'em, but it's se= cond > > >> nature to any stud player. =EF=BF=BDGary Carson went on about it at = length for > > >> hold'em quite a while ago.) > > > > UNDEREMPHASIZED BY WHO ?? .. =EF=BF=BDthe suckers ? > > >> ............ > > > Sure, but also in nearly every hold'em book a learner might have read u= ntil > > a few years ago...and for good reasons, too. > > > Bobby Baldwin (S/S) and the early Sklansky books were pointing at games > > played with a single blind, a couple players so weak as to be ignorable= and > > stakes roughly comparable to $40/80 today. =EF=BF=BDIt wasn't usual tha= t a hand > > reached the turn genuinely contested 3ormore handed. > > This statement or summary is completely false !! I happen to know this > because I started playing at the Golden Nugget in 1977. The 1020 game wa= s > an ante game with one 5 dollar blind and the first raise made it 10 to go= . > These games were horrible at times , and INSANE at times . To say that > "many most or nearly all" hands were not multi way pots is just plain > fallacy. > > I dont know how old you are , or what you read , or who wrote it , but > this one I can attest to FIRST HAND!! > > =EF=BF=BDAnd other writers > > > concentrated on covering the same material as "the classics" covered, s= o > > multiway pots got underemphasized. > > > Again, the principles would have been taken for granted by anyone with > > 7card stud experience. =EF=BF=BDOnce that would have included everybod= y. > > This is the second time I have seen this statement and it makes absolutel= y > no sense to me . You seem to be saying that "old " stud players understoo= d > "multi  way " situations better than good old holdem players. > > I may have 2000 hours playing stud in the 70s and 80's,(up to 1020 and > 1530 to 2040 on rare occassions ) and prolly 40,000 hours playing holde= m > in Vegas (24 to 3060) in 3 decades and someone saying what I think you > are trying to say here is really just plain not true . > > I have said on many occassions that great 7 stud players were "artists" , > and that great holdem players were "good gamblers", but for someone to tr= y > to say that one group understood the math , and another didnt ..just aint > gonna cut it !! > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities= . > Voltaire > > ____________________________________________________________________=EF= =BF=BD > RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com Hide qu= oted text  > >  Show quoted text 

 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 21:03:34
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

Sklansky is easily over 60. He was playing when I started in Gardena and Vegas in 1968. I was 21 at the time. On Feb 11, 9:20=EF=BF=BDam, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote: > On Feb 11 2009 8:30 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > > > "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > >news:261a66x62j.ln2@recgroups.com... > > ............. > > > > I am not sure with all the back and forth where you stand on my state= ment > > > that no one has created any "modern strategy" on poker that makes any= of > > > the old stuff obsolete , and the discussion gets side tracked . I am = still > > > waiting for anyone to post anything to back up the "new strategy" sta= nce. > > > I'm sure even you will agree that strategies that specifically apply to= sit > > 'n' gos are new because the format is new. =EF=BF=BD > > Yes , the "low stakes , play 5 at a time" SNG's are new , but they have > had one table satellites for over 30 years , and different players played > them differently . But they were there and there were some that did > nothing but go to WSOP and play sats. > > =EF=BF=BDLatetournament strategies > > > that depend on continuous availability of generallyaccurate (cash) > > tournament equity estimates are new because availability of such estima= tes > > is new, and seatofthepants estimates are very hard to get close with= (the > > basic idea is still pot odds vs hand odds, but without the calculation = it's > > easy to be 15% off about the pot odds). > > =EF=BF=BDDont think for a minute that the players 30 years ago didnt have= a > reasonable idea of where they were at on a "pot odds basis , and late in > tournaments, when trying to negotiate deals or settlements, or worse , > even how to fuck the others should they be trying to "team up" late in a > tourny and collude at the final table . I have seen these discussions. > > =EF=BF=BD Anything of the form "When playing > > > more than 4 tables at once, you can save a lot of time and lose very li= ttle > > equity by..." has to be new. > > This is one that shows the huberis and the fallacy of "new ideas". For > anyone to think that playing 4 at a time doesnt negatively impact ones > equity in each individual game =EF=BF=BDis some pretty bad logic. If you = play 4 at > a time , you absolutely , positively lose some equity , simply in the fac= t > that you cannot devote enough attention , and squeeze every bit of equity > out of each one . You might be able to play 4 and win , and in fact it > helps me with the boredom factor , but you are still losing equity , in > that you cant devote all your attention to each game . NO WAY that it > doesnt affect your ability to examine what each opponent does and what he > turns over at the end . > > > > > There are some lessclearcut cases. =EF=BF=BDThe most obvious is proba= bly the > > "Harrington on Hold'em" phenomenon. =EF=BF=BDThere was little [maybe a = more > > systematic approach] in Harrington's books that would have been new to = a > > good tournament player, but almost overnight the idiots were coming in = for > > about three times the big blind and going into shortstack mode at roug= hly > > 1015 big blind stack size. =EF=BF=BDIs it new or old to recognize weak= players > > trying to apply what Harrington wrote? > > Well =EF=BF=BDfirst of all.. it isnt new to him , and he is over 60 and h= as been > playing for 40 years . He has been using his abilities for many many year= s > , so that rules out the fact that it is "new". It may have just reached > print, and there may be some terms new that needed to be invented for the > purposes of writing it down , but it was there , ready to be used. > > =EF=BF=BDAnother is Sklansky's autopush > > > strategy. =EF=BF=BDNot that anyone with a legitimate chance would use i= t, but it's > > helpful to know pretty closely what it is before playing against it. > > Once again , Skalansky is over 60 (i believe) , and I played N/L with him > in Reno in 1979. I have played in several tournaments with him . I > guarantee you that anything Skalansky writes comes from 40 years of > experience. > > > > > For the rest, I look at the number of socalled new ideas that clearly > > aren't new and I get suspicious of the others [in the old saying: I hea= r a > > clock strike thirteen]. > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities= . > Voltaire > > =EF=BF=BD > RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com

