| |
Main
Date: 04 Feb 2009 05:29:37
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
I really do try to help make this a better group in terms of content. I
swear. So it's been on my conscience that I need positive karma in this
regard. (Very old-school., classic tvp style from here on out. Got that?)
Let's look at how poker strategies spread through poker.
First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success and
who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these players
may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win. Aspiring
to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the work
and emulate their idol.
A logical fallacy now arises.
Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails to
realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and attempting
to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play like Dan
Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
Let's take a simple case to look at.
A certain percentage of the poker playing population plays like Dan
Harrington and the remaining players do not. Some of the players not playing
like Dan Harrington are clueless. Some are playing to beat Dan Harrington.
Since Dan Harrington has totally given everything away about how he plays
and has essentially "turned his hole cards up" we will assume that players
playing to beat Dan really can beat Dan. Meanwhile, the Dan Harrington
players can beat the clueless.
Mathmatically, some of this is very similar to studying predator/prey
relationships. (Memories of differential equations!!!)
[That sets me off on a tangent: My oldest daughter now attends the UW just
as I did. This has made me enormously proud. She's been asking me calculus
questions. Sometimes I can help; sometimes I forget the particular problem
type. Recently, I got to look smart in front of my own dad, when she called
asking for help while I was with him, and I knew what to do.]
There are some assumptions we can make about the population levels.
Initializing our variables, we see that at the beginning there is only one
Dan Harrington that knows how to play like Dan Harrington. None of the rest
of the population has anyone in it with any particularly deep knowledge
about how Dan Harrington is actually playing. After Dan writes his book,
knowledge of how he plays spreads. The growing number of Dans feed off of
the clueless and their numbers diminish rapidly. All but those who can
afford to lose are driven from the game.
Where should we set the percentage of players playing to beat Dan?
Since few people ever even view poker in these terms, I assume that there
are relatively few such players in the actual poker playing
populationAssuming no growth, one should go out and buy Dan Harrington's
book and beat up on the clueless. Over time this will become less and less
effective as you are more often pitted against another Dan Harrington. In
those cases, skill is about a wash and luck takes over. If the number of
clueless goes too low, all the Dans will lose to the rake and beat up on the
poor clueless who don't number enough to feed the Dans enough money to stay
ahead.
But surely the numbers of players out to beat Dan would grow, even if only
slowly, out of sheer necessity. So, what if the numbers of players out to
beat Dan were more significant?
If there are more clueless than Dan's out against you, it might seem you
should join the Dans. But wait, you have the choice of playing like Dan
against the clueless and like an anti-Dan when against a Dan. This shouldn't
be that hard because Dan always gives away his play! At this point, I'd have
to change my advice and say, go out and buy Dan's book and use it to figure
out the probable hole cards of all the Dans out there, and to beat up on
both the Dans and the clueless.
Note that the effect on the clueless population doesn't change in terms of
whether there a lot of anti-Dans around or very few. Some of the clueless
will not run out of money at the level they play if they can make up the
losses and then some outside of poker. Others will go broke or quit out of
frustration. And many are fully aware of Dan's book and may switch camps.
Some of those may even see that an anti-Dan approach is called for.
Eventually, the totally clueless would go extinct except for 1) New players
to the game, and 2) Players who really *don't* have a clue (and who maybe
even don't want a clue) and who will not run out of money at the level they
play. This does happen, but is very rare because most players *want* to know
how to win and *want* to be good players, so there is pressure to leave the
losers camp if possible. The majority of the clueless must therefore be
newcomers. (Which reminds me of the old advice to only teach new players the
rules, not how to play.)
With the Dan's and anti-Dan's feeding on the newcomers, and newcomers either
leaving the game or switching camps, the anti-Dans become wealthy and
successful over time, and the newcomers and the Dan's (who never abandoned
their Dan strategy due to it's initial success, but bemoan the losses of
recent years) come to admire the anti-Dans and aspire to play like them.
Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king of
the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. In the
next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
tvp
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 14:15:33
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4 2009 7:29 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
> Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails to
> realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and attempting
> to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
You spent a lot of time writing out essentially "there are trends in
poker." The amount of materials written about poker from 2003 to now is
exponentially greater than the amount of materials writtena bout it since
its inception to 2003. Every week there's a new strategy or a new hot
player or a new hot book. Whether it's Harrington, Negreanu, Hansen,
online players like Prahlad Friedman, Gigabet, bond18 or whatever his name
is, and let's not forget the entire library of poker xfactor videos.
People watch/read these, discover something new and apply it to every
single situation imaginable until the next cool thing comes along. Along
these points there are some very valid strategies, but the way they filter
down to the poker masses is fad-like in use.
The reason we as poker players should be reading and watching these books
and videos isn't to adopt the strategies ourselves as much as it's to
learn what the other players are going to adopting and be aware of it so
that we can counter it.
When Harrington vol 1 came out there was an influx of players who were
using that as a flowchart of how to play poker. When vol2 came out you
could literally range players online based on their stack sizes and their
preflop bets. So many people read these books as an instruction manual on
how to play that their play was completely transparent. Others (like me)
read them to find out what these players were doing so we could counter
them.
Still, as someone else pointed out, thanks for taking the time to write
something poker related without going out of your way to pimp your book.
I still think that guy who thought it was "jamboney" was an idiot though.
---
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: 04 Feb 2009 14:35:24
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:5lgp56xqe7.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 4 2009 7:29 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
> > Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails
to
> > realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and
attempting
> > to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
>
> You spent a lot of time writing out essentially "there are trends in
> poker." The amount of materials written about poker from 2003 to now is
> exponentially greater than the amount of materials writtena bout it since
> its inception to 2003. Every week there's a new strategy or a new hot
> player or a new hot book. Whether it's Harrington, Negreanu, Hansen,
> online players like Prahlad Friedman, Gigabet, bond18 or whatever his name
> is, and let's not forget the entire library of poker xfactor videos.
