![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksMy novitiate period at no limit continues. Roswell 42 was writing yesterday about a meeting with the guys who wrote Freakonomics. They had a conflab where poker players were given some two-player games to play and the idea was to work out the optimum game-theory strategy as quickly as possible. Roswell got stiffed up against Brandon Adams, who needless to say took a nanosecond to work out the best game theory strategy in the particular game that the two of them were given to play.
I feel a bit like Roswell must have. I don't think that I have much of an instinct for game theory. If I come up against a "new" game, other players invariably spot a good strategy before I do. My brain has enough trouble remembering the rules, never mind an overall concept.
This could be one reason why I am more suited to cash games than I am to tournaments. A cash games is short and has some fairly pre-defined chapters, with a begiing close in time to the end (on Ultimate Bet, about six seconds). In No Limit these chapters remain the same, but the options have a greater range.
So, anyway, I'm struggling on, probably making some terrible mistakes, but avoiding getting slaughtered. I'm still a bit up, and I definitely have the feeling, at the low levels that I am playing at the moment, that with a bit of practice I should be better than most of the players there. Even the "clever" ones are merely defined by having some sense of position and the right amount to bet.
On the (possible) downside, once again my limit style seems to have moved over. It must be the games that I find myself in. Sklansky/Miller say that, since every player in the long run gets roughly the same proportion of good and bad hands, the idea is to win bigger pots and lose smaller ones.
Well, yes, Lord Copper.
But my feeling is, in the $50 buy-in games on Virgin, that players have as a default the line of "fold early, unless the flop has hit you in the face, no matter how small your opponent's bet". Of course, if they can see that they are up against a lunatic, then top pair top kicker becomes rather more attractive. But, as a rule, the pot sizes are very small and are either won uncontested or are checked down to the river, when someone takes a $4 pot with a $1.50 bet. Nearly all the players are mainland European, and all of them seem to be waiting for Omaha-like situations where they have the nuts against the second-nuts, and all of the money will go in.
After a few sessions of this it seemed clear that the Miller/Sklansky line could be open to misinterpretation. After all, if I win lots of small pots, uncontested, on the flop (or, quite often, pre-flop, with a 5xbig blind raise in late quite enough to get three limpers and the blinds to fold) then I can afford the occasional battering when someone flops the business against me. Provided I don't spunk my entire stack.
Now, since my hand is quite often modest at best, occasionally with a draw as a backdoor, this is unlikely to happen.
So, if I'm winning nine or 10 pots of $3 to $7, and then losing one of $25, I'm in front on the deal, despite winning small pots and losing big ones.
Now, this is all really basic stuff against the default players that I've observed. Virgin has no Pokertracker, and I really think that Pokertracker is my lifeblood. The numbers mean more to me than the actions. However, it has forced me to take note of some actions, and I'm adding bits to my armoury, very much bit-by-bit.
What has definitely struck me is the extent to which it is different from tournaments. All-ins really are rarer than hen's teeth, simply because everyone folds unless they have AA or KK, and you can get rid of all but the monsters for far less than an all-in raise (like I say, 5 x the Big Blind seems sufficient!).
Conclusions so far?
They are unlikely to go for a check-raise with top-pair on the flop, which makes betting from last position when checked-round to on the flop a guaranteed long-term money winner.
These people are also folding inappropriately. They like certainties or short odds (such as sets or trips on the flop) and do not appreciate the positive EV of getting 10-to-1 about a 5-to-1 shot.
All that they can see is that they have only a one-in-six chance of winning, and that it must therefore be a bad bet. Not only do they not take implied odds, but they actually seem to turn down pot odds. So, if people are folding inappropriately, a winning strategy is, presumably, to give them as many opportunities to fold as possible.
I feel a bit like Roswell must have. I don't think that I have much of an instinct for game theory. If I come up against a "new" game, other players invariably spot a good strategy before I do. My brain has enough trouble remembering the rules, never mind an overall concept.
This could be one reason why I am more suited to cash games than I am to tournaments. A cash games is short and has some fairly pre-defined chapters, with a begiing close in time to the end (on Ultimate Bet, about six seconds). In No Limit these chapters remain the same, but the options have a greater range.
So, anyway, I'm struggling on, probably making some terrible mistakes, but avoiding getting slaughtered. I'm still a bit up, and I definitely have the feeling, at the low levels that I am playing at the moment, that with a bit of practice I should be better than most of the players there. Even the "clever" ones are merely defined by having some sense of position and the right amount to bet.
On the (possible) downside, once again my limit style seems to have moved over. It must be the games that I find myself in. Sklansky/Miller say that, since every player in the long run gets roughly the same proportion of good and bad hands, the idea is to win bigger pots and lose smaller ones.
Well, yes, Lord Copper.
But my feeling is, in the $50 buy-in games on Virgin, that players have as a default the line of "fold early, unless the flop has hit you in the face, no matter how small your opponent's bet". Of course, if they can see that they are up against a lunatic, then top pair top kicker becomes rather more attractive. But, as a rule, the pot sizes are very small and are either won uncontested or are checked down to the river, when someone takes a $4 pot with a $1.50 bet. Nearly all the players are mainland European, and all of them seem to be waiting for Omaha-like situations where they have the nuts against the second-nuts, and all of the money will go in.
After a few sessions of this it seemed clear that the Miller/Sklansky line could be open to misinterpretation. After all, if I win lots of small pots, uncontested, on the flop (or, quite often, pre-flop, with a 5xbig blind raise in late quite enough to get three limpers and the blinds to fold) then I can afford the occasional battering when someone flops the business against me. Provided I don't spunk my entire stack.
