| |
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 push-or-fold 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 heads-up strategy (look at HPFAP to see what
poor shape this was in not too long ago)
NL Holdem:
----------------
- SC numbers and related later-street 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 community-oriented 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 push-or-fold 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 "re-invented" 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 one-trick 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 community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities=
.
> Voltaire
>
> ______________________________________________________________________=EF=
=BF=BD
> RecGroups : the community-oriented 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 one-trick 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 community-oriented 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 "re-invented" 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, 8:58�am, "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 one-trick 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 Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> > ---�
> > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented 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 push-or-fold 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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 non-corner 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 web-newsreaders : 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 non-corner 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. Re-read 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
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, 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. Re-read 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 one-trick 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 one-trick 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 community-oriented 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 one-trick 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 in-depth 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
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, 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 one-trick 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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 community-oriented 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
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, 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 push-or-fold 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 community-oriented 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 push-or-fold 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 community-oriented 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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 web-newsreaders : 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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 web-newsreaders : 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 community-oriented 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 push-or-fold 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 community-oriented 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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 push-or-fold 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 Mike-o to
elaborate on a distinction between fact and paranoid delusions.
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - 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 push-or-fold 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 heads-up strategy (look at HPFAP to see what
> poor shape this was in not too long ago)
>
>
> NL Holdem:
> ----------------
> - SC numbers and related later-street 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/theories-of-poker.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
Poker-is-a-struggle-for-the-ante-theory. You can use a game theory model
to derive a list of opening hands by position. In relatively tight games,
where it's typically heads-up 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 >
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, 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 push-or-fold 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 heads-up strategy (look at HPFAP to see wh=
at
> > poor shape this was in not too long ago)
>
> > NL Holdem:
> > ----------------
> > - SC numbers and related later-street 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/theories-of-poker.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
> Poker-is-a-struggle-for-the-ante-theory. =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 heads-up 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
> * kill-files, watch-lists, 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 community-oriented 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, Mo-ronphy 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 push-or-fold 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 heads-up strategy (look at HPFAP to see what
> poor shape this was in not too long ago)
>
> NL Holdem:
> ----------------
> - SC numbers and related later-street 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 community-oriented 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 push-or-fold 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 heads-up strategy (look at HPFAP to see what
> poor shape this was in not too long ago)
>
> NL Holdem:
> ----------------
> - SC numbers and related later-street 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 community-oriented 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 push-or-fold 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 heads-up strategy (look at HPFAP to see what
> poor shape this was in not too long ago)
>
>
> NL Holdem:
> ----------------
> - SC numbers and related later-street 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 yester-year (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
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, 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 community-oriented 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 web-newsreaders : 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 (pre-moneymaker 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
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, 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 (pre-moneymaker 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 Coca-Cola 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
1984-85.. 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
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, 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 (pre-moneymaker 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 Coca-Cola 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
> 1984-85.. 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 (pre-moneymaker 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 Coca-Cola 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
> > 1984-85.. 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 web-newsreaders : 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 (pre-moneymaker 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 SnG-PT 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 community-oriented 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 (pre-moneymaker 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 SnG-PT 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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 3-or-more handed.
>
> This statement or summary is completely false !! I happen to know this
> because I started playing at the Golden Nugget in 1977. The 10-20 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
> > multi-way pots got underemphasized.
>
> > Again, the principles would have been taken for granted by anyone with
> > 7-card 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 10-20 and
> 15-30 to 20-40 on rare occassions ) and prolly 40,000 hours playing holde=
m
> in Vegas (2-4 to 30-60) 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 community-oriented 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' go-s 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=BDLate-tournament strategies
>
> > that depend on continuous availability of generally-accurate (cash)
> > tournament equity estimates are new because availability of such estima=
tes
> > is new, and seat-of-the-pants 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 less-clear-cut 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 short-stack mode at roug=
hly
> > 10-15 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 auto-push
>
> > 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 so-called 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 community-oriented 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 community-oriented 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 3-or-more handed. And other writers
concentrated on covering the same material as "the classics" covered, so
multi-way pots got underemphasized.
Again, the principles would have been taken for granted by anyone with
7-card 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 3-or-more handed.
This statement or summary is completely false !! I happen to know this
because I started playing at the Golden Nugget in 1977. The 10-20 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
> multi-way pots got underemphasized.
>
> Again, the principles would have been taken for granted by anyone with
> 7-card 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 10-20 and
15-30 to 20-40 on rare occassions ) and prolly 40,000 hours playing holdem
in Vegas (2-4 to 30-60) 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 community-oriented 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 multi-way 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 non-poker-players learning out of those
books. And sure enough, playing from behind in a multi-way 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 multi-way 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 non-poker-players learning out of those
> books. And sure enough, playing from behind in a multi-way 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 newsgroup-reader? - 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' go-s are new because the format is new. Late-tournament strategies
that depend on continuous availability of generally-accurate (cash)
tournament equity estimates are new because availability of such estimates
is new, and seat-of-the-pants 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 less-clear-cut 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 short-stack mode at roughly
10-15 big blind stack size. Is it new or old to recognize weak players
trying to apply what Harrington wrote? Another is Sklansky's auto-push
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 so-called 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' go-s 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.
Late-tournament strategies
> that depend on continuous availability of generally-accurate (cash)
> tournament equity estimates are new because availability of such estimates
> is new, and seat-of-the-pants 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 less-clear-cut 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 short-stack mode at roughly
> 10-15 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 auto-push
> 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 so-called 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 community-oriented 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' go-s 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 community-oriented 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 on-going. 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 web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
|