> People watch/read these, discover something new and apply it to every
> single situation imaginable until the next cool thing comes along. Along
> these points there are some very valid strategies, but the way they filter
> down to the poker masses is fad-like in use.
>
> The reason we as poker players should be reading and watching these books
> and videos isn't to adopt the strategies ourselves as much as it's to
> learn what the other players are going to adopting and be aware of it so
> that we can counter it.
>
> When Harrington vol 1 came out there was an influx of players who were
> using that as a flowchart of how to play poker. When vol2 came out you
> could literally range players online based on their stack sizes and their
> preflop bets. So many people read these books as an instruction manual on
> how to play that their play was completely transparent. Others (like me)
> read them to find out what these players were doing so we could counter
> them.
>
> Still, as someone else pointed out, thanks for taking the time to write
> something poker related without going out of your way to pimp your book.
> I still think that guy who thought it was "jamboney" was an idiot though.
You're welcome. About the pimping my book thing, I had to think hard about
it before doing it. I am completely aware of the original principle of NO
SPAM whatsoever on Usenet. However, I supported a moderated newsgroup if
only to monitor that all Usenet rules are followed in posts. (Perhaps we
should try again with that pure goal: to only weed out that which would not
be allowed if people could only be trusted.)
But anyway, I felt that this group had clearly voted democratically that
they liked it the way it was and that included the presence of spam. I also
felt that it was in general interest to this group if only as a news
announcement item. Note that the book is unadvertised *anywhere* but here.
So it's still a gift to the group even if the knowledge of how valuable a
gift remains obscure among the uninitiated. Also, I needed to pay for
someone's college.
So I made the call on that one and I will reap the karma.
If you'd like I can send you a free copy if you'll critique it openly on
rgp. I say it's an awesome book, but it could be better and I'm willing to
incorporate criticisms to make it better or provide better counter-arguments
if I feel criticisms are wrong.
tvp
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 16:53:23
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:29:37 -0800, "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net >
wrote:
>A certain percentage of the poker playing population plays like Dan
>Harrington and the remaining players do not. Some of the players not playing
>like Dan Harrington are clueless. Some are playing to beat Dan Harrington.
>Since Dan Harrington has totally given everything away about how he plays
>and has essentially "turned his hole cards up" we will assume that players
>playing to beat Dan really can beat Dan. Meanwhile, the Dan Harrington
>players can beat the clueless.
I think Harrington's strategy is close enough to optimal, or is
sitting on a spectrum where there are a few "near-optimal" strategies,
that it's possible the anti-Dan strategy is also to play like Dan. Dan
isn't dumb and doesn't just play a rote game. When he's sarcastically
called "Action Dan," he's seen correctly as tighter than other
players, who are generally his inferiors. But if he's playing Gus
Hansen, he's going to adjust his game considerably. "Playing like
Dan" is playing an often-tight game, but it also involves changing
things up from time to time and exploiting his own tight image to get
away with bluffs at appropriate times. And adjusting to wannabe
"anti-Dans" as the need arises.
I doubt there's a poker player in the world who is glad to see Dan
moved to his table.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 18:07:33
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:8c3ko4dut5i0vf9kq0amhlik0n7g5tn9g2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:29:37 -0800, "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> I doubt there's a poker player in the world who is glad to see Dan
> moved to his table.
That's probably true, but he isn't fairing nearly as well as he used to.
tvp
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 18:29:14
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4 2009 8:07 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
> news:8c3ko4dut5i0vf9kq0amhlik0n7g5tn9g2@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:29:37 -0800, "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I doubt there's a poker player in the world who is glad to see Dan
> > moved to his table.
>
> That's probably true, but he isn't fairing nearly as well as he used to.
>
> tvp
How do you figure? His 2007 WPT win was bigger than any of his WSOP
cashes or wins.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
---
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 20:48:17
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:qgvp56xsaa.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 4 2009 8:07 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
> > "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
> > news:8c3ko4dut5i0vf9kq0amhlik0n7g5tn9g2@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:29:37 -0800, "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I doubt there's a poker player in the world who is glad to see Dan
> > > moved to his table.
> >
> > That's probably true, but he isn't fairing nearly as well as he used to.
> >
> > tvp
>
> How do you figure? His 2007 WPT win was bigger than any of his WSOP
> cashes or wins.
I'm talking about right here and now in 2009 and you're talking about 2007.
There's the answer to the discrepency right there.
tvp
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 21:10:57
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
> > How do you figure? His 2007 WPT win was bigger than any of his WSOP
> > cashes or wins.
>
> I'm talking about right here and now in 2009 and you're talking about 2007.
>
> There's the answer to the discrepency right there.
>
> tvp
Then you have no grasp of how long even an excellent tournament player can
go between big wins. For example, it was 8 years between Harrington's
first big score (1995 WSPO) and his second (2003 WSOP).
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 12:34:13
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4 2009 7:29 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
> I really do try to help make this a better group in terms of content. I
> swear. So it's been on my conscience that I need positive karma in this
> regard. (Very old-school., classic tvp style from here on out. Got that?)
>
> Let's look at how poker strategies spread through poker.
>
> First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
> wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success and
> who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these players
> may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win. Aspiring
> to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the work
> and emulate their idol.
>
> A logical fallacy now arises.
>
> Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails to
> realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and attempting
> to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
>
> The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play like Dan
> Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
>
> Let's take a simple case to look at.
>
> A certain percentage of the poker playing population plays like Dan
> Harrington and the remaining players do not. Some of the players not playing
> like Dan Harrington are clueless. Some are playing to beat Dan Harrington.
