| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 20, 2006, 6:10 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
While I can see where you're coming from, I'm not so sure it's fair to judge a poker player on his tournament record, given that many - most, is my guess - of the B&M professionals make their primary income from playing cash games. His career poker income is probably something that is known only to him and the IRS (and I'm not so sure about the IRS )
Then again, he DID write Tournament Poker for Advanced Players. So if he does enter a lot of tournaments and don't really fare well in them - fair enough.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: smd173 at March 20, 2006, 5:42 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by F Paulsson
smd173, was that supposed to be sarcasm? He entered three tournaments last year and finished 6th, 15th and 16th, grossing $90k. That looks pretty okay to me.
It was a small jab. I do respect David Sklansky, I'm not saying that ToP doesn't belong on the bookshelf, but I did find it interesting that his career tournament poker winnings are only $303,695.
We actually don't know how many tournaments he entered last year. I'm sure it was well more than 3. But he only cashed in 3 tournies.
This actually gave me an idea, when I get a chance, I think I'm going to look up the notable authors and see how they've done in tourney play. I bet it will produce some interesting results.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 20, 2006, 12:55 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Threesixes
Yes, the raise was small and if the flop hit me like it did I stood to make a killing. I guess what I'm saying is that if I had flopped the trip aces I'm pretty sure I would have gotten all my money in on that hand too, Probably not all at once, but it would have ended up in there,so when it happens to me it will even out.
I would have, too. But if you actually KNOW that you're drawing to 10 outs, you won't be at all as willing to get your money in, even with trip aces. And that's what the fundamental theorem says: When you play it differently from how you should play it if you see all the cards, you lose. In this particular case, he lost, and his expectation is negative for this move.
In actuality, we rarely get to act with that much information, though, so all we can do is decide on a probable range for our opponents. In this case, QT was possible, but hardly probable. It's hard to say that he played it "wrong," but it... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: trancnd at March 20, 2006, 12:16 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Hey guys great idea on the disscussion topic for this book. I myself have just finished and started reading again through SS2 as well as reading Sklansky's Tournament Poker for Advanced players. As well as loving playing online i also have a liking for playing homegames and soon some local cardroom games, so i thought it benificial to at least have a read of Caros book of tells. Not sure where i stand as to this book just yet.
I have just ordered theory of poker as i would like to part of this disscussion. Should be here tomorrow. I will go over what has been covered and catch up and look forward to taking part.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Threesixes at March 20, 2006, 12:00 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by F Paulsson
Would you have called preflop if you knew he had pocket aces?
Yes, the raise was small and if the flop hit me like it did I stood to make a killing. I guess what I'm saying is that if I had flopped the trip aces I'm pretty sure I would have gotten all my money in on that hand too, Probably not all at once, but it would have ended up in there,so when it happens to me it will even out.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: ChuckTs at March 20, 2006, 7:18 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
im so lost with what you guys are saying ive gotta read this one...sounds ery technical though - lots of theory (duh)
the only poker books/info i've read are all strategy and not much theory
-sorry for interrupting-
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 20, 2006, 7:01 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
He made a mistake on the flop; He would surely not have pushed all in if he had seen your cards. He has about 10 outs, which gives him roughly 40% equity in this pot, so you "won" 60% of his all-in bet.
Given the implied odds, you might have made an okay call preflop, this depends on stack sizes, though. Would you have called preflop if you knew he had pocket aces?
What the fundamental theorem says is that if you know what everyone has, there's a mathematically correct way to play, and that every time you deviate from this, you lose money. Since we can never (well, barring the time when someone actually shows us their cards) know what anyone has, we have to put people on a range of hands and act according to the most likely scenario. We will often be wrong, but that's alright as long as our opponents make worse mistakes than we do.
It's clear that deception plays a powerful role when it comes to forcing people to make mistakes; fooling people into making raises... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Threesixes at March 20, 2006, 6:11 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
I have a hard time applying the fundamental theory of poker to hands when I think both players played it correctly. For example today I played in a CC tourney and had Q 10 in the small or big blind I dont remember. My opponent had pocket aces and made a small enough raise that I felt ok calling it to see a flop. Flop came AKJ giving me the nut straight and him trip aces. He went all in to protect himself from being outdrawn, and I of course called with the nut straight. The board paired with a J on the river and I was pretty much done. Can anyone explain how the fundamental theorum of poker plays into this hand because I think we both played it right and even though my opponent would have folded rather than pushed had he seen my cards I dont feel I earned any expectation due to him playing his cards correctly in my iew.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Threesixes at March 20, 2006, 5:13 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
I just decided to re-read TOP with you guys because there was plenty I didnt understand the 1st time I read it, espescially when it came to the other games which i dont play.
Ch1. a few good points are:
Good players take the most bad beats because they have the better hand most of the time.
The math is important, but only a small part of pokerlogic & far less important than understanding and using the underlying concepts of poker.
