| Posted by: Homey Jeromey at October 23, 2007, 4:58 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
I play mostly s-n-g small stakes and have began to climb up in buyin amounts and play less and less beginner tourneys. So I need to know this more in detail. As it seems I have already began to come to my own conclusions that parallel this theroy. Baby steps!!!
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at October 23, 2007, 4:31 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by quads
A newbie today could end up with a terrible game, or take allot longer to get competitive, getting all screwed up with all these different suggestions being written by hundreds of people.
Actually, with the wealth of information out there, a newbie can get ery good ery quickly-- i.e., the opposite of "all screwed up with all these different suggestions."
I really don't see how you can complain about too much information, unless it's to decry how much tougher it's making the competition.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: xerx at October 23, 2007, 12:40 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Do you really need a good advise and universal theory? Then read some different books and articles, practice in real games and play with your own head - in poker is not more universal theories.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: ChuckTs at October 23, 2007, 12:23 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by quads
Chuck, I totally understand things can get much more complicated with different circumstances. But when talking about multi-million dollar purses or a $5.00 SNG on a computer with donk-aholics, how important is the ICM factor. I know, I know, the amount technically is irrelevant.
You're right. The stakes don't matter. Winning poker is winning poker.
Quote: Originally Posted by quads
But realistically, different circumstances will always call for different actions. No one plays poker by the book of long term percentage outcomes, all the time.
Right again, and this is why those who do play the long-term winning percentages win.
tbh I'm still not exactly sure what your OP was meant to be focused on, be it from your lack of clarity or my lack of interpretation, and I also feel like it's somehow getting off track...
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: quads at October 22, 2007, 10:02 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
I think the point of my intentions with this thread is taking on a new direction. So I’m going to try and rephrase it.
I particularly choose to pick on the article written by Jenifear, about the ICM theory.
Not that the article has no foundation of fact. Especially with the AA example Aleingenius pointed out above. If the big stack folded in this case and the other three went all-in, and then it was on me. I would muck my cards without even looking at them. The fact that I find this information obvious might be a bit sarcastic. (or showing my age)
Chuck, I totally understand things can get much more complicated with different circumstances. But when talking about multi-million dollar purses or a $5.00 SNG on a computer with donk-aholics, how important is the ICM factor. I know, I know, the amount technically is irrelevant. But realistically, different circumstances will always call for different actions. No one plays poker by the book of long term percentage outcomes, all the... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: jaymfc at October 22, 2007, 9:30 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
I'm gonna read more about the ICM theory , I understand the example AG gave .
also it burns me up in tourneys that pay top 30 people the same amount , on the bubble , one all-in , three callers , then everyone fights to win the chips (pot) instead of gettin the all-in out. this has nothing to do with the ICM theory , but it shows most people don't think about the cash erses just getting more chips and winning that pot.
in AGs example I would have folded the aces , knowing that I was about to be in fourth place , only to have the board create a tie ,putting no one out and then having to go all-in the next hand with ace rag.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: ChuckTs at October 22, 2007, 4:49 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by smd173
Of course a devil's advocate point I will throw out there is this... how are the top online players...the top online players. What are they doing differently at their levels of play that continue to help them be where they are? People like Chad "lil' holdem" Batista and annette_15 and Belowabove and Rizen? I'm sure they go through ariance just like any player at any level, yet they continue to excel. Obviously they are doing something right.
a) they're probably better 'natural' players than all of us put together. They're iciously good at math, have ery good observational abilities, have excellent memory and are ery, ery disciplined.
b) they probably play more in a month than we have in our whole poker 'careers'. More hands = more experience = increased poker skills and abilities.
c) they read and absorb everything related to poker out there. Not because they think every single theory is 'right' and leads to automatic winning... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: ChuckTs at October 22, 2007, 4:35 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by quads
Aleingenius, in regards to your well explained ICM theory, doesn't that fall under the common sense situation to alter your play.
What AG said above.
Giving us an 80,000-chip stack instead, or maybe QQ with only two opponents all in doesn't make it common sense to fold now, does it?
This is where we should be using ICM to figure out what the best course of action is.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at October 22, 2007, 4:25 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by dj11
Ag, I don't like your explanation. If we take that a few steps further, we would purposely bust out at this point, under the guise that we are proper in doing so according to this obscure theory.
huh? Busting out and making less money is exactly what you are avoiding using the theory, which is neither obscure, nor that difficult to understand.
