Ask a MSNLer - Page 7

On August 13 2008 01:01 Jelle wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 12:14 [vital]Myth wrote: what i'm trying to say is, i don't understand how the MOST BASIC theory that even exists to explain poker doesn't belong in a "beginners'" guide it's because the most basic theory requires you to have good judgement that comes from experience (which beginners by definition don't have) in order to use it it's not that we think beginners are "stupid", it's just that it's impossible for them to assign a range of hands to someone (how the hell can you do that when you've never played a hand in ur life?) so there should be a phase (however short) where people just droid it up and botgrind using specific guidelines even though that kinda sucks and isn't what they should be doing afterwards

well yes of course we have to educate those who are inexperienced based on our own experience

but the inexperienced HAVE to learn the proper theory immediately, and then we (the experienced) can quite easily show them the input. "here's the equation you need in order to make the correct decision EVERY time." now, here's some examples of common situations where i have provided for you the most likely inputs into that equation. over time, you'll get a good sense for what those inputs will be in all the situations where you have experience.

i think it's extremely self-destructive for a beginner to learn that basic premise without first having the theory. there's a HUGE difference between learning the SINGLE important theory, then being handed a list of applications and examples, and merely learning a list of rules and guidelines to follow.

when you get a list of rules and guidelines, you don't bend them and tweak them and study their nuances so that you're correct every time. when you learn that there's a singular, underlying theory and that the "rules" are really just "examples," you'll keep coming back to the original problem and re-doing it, finding more and more solutions with slightly different inputs. and that's the proper way to learn.

On August 13 2008 08:12 Kilay wrote: I also believe that there are just so many people are having a profitable style at level X that they are playing yet don't understand a single bit of what they are doing mathematically explained

you are 100% correct here. MANY people just learn a whole lot of general tips, rules, etc. and they just grind constantly with little questioning of what truly makes their style profitable. so, the minute you put them in a different environment, it's almost like they can't even play the game anymore. that's why it's laughable and hilarious how awful most internet 6-max players are when you drop them into a live, deepstacked, FR game.

here's a really good example. i was sitting in a 5/10 game at bellagio with like 200-300 BB or something during april. there were ALL fish, me, and adam001 at the table. the fish were limping every hand, and i was raising to like 10x or 12x the BB, just grabbing a huge amount of chips and slinging them into the pot. the fish kept calling and spewing over and over and over. and still adam asked me, "why are you raising so big?" everyone knows i respect adam's online 6max game a ton and i think he plays really well, but this is simply a matter of him never questioning the basic stuff he learned about poker, when those basics are only applicable in a very specific type of game. clearly i was raising huge because i was getting paid off, but he couldn't see beyond the simple fact that i wasn't raising the way internet players always do, which is to open 4x + 1 BB for each limper. this "rule" is one of the FIRST ones you learn, and it's an absolutely HORRIBLE rule to learn because it's EXTREMELY bad for your progress. if you never even considered WHY 4x + 1BB for each limper is recommended, then you'll never realize when 10x + 1bb for each limper is better, or when minraising is better, or when limping is better.

and that's just the way you play when you open the pot with your hole cards preflop, which is really really really simple.

i mean, if you can't play appropriately on THAT action, because you've never contemplated the proper theory, then i hope for your sake that the games remain really REALLY soft in the next year, because you're pretty far off track with your poker learning.

Hmm, I have a little question about that last part. When do you know you are done learning the theory (or at least, basically done) and you basically just have to tweak your ranges (depending on more game dynamics and so on) from there. I mean, I think or at least, I hope I got some grip on the general game theory but can you recommend any spot where I can take all the modern game theory up and make sure I got all or at least most of the fundamentals down.

See, today I learned something new about applying the concept you explained to post-flop play after 3-betting/squeezing in a certain spot. Now I always kind of knew the theory behind it, or at least, that every action you take need a certain degree of succes, either it be a bet for value or as a bluff. Still I kind of got something new out of it and it kind of remembered why 8+ tabling and taking robotic decisions isn't going to help your game get better much and you shouldn't think about decisions as they are in a box and as guidelines but think abot the underlying mathematics.

On August 12 2008 21:59 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 21:37 Highcard wrote: I completely agree with saki here, myth why are you trying to take something simple and throw numbers at it. Yes for some numbers seem more logical and fluid in terms of explanation, especially a game built around x factors and probability but the majority of people do not think that way. As a means to ease someone into a game such as poker, bombarding them in a beginners type guide with numbers will not be the best method to keep their attention, it will scare them away. omg, wow please, to any novices reading this thread, realize i have a green star and people like this have red X's for a reason.

Rofl I don't think you even read what I said since your response shows little comprehension. Do I have to spell it out that I am talking about the very 1st few times someone is introduced to the game of poker? You tell them basics and random crap then if they show more interest in poker you go deeper. Try to be a bigger dick next time...

there's only 1 formula you will ever need to know for the theory. yes, just one.