 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 18:37:55
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 9 2009 1:08 PM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > At the very least, the ones I've left in below are things I got lectured on > by "old timers" long before the "poker explosion". > > ... > > > Game Theoretic: > >  > >  The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" and > > "exploitative" play > ........... > > > > Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading: > >  > > The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines and > > tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. > > (Old timers talk about this in terms of knowing what your opponent is > capable of, and taking that into account when interpreting actions) > > > > Limit Holdem: > >  > >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. > > (This, admittedly, was often underemphasized in hold'em, but it's second > nature to any stud player. Gary Carson went on about it at length for > hold'em quite a while ago.) UNDEREMPHASIZED BY WHO ?? .. the suckers ? > ............ > > > > NL Holdem: > >  > ........... > >  "Small ball" tournament strategy > > (I remember Dave Keiser ranting about learning to play loosely the right way > as a tournament strategy on rgp at least 7 years ago) > > >  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO not > > an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) > > (I think this even gets a brief nod in S/S) > > > > > > So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. I'm sure there are a > > lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. All of this stuff > > is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who refuse > > to keep up at a massive disadvantage. > > > > Wayne Vinson > > http://cardsharp.org/ > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > > > > So I'm back to saying that Ray Zee's "You have to play poker well" is the > joker in this analysis. A lot of what we might consider new was formerly > hidden in that "well," and the value of a lot of what gets written depends > on the ability of the student. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire _____________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 10:53:50
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:3t5766xv66.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Feb 9 2009 1:08 PM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > >> At the very least, the ones I've left in below are things I got lectured >> on >> by "old timers" long before the "poker explosion". >> ................ >> > >> > Limit Holdem: >> >  >> >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and >> > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of >> > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. >> >> (This, admittedly, was often underemphasized in hold'em, but it's second >> nature to any stud player. Gary Carson went on about it at length for >> hold'em quite a while ago.) > > UNDEREMPHASIZED BY WHO ?? .. the suckers ? >> ............ >> > Sure, but also in nearly every hold'em book a learner might have read until a few years ago...and for good reasons, too. Bobby Baldwin (S/S) and the early Sklansky books were pointing at games played with a single blind, a couple players so weak as to be ignorable and stakes roughly comparable to $40/80 today. It wasn't usual that a hand reached the turn genuinely contested 3ormore handed. And other writers concentrated on covering the same material as "the classics" covered, so multiway pots got underemphasized. Again, the principles would have been taken for granted by anyone with 7card stud experience. Once that would have included everybody.