Read Skop's post re chip alue change.
Quote: Originally Posted by quads
Aleingenius, in regards to your well explained ICM theory, doesn't that fall under the common sense situation to alter your play.
In the example given, sure-- it's taken to the extreme to illustrate the point. But up our chip stack a bit relative to our opponents', make only two instead of three all in, and give us QQ instead, and you can see how it gets a bit more complicated. The point is, that in tournaments, especially when everyone gets down to a low M or stack size relative to the blinds, ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: dj11 at October 22, 2007, 3:18 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Ag, I don't like your explanation. If we take that a few steps further, we would purposely bust out at this point, under the guise that we are proper in doing so according to this obscure theory.
At the ery beginning of every tourney (except rebuys) every chip has a fixed alue. That alue never changes throughout the tourney.
Example, 1000 players $50 buy in, prize money = 50K
each player gets 1500 chips = 1.5 mil chips/$50k = 30 cents a chip. Since chips only represent some other alue, and in this case do not change, it would be just as easy to call each chip 30 cents.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: rob5775 at October 22, 2007, 2:45 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Thank you sir...^^^ I honestly could not have explained it better. I suck at explaining these things.
Quads, there are programs that can assist you in your ICM calculations and (I feel) an essential part of any SNG players repartee (along with PT, Poker Ace HUD, etc). I won't supply the links out of consideration for this site but just google anything that includes "SNG" or "sit n gos" and "ICM"... you get the idea.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at October 22, 2007, 2:35 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by quads
Once again, because I understand the ICM facts, what is it doing for my game?
Sklansky gives a famous example in TPfAP, that might help expalin:
In Sklansy's example the stacks are as follows:
leader: $2 million
opponent B: $1 million
opponent C: $1 million
opponent D: $1 million
us: $30,000
Prizes:
1st: $1.5 million
2nd: $1 million
3rd: $700,000
4th: $500,000
5th: $300,000
Blinds: $10,000/$20,000
In this example the three opponents with one million each are all in (chip leader is not).
We have AA.
You can see that we are way behind our opponents in chip count, and have a ery low effective M as well. Sklansky points out that our equity even if we win is still ery low (we would only have $120,000 chips), but our actual dollar amount of winnings will increase greatly if we fold.
In other words, we make chips/tournament dollars if we call... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: quads at October 22, 2007, 12:28 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by rob5775
I think Skolpadda has done an excellent job giving a summary of a difficult to understand concept (ICM). Chip alues in a cash game are 1 chip = 1$. In a SNG 1 chip does not equal one dollar. I would try to explain further but I suck at doing so... and Skol has already done it.
Once again, because I understand the ICM facts, what is it doing for my game?
Does this mean if I wanted to call, fold, raise, or push based on my poker game knowledge, reads on players, stack conditions, hand odds, pot odds, etc... all dictating what should be done, instead fold, or do something completely different because of the chip equity compared to dollar equity?
Especially on bubble play, where my game already got me this far.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: rob5775 at October 21, 2007, 9:44 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
I think Skolpadda has done an excellent job giving a summary of a difficult to understand concept (ICM). Chip alues in a cash game are 1 chip = 1$. In a SNG 1 chip does not equal one dollar. I would try to explain further but I suck at doing so... and Skol has already done it.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: skoldpadda at October 21, 2007, 8:50 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
it's important in making decisions near the bubble for example since chip equity and money equity are different. there are some good examples in other threads already... use the search function.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: quads at October 21, 2007, 8:22 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Insomniac_1006
It will change the way that you think about poker. It will change it to a level that will help you win more often. Overly simple, yes...but the best that I can do, right now.