> Since Dan Harrington has totally given everything away about how he plays
> and has essentially "turned his hole cards up" we will assume that players
> playing to beat Dan really can beat Dan. Meanwhile, the Dan Harrington
> players can beat the clueless.
>
> Mathmatically, some of this is very similar to studying predator/prey
> relationships. (Memories of differential equations!!!)
>
> [That sets me off on a tangent: My oldest daughter now attends the UW just
> as I did. This has made me enormously proud. She's been asking me calculus
> questions. Sometimes I can help; sometimes I forget the particular problem
> type. Recently, I got to look smart in front of my own dad, when she called
> asking for help while I was with him, and I knew what to do.]
>
> There are some assumptions we can make about the population levels.
> Initializing our variables, we see that at the beginning there is only one
> Dan Harrington that knows how to play like Dan Harrington. None of the rest
> of the population has anyone in it with any particularly deep knowledge
> about how Dan Harrington is actually playing. After Dan writes his book,
> knowledge of how he plays spreads. The growing number of Dans feed off of
> the clueless and their numbers diminish rapidly. All but those who can
> afford to lose are driven from the game.
>
> Where should we set the percentage of players playing to beat Dan?
>
> Since few people ever even view poker in these terms, I assume that there
> are relatively few such players in the actual poker playing
> populationAssuming no growth, one should go out and buy Dan Harrington's
> book and beat up on the clueless. Over time this will become less and less
> effective as you are more often pitted against another Dan Harrington. In
> those cases, skill is about a wash and luck takes over. If the number of
> clueless goes too low, all the Dans will lose to the rake and beat up on the
> poor clueless who don't number enough to feed the Dans enough money to stay
> ahead.
>
> But surely the numbers of players out to beat Dan would grow, even if only
> slowly, out of sheer necessity. So, what if the numbers of players out to
> beat Dan were more significant?
>
> If there are more clueless than Dan's out against you, it might seem you
> should join the Dans. But wait, you have the choice of playing like Dan
> against the clueless and like an anti-Dan when against a Dan. This shouldn't
> be that hard because Dan always gives away his play! At this point, I'd have
> to change my advice and say, go out and buy Dan's book and use it to figure
> out the probable hole cards of all the Dans out there, and to beat up on
> both the Dans and the clueless.
>
> Note that the effect on the clueless population doesn't change in terms of
> whether there a lot of anti-Dans around or very few. Some of the clueless
> will not run out of money at the level they play if they can make up the
> losses and then some outside of poker. Others will go broke or quit out of
> frustration. And many are fully aware of Dan's book and may switch camps.
> Some of those may even see that an anti-Dan approach is called for.
>
> Eventually, the totally clueless would go extinct except for 1) New players
> to the game, and 2) Players who really *don't* have a clue (and who maybe
> even don't want a clue) and who will not run out of money at the level they
> play. This does happen, but is very rare because most players *want* to know
> how to win and *want* to be good players, so there is pressure to leave the
> losers camp if possible. The majority of the clueless must therefore be
> newcomers. (Which reminds me of the old advice to only teach new players the
> rules, not how to play.)
>
> With the Dan's and anti-Dan's feeding on the newcomers, and newcomers either
> leaving the game or switching camps, the anti-Dans become wealthy and
> successful over time, and the newcomers and the Dan's (who never abandoned
> their Dan strategy due to it's initial success, but bemoan the losses of
> recent years) come to admire the anti-Dans and aspire to play like them.
>
> Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king of
> the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. In the
> next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
>
> tvp
This strikes me as fundamentally nonsense.
First, reading a book and adapting to game conditions are not mutually
exclusive either for you or your opponents.
Second, just because your opponent knows something about how you play
doesn't mean that they can effectively counter it.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 11:54:57
From: Peter Secor
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
"Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net > wrote:
>First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
>wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success and
>who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these players
>may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win. Aspiring
>to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the work
>and emulate their idol.
>
> A logical fallacy now arises.
>
>Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails to
>realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and attempting
>to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
>
>The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play like Dan
>Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
ZOMG!! Until that last sentence I thought I was in a time warp back
to 1998 or so and you were talking about David Sklansky and "Holdem
Poker for Advanced Players".
It was an article of faith on RGP back then that you had to study
HPFAP in order to beat the other players who had also read it and
followed the included tables mechanically.
All this follows your thought line exactly :)
Happy New Year!
Best,
Peter
--
http://zbigniew.pyrzqxgl.com/bargegeek.html
A+++ G++ PKR+ PEG- B+ TB ADB++ M
www.barge.org
"There are no strangers at BARGE, just friends we haven't met yet"
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 12:13:31
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
"Peter Secor" <peter@scfrey.com > wrote in message
news:1dsjo4ha92q2lsvvo2fp0eofrjsgtlch80@4ax.com...
> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
> >wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success and
> >who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these players
> >may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win.
Aspiring
> >to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the
work
> >and emulate their idol.
> >
> > A logical fallacy now arises.
> >
> >Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails
to
> >realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and
attempting
> >to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
> >
> >The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play like
Dan
> >Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
>
> ZOMG!! Until that last sentence I thought I was in a time warp back
> to 1998 or so and you were talking about David Sklansky and "Holdem
> Poker for Advanced Players".
>
> It was an article of faith on RGP back then that you had to study
> HPFAP in order to beat the other players who had also read it and
> followed the included tables mechanically.
>
> All this follows your thought line exactly :)
It's definitely an old concept, but I wanted to go into an organized look at
what happens to the poker playing population regarding it.
> Happy New Year!
You too!
tvp
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 11:37:22
From: DanFan
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4 2009 8:29 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
> I really do try to help make this a better group in terms of content. I
> swear. So it's been on my conscience that I need positive karma in this
> regard. (Very old-school., classic tvp style from here on out. Got that?)
>
> Let's look at how poker strategies spread through poker.
>
> First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
> wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success and
> who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these players
> may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win. Aspiring
> to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the work
> and emulate their idol.