   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 16:33:38
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 10 2009 9:53 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:3t5766xv66.ln2@recgroups.com... > > On Feb 9 2009 1:08 PM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > > > >> At the very least, the ones I've left in below are things I got lectured > >> on > >> by "old timers" long before the "poker explosion". > >> > ................. > >> > > >> > Limit Holdem: > >> >  > >> >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > >> > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > >> > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. > >> > >> (This, admittedly, was often underemphasized in hold'em, but it's second > >> nature to any stud player. Gary Carson went on about it at length for > >> hold'em quite a while ago.) > > > > UNDEREMPHASIZED BY WHO ?? .. the suckers ? > >> ............ > >> > > > > Sure, but also in nearly every hold'em book a learner might have read until > a few years ago...and for good reasons, too. > > Bobby Baldwin (S/S) and the early Sklansky books were pointing at games > played with a single blind, a couple players so weak as to be ignorable and > stakes roughly comparable to $40/80 today. It wasn't usual that a hand > reached the turn genuinely contested 3ormore handed. This statement or summary is completely false !! I happen to know this because I started playing at the Golden Nugget in 1977. The 1020 game was an ante game with one 5 dollar blind and the first raise made it 10 to go. These games were horrible at times , and INSANE at times . To say that "many most or nearly all" hands were not multi way pots is just plain fallacy. I dont know how old you are , or what you read , or who wrote it , but this one I can attest to FIRST HAND!! And other writers > concentrated on covering the same material as "the classics" covered, so > multiway pots got underemphasized. > > Again, the principles would have been taken for granted by anyone with > 7card stud experience. Once that would have included everybody. This is the second time I have seen this statement and it makes absolutely no sense to me . You seem to be saying that "old " stud players understood "multi  way " situations better than good old holdem players. I may have 2000 hours playing stud in the 70s and 80's,(up to 1020 and 1530 to 2040 on rare occassions ) and prolly 40,000 hours playing holdem in Vegas (24 to 3060) in 3 decades and someone saying what I think you are trying to say here is really just plain not true . I have said on many occassions that great 7 stud players were "artists" , and that great holdem players were "good gamblers", but for someone to try to say that one group understood the math , and another didnt ..just aint gonna cut it !! Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire ____________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

    
Date: 10 Feb 2009 22:46:34
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:20j966xrvf.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Feb 10 2009 9:53 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > You're putting words into my fingers. I said nothing about what kinds of games were being played, I referred to the games the early authors were orienting their books toward. How do I know? They say. Furthermore, they devote little ink to multiway pots, confirming the orientation. I say nothing at all about what an experienced hold'em player might know. At the time S/S, HP and HPFAP were written, though, it would have been a fair guess that the serious readers would be experienced stud players. Forward 15 years or so and you have nonpokerplayers learning out of those books. And sure enough, playing from behind in a multiway pot was underemphasized in the books they read (and by the way, I'm one of those guys...only I made it a point to learn several kinds of poker).

     
Date: 10 Feb 2009 20:35:46
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 10 2009 9:46 PM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:20j966xrvf.ln2@recgroups.com... > > On Feb 10 2009 9:53 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > > > You're putting words into my fingers. I said nothing about what kinds of > games were being played, I referred to the games the early authors were > orienting their books toward. How do I know? They say. Furthermore, they > devote little ink to multiway pots, confirming the orientation. OK I will stand corrected here > > > I say nothing at all about what an experienced hold'em player might know. > At the time S/S, HP and HPFAP were written, though, it would have been a > fair guess that the serious readers would be experienced stud players. > Forward 15 years or so and you have nonpokerplayers learning out of those > books. And sure enough, playing from behind in a multiway pot was > underemphasized in the books they read (and by the way, I'm one of those > guys...only I made it a point to learn several kinds of poker). Did you see my statemnt that even today , most of well respected books are written by those over say 50 years old ? I am not sure with all the back and forth where you stand on my statement that no one has created any "modern strategy" on poker that makes any of the old stuff obsolete , and the discussion gets side tracked . I am still waiting for anyone to post anything to back up the "new strategy" stance. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire  looking for a better newsgroupreader?  www.recgroups.com