(I think sometimes people get a little too hung up on the math myself.)
When youre having a losing session, try to figure out what the reason is I.E youre tired,outclassed etc, and dont be afraid to end your session a loser. Its better than losing more money.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 20, 2006, 5:09 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
smd173, was that supposed to be sarcasm? He entered three tournaments last year and finished 6th, 15th and 16th, grossing $90k. That looks pretty okay to me.
Threesixes, I work fulltime as an engineer/test developer at a major production company. I've played poker for 10 or so years, and I currently play at $2/$4 limit online. I had taken a break from online poker for a year and a half until September 2005. Then I decided to buy-in for $100, and work myself up from the microlimits. What I know, I've mostly learned from books.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Threesixes at March 20, 2006, 4:14 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Yeah this is a great idea. I hope we keep it going after this book as well. FPaulsson, whats your backround? Do you play for a living or is poker just a hobby for you? What kind of game and what stakes do you usually play at? You seem to have a lot of knowledge and I'm curious as to where it comes from.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 19, 2006, 6:32 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Before we move on to the next chunk (was going to do that tomorrow, and those of you who are still waiting for the book can of course keep posting in this thread):
Is it clear to everyone that it's wrong to think of poker pot-by-pot or even session-by-session? Does everyone understand the importance of not letting the results of a single night influence your overall strategy, and why poker is such a counterintuitive game to learn (where we may be punished even if we play it perfectly)?
Is it clear that you make money off of other peoples' mistakes, and that they make money off of yours? Do you understand the implication?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Styrofoam at March 17, 2006, 3:27 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Sammyv1
O.K. How do you figure the amount these are worth? I understand Whenever someone makes a play that they would have played differently if all cards are face up, you gain expectation. But how do you figure what these mistakes are worth exactly?
Its usually just an estimate. Knowing that they are making bad plays, and how often the cards they make bad plays with come, you can get a rough estimate. for example:
A person that will raise with KQo UTG is most likely going to PLAY (maybe even raise utg) with KJ KT QJ and QT maybe even TJ, and probably every ace from AK-A2. and will always play suited aces. Even in a limit game they are playing far too many hands and this will add up. If they are merely calling utg, it will cost them 1bb every time they get one of these hands, which could be 5 or 6 times an hour. We understand that they will win occasionally, but these mistakes will undoubtedly come from their chipstacks.
I should ex... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Sammyv1 at March 16, 2006, 9:06 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Bill_Hollorian
I make notes for example..
Player in seat 3 open raised with KQ offsuit from UTG. This is an exploitable leak worth $12 dollars an hour.
Player in seat 6 overvalues weak aces, exploitable leak. Worth $10 an hour.Bill
O.K. How do you figure the amount these are worth? I understand Whenever someone makes a play that they would have played differently if all cards are face up, you gain expectation. But how do you figure what these mistakes are worth exactly?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 16, 2006, 8:18 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
The expectation in a tourney should be calculated in regards to equity in the prize pool; not tournament chips. Does that answer your question?
I suspect we shall arrive at Tournament Poker for Advanced Players later on in this read-along series.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Xandit at March 16, 2006, 7:46 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
I know ToP is written for limit/cash players and all concepts can be tweaked to tourney play. Lots of players on CC are tourney only.
With that said in regards to expectation. Would you lay down a positive expectation to further your chances of winning the tourney?
Example: Heads up in a winner take all tourney. You have the nut flush draw(for the sake of argument you saw your oppents hold cards and know they have 2 pair) the pot is laying the right odds to call. 3-1 on your bet. Your bet however is all of your chips, knocking you out of the tourney. Hense, no money won.
Now folding your hand goes against the ToP, you would be making a mistake to fold your hand knowing what your oppent has your getting "the best of it" at this point. Now if you call and lose your out-call and win you get the money. What is the correct play?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Bill_Hollorian at March 16, 2006, 6:18 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Whenever someone makes a play that they would have played differently if all cards are face up, you gain expectation. You also keep track of these mistakes as that is what you can figure to be your edge in the game.
I make notes for example..
Player in seat 3 open raised with KQ offsuit from UTG. This is an exploitable leak worth $12 dollars an hour.
Player in seat 6 overvalues weak aces, exploitable leak. Worth $10 an hour.
etc.
Compunding the two by isolation I will look to play suited medium aces against both opponents simultaneoulsy.
So I constantly calculate errors made by opponents and specific situations to watch out for to exploit these errors.
Bill
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 16, 2006, 4:02 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Calling with live cards can be okay, if you think you have the implied odds for it. But the mistake you force someone to make with a dominated hand is huge - they're usually drawing to only 3 outs. Makes you feel better about raising AK preflop, doesn't it?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Styrofoam at March 16, 2006, 3:44 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Its a bit tougher with pre-flop play, but its basically the same thing. Each tmie your opponent makes a poor call, say KK against AA, you gain. IN fact, i played a live 1/2 NL game and picked up Aces and a guy across the table picked up kings.