EV = sum (net $ due to all possible actions) / # of all possible actions

now, it's EXTREMELY daunting to actually do this entire calculation, for almost any situation, but luckily we can cut a lot of corners and use some very general assumptions to make it easier. BUT the bottom line is this:

(a) suppose i have AK and it is folded to me preflop. i'm on the button. what's the best play, folding, calling, raising to R1, raising to R2, ..., or raising to Rn?
(b) when you fold, there is only one net $: 0
(c) when you call, there are lots of net $: there's one for each different possible result when the SB folds, BB checks, and then BB check/folds the flop. there's also a myriad of different situations in which the SB raises, the BB folds, and you are forced to make another decision. and so on and so forth. the number of possible results is probably in the millions.
(d) when you raise to R1, there are lots of net $: again, millions of possible results
(e) ... (n+4) when you raise to R2 - Rn, there are lots of net $: again, millions of possible results for each other amount you can raise to, except all-in or nearly all-in where the results become quite few.

fortunately we have some very simple tools and logic to very quickly wipe out lots of the brute-force work of making all these millions of calculations. first, pokerstove is available to divide these "millions" by some number that is often in the thousands, for many examples of such a problem, because instead of US having to manually WRITE OUT each board that can come, pokerstove will tell us relevant % numbers for ALL the boards that can come, in the blink of an eye. furthermore, we know that in poker some boards are identical - A75 rainbow and A85 rainbow are going to have nearly 100% exactly the same results. so we can also consider large GROUPS of results that are either exactly or nearly the same, which AGAIN divides our problem of "millions" of results by some number typically between 10 and 100.

and now we have a problem where, in its most complicated form, will still require a few thousand calculations from us if we are actually going to solve the problem with complete certainty.

however, we know that we typically do not have the required information to solve the problem in its entirety. we don't know all of the hands our opponent can have, nor how he will play each of those hands. but we still have the framework for the problem.

good players are always looking at poker this way, even people who are very bad at arithmetic and never really learn about equity and pokerstove and all that jazz. take pooruser for example. if you said...steve, what's my equity against this range? he probably wouldn't have a good answer. but when you hear his explanation of a hand, he is doing very careful work to deduce what hand(s) his opponent can have, how he will play each of those hands, and which (out of thousands) of lines is most profitable for him.

nobody is doing complete work approaching poker this way, because everyone has too little information. but everyone who actually gets it IS thinking about it like this. you don't have to have a lot of "numbers" in your head to be doing proper math. the single formula i described above has several components - your bet size (0 or [minimum, allin]), your opponent's hand(s), all the combinations and orders of board cards, future decisions, and net results. you can be extremely good at knowing your opponent's hand(s), understanding what difference the board cards make, understanding the effects of future decisions, and thereby knowing what size to bet...without ever having a perspective on "equity" or "pot odds" at all -.-

so you can be really good at the fundamental math without ever even thinking about equity or pot odds, without ever doing the type of math you typically see on forums

On August 13 2008 12:12 Highcard wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 21:59 [vital]Myth wrote:   On August 12 2008 21:37 Highcard wrote: I completely agree with saki here, myth why are you trying to take something simple and throw numbers at it. Yes for some numbers seem more logical and fluid in terms of explanation, especially a game built around x factors and probability but the majority of people do not think that way. As a means to ease someone into a game such as poker, bombarding them in a beginners type guide with numbers will not be the best method to keep their attention, it will scare them away. omg, wow please, to any novices reading this thread, realize i have a green star and people like this have red X's for a reason. Rofl I don't think you even read what I said since your response shows little comprehension. Do I have to spell it out that I am talking about the very 1st few times someone is introduced to the game of poker? You tell them basics and random crap then if they show more interest in poker you go deeper. Try to be a bigger dick next time...

the reason i just flat-out tell people not to listen to you at all is because you keep flapping your e-lips about "numbers" when you actually have no clue what i'm talking about.

read my above post. if you think i am "trying to throw numbers at it" then you just don't really have a good understanding of poker theory.

the only "numbers" in the theory i am talking about (unsimplified theory, with no assumptions)

are net results and number of results. EVERYONE can do a single simple average. EVERYONE. if i asked somebody to look at a long list of $ amounts, and a number that says how long the list is, they wouldn't feel at all like i was "throwing numbers at them"

that said, i am definitely trying to throw millions of "if __, then __" statements at it

also

does this make sense? that ALL of basic, true, unsimplified poker math is nothing but ONE simple average? all you do is come up with a list of $ amounts and divide by the number of items in that list, that's ALL. it's just an average

all the more complex math that you think about as "poker math" is just a fancy way of making it easier to get that average.

How can you accuse myth of only using numbers? look at those bulks of text he spammed, you get dizzy just by glancing at it.

Wow, this discussion continuously let's me see new things. I always thought in lanes, you know... Like you have varietes of actions but some actions are defined as bad. Don't limp, basically don't minraise or never overbet the river for 2x pot since you don't come across those actions a whole lot. But the reason those actions are defined as bad is not because they actually are bad but, are generally bad in the online games nowadays since a lot of other options yield a much higher EV. In other situations and dynamics some of those options not common seen in the online game become a very good option and may be, in some spots, be the option that will yield you the most EV.

