First of all congrats and gl with new the job.
I also want to thank you for your contribution.
Your vids and posts have help me a great deal to reason about poker.

...so here are my questions!

Do you use stoxev for forming ranges and assessing the EV of various betting lines?

Once you started making a lot of money from poker did you ever loose your motivation to play?

Did you ever feel you reached a plateau in terms of learning about husngs?

In one of your vids you suggested that ROFL wasn't an attempt to solve HU @ <10bb or something like that.
Do you believe that such endeavour is possible and if so would you ever attempt it?

Is there any value in railing better players at higher stakes or can this be counterproductive?

You mentioned earlier about having “the balls” to move.
What do you mean by “balls”; Is it about fear, recognition of your skills limits or something else?


Finally...don’t you have British citizenship? Why not move in the UK and continue playing?

Congratulation of your success in poker even though I don't know much about u tbh. But, a lot of regs here say u are a great player so I got a few questions as well...
U mention about husng won't be profitable after few years y and how??

Also, since your mathematics help you a a lot in poker. Are there any very high stake success regs (200+)u know who do not spend decent amount of time and only have basic understand of math and why are they successful?? any forum or books, or any regs video or strategy post u suggest to get better understanding of the math and theory side of poker?

gl on your new jobs

i love your vids on husng.com

in ur opinion, when watching a husng vid, what is the best method/methods to getting the most out of a video when studying/learning?

Top two timing tells you put the most stock in?

Your personal favorite husng vids done by others?

Best concert(s) you've been to?

Some great questions, will answer them tonight. About to get on a plane back to Portland for a few days. For now, I'll tackle this one (note to Hundrye: I'm responding to this in a way that it will be comprehensible to as many people as possible, apologies for excessive length).

To start, let's consider the same question except without Player 3. Just one on one, 1vs2, trying to decide who to pick. Throughout this post, I'll use (x, y) to mean "The player picks team A x% of the time, and team B y% of the time".

Player 1: (60, 40)
Player 2: (40, 60)

In this case, this is a NASH equilibrium. Neither player can profitably deviate. You can solve this by saying, "what strategy of player 1 would make player 2 indifferent between picking A and B?". Then do the reverse. This is what you come up with. If Player 1 picks A any more often, Player 2 is correct just to pick B 100% of the time. If Player 1 picks B any more often, Player 2 is correct to just pick A 100% of the time. As it is, it's an equilibrium, with Player 2 playing this distribution to make sure that Player 1 can't profitably deviate, either.

Now, let's add your Player 3, and see how he affects things. The first thing to notice is that Player 2 does not give a flying **** about Player 3. There's no scenario in which Player 3 could possibly take a victory away from Player 2. So Player 2's strategy is going to be still completely dependent on what Player 1 does. If Player 1 goes (60, 40), it doesn't matter what Player 2 does (but (40, 60) makes it an equilibrium). If Player 1 plays any higher percentage of A, Player 2 will play (0, 100), any higher percentage of B, it'll be (100, 0). You get the drill by now.

Player 1, however, isn't so lucky. His chances of winning are dependent on not matching the other two, so he absolutely cares what Player 3 does. He can play (60, 40), which would lead to the following:

Player 1: (60, 40)
Player 2: (40, 60)
Player 3: (100, 0)

This corresponds to an 61.6% winrate: 36% (win by picking A and A winning) + 9.6% (win by picking A and A losing, but everyone else picking A) + 16% (win by picking B and B winning) = 61.6%.

Nash Equilibrium? Well...I don't think so. The problem is that Player 1 can “cheat” and profitably deviate. Let's look again at the expectation from playing A and playing B against Player 2's and Player 3's current strategies:

Expectation of Player 1 playing A = (Chance of A winning) + (Chance of A losing but everybody picking A) = 60% + 16%.

So we win 76% of the time by picking A.

Expectation of Player 1 playing B = (Chance of B winning) + (Chance of B winning put everybody picking B) = 40% + 0%

So we win 40% of the time by picking B.

Wow!!! We win so much more by picking A! So this isn't an equilibrium, right? If we can profitably deviate by playing A more (100% A leads to a winrate of that whopping 76% against these two strategies), well then it can't be.

The thing is, though, if Player 1 plays A any more, Player 2 will instantly switch to (0, 100). Here's what we'll be looking at then:

Player 1: (100, 0)
Player 2: (0, 100)
Player 3: Is **** out of luck, but let's say (100, 0).