I raised to make it 15 straight, 1 caller, then around to the kings. He reraised me 50$ more. Back to me, "all in" caller folds, back to the kings, and he flat out said "I know you have aces, but i have to call" and calls (after about 5 minutes of thinking about it) and flips over his kings, and I flip my aces over. So, He made that mistake, and I took down the pot (which was well over 400$)
There's not alot of math that can go into preflop play.... 45s is just as likely to flop two pair as 89s. Obviously 89 is better because they're overs, but its not enough to really make a differnece.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 16, 2006, 12:22 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Sammy,
Given that this is the first thread in the series, I'll let this one continue on for more than a week before moving on. I want to give people a chance to get their Amazon deliveries and stuff.
About the fundamental theorem, specifically: How does it apply to preflop hold'em/omaha play?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Styrofoam at March 16, 2006, 12:51 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
The best way to describe it is this: Force your opponent to make incorrect calls or folds mathmatically...in other words if you hold
10♥J♥ in the big blind Preflop and your opponent holds A♠A♦ on the button. you call his 2x bb bet (because you're getting extremely good potodds to do so.. lets say its 1/2 NL and there is now 24$ in the pot
The flop comes Q♥K♥A♣
He flopped top set, and you flopped the nut straight, with redraw to a flush, and 2 outs to a Straight flush.
If your opponent knew your hand, he'd most likely fold his trip Aces, because he's now an underdog to the nut straight with redraws to the absolute nuts (ace of hearts would be absolutely devistating for him). His only wins are a King, a Queen, or a running pair on the turn and river... and we can probably discount some of his outs because the other people in the hand are somewhat tight players, and won't call a raise with any hands except suited connector... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Sammyv1 at March 15, 2006, 11:38 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Winning money; not pots - do you see the difference?
The way I see this is you have to fold to be able to win money in the long run. Don't just play hands to try and win every pot. Dont just play hands to save your blind. Small blind cases need to be folded (give up the money) with bad hands.
Money management here is also essential in winning money! Do not play over your limit. Set it and stick to it. Until you win for along time at one level then move up. Never be afraid to go back down a level. If you notice that you are the worst player at the table, LEAVE, no matter how much you are down. If you Know you are a top player at the table, STAY, for as long as you can. Careful, when you get tired at this table, then leave.
I have been trying to give my opinion on this for a couple of days but I haven't had the time. (working 80 hrs. a week) I'll try and give my opinion on:The concept of Expectation and The fundamental theory of poker - what does it mean? before FP goes on to th... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 14, 2006, 11:34 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
There's a popular term called "sklansky dollars" or "sklansky bucks" meaning that whenever an opponent makes a mistake in calling a bet, you've gained a proportional amount of "sklansky dollars". How much you actually gain in real dollars is of course another matter, and dependent on ariance, but will converge in the long run.
Does everyone get the idea of expectation? There's an article about it in our own articles' section as well, but Sklansky explains it pretty well.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: beardyian at March 14, 2006, 11:16 am | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
The most helpful sections in the book i found, as it really opened up a new iew of why you place a bet, as well as how much you should call or fold to.
The idea of your opponent making mistakes when winning a pot (by calling to a bet of disproportionate size) has helped my game step up again .
I already had a rough grasp on the pot odds theory, but just had this as a win/loss indicator, but now i can see although you may lose the pot it could be because your opponent has made a mistake by calling for way over the odds.
So in a perverse twist in losing the pot you have won by causing an error to occur.
It may read here as a little mad, but in the book it make sense lol
**Tenbob - i got mine from Amazon, no trouble, have you tried it??
IanT
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Styrofoam at March 13, 2006, 8:22 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Honestly, i never thought about poker in the way the FTOP says to....i mean, it makes alot of sense really - so much so that i'll start using it in my decision making etc. I'm concerned with teh pot odds and stuff, and i know when my opponent makes a bad call.. i dunno...anyways... good book so far.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at March 13, 2006, 7:14 pm | | Topic: Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3. Forum: Card Chat |
Starting us off with the first week's reading: Chapters 1, 2 and 3.
Concepts for discussion (feel free to add your own if I miss something you want to talk about):
Winning money; not pots - do you see the difference?
The concept of Expectation
The fundamental theory of poker - what does it mean?
These chapters are pretty short, and chapter one is mostly introductory, but there can be topics for discussion in them just the same. The fundamental theorem, in particular, has some ery interesting implications, although many of them will not be clear until later on in the book.
Happy reading!
/FP
NOTE: Please do not quote the book. This thread is to help broaden the understanding of the book, not rip off the copyright of it. Feel free to discuss, but try doing so without infringing on David Sklansky's and 2+2 Publishing's intellectual property rights. Thank you.
| | Static Link |
|