ivey vs kagome went down and ivey allegedly won about 500k.
that leads me to the nagging question: how come that in [I]FL[I] one of the most mathematical kind of poker (especially in hu) players like antonius and ivey are equal to or even beat the specialists like hawrilenko and hasu/kagome?

at least hawrilenko, and i guess hasu as well bc all german pokerstrategy members have this kind of "upbringing", has a very systematic approach to poker and while i acknowledge that pa and ivey both have tremendous experience (although we know the live/online discrepancy there) and talent - imo particularly in hu fl the systematic approach simply should prevail significantly over a large enough sample. also the strong bot performances in that division (compared to - say - 6max NL) hint in the same direction.

would be very interesting to hear some of the cracks´ opinion on that.

I bet it has something to do with the % of money going in on turn/river.

Plus Fl stops Ivey...etc...from ever putting too much money in the pot with weak non made hands at least preflop so that is kind of a backwards edge.

Plus Ivey/Antonius have lots of limit experience so it is not like a NL hold'em player(maybe someone like Haxton, maybe he plays limit too I don't know) trying to play FL for the first time.

Plus math is super informative but not prescriptive.

???

You seem to be implying that Ivey is a significantly inferior HUHULHE player than Hasu. This for a start is wrong; if there is any edge it's miniscule.
And then over just one or two sessions they're not going to get close to long term so results don't mean a lot here. At least 20k hands before a winner emerges either way imo.

Sorry ya that was kind of brutal.
I meant to say something like.

The edge Ivey might be giving up on a systematic perfect player on early streets he can make back on later streets when bluffing, hand reading, psychology become more important.

I put a question mark because I don't know this for a fact. I was just making a somewhat educated guess.

less confused now about more confused´s post

@gjwhunt: ofc i didnt say ivey is not as good as hasu or hawrilenko. the results - although probably far from a perfect sample size - already say otherwise.

its more the "why?" im interested in. for huhulhe, i am convinced that a systematic approach - and that naturally includes some mathematical concepts - is superior to a pure talent/experience performance. that should show in a large enough sample size. but obviously even hawrilenko wasnt so sure about that as he might have stopped playing hu for that reason (among others, possibly bankroll/variance considerations).
again, there will be and already are bots that surpass humans in that poker field (just like in chess). this also demonstrates that a systematic approach doesnt exclude "psychology"/aka exploitable play vs gto and "hand-reading" - things that have to be taught to a machine as well. btw, bluffing in limit holdem is arguably one of the most mathematical concepts - far from wild staring-in-the-eyes-guesses.

sorry, but i get the impression you don't know what you're talking about

and you're right. you're just guessing a lot.

pardon me, but afaik 500k isn't even 100BB's at 3k/6k

Not when you're playing another human being it isn't.

I don't think you're giving the psychology involved in a HU match nearly enough importance.

I think it's been mentioned already itt - sample size, sample size, sample size.

not even reading the other posts, but if you believe this title you are a ****in moron, poker is 100% math, variance is math, edges are math

if you don't understand this you shouldn't post on a poker forum

sigh, teh internetz...
and also a way of generating 8k+ posts

I think people who think that people like Ivey and PA don't know anything about game theory are being pretty badly leveled.

Yeah ! and psychology is math !

not sure if sarcastic, not trying to be rude, psychology becomes 100% math as well, I think you didn't think so though

to be honest, once you realize everything is math your game takes off, it's harder to quantify it for things that don't have a set value like psychology, but the best in the game intuitively or mathematically associate a value with it, if not and you just think it's something separate then it is highly unlikely you will ever beat the game for much although some do still at high stakes, it's just a lot tougher if you don't recognize the math behind every thing

Could you explain an actual example of this.
I am actually very interested in hearing what you have to say.
I am open to being convinced.

I guess it is true any situation can be explained & analysed mathematically but is that the same as saying Phil Ivey actually decides in a hand whether to bluff or not just using math??? I guess you could say his intuition (without him knowing) uses math to decide what he feels is right but I don't think that's what people mean when they say use math to decide.

reminds me of the stuff on the tv show NUMBERS...
Kind of like how you can determine where a shotgun was shot from based on the pattern using math but you can't know where each piece is going to go before it is fired. It might have been a sprinkler...same difference I guess.