Loss aversion.

I am not blaming it, just stating it as a factor among many.

Even if Mike's prep had been perfect and they both had a totally even run of cards, he was still disadvantaged by Cate getting hands and advice on her phone. Yes he could have planned to counter this by doing the same, but you have to point the finger more at the organisers for not thinking through this element of the event more carefully.

I really think you would see a totally different game if both players are playing properly in the dark with no previous hands or strat fed to them on their phones.

Without this added assistance I think a massive chunk of competent small stakes NLHE on line players would be 50/50 against her in a live HU match, which is why I say someone like a fired up, better prepared Mike Dentale playing for even higher stakes, in a better structure and on a level playing field would be a totally different proposition. Sure he is not one of those on line players but he has better results than most over a biggish sample in live MTTs so clearly has skills in that arena that are and/or can be adaptable to HU.

Clearly if Cate is in the dark about how he is playing pre flop and on all streets then she could make a lot of errors. The same is true in reverse of course but in the match they just had she might as well have been George W Bush when he was wearing that wire and being fed the script of a speech he was making.

Let's take away the wire and see how she does.

Cate didn't get personal coaching. She watched doug's HU course. She never said anything to contradict that. What principle, exactly, is Mike espousing here? The Neanderthal Principle? It's criminally stupid of him to not study HU for a while for a match like this.

I'm no world-beater at HU, but I'd be downright embarrassed to play as poorly as Mike did, and I'd be even more embarrassed to say that I was proud of my play after the fact.

I know. But loss aversion remains a fairly well-known psychological fact.

As for getting hand data mid-match, she was openly doing it and answered Mike honestly when he asked. If he objected to it, he should have said something. If she had done it surreptitiously, I'd agree she was being unethical. But she's fine IMO doing it openly.

I know this is a well-known psychological fact. But in the context of a poker game, basing decisions on loss aversion is irrational, and the sign of an inferior player.

(It may actually be rational if you are not properly bankrolled for the game, but this is an important reason why you need a large enough bankroll to be able to play your best.)

She didn't do anything unethical at all and won the match fair and square without breaking any rules of the game as it was designed for the challenge. Although no hand shake at the end, Mike did take the defeat honourably and told her she deserved her victory. Can't remember his exact words.

The question is, was this match as true of a match as it could have been, and do the players and the poker viewing public want to see a new match giving both players an even better platform to perform on that would leave almost no doubt about how good they are.

I agree one hundred per cent.

The only person who can truly think, feel and act this way 100% of the time is Libratus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

Her charity is absolutely not a joke. We have a president who is trying to control the media, and use it to his own means. CNN is getting blocked out of white house press briefings while Trump tweets propaganda and uses his influence to build distrust between the people and the media. Free press is getting squeezed, right now, in the 'ol US of A. Some of us hold that right even more sacred than, say, the right to have assault rifles.

In addition to being important, her charity is also a clear shot at Dentale's conservative beliefs. Which is the origin of this entire stupid beef.

In light of the NVG guideline posted earlier today in the NVG Rules thread (the guideline itself is not necessarily new), please use caution in this thread. And that includes legitimate posts regarding Cate Hall's charity.

Thank you.

What? How could the EV of both situations be the same?

Assume Player A has a 60% chance to win and Player B has a 40% chance to win.

SCENARIO ONE: Player A and Player B each put up $30K and winner takes all.

Player A

EV = ($30K * 60%) - ($30K * 40%)
EV = $6,000

Player B

EV = ($30K * 40%) - ($30K * 60%)
EV = -$6,000

SCENARIO TWO: Third party puts up $60K and Player A and Player B play and winner takes all.

Player A

EV = ($60K * 60%) - ($0 * 40%)
EV = $36,000

Player B

EV = ($60K * 40%) - ($0 * 60%)
EV = $24,000

mike may have played badly but at least he refused to learn anything from Doug and Deeb after the match

There are some semantics in play here, but you still got him in an armbar here and he gotta tapout.

The player making a decision about how to act needs to consider the value of one outcome compared to another outcome.

In this case, it is the value of winning the match versus losing the match. Because the question is how much effort you want to put into increasing your chance of winning, not whether you should play the match in the first place. The context of the discussion was the assertion that Mike didn't prepare well because it was a freeroll, not that Mike only agreed to the match because it was a freeroll. Of course, whether you are putting your own money up will affect whether you agree to play. But once you have agreed, the effort you put into winning the match should be the same regardless of who put the money up.

And the EV of winning compared to losing is $60k for both players in both scenarios. If you are trying to calculate how much effort you should put into increasing your chance of winning by 5%, this effort is worth $3k regardless of whether you put the money up yourself. The question you should be asking yourself is whether the time it would take to prepare to this degree is worth $3k to you. Where that $3k is coming from should be irrelevant.

I am guessing (and hoping) that you did not see post #936 before you posted the above.

This is the exact type of post that is not welcome in this thread or basically anywhere in NVG.

There are plenty of 2+2 forums that specialize in political discourse where this post would be welcome and encouraged.

I will leave the post here as a final warning that any subsequent posts of this nature will lead to a 2-day ban.

Ok. I don't really think EV is the correct term to try to get across this meaning. But, yes, in both scenarios, winning is $60,000 better than losing.

agree, plus the combination of the two was actually great, the actual game was absolutely boring but was worth watching for their commentary they both did a great job

Lol this is such a terrible post

Most players suck when losing on downswings etc

Most people play to scared when they first jump levels or take shots

Poker is largely psychological . It's a lot easier to play a free roll then it is your own money.

If you are playing differently when playing a freeroll than when playing with your own money, you are either playing irrationally or well above your bankroll. What exactly are you objecting to?

The next match is being negotiated on Twitter right now.........potentially.......

Salomon Ponte and Sorel Mizzi

AGAINST

Shaun Deeb and Doug Polk

"I really think you would see a totally different game if both players are playing properly in the dark with no previous hands or strat fed to them on their phones."

Agree but the real point IMO is one player did their homework (the lawyer, surprise surprise) and one did not. To talk junk about being unprepared is pretty comical.

During one of Dentale's whines about her checking her phone she calmly and clearly explained it was negligence not to use fed info, and she was right if she wasn't breaking any prearranged rules. Same with the shades.

And yeah beware the politics, especially if you disagree with the herd, which seems to be 99% of the time people get warned.

It's definitely easier to player good poker when the money means something. When the money doesn't mean anything most players will default to playing poorly.

Mike goes in talking himself up all macho in the streets "skilled poker players win by bluffing" attitude and then has like 2 bluffs in the entire match? I don't really get it.

Don't let reservoir dogs go to your head. Mr. Pink sounded like an idiot and so do you. Just -KeppinItReal