>
> A logical fallacy now arises.
>
> Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails to
> realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and attempting
> to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
>
> The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play like Dan
> Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
>
> Let's take a simple case to look at.
>
> A certain percentage of the poker playing population plays like Dan
> Harrington and the remaining players do not. Some of the players not playing
> like Dan Harrington are clueless. Some are playing to beat Dan Harrington.
> Since Dan Harrington has totally given everything away about how he plays
> and has essentially "turned his hole cards up" we will assume that players
> playing to beat Dan really can beat Dan. Meanwhile, the Dan Harrington
> players can beat the clueless.
>
> Mathmatically, some of this is very similar to studying predator/prey
> relationships. (Memories of differential equations!!!)
>
> [That sets me off on a tangent: My oldest daughter now attends the UW just
> as I did. This has made me enormously proud. She's been asking me calculus
> questions. Sometimes I can help; sometimes I forget the particular problem
> type. Recently, I got to look smart in front of my own dad, when she called
> asking for help while I was with him, and I knew what to do.]
>
> There are some assumptions we can make about the population levels.
> Initializing our variables, we see that at the beginning there is only one
> Dan Harrington that knows how to play like Dan Harrington. None of the rest
> of the population has anyone in it with any particularly deep knowledge
> about how Dan Harrington is actually playing. After Dan writes his book,
> knowledge of how he plays spreads. The growing number of Dans feed off of
> the clueless and their numbers diminish rapidly. All but those who can
> afford to lose are driven from the game.
>
> Where should we set the percentage of players playing to beat Dan?
>
> Since few people ever even view poker in these terms, I assume that there
> are relatively few such players in the actual poker playing
> populationAssuming no growth, one should go out and buy Dan Harrington's
> book and beat up on the clueless. Over time this will become less and less
> effective as you are more often pitted against another Dan Harrington. In
> those cases, skill is about a wash and luck takes over. If the number of
> clueless goes too low, all the Dans will lose to the rake and beat up on the
> poor clueless who don't number enough to feed the Dans enough money to stay
> ahead.
>
> But surely the numbers of players out to beat Dan would grow, even if only
> slowly, out of sheer necessity. So, what if the numbers of players out to
> beat Dan were more significant?
>
> If there are more clueless than Dan's out against you, it might seem you
> should join the Dans. But wait, you have the choice of playing like Dan
> against the clueless and like an anti-Dan when against a Dan. This shouldn't
> be that hard because Dan always gives away his play! At this point, I'd have
> to change my advice and say, go out and buy Dan's book and use it to figure
> out the probable hole cards of all the Dans out there, and to beat up on
> both the Dans and the clueless.
>
> Note that the effect on the clueless population doesn't change in terms of
> whether there a lot of anti-Dans around or very few. Some of the clueless
> will not run out of money at the level they play if they can make up the
> losses and then some outside of poker. Others will go broke or quit out of
> frustration. And many are fully aware of Dan's book and may switch camps.
> Some of those may even see that an anti-Dan approach is called for.
>
> Eventually, the totally clueless would go extinct except for 1) New players
> to the game, and 2) Players who really *don't* have a clue (and who maybe
> even don't want a clue) and who will not run out of money at the level they
> play. This does happen, but is very rare because most players *want* to know
> how to win and *want* to be good players, so there is pressure to leave the
> losers camp if possible. The majority of the clueless must therefore be
> newcomers. (Which reminds me of the old advice to only teach new players the
> rules, not how to play.)
>
> With the Dan's and anti-Dan's feeding on the newcomers, and newcomers either
> leaving the game or switching camps, the anti-Dans become wealthy and
> successful over time, and the newcomers and the Dan's (who never abandoned
> their Dan strategy due to it's initial success, but bemoan the losses of
> recent years) come to admire the anti-Dans and aspire to play like them.
>
> Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king of
> the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. In the
> next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
>
> tvp
First, thanks for writing an on-topic post. Thanks, too, for writing about
Harrington. There is, however, a logical fallacy in your argument. You
assume that all who read Harrington understand Harrington. Two problems
with this.
1) It's not true. A huge range exists in the comprehension of what
Harrington offers. To give but one example, a certain segment of his
audience will remember only how and what hands to play from early
position. Others will remember how and what to play from both early and
middle position, and others will understand Dan's approach from early,
middle and late position. By extension, then, different groups of people
will remember and be able to apply what they selectively remember from
Harrington.
2) The argument also assumes that those who read Harrington play like
Harrington. In fact, there can be many authors who influence a player. In
addition to Dan, they might have read Phil Gordon, Phil Helmuth, Blair
Rodman or Gus Hansen. Maybe even Gary Carson. Just because you seem
someone make a play that you recognize out of HoH doesn't mean that they
won't play the next hand like the Great Dane.
Certainly a boom-bust cycle exists among poker players, but I do not think
it can be attributed to slavishly following a particular author or
anti-author.
DanFan
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 12:06:05
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
"DanFan" <a67c180@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:ic7p56xos5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 4 2009 8:29 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
> > I really do try to help make this a better group in terms of content. I
> > swear. So it's been on my conscience that I need positive karma in this
> > regard. (Very old-school., classic tvp style from here on out. Got
that?)
> >
> > Let's look at how poker strategies spread through poker.
> >
> > First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
> > wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success
and
> > who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these
players
> > may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win.
Aspiring
> > to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the
work
> > and emulate their idol.
> >
> > A logical fallacy now arises.
> >
> > Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails
to
> > realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and
attempting
> > to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
> >
> > The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play like
Dan
> > Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
> >
> > Let's take a simple case to look at.
> >
> > A certain percentage of the poker playing population plays like Dan
> > Harrington and the remaining players do not. Some of the players not
playing
> > like Dan Harrington are clueless. Some are playing to beat Dan
Harrington.