      
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:30:21
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:261a66x62j.ln2@recgroups.com... ............ > > I am not sure with all the back and forth where you stand on my statement > that no one has created any "modern strategy" on poker that makes any of > the old stuff obsolete , and the discussion gets side tracked . I am still > waiting for anyone to post anything to back up the "new strategy" stance. > I'm sure even you will agree that strategies that specifically apply to sit 'n' gos are new because the format is new. Latetournament strategies that depend on continuous availability of generallyaccurate (cash) tournament equity estimates are new because availability of such estimates is new, and seatofthepants estimates are very hard to get close with (the basic idea is still pot odds vs hand odds, but without the calculation it's easy to be 15% off about the pot odds). Anything of the form "When playing more than 4 tables at once, you can save a lot of time and lose very little equity by..." has to be new. There are some lessclearcut cases. The most obvious is probably the "Harrington on Hold'em" phenomenon. There was little [maybe a more systematic approach] in Harrington's books that would have been new to a good tournament player, but almost overnight the idiots were coming in for about three times the big blind and going into shortstack mode at roughly 1015 big blind stack size. Is it new or old to recognize weak players trying to apply what Harrington wrote? Another is Sklansky's autopush strategy. Not that anyone with a legitimate chance would use it, but it's helpful to know pretty closely what it is before playing against it. For the rest, I look at the number of socalled new ideas that clearly aren't new and I get suspicious of the others [in the old saying: I hear a clock strike thirteen].

       
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:20:21
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 11 2009 8:30 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:261a66x62j.ln2@recgroups.com... > ............. > > > > I am not sure with all the back and forth where you stand on my statement > > that no one has created any "modern strategy" on poker that makes any of > > the old stuff obsolete , and the discussion gets side tracked . I am still > > waiting for anyone to post anything to back up the "new strategy" stance. > > > > I'm sure even you will agree that strategies that specifically apply to sit > 'n' gos are new because the format is new. Yes , the "low stakes , play 5 at a time" SNG's are new , but they have had one table satellites for over 30 years , and different players played them differently . But they were there and there were some that did nothing but go to WSOP and play sats. Latetournament strategies > that depend on continuous availability of generallyaccurate (cash) > tournament equity estimates are new because availability of such estimates > is new, and seatofthepants estimates are very hard to get close with (the > basic idea is still pot odds vs hand odds, but without the calculation it's > easy to be 15% off about the pot odds). Dont think for a minute that the players 30 years ago didnt have a reasonable idea of where they were at on a "pot odds basis , and late in tournaments, when trying to negotiate deals or settlements, or worse , even how to fuck the others should they be trying to "team up" late in a tourny and collude at the final table . I have seen these discussions. Anything of the form "When playing > more than 4 tables at once, you can save a lot of time and lose very little > equity by..." has to be new. This is one that shows the huberis and the fallacy of "new ideas". For anyone to think that playing 4 at a time doesnt negatively impact ones equity in each individual game is some pretty bad logic. If you play 4 at a time , you absolutely , positively lose some equity , simply in the fact that you cannot devote enough attention , and squeeze every bit of equity out of each one . You might be able to play 4 and win , and in fact it helps me with the boredom factor , but you are still losing equity , in that you cant devote all your attention to each game . NO WAY that it doesnt affect your ability to examine what each opponent does and what he turns over at the end . > > There are some lessclearcut cases. The most obvious is probably the > "Harrington on Hold'em" phenomenon. There was little [maybe a more > systematic approach] in Harrington's books that would have been new to a > good tournament player, but almost overnight the idiots were coming in for > about three times the big blind and going into shortstack mode at roughly > 1015 big blind stack size. Is it new or old to recognize weak players > trying to apply what Harrington wrote? Well first of all.. it isnt new to him , and he is over 60 and has been playing for 40 years . He has been using his abilities for many many years , so that rules out the fact that it is "new". It may have just reached print, and there may be some terms new that needed to be invented for the purposes of writing it down , but it was there , ready to be used. Another is Sklansky's autopush > strategy. Not that anyone with a legitimate chance would use it, but it's > helpful to know pretty closely what it is before playing against it. Once again , Skalansky is over 60 (i believe) , and I played N/L with him in Reno in 1979. I have played in several tournaments with him . I guarantee you that anything Skalansky writes comes from 40 years of experience. > > For the rest, I look at the number of socalled new ideas that clearly > aren't new and I get suspicious of the others [in the old saying: I hear a > clock strike thirteen]. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire  RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

