in a vacuum - Page 2

In a vacuum is "analyzing this specific series of actions given zero reason to suspect the villain isn't solid"

"am I making any fundamental mistakes playing this hand/range as such against a solid/"not spewing" villain"


/edit I read the comments and basically yep

i always thought in a vacuum means that you have to do something because in that current situation you have no other choice (like the vacuum is sucking you towards something and u have no other choice but the flow with it)

On January 15 2013 19:13 MiPwnYa wrote: I think it means in this specific spot without considering our overall strategy or balance at all

this is exactly correct and almost everyone else that has posted itt seems to be off by varying amounts

^I always figured that in a vacuum means isolated from other variables, like conducting an experiment in physics in a vacuum tube.
Whether the "outside" variables are metagame/player tendencies or our own overall strategy/balance is context related, so that means you can't figure out what "in a vacuum" means in a vacuum (had to do this, I hope I'm not way off lol).
Or is in a vacuum a specific poker term only? Seriously curious on how you found this precise definition Ket.

it does mean without other variables. The other variables in poker would be overall strategy and balance, which influence your decision by trying to improve later outcomes, which has nothing to do with the current hand

On January 16 2013 07:21 lebowski wrote: ^I always figured that in a vacuum means isolated from other variables, like conducting an experiment in physics in a vacuum tube. Whether the "outside" variables are metagame/player tendencies or our own overall strategy/balance is context related, so that means you can't figure out what "in a vacuum" means in a vacuum (had to do this, I hope I'm not way off lol). Or is in a vacuum a specific poker term only? Seriously curious on how you found this precise definition Ket.

Fair question. I'm only commenting on the definition of the poker term 'vacuum play' that originated from high level 2p2 strategy discussion as an observer of said discussion over the years. In that respect if you argue the meaning is whatever the hell you think it means or want it to mean then you might actually have a point because the original meaning in poker context was made up by players discussing hands as well, so why cant you make your own definition up too? The definition MiPwnYa gave is closest to what the original, and most frequently used intended meaning of the phrase within the context of poker strategy discussion is.

Consider this example, you're in a spot hu on the river in position, opponent checks to you and you have exactly 1 pot size bet remaining behind. You estimate your range in this spot is 70% nuts and 30% air. A strategy for this spot is defined as a description of what you should do with any possible hand you can hold in this spot, and you may decide that the strongest overall strategy for your range you want to use in this spot is to shove 100% of your range (infact in this example, this strategy would be the Game Theory Optimal one, and the GTO opponent response is to fold 100% in this situation). But consider when you're actually in this situation, on the tables in real time you don't hold a whole range, you just hold an exact hand. If this exact hand is the nuts then you may decide "screw the overall strategy, with this exact hand I might be able to make higher EV by playing it a different way to what the best overall strategy tells me to. I can bet smaller and increase my chances of getting crying called". Or if you have air this time you may choose to not bluff so you can save money because this time you think opponent will call too much, even tho the best overall strategy tells you to always shove.

The term vacuum play was originally invented because players wanted to discuss situations like this and needed a word to describe the option you take with an exact hand that just tries to maximise the EV of that hand without regard for how playing that hand differently will cause your overall strategy in that spot to be weaker. If you go back and rewatch some old Galfond vids, you might see he's always talking about his internal struggles between choosing the best range play and the best vacuum play, now you know this is what he's talking about and this is what the term vacuum in a poker context is talking about.

.

On January 16 2013 08:18 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On January 16 2013 07:21 lebowski wrote: ^I always figured that in a vacuum means isolated from other variables, like conducting an experiment in physics in a vacuum tube. Whether the "outside" variables are metagame/player tendencies or our own overall strategy/balance is context related, so that means you can't figure out what "in a vacuum" means in a vacuum (had to do this, I hope I'm not way off lol). Or is in a vacuum a specific poker term only? Seriously curious on how you found this precise definition Ket. Fair question. I'm only commenting on the definition of the poker term 'vacuum play' that originated from high level 2p2 strategy discussion as an observer of said discussion over the years. In that respect if you argue the meaning is whatever the hell you think it means or want it to mean then you might actually have a point because the original meaning in poker context was made up by players discussing hands as well, so why cant you make your own definition up too? The definition MiPwnYa gave is closest to what the original, and most frequently used intended meaning of the phrase within the context of poker strategy discussion is. Consider this example, you're in a spot hu on the river in position, opponent checks to you and you have exactly 1 pot size bet remaining behind. You estimate your range in this spot is 70% nuts and 30% air. A strategy for this spot is defined as a description of what you should do with any possible hand you can hold in this spot, and you may decide that the strongest overall strategy for your range you want to use in this spot is to shove 100% of your range (infact in this example, this strategy would be the Game Theory Optimal one, and the GTO opponent response is to fold 100% in this situation). But consider when you're actually in this situation, on the tables in real time you don't hold a whole range, you just hold an exact hand. If this exact hand is the nuts then you may decide "screw the overall strategy, with this exact hand I might be able to make higher EV by playing it a different way to what the best overall strategy tells me to. I can bet smaller and increase my chances of getting crying called". Or if you have air this time you may choose to not bluff so you can save money because this time you think opponent will call too much, even tho the best overall strategy tells you to always shove. The term vacuum play was originally invented because players wanted to discuss situations like this and needed a word to describe the option you take with an exact hand that just tries to maximise the EV of that hand without regard for how playing that hand differently will cause your overall strategy in that spot to be weaker. If you go back and rewatch some old Galfond vids, you might see he's always talking about his internal struggles between choosing the best range play and the best vacuum play, now you know this is what he's talking about and this is what the term vacuum in a poker context is talking about.

I see, obv if this has always been the use of the phrase historically then it sort of has a specific definition.
I googled the blog title and 2+2 and found the same topic but it's a bit old and with not a lot of opinions http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32/...mb-question-vacuum-definition-768820/

On January 15 2013 19:13 MiPwnYa wrote: I think it means in this specific spot without considering our overall strategy or balance at all

in a vacuum is how I would play my hand against a new opponent who is faceless and has no known tendencies, thus I am making an opener that aims to be game theory perfect and continue this vacuum play until their tendencies become known, where I switch to more exploitative plays, and its no longer in a vacuum.

something worth noting, I don't know if "in a vacuum" exists in live poker because we stereotype our opponent based on previous players who had a similar physical description. there is no "vacuum" play versus a quiet-spoken old man wearing conservative clothing who just sat down at your 10/20 cashgame.

if anything there are vacuums for each bias that we might encounter before playstyles are actually developed. but maybe that is no longer vacuum.