> > Since Dan Harrington has totally given everything away about how he
plays
> > and has essentially "turned his hole cards up" we will assume that
players
> > playing to beat Dan really can beat Dan. Meanwhile, the Dan Harrington
> > players can beat the clueless.
> >
> > Mathmatically, some of this is very similar to studying predator/prey
> > relationships. (Memories of differential equations!!!)
> >
> > [That sets me off on a tangent: My oldest daughter now attends the UW
just
> > as I did. This has made me enormously proud. She's been asking me
calculus
> > questions. Sometimes I can help; sometimes I forget the particular
problem
> > type. Recently, I got to look smart in front of my own dad, when she
called
> > asking for help while I was with him, and I knew what to do.]
> >
> > There are some assumptions we can make about the population levels.
> > Initializing our variables, we see that at the beginning there is only
one
> > Dan Harrington that knows how to play like Dan Harrington. None of the
rest
> > of the population has anyone in it with any particularly deep knowledge
> > about how Dan Harrington is actually playing. After Dan writes his book,
> > knowledge of how he plays spreads. The growing number of Dans feed off
of
> > the clueless and their numbers diminish rapidly. All but those who can
> > afford to lose are driven from the game.
> >
> > Where should we set the percentage of players playing to beat Dan?
> >
> > Since few people ever even view poker in these terms, I assume that
there
> > are relatively few such players in the actual poker playing
> > populationAssuming no growth, one should go out and buy Dan Harrington's
> > book and beat up on the clueless. Over time this will become less and
less
> > effective as you are more often pitted against another Dan Harrington.
In
> > those cases, skill is about a wash and luck takes over. If the number of
> > clueless goes too low, all the Dans will lose to the rake and beat up on
the
> > poor clueless who don't number enough to feed the Dans enough money to
stay
> > ahead.
> >
> > But surely the numbers of players out to beat Dan would grow, even if
only
> > slowly, out of sheer necessity. So, what if the numbers of players out
to
> > beat Dan were more significant?
> >
> > If there are more clueless than Dan's out against you, it might seem you
> > should join the Dans. But wait, you have the choice of playing like Dan
> > against the clueless and like an anti-Dan when against a Dan. This
shouldn't
> > be that hard because Dan always gives away his play! At this point, I'd
have
> > to change my advice and say, go out and buy Dan's book and use it to
figure
> > out the probable hole cards of all the Dans out there, and to beat up on
> > both the Dans and the clueless.
> >
> > Note that the effect on the clueless population doesn't change in terms
of
> > whether there a lot of anti-Dans around or very few. Some of the
clueless
> > will not run out of money at the level they play if they can make up the
> > losses and then some outside of poker. Others will go broke or quit out
of
> > frustration. And many are fully aware of Dan's book and may switch
camps.
> > Some of those may even see that an anti-Dan approach is called for.
> >
> > Eventually, the totally clueless would go extinct except for 1) New
players
> > to the game, and 2) Players who really *don't* have a clue (and who
maybe
> > even don't want a clue) and who will not run out of money at the level
they
> > play. This does happen, but is very rare because most players *want* to
know
> > how to win and *want* to be good players, so there is pressure to leave
the
> > losers camp if possible. The majority of the clueless must therefore be
> > newcomers. (Which reminds me of the old advice to only teach new players
the
> > rules, not how to play.)
> >
> > With the Dan's and anti-Dan's feeding on the newcomers, and newcomers
either
> > leaving the game or switching camps, the anti-Dans become wealthy and
> > successful over time, and the newcomers and the Dan's (who never
abandoned
> > their Dan strategy due to it's initial success, but bemoan the losses of
> > recent years) come to admire the anti-Dans and aspire to play like them.
> >
> > Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king
of
> > the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. In
the
> > next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
> >
> > tvp
>
> First, thanks for writing an on-topic post. Thanks, too, for writing about
> Harrington. There is, however, a logical fallacy in your argument. You
> assume that all who read Harrington understand Harrington. Two problems
> with this.
>
> 1) It's not true. A huge range exists in the comprehension of what
> Harrington offers. To give but one example, a certain segment of his
> audience will remember only how and what hands to play from early
> position. Others will remember how and what to play from both early and
> middle position, and others will understand Dan's approach from early,
> middle and late position. By extension, then, different groups of people
> will remember and be able to apply what they selectively remember from
> Harrington.
>
> 2) The argument also assumes that those who read Harrington play like
> Harrington. In fact, there can be many authors who influence a player. In
> addition to Dan, they might have read Phil Gordon, Phil Helmuth, Blair
> Rodman or Gus Hansen. Maybe even Gary Carson. Just because you seem
> someone make a play that you recognize out of HoH doesn't mean that they
> won't play the next hand like the Great Dane.
Your points are well taken, but I did say I was looking at a simple case. I
guess I should have put that part in bold, all caps italics and underlined
it, but I don't post HTML.
> Certainly a boom-bust cycle exists among poker players, but I do not think
> it can be attributed to slavishly following a particular author or
> anti-author.
I think that some of the dynamic here is definitely in play, and definitely
worth noting, but the real world is clearly more complicated than the simple
case discussed. We can do mathematical studies of foxes, rabbits and hunters
of foxes and come to understand certain concepts that are interesting and
useful, but the real world is a jungle full of more creatures than just
that. Even so, that doesn't necessarily diminish what one can learn from the
simpler examples.
tvp
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 10:35:33
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4 2009 7:29 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
> Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king of
> the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. In the
> next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
This last paragraph reminds me of something from my childhood. Anyone
remember that Jam On It song that was playing in the early 80's on the pop
radio stations? All I can remember is the break dancing crowd loved it,
and some of the words were something like "J-J-J-J-J am On It!" A friend
of mine insisted that the guy was really saying Jamboney, and he knew it
was a fact cause he asked his dad who was a doctor and since his dad said
it, it must be true. So we beat the crap out of him.
