{This post has been removed}
Printable View
{This post has been removed}
Quote:
will analyzing the odds and playing probabilities make you a better player ?
I think not
Ummm...I don't see how those two quotes can co-exist in the same post.Quote:
The odds and the numbers are important.....I am not disputing that...
I see what you are getting at, but I think you are blowing the math off a little bit too much. I would rather bully and intimidate when holding AK AQ, pocket pair, etc, than just any old rags.
Reading your opponents and taking advantage when you know they are weak is a great strategy. Since that is something based more on feel and experience than anything else, then we are left to talk about the odds of the game, which are equally as important.
There is no way to tell somebody how to feel out if their opponent is strong, but we can discuss pot odds, etc. That is why there is so little discussion about the former and so little about the latter.
These techniques are advanced techniques...that's why so many players are not good at them. You have to walk before you can run. Just think if you learned the 'intimidation' before you learned about the math. You would be getting your chips in at all the wrong times and getting smoked. To play like you suggest requires EXACT timing and you can't afford to be wrong very often. Playing tight ABC poker allows the average player a larger margin of error.Quote:
What I find disconcerting is that so many players are slaves to the odds and don't consider player tendencies and the factor of intimidation
Must be nice to be able to call a BMW a POS..Quote:
and since my stupid BMW blew its timing belt
:lol:
My 2cents:
Poker is 1/2 left brain and 1/2 right brain. To be good at poker, you must excel at both halfs. Do not sacrifice one for the other and do not create contradictions between the 2.
One could also agrue that poker is all math.. there is the obvious math/statisitics of the cards (pot odds, ev, implied odds, etc) and there are the intangible statistics based on the situation (intimidation, bluffing, opp playing style, position, emotions, etc). Arguably, you will never become a decent poker player w/o understand the direct odds (e.g. pot odds, etc). Also, you will never become a great poker player w/o understand the less-so-obvious odds (e.g. conditional probabability).
I would suggest the best poker players understand the conditional odds so well where it has translated into "gut-feel" and "tuition".. What do top poker players recommend? Read some books, understand the odds, and play, play, play...
Why is there an emphasis on direct odds? Its easier to know "black" from "white" (you cant ever go wrong improving this knowledge set). However, the conditional odds is all up for debate based on experience, playing style (e.g. Lagg vs tagg). Since its not as concrete its a bit harder to give correct advise and therefore easier to give wrong advise.
Play the odds... Don't play the odds... Which is correct? Both.
I was explaining a lot about poker to a friend. She slow-played Aces and got burned. Then she played Kings really fast and won almost nothing. Again, she played Aces fast and won a tiny pot. It was just bad luck for her.
She was getting frusterated because everything she did went wrong. "There are a million rules to playing good poker. Half of those rules contradict the other half. The trick to playing great poker is realizing what rules to follow and when."
I have no doubt of Rippy's ability. He hates the odds and it treats him well. However, I also have no doubt of Sklansky's ability. Sklansky mathmatically figures out if he calls or folds every hand at every street. But the best player will be able to live in both worlds.
To me, poker boils down to three things: Statistics, observation, and deception (wasted on the unobservant).
That being said, playing hands like 74o still fits into this.
You can raise/re-raise with 74o if you think (based on your observations) that your opponent probably (based on statistics) will have a hand that he will fold to your raise.
You can even call raises with 74o to give a false impression (deception) that you play hands like this all of the time and are very loose.
It all comes back to math/statistics. You just factor everything else into the equation, but it's still an equation that's all about +EV.
EV
I agree, to take your poker game to the highest level, you can't simply know how often your hand wins against which other hands in certain situations. You have to apply game theory to see why:
A. Imagine you're playing in a poker game where everyone can see everyone's cards. There is a single, perfect solution to this game, and this is to play the odds. You cannot be bluffed, because if a player is raising with inferior odds of winning, you simply reraise him and get him to put all of his money in with the worst hand over and over and over again. Optimal strategy is purely odds-based. Over time, the only way to make money at this game is to either know the odds and play accordingly (viz. basic blackjack) or exploit "blind stupidity" in stupid opponents who have no knowledge of the odds (viz. you may have "gamblers" who will take a chance at outdrawing your superior hand, but they will inevitably lose their money in the long run). In sum, the odds in this game count, and this is not a game that can mathematically be beaten (ie. it is a game more like tic-tac-toe than poker).
B. Now imagine you could see all of your opponents' cards (they don't know this), and they can't see yours [you have x-ray vision]. You can calculate your outs perfectly and figure out the percentages perfectly against them, and they can never perfectly calculate the odds against you. All of your decisions, in this case, would still be perfect probability decisions. Unlike example A, you can force your opponents to make many mathematical errors, you will be unbluffable, and the game, for you, will be an odds game. In sum, the odds in this game count, and this is a game that can be mathematically beaten. [In fact, this is the most profitable situation one could ever be in during a poker game comprised of rationalistic players.]
C. Add uncertainty. Imagine example B, except now your opponents know you can see their cards. Unlike in example B, you would have a tougher time getting your opponents to hand over their money. Why? If your opponents know that you're going to play a certain way (ie. they think that you are going to raise with the best hand, check/fold with the worst) they can "counter" your strategy. For example, if your rational opponents know for 100% that you raise with optimal probability of winning a showdown, and you fold when you don't, then you cannot obtain profitability at this game despite the fact that you can see your opponents' cards. (You can avoid losing money, but if you do in fact stick to this strategy, you will not make anything). In sum, the odds in this game count, and this game can easily be mathematically beaten, however it requires more than optimal mathematical strategy to obtain profitability.
Example C is where Game Theory comes into play. If you are the lucky guy who gets to see everybody's cards, then you cannot simply "play the odds" and win against opponents who are motivated to keep their money. They will do everything in their power to figure out how you are playing which cards in which situations, and then they will do their best to stop you. It's a game of perfect information for you, and a game of inperfect information for your opponents. However, if you give away information through your betting patterns, tells, etc. then your opponents gain information and put themselves on a level playing field. For example, if your opponents know that there is a 75% chance that you are bluffing at any given pot, even if they know you can see their cards, they will call or reraise you, and you will lose more often than not despite the fact that you can see what everybody has and where you are in the hand.
Enter Texas Holdem. In this game, you don't get to see your opponent's cards, but you can acquire a decent amount of information about the way your opponents are playing their hands based on the probability of winning their hands. You can use all sorts of information against them.
Conclusion: I hope I have made it evident that having a knowledge of the odds has little to do with winning at poker. Because your opponents are rational and they do not have perfect information on their probability of winning a showdown, they have been given the choice to fold. It is the ability to fold that makes poker what it is, and you can't show down that inherent "probablity of winning" if your opponent folds.