Now, since my hand is quite often modest at best, occasionally with a draw as a backdoor, this is unlikely to happen.
So, if I'm winning nine or 10 pots of $3 to $7, and then losing one of $25, I'm in front on the deal, despite winning small pots and losing big ones.
Now, this is all really basic stuff against the default players that I've observed. Virgin has no Pokertracker, and I really think that Pokertracker is my lifeblood. The numbers mean more to me than the actions. However, it has forced me to take note of some actions, and I'm adding bits to my armoury, very much bit-by-bit.
What has definitely struck me is the extent to which it is different from tournaments. All-ins really are rarer than hen's teeth, simply because everyone folds unless they have AA or KK, and you can get rid of all but the monsters for far less than an all-in raise (like I say, 5 x the Big Blind seems sufficient!).
Conclusions so far?
They are unlikely to go for a check-raise with top-pair on the flop, which makes betting from last position when checked-round to on the flop a guaranteed long-term money winner.
These people are also folding inappropriately. They like certainties or short odds (such as sets or trips on the flop) and do not appreciate the positive EV of getting 10-to-1 about a 5-to-1 shot.
All that they can see is that they have only a one-in-six chance of winning, and that it must therefore be a bad bet. Not only do they not take implied odds, but they actually seem to turn down pot odds. So, if people are folding inappropriately, a winning strategy is, presumably, to give them as many opportunities to fold as possible.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 02:21 pm (UTC)I have an economics degree and didn't have an instinct for it either, until I took nine credits worth of classes in it.
If you want a practical, somewhat applicable, easily understood explanation of game theory with very little discussion of the theory, try "Moral Calculations : Game Theory, Logic and Human Frailty" by Laszlo Mero.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0387984194/sr=8-12/qid=1154009926/ref=sr_1_12/103-9492124-0417433?ie=UTF8
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 06:57 pm (UTC)You slightly misunderstand me, or perhaps I didn't really express myself clearly. I can read the chapter early on from Sklansky/Miller (where different bet sizes are shown to be correct, depending on your position, your hand, your opponent, etc, but in mathematical game theory terms) and I can understand it. But I doubt that I would have had the diligence to work itout myself (but, and this is the important point, I know how to, and I could have).
What I mean is that I do not have the ability to instinctively come up with the right strategy in game situations. Inother words, give me a piece of paper and a calculator and I can work it out, slowly, but some people seem to have an "instinct" for it, which means that they catch on to new games far quicker than mere mortals like me.
Take Badugi, a game with little literature, or 2-to-7, with only a little more literature, or, indeed Royal Hold'em. If I sat down with people like Mikey (see below) at these games, in a situation where we had just been taught the rules, I would back Mike to beat me every time. However, give us a year of solid playing, and I would back myself, because Mike's initial advantage would by then have been negated by my learning through experience, but my advantages would have had time to come through.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 03:41 pm (UTC)I see nothing wrong with the lots of small wins vs occasional larger loss scenario. Although the latter occur infrequently, occasionally you get to win one of them, which can really dump up the earn rate. It seems to be a fairly consistent attribute of big-bet games. The thing to identify when someone pushes is whether or not they want you to call. This has been an expensive pastime for me in the past: either they're reading me well enough to go strong-means-strong on me or they're donkeys. At the levels I play it's most likely the latter.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 07:02 pm (UTC)If the situation were reversed, and I was in mid position with something like 76 on a flop of 965, and I checked, button would often bet something like $1.50 into a $5 pot, giving me fairly good odds for my call.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 10:26 am (UTC)That'll never catch on.
Titmus
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 11:06 am (UTC)I consider the visitors to this blog to be gentlemen and ladies of such distinction, discernment and discrimination that there was no need for me to add the rider "... up to a point".
You are obviously all so well-read that I can leave it unwritten.
Which was, kind of, the point.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 04:11 pm (UTC)So you haven't merely misquoted it, you've buggered up the intent too.
Titmus
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 05:16 pm (UTC)In other words, I am saying "no", as is implied simply by the inclusion of (in semiological terms) the "signifier", Lord Copper.
For goodness' sake, I would have thought that you would have got the hang of my writing style by now.
I reckon that you just saw that bit, saw an opportunity to have a dig, and didn't bother to read the rest.
As I know and you know, the meaning of the line "up to a point" is "no". Sklansky, in this entry, takes the role of Northcliffe. I could have written "Well, up to a point, Lord Copper", but I've written that so many times before, I decided to vary it a bit. I thought about making it
"Well yes, Lord, Copper, up to a point..."
then I thought of abbreviating it to "Well, yes, Lord Copper, but ..."
but I finally decided that simply typing "well, yes Lord Copper", given the context of the surrounding paragraphs made it clear that the meaning was the same as "up to a point". So in no way did I bugger up the intent. Not only that, but I actually put some thought into the phrasing. I Assumed that the readers would know the original quote, and would judge the meaning correctly. Clearly, I was wrong. My Bad.
PJ
I won't be accused of UNFOUNDED pedantry
Date: 2006-07-30 12:42 pm (UTC)To my recollection Waugh didn't have Salter say "Yes, Lord Copper, up to a point", because a) Salter would obviously never want to lie outright by saying yes when the answer was no, and b) because the 'yes' would bludgeon all the comedy impact out of the line.
How long can we keep this up? I love a good literary feud!