---
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
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 12:10:24
From: Dave the Clueless
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4, 2:38=A0pm, "charrison100" <a11f...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DYKB0-pTq30M
>
> Chris
>
> "NO! =A0I want this shit to STOP! =A0 Right NOW! =A0Nobody takes me serio=
us
> anymore." - Paul
> Popinjay, 01/16/2009
>
> ________________________________________________________________________=
=A0
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
Now that made me smile. Thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 11:38:12
From: charrison100
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKB0-pTq30M
Chris
"NO! I want this shit to STOP! Right NOW! Nobody takes me serious
anymore." - Paul
Popinjay, 01/16/2009
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 11:30:55
From: greystoke9
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4 2009 1:35 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Feb 4 2009 7:29 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
> > Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king of
> > the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. In
the
> > next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
>
> This last paragraph reminds me of something from my childhood. Anyone
> remember that Jam On It song that was playing in the early 80's on the pop
> radio stations? All I can remember is the break dancing crowd loved it,
> and some of the words were something like "J-J-J-J-J am On It!" A friend
> of mine insisted that the guy was really saying Jamboney, and he knew it
> was a fact cause he asked his dad who was a doctor and since his dad said
> it, it must be true. So we beat the crap out of him.
>
> ---
> 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
yea i remember that tune - "hey mergatroid, where are youuuu....."
------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 09:39:39
From:
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4, 7:29=A0am, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net > wrote:
> I really do try to help make this a better group in terms of content. I
> swear. So it's been on my conscience that I need positive karma in this
> regard. (Very old-school., classic tvp style from here on out. Got that?)
>
> Let's look at how poker strategies spread through poker.
>
> First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
> wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success and
> who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these players
> may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win. Aspirin=
g
> to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the wo=
rk
> and emulate their idol.
>
> =A0A logical fallacy now arises.
>
> Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails =
to
> realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and attemptin=
g
> to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
>
> The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play like =
Dan
> Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
>
> Let's take a simple case to look at.
>
> A certain percentage of the poker playing population plays like Dan
> Harrington and the remaining players do not. Some of the players not play=
ing
> like Dan Harrington are clueless. Some are playing to beat Dan Harrington=
.
> Since Dan Harrington has totally given everything away about how he plays
> and has essentially "turned his hole cards up" we will assume that player=
s
> playing to beat Dan really can beat Dan. Meanwhile, the Dan Harrington
> players can beat the clueless.
>
> Mathmatically, some of this is very similar to studying predator/prey
> relationships. (Memories of differential equations!!!)
>
> [That sets me off on a tangent: My oldest daughter now attends the UW jus=
t
> as I did. This has made me enormously proud. She's been asking me calculu=
s
> questions. Sometimes I can help; sometimes I forget the particular proble=
m
> type. Recently, I got to look smart in front of my own dad, when she call=
ed
> asking for help while I was with him, and I knew what to do.]
>
> There are some assumptions we can make about the population levels.
> Initializing our variables, we see that at the beginning there is only on=
e
> Dan Harrington that knows how to play like Dan Harrington. None of the re=
st
> of the population has anyone in it with any particularly deep knowledge
> about how Dan Harrington is actually playing. After Dan writes his book,
> knowledge of how he plays spreads. The growing number of Dans feed off of
> the clueless and their numbers diminish rapidly. All but those who can
> afford to lose are driven from the game.
>
> Where should we set the percentage of players playing to beat Dan?
>
> Since few people ever even view poker in these terms, I assume that there
> are relatively few such players in the actual poker playing
> populationAssuming no growth, one should go out and buy Dan Harrington's
> book and beat up on the clueless. Over time this will become less and les=
s
> effective as you are more often pitted against another Dan Harrington. In
> those cases, skill is about a wash and luck takes over. If the number of
> clueless goes too low, all the Dans will lose to the rake and beat up on =
the
> poor clueless who don't number enough to feed the Dans enough money to st=
ay
> ahead.
>
> But surely the numbers of players out to beat Dan would grow, even if onl=
y
> slowly, out of sheer necessity. So, what if the numbers of players out to
> beat Dan were more significant?
>
> If there are more clueless than Dan's out against you, it might seem you
> should join the Dans. But wait, you have the choice of playing like Dan
> against the clueless and like an anti-Dan when against a Dan. This should=
n't
> be that hard because Dan always gives away his play! At this point, I'd h=
ave
> to change my advice and say, go out and buy Dan's book and use it to figu=
re
> out the probable hole cards of all the Dans out there, and to beat up on
> both the Dans and the clueless.
>
> Note that the effect on the clueless population doesn't change in terms o=
f
> whether there a lot of anti-Dans around or very few. Some of the clueless
> will not run out of money at the level they play if they can make up the
> losses and then some outside of poker. Others will go broke or quit out o=
f
> frustration. And many are fully aware of Dan's book and may switch camps.
> Some of those may even see that an anti-Dan approach is called for.
>
> Eventually, the totally clueless would go extinct except for 1) New playe=
rs
> to the game, and 2) Players who really *don't* have a clue (and who maybe
> even don't want a clue) and who will not run out of money at the level th=
ey
> play. This does happen, but is very rare because most players *want* to k=
now
> how to win and *want* to be good players, so there is pressure to leave t=
he
> losers camp if possible. The majority of the clueless must therefore be
> newcomers. (Which reminds me of the old advice to only teach new players =
the
> rules, not how to play.)
>
> With the Dan's and anti-Dan's feeding on the newcomers, and newcomers eit=
her
> leaving the game or switching camps, the anti-Dans become wealthy and
> successful over time, and the newcomers and the Dan's (who never abandone=
d
> their Dan strategy due to it's initial success, but bemoan the losses of
> recent years) come to admire the anti-Dans and aspire to play like them.