        
Date: 11 Feb 2009 12:21:32
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 11 2009 12:20 PM, FangBanger wrote: > On Feb 11 2009 8:30 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > > > "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > > news:261a66x62j.ln2@recgroups.com... > > ............. > > > > > > I am not sure with all the back and forth where you stand on my statement > > > that no one has created any "modern strategy" on poker that makes any of > > > the old stuff obsolete , and the discussion gets side tracked . I am still > > > waiting for anyone to post anything to back up the "new strategy" stance. > > > > > > > I'm sure even you will agree that strategies that specifically apply to sit > > 'n' gos are new because the format is new. > > Yes , the "low stakes , play 5 at a time" SNG's are new , but they have > had one table satellites for over 30 years , and different players played > them differently . But they were there and there were some that did > nothing but go to WSOP and play sats. A STT satty and a SNG are not the same thing, doggy. Fell  "Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."  Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008  RecGroups : the communityoriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

         
Date: 11 Feb 2009 15:59:32
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:21:32 0800, "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Feb 11 2009 12:20 PM, FangBanger wrote: >> Yes , the "low stakes , play 5 at a time" SNG's are new , but they have >> had one table satellites for over 30 years , and different players played >> them differently . But they were there and there were some that did >> nothing but go to WSOP and play sats. >A STT satty and a SNG are not the same thing, doggy. Yet another perfect example of utter fucktardery from that brainless gob.

 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 12:38:47
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Real Examples Of New(ish) Poker Theory & Strategy

On Feb 9 2009 1:08 PM, Stephen Jacobs wrote: > At the very least, the ones I've left in below are things I got lectured on > by "old timers" long before the "poker explosion". > > ... > > > Game Theoretic: > >  > >  The development of the distinction between "game theoretic optimal" and > > "exploitative" play > ........... > > > > Psychology, Tells & Hand Reading: > >  > > The use of Bayes Theorem to integrate information from betting lines and > > tells with your previous beliefs about villain's hand. > > (Old timers talk about this in terms of knowing what your opponent is > capable of, and taking that into account when interpreting actions) > > > > Limit Holdem: > >  > >  Realization of the correctness of betting and raising when behind and > > not an equity favorite, but you have greater than your fair share of > > equity based on the number of players and know no one will fold. > > (This, admittedly, was often underemphasized in hold'em, but it's second > nature to any stud player. Gary Carson went on about it at length for > hold'em quite a while ago.) > ............ > > > > NL Holdem: > >  > ........... > >  "Small ball" tournament strategy > > (I remember Dave Keiser ranting about learning to play loosely the right way > as a tournament strategy on rgp at least 7 years ago) > > >  Pot size manipulation to achieve specific ratios to stack depth (IMO not > > an effective strategy, but on that has definitely changed the game) > > (I think this even gets a brief nod in S/S) > > > > > > So there's 11 examples of new theory and strategy. I'm sure there are a > > lot more, but that was what came to mind immediately. All of this stuff > > is relatively new and is the sort of stuff that puts old timers who refuse > > to keep up at a massive disadvantage. > > > > Wayne Vinson > > http://cardsharp.org/ > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com > > > > So I'm back to saying that Ray Zee's "You have to play poker well" is the > joker in this analysis. A lot of what we might consider new was formerly > hidden in that "well," and the value of a lot of what gets written depends > on the ability of the student. I think the issue is not whether these ideas are new  most of them are not  but rather the point at which they become formalized. Some of the ones I picked are areas where that process is still ongoing. For example, I know for a fact that a few very good players already see Bayes' Theorem as a critical numerical tool for playing correctly. Not just a nebulous "know what villain is capable of" thing but an arithmetic construct on the same order as pot odds math. That's a fundamental change in worldview. I think you're right that a lot of things that were previously considered mystical aspects of playing "well" have been drug out into the light and reduced to a level where they can be learned. IMO that's the whole point of poker theory and it's that process that has left a lot of older players very weak compared to the competition. Wayne Vinson http://cardsharp.org/ Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com  : the next generation of webnewsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