Player 1 wins 60% of the time. Even though that's a lower percentage, this actually IS a Nash Equilibrium – no individual player can profitably deviate. Player 2 wins 40% of the time (great for him), Player 3 wins 0% of the time but there's nothing he can do about it, and given Player 2 and Player 3's strategies, Player 1 is making his best move, as well.

The cool thing about this problem (and many other 3+ player games), though, is that there isn't REALLY nothing Player 3 can do. While it's true that no strategy adjustment can do better against 1 and 2's current strategies, let's look at what happens if these strategies are played:

Player 1: ?
Player 2: (0, 100)
Player 3: (0, 100)

Now Player 1 should just pick B and win every time! Because of this, Player 3 can induce Player 1 to change his strategy, a change which will give Player 3 a chance of winning again.

Anyway, you're getting the idea that actual gameplay is a lot more nuanced than NASH equilibrium would make it seem. The fact that Player 2 doesn't care what Player 3 does, but Player 1 cares a ton, and all 3 are independent agents, makes it so "pure" equilibria (you can tell I've only taken one class when I start to make terms up) aren't really present this time.

The best static strategy Player 1 can do (trusting Player 2 and Player 3 will play the static strategy that is optimal for them) is (60, 40). Player 2 will play (40, 60), Player 3 will play (100, 0), and Player 1 will win 61.6% of the time. It's not a NASH equilibrium, though, because Player 1 can cheat and do better (by playing more A). It's just that the other players will adjust against the cheating in a way that leads to an equilibrium that is worse than 61.6% for A.

Pretty cool problem to think about game theory wise. Everybody obviously feel free to correct errors I may have made/suggest alternate solutions, I've been on the road all weekend so have only been thinking about this during taxi rides, state of the relationship conversations, etc.

You'd think Player 2 should really just leverage the position he's in (not having to worry about Player 3) and pick B 100% of the time (and actually announce this/prove it if possible). It leaves Player 1 in a bit of a bind. Player 3's only chance of winning is now going for A (might as well), and as long as Player 3 does that, Player 1 can't do **** and just has to play A. Player 2 then gets his 40%.

...but if this happens, Player 3 is actually correct to respond by throwing away his chance of winning some of the time and play something like (64, 36). Player 1's best play is (0, 100) and then it's Player 3 that wins a whopping 38% of the time (with Player 2 getting nothing).

Anyway. I'd be pretty damn curious to see what would happen if three well programmed computers played out this situation adaptively with 1000 iterations, prisoner's dilemma style. I don't even know what % of the time each player would win. I think it actually would depend on the tactics used by each computer in adapting strategy. There are just too many adaptations over time where you're betting that your opponent will react in a certain way. This problem is more than just "can I profitably deviate against these strategies".

I'll get back to this with a more detailed post, but I consider myself on the utilitarian side of things, with some exceptions. I like Peter Singer a lot. I think you can apply poker reasoning about calculating equity to life, and as long as you avoid bad calculations (sometimes, even deciding to calculate is a bad calculation!), you can make really good decisions.

It'll happen.

Working with/for Bill Chen would be zomg cool! I actually haven't read any poker books, except for Harrington on Hold Em and Moshman's. Some of one of Hellmuth's books too because I was given it for Christmas. I don't have any recommendations really.

Flight, will answer all outstanding questions tonight with all of the FastTrack ones waiting for me. Keep them coming!

the company you're talking about is Susquehanna International Group. i'm assuming this, but i'm pretty sure if you show them this thread you'll probably get snap offered a position.

here's something interesting for you to read for leisure about Jeff Yass, the founder of SIG. He's a lot into math and probabilities as well that he got banned from racetracks before by using all possible combos of hitting the jackpot or something like that. thought you might enjoy reading the article.

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/beating_the_odds/

OK I have a question.

Guy has gambling problem. Guy has seriously head over heels in love with his girlfriend. Guy goes busto multiple times and begins to ruin said relationship. Guy eventually joins army and leaves girlfriend.

Fast forward 2.5 years, guy returns home.

How does guy get girlfriend back but keep poker in the picture ( assuming he is no longer a busto truck driving donk )

emphasis on getting gf back , and how do we push ex GFs current BF away

gogogoogogogogogo

oops one of these was answered already

can replace that one with:
Coolest party tricks you know?

Hmm. The first one that came to mind is this one, will go with it just to give an answer:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/62...panies-480014/

He commits to the joke. Committing to the joke is essential in humor. If you say "LOL" or "haha" or wink after your joke, you've butchered the delivery. The words that you are saying are funny. You do not need to explain that they're supposed to be funny if they're actually funny. Although, I do find myself doing a lot of explaining...