>
> Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king of
> the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. In =
the
> next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
>
> tvp
I agree with all of this, but I think you over simplify the cycles.
There are "anti-anti-Dans" almost as soon as HoH came out. This is
commonly associated with different "levels" of thinking. To suggest
that There's this mass of players that fit only into two catagories in
the beginnign I think is oversimplifying it.
You forgot to say how to become the next King.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 12:39:54
From:
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
On Feb 4, 1:27=A0pm, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net > wrote:
> <tranger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3dac74ce-5028-4cbf-b6f0-355974961bdb@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 7:29 am, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I really do try to help make this a better group in terms of content. I
> > swear. So it's been on my conscience that I need positive karma in this
> > regard. (Very old-school., classic tvp style from here on out. Got that=
?)
>
> > Let's look at how poker strategies spread through poker.
>
> > First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
> > wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success a=
nd
> > who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these playe=
rs
> > may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win. Aspir=
ing
> > to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the
> work
> > and emulate their idol.
>
> > A logical fallacy now arises.
>
> > Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fail=
s
> to
> > realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and attempt=
ing
> > to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
>
> > The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play lik=
e
> Dan
> > Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
>
> > Let's take a simple case to look at.
>
> > A certain percentage of the poker playing population plays like Dan
> > Harrington and the remaining players do not. Some of the players not
> playing
> > like Dan Harrington are clueless. Some are playing to beat Dan Harringt=
on.
> > Since Dan Harrington has totally given everything away about how he pla=
ys
> > and has essentially "turned his hole cards up" we will assume that play=
ers
> > playing to beat Dan really can beat Dan. Meanwhile, the Dan Harrington
> > players can beat the clueless.
>
> > Mathmatically, some of this is very similar to studying predator/prey
> > relationships. (Memories of differential equations!!!)
>
> > [That sets me off on a tangent: My oldest daughter now attends the UW j=
ust
> > as I did. This has made me enormously proud. She's been asking me calcu=
lus
> > questions. Sometimes I can help; sometimes I forget the particular prob=
lem
> > type. Recently, I got to look smart in front of my own dad, when she
> called
> > asking for help while I was with him, and I knew what to do.]
>
> > There are some assumptions we can make about the population levels.
> > Initializing our variables, we see that at the beginning there is only =
one
> > Dan Harrington that knows how to play like Dan Harrington. None of the
> rest
> > of the population has anyone in it with any particularly deep knowledge
> > about how Dan Harrington is actually playing. After Dan writes his book=
,
> > knowledge of how he plays spreads. The growing number of Dans feed off =
of
> > the clueless and their numbers diminish rapidly. All but those who can
> > afford to lose are driven from the game.
>
> > Where should we set the percentage of players playing to beat Dan?
>
> > Since few people ever even view poker in these terms, I assume that the=
re
> > are relatively few such players in the actual poker playing
> > populationAssuming no growth, one should go out and buy Dan Harrington'=
s
> > book and beat up on the clueless. Over time this will become less and l=
ess
> > effective as you are more often pitted against another Dan Harrington. =
In
> > those cases, skill is about a wash and luck takes over. If the number o=
f
> > clueless goes too low, all the Dans will lose to the rake and beat up o=
n
> the
> > poor clueless who don't number enough to feed the Dans enough money to
> stay
> > ahead.
>
> > But surely the numbers of players out to beat Dan would grow, even if o=
nly
> > slowly, out of sheer necessity. So, what if the numbers of players out =
to
> > beat Dan were more significant?
>
> > If there are more clueless than Dan's out against you, it might seem yo=
u
> > should join the Dans. But wait, you have the choice of playing like Dan
> > against the clueless and like an anti-Dan when against a Dan. This
> shouldn't
> > be that hard because Dan always gives away his play! At this point, I'd
> have
> > to change my advice and say, go out and buy Dan's book and use it to
> figure
> > out the probable hole cards of all the Dans out there, and to beat up o=
n
> > both the Dans and the clueless.
>
> > Note that the effect on the clueless population doesn't change in terms=
of
> > whether there a lot of anti-Dans around or very few. Some of the cluele=
ss
> > will not run out of money at the level they play if they can make up th=
e
> > losses and then some outside of poker. Others will go broke or quit out=
of
> > frustration. And many are fully aware of Dan's book and may switch camp=
s.
> > Some of those may even see that an anti-Dan approach is called for.
>
> > Eventually, the totally clueless would go extinct except for 1) New
> players
> > to the game, and 2) Players who really *don't* have a clue (and who may=
be
> > even don't want a clue) and who will not run out of money at the level
> they
> > play. This does happen, but is very rare because most players *want* to
> know
> > how to win and *want* to be good players, so there is pressure to leave
> the
> > losers camp if possible. The majority of the clueless must therefore be
> > newcomers. (Which reminds me of the old advice to only teach new player=
s
> the
> > rules, not how to play.)
>
> > With the Dan's and anti-Dan's feeding on the newcomers, and newcomers
> either
> > leaving the game or switching camps, the anti-Dans become wealthy and
> > successful over time, and the newcomers and the Dan's (who never abando=
ned
> > their Dan strategy due to it's initial success, but bemoan the losses o=
f
> > recent years) come to admire the anti-Dans and aspire to play like them=
.
>
> > Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king =
of
> > the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. I=
n
> the
> > next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
>
> > tvp
>
> I agree with all of this, but I think you over simplify the cycles.
> There are "anti-anti-Dans" almost as soon as HoH came out. =A0This is
> commonly associated with different "levels" of thinking. =A0To suggest
> that There's this mass of players that fit only into two catagories in
> the beginnign I think is oversimplifying it.
>
> You forgot to say how to become the next King.
>
> ****
>
> You guys who always have to quibble about something crack me up.