Like scientists that want evidence to confirm fact, I'd like the same.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Insomniac_1006 at October 21, 2007, 8:15 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
It will change the way that you think about poker. It will change it to a level that will help you win more often. Overly simple, yes...but the best that I can do, right now.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: quads at October 21, 2007, 8:04 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by skoldpadda
basically what he's saying frenchy:
1. you buy into a $1,000 SNG and get 1000 in chips
2. there are 10 players (make the math a little easier)
3. Initially it's a sunk cost of $1,000 (to make you economists happy) but basically you can say each chip is worth $1
4. the guy who wins has 10,000 chips but will get $5,000 (50% for first)
5. therefore each additional chip you get is actually worth <$1 (or alternatively the chips go down in alue as players are eliminated)
--> this is why chip equity and dollar equity for the tournament are NOT equal
That's the idea in a nutshell
Please explain how this math will improve my game?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: skoldpadda at October 21, 2007, 6:57 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
basically what he's saying frenchy:
1. you buy into a $1,000 SNG and get 1000 in chips
2. there are 10 players (make the math a little easier)
3. Initially it's a sunk cost of $1,000 (to make you economists happy) but basically you can say each chip is worth $1
4. the guy who wins has 10,000 chips but will get $5,000 (50% for first)
5. therefore each additional chip you get is actually worth <$1 (or alternatively the chips go down in alue as players are eliminated)
--> this is why chip equity and dollar equity for the tournament are NOT equal
That's the idea in a nutshell
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: DaFrench1 at October 21, 2007, 4:08 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by aliengenius
But the underlying important point remains:
comparing your chip equity in the hand to your actual dollar equity in the tournament
is an advanced level of thinking that not many consider in a sng, even though they should.
You must be right there AG cos I haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about. But one day I will .
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: aliengenius at October 21, 2007, 6:26 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Say what you want about the article, and agree/disagree with the strategy as you will.
But the underlying important point remains:
comparing your chip equity in the hand to your actual dollar equity in the tournament
is an advanced level of thinking that not many consider in a sng, even though they should.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: quads at October 20, 2007, 7:57 pm | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by tufat23
just some stuff that springs to mind
2, she writes about SnGs. There's actually a 'system' for the most part in these games because to a certain degree this game has actually been 'solved'
Quote: Originally Posted by tufat23
Therefore, to a certain degree I should assume you're going to retire soon.
3, You don't understand SnGs in the slightest, or at least you dont seem to understand the difference between SnGs and 100bb cash games.
You're absolutely correct. This thread's theme is based on the differences between SNG's and Cash Games.
4, everyone back in the day read doyles book
Got me on this one, considering the question was, "I wonder what the old time true proven poker champions like Doyle, and Harrington, read as they were climbing the ladder?
5, everyone plays a different style.
Damn, just when my thinking was otherwise.
6, reading online poker f... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: combuboom at October 20, 2007, 8:51 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
well, he only said it's solved "to a certain degree", and i think he's basically right. there's some ariation in how you can play ery early on, but in the late push/fold stages, the most important stages, there's the ICM and pretty much a range you're "supposed" to push with and "supposed" to call with in almost any given situation. in the higher stakes sngs, nearly all the players know these approximate ranges and just have a general feel for when they're supposed to shove and call. this makes the edges ery ery slim, and makes it essentially the lowest skill form of poker--aside from flipaments
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Egon Towst at October 20, 2007, 8:05 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by tufat23
2, she writes about SnGs. There's actually a 'system' for the most part in these games because to a certain degree this game has actually been 'solved'.
I am not sure about the alidity of this statement.
There is certainly fairly general agreement that what one might call the "tight early, loose late" approach is best. The problem is, it`s becoming less and less effective.
A year ago, online SNGs were easy money if you were a reasonably sound player and played that way.
Today, anyone with the smarts to read a poker book, magazine, or website (including here at CC) knows that strategy.
It is increasingly difficult to find a fishy game where the idiots bust each other out (and double you up) in level one, and nearly everyone is playing a more solid game.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: zachvac at October 20, 2007, 4:07 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by quads
Same goes for live play. What makes them the top players of the live game. Experience being number one, and being born with the gift in their blood similar to a professional athlete. Not that they didn't learn how to play, but were born with that something special. There have been some recently young players conquering poker in a big way, but I would trust and try to mimic their strategy at a later time. It's the proven eterans I'm more concerned with now. Not poker theories written by unknowns.
Gotta disagree with the "gift" aspect. An athlete has to have some sort of build to him, you're not going to see a 4'10" basketball star or 150 pound football star. But the rest comes with work. Are you willing to work harder than everyone else?
