Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology
12-19-2015
, 10:45 PM
Quote:
Mr Malmuth,
Thanks for the good read. I am really enjoying your book.
I have a couple of quick questions.
On page 23-24 you discuss a situation when a player has a weak top pair in a large multiway flop, a flop which is incredibly dry. The player bets, bets the turn, and loses the river to a weak two pair that the villain drew to. You indicate that the player didn't play the hand correctly and that if he had, he wouldn't have tilted. But is there always a single right play, what would be the right play for that situation?
You mention that it was wrong to bet the flop because "anyone with a small pair was correct to call due to all the bets in the center of the table." You say betting was a strategic error. But your rationale seems to contradict what is taught in "The Theory of Poker." Is there really a correct play?
In that book Sklanksy writes that checking to a drawer provides a drawer with "infinite odds." He explains on pg 80 that "If your proponent is a 9-to-1 underdog, getting 6-to-1 odds, you should still bet. In this case, you hope that opponent calls, but you don't mind when he folds. His folding is better than giving him a free 10 percent change to make his hand and beat your."
In other words, Sklanksy reasons that even if betting gives a drawer a positive +Ev call, checking would give the villain an even higher EV. So is it really a mistake to bet on a dry flop if people can correctly call?
In the example above, the flop is very dry with few to no strong draws. If the villain turned over his hand and showed you that he has a small pair and was drawing to a weak two pair, would you still not bet?
The reason I ask is because your book seems to presume that there is almost always a single correct play for a given situation, and that once you identify the play then you will never tilt. But is that really true? Reasonable minds probably differ as to what the "correct play" for that situation above really is.
I don't usually tilt because of a bad beat, but rather the tilt I experience is from not being able to identify if the play I made was a mistake or not, or knowing how to identify the gray area. You are correct that if most decisions are black and white, knowing the difference fixes all the issues. But isn't poker too dynamic for that to presently be the case?
Thanks for your help!
Thanks for the good read. I am really enjoying your book.
I have a couple of quick questions.
On page 23-24 you discuss a situation when a player has a weak top pair in a large multiway flop, a flop which is incredibly dry. The player bets, bets the turn, and loses the river to a weak two pair that the villain drew to. You indicate that the player didn't play the hand correctly and that if he had, he wouldn't have tilted. But is there always a single right play, what would be the right play for that situation?
You mention that it was wrong to bet the flop because "anyone with a small pair was correct to call due to all the bets in the center of the table." You say betting was a strategic error. But your rationale seems to contradict what is taught in "The Theory of Poker." Is there really a correct play?
In that book Sklanksy writes that checking to a drawer provides a drawer with "infinite odds." He explains on pg 80 that "If your proponent is a 9-to-1 underdog, getting 6-to-1 odds, you should still bet. In this case, you hope that opponent calls, but you don't mind when he folds. His folding is better than giving him a free 10 percent change to make his hand and beat your."
In other words, Sklanksy reasons that even if betting gives a drawer a positive +Ev call, checking would give the villain an even higher EV. So is it really a mistake to bet on a dry flop if people can correctly call?
In the example above, the flop is very dry with few to no strong draws. If the villain turned over his hand and showed you that he has a small pair and was drawing to a weak two pair, would you still not bet?
The reason I ask is because your book seems to presume that there is almost always a single correct play for a given situation, and that once you identify the play then you will never tilt. But is that really true? Reasonable minds probably differ as to what the "correct play" for that situation above really is.
I don't usually tilt because of a bad beat, but rather the tilt I experience is from not being able to identify if the play I made was a mistake or not, or knowing how to identify the gray area. You are correct that if most decisions are black and white, knowing the difference fixes all the issues. But isn't poker too dynamic for that to presently be the case?
Thanks for your help!
The hand as presented on page 23: Limit Hold'em. Hero is in Early Position "in a large multiway pot" with QsJs - we do not know any other info preflop, such as if the blinds both called or how many players are in the hand. The flop is J
7
2
, and the Hero bets "to avoid giving a free card"; five opponents call - but we don't know the relevant positions vs the Hero. The turn is a blank, hero bets again and there are four callers - same missing info as on the flop. On the river another blank hits and the Hero loses to someone who makes two little pair. We don't know if the Hero is first to act post flop, we don't know what Hero's action was on the river, and we don't know if the villain was in position. In fact we only know that one player beat the Hero, when in reality it could have been multiple opponents that had Hero beat. With that said, even though the hand history is incomplete the point of the hand seems fairly clear to me - always look within, never assume the play of the hand was correct when you maybe could have taken a different line that would have better protected your hand. PS: I'm aware that some of the text in my post is intentionally vague, that is by design.
Quote:
In that book Sklanksy writes that checking to a drawer provides a drawer with "infinite odds." He explains on pg 80 that "If your proponent is a 9-to-1 underdog, getting 6-to-1 odds, you should still bet. In this case, you hope that opponent calls, but you don't mind when he folds. His folding is better than giving him a free 10 percent change to make his hand and beat your."