>
As long as I cracked you up, my work here is done.
BTW, I dont necessarily think any of this is groundbreaking. Give me
something groundbreaking.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 11:27:01
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Smokin' the good stuff again
|
<trangers16@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:3dac74ce-5028-4cbf-b6f0-355974961bdb@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 7:29 am, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net > wrote:
> I really do try to help make this a better group in terms of content. I
> swear. So it's been on my conscience that I need positive karma in this
> regard. (Very old-school., classic tvp style from here on out. Got that?)
>
> Let's look at how poker strategies spread through poker.
>
> First, we have the poker-playing population. Within this population are
> wealthy, successful players who have become famous from their success and
> who others admire. One of the most famous and successful of these players
> may write a book explaining in great detail, what it took to win. Aspiring
> to win themselves, newcomers to the game and serious players study the
work
> and emulate their idol.
>
> A logical fallacy now arises.
>
> Each (or most) of the individual players involved in this scenario fails
to
> realize that the book, with practically everyone reading it and attempting
> to play like it describes, *has changed the entire game*!
>
> The question becomes: should you read Dan Harrington's book to play like
Dan
> Harrington or to play against guys like Dan Harrington?
>
> Let's take a simple case to look at.
>
> A certain percentage of the poker playing population plays like Dan
> Harrington and the remaining players do not. Some of the players not
playing
> like Dan Harrington are clueless. Some are playing to beat Dan Harrington.
> Since Dan Harrington has totally given everything away about how he plays
> and has essentially "turned his hole cards up" we will assume that players
> playing to beat Dan really can beat Dan. Meanwhile, the Dan Harrington
> players can beat the clueless.
>
> Mathmatically, some of this is very similar to studying predator/prey
> relationships. (Memories of differential equations!!!)
>
> [That sets me off on a tangent: My oldest daughter now attends the UW just
> as I did. This has made me enormously proud. She's been asking me calculus
> questions. Sometimes I can help; sometimes I forget the particular problem
> type. Recently, I got to look smart in front of my own dad, when she
called
> asking for help while I was with him, and I knew what to do.]
>
> There are some assumptions we can make about the population levels.
> Initializing our variables, we see that at the beginning there is only one
> Dan Harrington that knows how to play like Dan Harrington. None of the
rest
> of the population has anyone in it with any particularly deep knowledge
> about how Dan Harrington is actually playing. After Dan writes his book,
> knowledge of how he plays spreads. The growing number of Dans feed off of
> the clueless and their numbers diminish rapidly. All but those who can
> afford to lose are driven from the game.
>
> Where should we set the percentage of players playing to beat Dan?
>
> Since few people ever even view poker in these terms, I assume that there
> are relatively few such players in the actual poker playing
> populationAssuming no growth, one should go out and buy Dan Harrington's
> book and beat up on the clueless. Over time this will become less and less
> effective as you are more often pitted against another Dan Harrington. In
> those cases, skill is about a wash and luck takes over. If the number of
> clueless goes too low, all the Dans will lose to the rake and beat up on
the
> poor clueless who don't number enough to feed the Dans enough money to
stay
> ahead.
>
> But surely the numbers of players out to beat Dan would grow, even if only
> slowly, out of sheer necessity. So, what if the numbers of players out to
> beat Dan were more significant?
>
> If there are more clueless than Dan's out against you, it might seem you
> should join the Dans. But wait, you have the choice of playing like Dan
> against the clueless and like an anti-Dan when against a Dan. This
shouldn't
> be that hard because Dan always gives away his play! At this point, I'd
have
> to change my advice and say, go out and buy Dan's book and use it to
figure
> out the probable hole cards of all the Dans out there, and to beat up on
> both the Dans and the clueless.
>
> Note that the effect on the clueless population doesn't change in terms of
> whether there a lot of anti-Dans around or very few. Some of the clueless
> will not run out of money at the level they play if they can make up the
> losses and then some outside of poker. Others will go broke or quit out of
> frustration. And many are fully aware of Dan's book and may switch camps.
> Some of those may even see that an anti-Dan approach is called for.
>
> Eventually, the totally clueless would go extinct except for 1) New
players
> to the game, and 2) Players who really *don't* have a clue (and who maybe
> even don't want a clue) and who will not run out of money at the level
they
> play. This does happen, but is very rare because most players *want* to
know
> how to win and *want* to be good players, so there is pressure to leave
the
> losers camp if possible. The majority of the clueless must therefore be
> newcomers. (Which reminds me of the old advice to only teach new players
the
> rules, not how to play.)
>
> With the Dan's and anti-Dan's feeding on the newcomers, and newcomers
either
> leaving the game or switching camps, the anti-Dans become wealthy and
> successful over time, and the newcomers and the Dan's (who never abandoned
> their Dan strategy due to it's initial success, but bemoan the losses of
> recent years) come to admire the anti-Dans and aspire to play like them.
>
> Finally, having accumulated an undeniable mountain of wealth, the king of
> the anti-Dan's arises, writes and sells a book, and everyone buys it. In
the
> next cycle, the anti-anti-Dan arises and takes over.
>
> tvp
I agree with all of this, but I think you over simplify the cycles.
There are "anti-anti-Dans" almost as soon as HoH came out. This is
commonly associated with different "levels" of thinking. To suggest
that There's this mass of players that fit only into two catagories in
the beginnign I think is oversimplifying it.
You forgot to say how to become the next King.
****
You guys who always have to quibble about something crack me up.
Did you notice where I said: "Let's take a simple case to look at."?
One time I gave a list of examples that would cause one to vary from the
usual, standard play in a situation, and ended the list with "etc." Up comes
a guy who says: "You forgot to mention X, Y and Z."
Anyway, of course it's a bit more complicated in reality, but the general
dynamic being discussed seems to be in play.
tvp
|
|