The same is similar in poker, but there's no prerequisite to playing other than the patience to grind your way up, learning the ins and outs and studying the game. You need the patience, ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: tufat23 at October 20, 2007, 2:56 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by quads
Same goes for live play. What makes them the top players of the live game. Experience being number one, and being born with the gift in their blood similar to a professional athlete. Not that they didn't learn how to play, but were born with that something special. There have been some recently young players conquering poker in a big way, but I would trust and try to mimic their strategy at a later time. It's the proven eterans I'm more concerned with now. Not poker theories written by unknowns.
wow its gonna come off like i hate u, but i dont. the young crop of online players have way more knowledge of poker than the 'proven eterans' (not saying jennifear is one, shes probably rather bad tbh).
i guess i cant say exactly which ones i would recommend since i'm clearly affiliated with one in particular, but sign up and pay a subscription to an online poker training site that specializes in producing ideos of people playing.
im g... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: skd1337 at October 20, 2007, 2:47 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by tufat23
6, reading online poker forums >>> reading poker books, which are often written by pretty poor players
Excepty for super system and the harringtons which are awesome books by awesome players, but on the whole there are a lot of books by players are yet to prove themselves.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: quads at October 20, 2007, 2:43 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by smd173
I like what you've put in this post. Sums up my feelings on alot of things.
Of course a devil's advocate point I will throw out there is this... how are the top online players...the top online players.
Same goes for live play. What makes them the top players of the live game. Experience being number one, and being born with the gift in their blood similar to a professional athlete. Not that they didn't learn how to play, but were born with that something special. There have been some recently young players conquering poker in a big way, but I would trust and try to mimic their strategy at a later time. It's the proven eterans I'm more concerned with now. Not poker theories written by unknowns.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: tufat23 at October 20, 2007, 2:34 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
just some stuff that springs to mind:
1, jennifear is pretty lol. she charges $75/hr when her poker hrly is like $30/hr
2, she writes about SnGs. There's actually a 'system' for the most part in these games because to a certain degree this game has actually been 'solved'.
3, You don't understand SnGs in the slightest, or at least you dont seem to understand the difference between SnGs and 100bb cash games.
4, everyone back in the day read doyles book
5, everyone plays a different style.
6, reading online poker forums >>> reading poker books, which are often written by pretty poor players
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: smd173 at October 20, 2007, 2:32 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
I like what you've put in this post. Sums up my feelings on alot of things.
Of course a devil's advocate point I will throw out there is this... how are the top online players...the top online players. What are they doing differently at their levels of play that continue to help them be where they are? People like Chad "lil' holdem" Batista and annette_15 and Belowabove and Rizen? I'm sure they go through ariance just like any player at any level, yet they continue to excel. Obviously they are doing something right.
I recently got to see on some site a whole matchup of annette_15 playing "blind". There were definite patterns in what she did to take down that 180 person SNG. But I also saw her get her money in bad 3 times (35-65) and hit to double through. So even they get lucky.
CardPlayer had an interview with Belowabove and he said that he lost $1800 online when he first started to play. So obviously he got better over time.
I just wish I coul... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: skd1337 at October 20, 2007, 2:29 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
Is that the article I should be reading. I am finding it a little difficult to get my head around and be able to deal with in real game situations. But it seems there are so many books and courses and systems people invest in when the best system is getting in there and learning through emersion [SP]
having said that I am a sucker for books and systems
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: quads at October 20, 2007, 2:14 am | | Topic: POKER THEORIES - ENOUGH ALREADY Forum: Card Chat |
After reading an article Aliengenius directed us to read written by Jenifear, a writer for PokerFives.com on another thread, which discusses the ICM, (independent chip modeling) theory. I felt a need to discuss my feelings about the author’s recommendation.
First of all who is Jenifear? The site says “Jennifear is a proud Contributing Writer for Pocketfives.com and a Presto Award Winner”. I also see she wrote like 15 articles for the site and is a poker instructor. So, who is she? Why don’t these authors of articles teaching us how to win, using their recommended systems based on rules and theories, also post some proven facts from their own experiences using the same?
She stresses the importance of learning to respect your chip alue when bubble play is on; of course this is always sound and obvious advice.
She mentions the chip leader has been pushing all-in nearly every hand since the action became four-handed fifteen hands ago. I can’t recall... | | Read Entire Entry |
|