Last edited by *TT*; 12-19-2015 at 11:12 PM.
12-19-2015
, 11:43 PM
Quote:
The situation described on page 23 is a bit too vague to discuss the merits of the strategic play - I could be wrong but I believe Mason intended it to be that way. I also assume he wanted to use a hand whose play could be debated depending on issues that were not clarified, making it appear to be correct but actually could be incorrect play depending on the missing info. I think his point was that because this is a large pot preflop, it becomes correct for opponents to call preflop with a cheesy hand such as 7s4s, and it is also correct for them to call flop and turn bets getting great odds IF THE HERO LAYS THOSE ODDS - such as if the turn blank card gave that opponent a gunshot to go along with their small pair. Its impossible for us to know because info is missing, but it looks like the pot could easily be laying 11:1 or more on the turn for the button - making it correct to call down if that was the opponent who spiked 2 pair. Utilizing the Fundamental Theorem of Poker we know it would make sense to check-raise instead of lead if we know an opponent on the button has a small pair and will bet the flop in position. Regardless of this possibility, I think the real reason this hand was presented was to show that steaming because your angry that someone else sucked out frequently means you might be the real one to blame, not the other opponent. Place the blame on yourself instead, and work towards fixing the problem (or better understanding the situation) in the future instead of steaming away.
The hand as presented on page 23: Limit Hold'em. Hero is in Early Position "in a large multiway pot" with QsJs - we do not know any other info preflop, such as if the blinds both called or how many players are in the hand. The flop is J72, and the Hero bets "to avoid giving a free card"; five opponents call - but we don't know the relevant positions vs the Hero. The turn is a blank, hero bets again and there are four callers - same missing info as on the flop. On the river another blank hits and the Hero loses to someone who makes two little pair. We don't know if the Hero is first to act post flop, we don't know what Hero's action was on the river, and we don't know if the villain was in position. In fact we only know that one player beat the Hero, when in reality it could have been multiple opponents that had Hero beat. With that said, even though the hand history is incomplete the point of the hand seems fairly clear to me - always look within, never assume the play of the hand was correct when you maybe could have taken a different line that would have better protected your hand.
PS: I'm aware that some of the text in my post is intentionally vague, that is by design.
I believe your discussing the chapter "Betting when your opponent is correct to call" in Chapter 9 - this describes betting for value in large pots where you would be laying the correct odds for your opponent to call, because checking would lay your opponent "infinite odds" if the opponent gets a free card. David's chapter in TOP describes a situation where the players are heads up, not multiway, and where a free card will likely occur - which is unlikely on such a dry board as this example in a massively multiway pot. If you re-read the chapter (page 71) I think it will become more clear for you.
The hand as presented on page 23: Limit Hold'em. Hero is in Early Position "in a large multiway pot" with QsJs - we do not know any other info preflop, such as if the blinds both called or how many players are in the hand. The flop is J
72, and the Hero bets "to avoid giving a free card"; five opponents call - but we don't know the relevant positions vs the Hero. The turn is a blank, hero bets again and there are four callers - same missing info as on the flop. On the river another blank hits and the Hero loses to someone who makes two little pair. We don't know if the Hero is first to act post flop, we don't know what Hero's action was on the river, and we don't know if the villain was in position. In fact we only know that one player beat the Hero, when in reality it could have been multiple opponents that had Hero beat. With that said, even though the hand history is incomplete the point of the hand seems fairly clear to me - always look within, never assume the play of the hand was correct when you maybe could have taken a different line that would have better protected your hand. PS: I'm aware that some of the text in my post is intentionally vague, that is by design.
I believe your discussing the chapter "Betting when your opponent is correct to call" in Chapter 9 - this describes betting for value in large pots where you would be laying the correct odds for your opponent to call, because checking would lay your opponent "infinite odds" if the opponent gets a free card. David's chapter in TOP describes a situation where the players are heads up, not multiway, and where a free card will likely occur - which is unlikely on such a dry board as this example in a massively multiway pot. If you re-read the chapter (page 71) I think it will become more clear for you.
12-20-2015
, 12:57 AM
12-20-2015
, 01:00 AM
12-20-2015
, 01:02 AM
12-20-2015
, 01:04 AM
12-20-2015
, 01:09 AM
12-20-2015
, 01:28 AM
12-23-2015
, 06:59 PM
12-25-2015
, 12:59 PM
12-25-2015
, 08:43 PM
12-27-2015
, 12:16 AM
01-03-2016
, 01:31 PM
Quote:
Honestly this is probably one of the worst books I read. I lack of words to describe how poor it is. Basically what you did you took your limited singular experience and your view and then made huge generalizations and simplifications based on no data just your experience. It is not like you tested your hypothesis. I didn't even bother to read it all. If there is a refund option I would strongly appreciate it.
none of the above makes any sense in the real world...