Thanks! wp with "et cetera et cetera" instead of a wall of text, my posting coaching is working! LOL haha

In general the advice is decent. Most threads I open have good advice somewhere in them. There are some rather poor replies (~25%?) but that's OK. I learned a ton from posting bad advice on this forum and getting corrected by better advice. Bad advice on the forums is a good thing as long as it's accompanied by good discussion.

I've always been a big fan of lagdonk. Air-Bear is often on the mark. I obviously loved it when THOAC went on a posting spree, but that's a pretty easy one. Trying to think of people besides mid/high stakes guys.

Not a big fan of Longoria or Kardashian, I'll take Longoria because I've been known to watch some desperate housewives. I had to google Lima and feel pretty meh (obviously, she is pretty, etc). I think we have very different types.

Not taken as a dig. I lived with him this summer and purchased action from his WSOP package.

It's really tricky when thinking about how to respond to people with transgressions in the poker community. On the one hand, we want to strongly discourage people from cheating in the first place. On the other hand, we want to strongly encourage people who have cheated to act with the utmost integrity going forward and give them incentives to do so if we think those incentives will work.

Gary Neville has paid a big price and has done everything right from that point forward. I had reasons to believe my money would be in no danger or anything like that, so the question for me was just whether it would be going too easy on him to be a small part of helping him continue with his way back into respectability. I didn't think that was the case.

For what it's worth, there were absolutely no issues while we were in the same house (despite the fact that there was cash lying around all the time), he was a lot of fun and was completely willing to take his lumps with "scammer" jokes, etc. He's a big fish at Chinese poker and gets so goddamn tilted. He was a kid who made a really dumb mistake and while that's never going away, it's not a career killer.

Protip: Looking at your cards helps with HUSNGs.

h2olga, but I'm obviously -EV either way. H2Olga has played much better against me lifetime than livb, but I always just assume livb has an extra 2.4 million dollar gear he kicks into when he actually cares.

I've already told you my top 5 most likely people to kill me. I'm not making it public

Leeds are going up. We are Leeds we are Leeds we are Leeds. Maaaaaaarching ONNNNNNNN TO-GETH-ER. etc.

Was great to meet you and your gal as well, was a really fun night

Obviously cheering for USA. That group was EASY right? lol poms.

Vids will still happen. I'll miss poker enough to want to still make videos as a hobby on the weekend. Expect the same "wtf are u doing revealing all our secrets" quality.

Yeah, wtf. Easily top 5 funniest/creepiest thing ever.

I have before, but I'm a bit of a fish at the software.

Sure. Most of the time I got my act together and reminded myself what a privilege/opportunity it is.

No.

People play to exploitably for studying unexploitable play to be that worth the time going that deep into it. Unexploitable play is vastly suboptimal play in the situation you're suggesting

Yes and yes.

Balls just means determination, being willing to fight to the top rather than being complacent with your current success and current level of skill.

I rate this opportunity better than moving to UK and continuing to play.

1. People quickly jamming the river OOP after check/calling previously when the draw comes in = lol snap fold.
2. Quick call being a hand that's not considering raising or folding.

I don't know many party tricks, unfortunately. I mostly just dance like an idiot and go after the cute girl who thinks that's endearing rather than embarrassing.

Best concert...hmm. Juanes kicked some ass. What a G.


Compare their play against what you would do, think about why that difference might be there. Think about what you'd do with different hands in the situation.

Have I said that? I thought I just said all forms of husng would be just fine.

They know the math not by calculating, but by great poker intuition.

So, I actually have some experience in getting a girl back after being a dumbass. The best thing is just to show some balls and go after it, but don't make it about yourself. Show yourself being steady and not full of drama, don't get frustrated, don't be manipulative. Talk about how much you've grown since you've been apart, but really act it. Don't play it like you "need" her or anything like that, you'd just like her and let her start to realize on her own that she really likes the stable you.

If that doesn't work, try this:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=18

Mers I just want to say you're a beast and your vids on husng.com are the nuts!

How likely are you to visit Belgium in the next 5 years?

You need to reveal your top 5 killer list and the author of that AIM convo in order to achieve true greatness mers.

LOL :P we hold 22

evens

jammers

Told via PM I missed a question. If this happened to you, feel free to re-post obv.

Best well ever.

Not sure if this have been asked & answered.
Why is it you decided not to move to another country and continue playing online ?