Hi Everyone:

I just started reading Modern Poker Theory: Building an Unbeatable Strategy Based on GTO Principles by Michael Acevedo. Now I haven't read enough of the book to have any comment on it but I did run into this sentence which I thought might be interesting to discuss:

You could be the ninth best player in the world but if you made a point to only play against the eight players who are better than you, you will get destroyed.

Best wishes,
Mason

This is interesting book which uses modern poker tools to develop a systematic approach to the analysis of GTO.

Keep reading!
Thanks

Hi AandK:

I just started reading it today and have less than 10 percent read. So, I can't comment on it one way or another. But as I get more read, I'll get my opinion out.

Best wishes,
Mason

I've been hearing variations of that sentence for at least six years, but I think the idea was first expressed a much longer time ago. It's almost like a quote from 'Rounders'. :/

Really, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't understand what is interesting about that quote. If you are worse than all of the opponents at the table then of course you're going to be a losing player.

Table selection is a real thing. Determining who's actually "better" or "worse" when distinguishing between 2 good regs is be much, much, more difficult.

9th best player wouldn’t get “destroyed”. Disregarding rake, they’d all look break-even. After many many millions of hands, the top couple of guys would have a small win rate, and the bottom couple of guys would have a small loss rate. Anything short of the very very long run would just be a bunch of variance noise.

This is the flip side of the old joke that when two friends on safari see a lion.

The first friend says "I hope the lion does not attack since there is no way we can outrun a lion."

The second friend agrees, but adds "I don't have to outrun the lion; I just have to outrun you."

Whether or not the ninth best player would get destroyed, I think the main take-away should be that part of the skill of a good poker player is the ability to place oneself in games occupied by inferior players.

BTW, has anyone read the book yet? I am considering purchasing it.

Yeah I think this is true for the absolute top level.

At lower levels not so sure though. There's a chance a slightly better bad player could figure out and exploit a very serious leak by a slightly worse bad player.

Hi Everyone:

Again I want to stress that, according to my kindle, I’ve only read 9 percent of this book and haven’t gotten to the important material in this book.

As for the quote, as explained by one of our posters above, it’s clearly wrong. The difference between win rates between these players would at most be tiny, and the standard deviation of that difference for virtually any reasonable number of hands would be large when compared to the difference in win rates. Thus it would be very difficult to even determine who the ninth best player is and the word “destroyed” certainly doesn’t belong.

However, when seeing something like this written I wonder if the author just got careless because to be a long term winner at poker you do at the very least need to play significantly better than some of your opponents, or if the author has a fundamental misunderstanding of how this stuff actually works.

Best wishes,
Mason

I came across this book today. Read the preview and like what I see tbh and thinking about buying. I'm surprised to see there are no real reviews out there and I have never heard of the author. Has anyone actually read this book and recommend it for a cash player? I come from an online backround beating 100nl/200nl and used solvers but I've been playing exclusively live lately and feeling a little rusty so I'm happy to see a poker book that uses tools like pio and monkersolver. Anyone here think its worth the read?

Poker results are subject to ungodly amounts of variance, but - assuming poker is like just about any sport you care to name - the actual difference in abilities between the best in the world and ninth-best is much greater than most people realize.

The ninth-best tennis player in the world doesn't beat Federer or Nadal very often. Nor does the ninth-best chess player - or racing driver, or boxer - have any chance of becoming world champion. Similarly, the Superbowl is seldom won by a Wild Card, and the World Cup and Champions League are always won by one of the pre-tournament favourites.

Typically, when the top 8 or 9 in the world compete against each other, the weakest gets completely destroyed.

what about the variance of the lion going for the faster guy for other factors, such as limping or body language signifying being wounded/smelling like summer sausage etc?

Hi Arty:

I agree with what you say when the execution component of the game is large, especially when compared to the knowledge component. But that's not the case in poker where the knowledge component is dominant.

And if you want to look at tennis, this is easily seen. I doubt if there is much difference, if any at all, in Roger Federer's knowledge of the how to play tennis versus whoever might currently be the tenth best player. But there is certainly a difference in execution. Throw on top of that a small standard deviation, and Federer wins virtually every time.

Best wishes,
Mason

This was factually true during the peak of Phil Ivey and Stu Ungar's careers but only because you would be at the same table as them, not because of the other 7 players.

I think this is much ado about nothing much. Maybe "destroyed" is just a figure of speech.

Let's say for sake of argument that we could define the competition this way. We are going to play 100 "rounds" of cash poker, each "round" consisting of 1,000 hours. The round can be split up over multiple sessions during a month. It's plausible that the worst player at the table ends up with a win/loss record after that of something like 20-80. The best player might be 70-30. That would pretty much qualify as getting "destroyed" by some definitions.

To the extent that his premise is extremely vague, this conversation is rather pedantic. He's trying to make a very simple point that really isn't even debatable - table selection/competition selection is an important factor in win rate.

The reason your example works, is that the amount of play is huge -- a lifetime of full time play at 2,000 hours a year for 50 years, and that's not realistic. As for game selection being important, that's certainly the case. But when someone, the author in this case, is presenting themselves as an expert, he's either being careless (which does happen) or he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying probability theory that poker is based on, and that might lead to other, much more important errors later on.

Best wishes,
Mason

As usual I don't get the credit I deserve. (eg coining "implied odds" "semi bluff", "don't help him play correctly", "turning your hand into 72" etc.) The expression originated from an article I wrote in Gambling Times 35 or so years ago where I half seriously rated the top ten poker players in various games. I rated Eric Drache eighth in 7 card stud and went on to comment that his main flaw was that he was always playing with the seven I rated above him. Maybe someone can find that article online.

I agree with Arty here.

I think that in poker, these "execution" and "knowledge" components are both equally important. Knowledge component in poker comes from uderstanding optimal play and ranges. But even if you know what optimal ranges look like, you still have to be able to execute it at the tables. And there certainly are players who are capable of doing this more accuretely than others.

I would actually say, that the execution component in poker is to spot weaknesses in opposition's strategy and take advantage of that by playing exploitatively. And eploitative play is execution at its finest, in my opinion.

Oh wow. I knew you were responsible for "implied odds" and "semi-bluff", but I had no idea this concept about needing to play against worse players was quite as old as that.
I too would be interested to see if the article has been archived somewhere.

It just so happens that I have every copy of Gambling Times Magazine. So, maybe I can find it.

David: was this in GT or the old Poker Player newspapers?

Mason

I enjoy the comparisons made by the thought leaders ITT.

Maybe this is useless, but I'll add my own. If Dan Cates is the best hold'em player in the world, and Igor Kurganov is number 9, perhaps after a few million hands Cates + peers might have all of Igor's bankroll, but to think he'd get "destroyed" is pretty silly.

Do you realize how sarcastic your first sentence sounds? Of course your second sentence shows you didn't mean it to be.

80% GT

Eric got ribbed about it for years.

I didn't realize that, but I have this problem in real life too. One of my (autistic) traits is that I sound sarcastic when I'm being sincere. It causes a few problems in social situations!