I feel like I need to give a big thank you to Myth, I think I've learned from reading your posts than from any pokerbooks I read and probably all the Cardrunner video's I've seen. I think, every limit I climb from where I am today, half of it is thanks to you hehe and think it's awesome what you are doing for everybody in this community that want to learn. I really hope you continue doing what I've seen you do since the day I joined LP.net.

(^_________^) thank you, i'm very flattered

i love to teach and i'm happy to be helping

someone needs to compile all of Myth's posts and make a book imo

On August 12 2008 11:46 Jelle wrote: agreed with sakisaki and I think LP should stop linking to my old guides they worked long ago but each limit is much harder to beat now including the micro limits and I don't think my old advice (basicly to nit it super hard at full ring) is guaranteed to make people win anymore.. I kind of feel bad about it srsly this thing is clearly superior in and you guys should ask the author to use it instead

blasphemy, playing solid poker is the most important part of winning at any stake

On August 13 2008 00:49 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 22:51 Baal wrote: lol i love the cheez cat I think you both are right, i believe math is extremely basic and should be taught early, but i also think Myth sometimes cant see beyond the equity ecuation, but thats how myth sees and plays poker. so baal, what's another way to look at poker.................? lol if you actually think that poker is not 100% calculations based on equity, ranges, and actions...then i seriously have no clue what to say. i mean i don't have a ton of respect for your game baal, but if you actually don't understand what poker even IS then i'll be shocked

Yes it is i only say you are wrong the way you see those calculations for example in the last conversation we had, you believe that when betting, people call with X% of the range and fold the rest ALWAYS, you also said that people dont fold X hand sometimes and call sometimes, that is not true, people call and fold the same hand depending many factors like history, flow, how much they hate you, their current mood, if they are winning or loosing etc etc etc, those things, so yeah, he folds trash, he calls with strong hands but that middle range is not perfectly defined as u said it is, he will fold or call depending on many factors that are very hard to put in numbers but just attempts of approximation.

Also you say when a player is thinking about calling a bluff its exactly the same if he snap calls u in a fraction of a second or that he takes to the last second to call (having the same hand), the equity is the same in the end however in the first scenario (insta-call) it shows that he never considered to fold to ur bluff, he "knew" you were bluffing, or he didnt know better or whatever, clearly sign that your tought on your FE with the bluff is 100% mistaken, your read is terrible if u bluff there, however if the player goes mad thinking what to do and calls in the last second of his timebank, he seriously tought about folding, he neraly folds, something convinced him in the end to call and you say its the same as if he snap called, but that is not true, it means your READ that this player might fold with a bet there is definitelly less wrong than if he snap calls, so even if the equity was the same, the difference is that on example 1 your read is very off and in hand 2 your read is much closer to the truth.

Oh and for the record i dont have mad respect for your game either, i think your ability to play is far exceeded by your ability to theorize and teach.

HU grudgematch asap baal vs myth

On August 13 2008 17:44 Baal wrote: i think your ability to play is far exceeded by your ability to theorize and teach.

that's definitely true

and you are making a huge general statement about me ("myth can't see beyond the equity equation") based on one argument we had about one specific hand.

like i told you on msn, when you already know what the guy has and he only has one particular hand, but you think he folds it and he doesn't fold it, then it's irrelevant whether he took his whole timebank. i don't think i made myself very clear. i never said that people play their whole range exactly the same 100% of the time. of course sometimes people will fold middle hands but other times call with those same hands. being on tilt is a primary and EXTREMELY clear example to support that idea. what i DID say is that if you misjudge what mindset they are in (e.g. you think they are going to fold to you right now, but they aren't), then that's your fault (with the minor exception of like...them all of a sudden being tilty due to something that happened on other tables you didn't see).

i definitely argue that i think YOU are responsible for knowing how somebody will play the hands in their range RIGHT NOW, and if you don't know that then you can make mistakes.

i also think that EVER having the particular read that pis.toto would want to fold JJ to you in that hand you played is bad, because of who he is and who you are. so yeah, in the hand you played i think it's meaningless that pis.toto used his whole timebank before calling, because you should NEVER think he folds JJ there

but if it was some sick nit who just decided to tilt all of a sudden then whatever who cares. i like your play against like...teddyKGB (i think), even if he does bank/call with JJ, because i think it's a lot more feasible that KGB might be in the mood to fold JJ there and if he does call you can legitimately be like O_O. but against pis.toto if you are EVER surprised to see a call with JJ then lol

furthermore, you, by saying "myth can't see beyond the equity equation"

are really misleading a lot of beginners when you KNOW that i am 100% correct when i make the claim that every poker-math decision is really just calculating an average.

the goal is to have the highest possible avg and exploitation is a part of that, it's accepted and there's no need to generate paragraphs off tangent to explain something that everybody already understands to one degree or another