Hi Barry,

First of all I'd like to say that I appreciate the time that you take to post on twoplustwo. Your post raises a large number of questions, which you obviously aren't obligated to answer, but which would be much appreciated if you would

Q1: is moving in over a standard button open with ATo an unexploitable play (as in the aforementioned situation) in your opinion
Q2: do you consider moving in with ATo the best possible play against Joe Sebok, as far as EV is concerned.
Q2a: knowing what you do about Joe, what would you do with ATo in ike's spot? (I certainly don't expect you to answer this)

Your earlier post seems to indicate that the answer is 'Yes' to Q1 and 'No' to Q2.

Q3: If your answer is indeed 'Yes' to Q1 and 'No' to Q2, do you agree that Joe's game is exploitable in bubble situations in which effective chip stacks are small in relation to the blinds?

Q4: Is there a minimum stack size at which you disregard player considerations and try to play 'unexploitably'?

Q4a: If the answer to Q4 is yes, what is that minimum stack size?

Q5: Let us say for the moment that ike's resteal with ATo and KJo were mathematically unexploitable, if perhaps not the play which offered the maximal EV. Would you then agree with Joe's assertion that ike is a horrible player and a donkey?

I'd like to reiterate that some of these questions are quite pointed and you can certainly avoid them if they ask too much, but answering any of the questions would give us a lot of insight into what a top pro thinks vis a vis this issue.

Thanks!

Good post from DN.

Does anyone think Ike looks lilke a young Howard Stern? Plus he sounds like a young highschool kid with treble voice. It cracks me up when he said he needed to get drunk before going to the show.

I guess the only way barry could defend Joe was if he invented a totally new situation where pushing AT would not be the best play.

Barry's whole post ignores the actual argument. It's the only way he could support Joe and criticise the other side.

also probably mentioned when this first happened but haven't seen it mentioned here...ike was willing to acknowledge that he will be behind when called....so honestly, what hands wouldnt he shove then..you can use the same logic to shove any two cards...the math that joe is opening light on the button and will fold...and while AT has much better equity against PP's when called...hands like 67 would have more equity against AJ-AK so where does the line get drawn not to shove

I think what Daniel is getting at is that the combination of Ike's two actions and his ensuing explanation reinforced the notion that he did not understand the concept that he could pass up a +EV spot in situations like this, a lot of us who read a lot of Ike's posts probably think we know or assume this isnt true and that it came out this way in as a circumstance of the situation just as Sebok probably has a very good understanding of live tournament poker even though it didnt seem that way.

You cannot use the same logic to shove any two cards, what your equity is against his calling range is the key component in addition to comparing that equity to your future tournament EV, if say you shoved 32o in this spot it would not work well because you would be losing more than AT the times you were called.

ike said he had sebok covered and sebok had 22 blinds with an ante in effect.

the sidetracks about all the related stuff and max ev stuff is interesting- but ike and joe were actually discussing a couple particular hands and I think it's pretty important to keep that in mind as the crux of the exchange.

ike's line is this... "what do you play by when its 20 big blinds, you open on the button, and somebody shoves? there's nothing else to make decisions on. you just like stare me down and try to decide what i have?"

it was a pretty specific situation they were discussing.

If you watch them play objectively it shouldn't take you more than a few hours to realize they understand the game in a very scary way that doesn't seem to make sense....sit with them for 3 or 4 hours in a major and watch them completely rape the table regardless of who is sitting in it. They might be running above average but I bet they're huge winners year to year.

im 100% for thinking the AT was a definite shove but i want to play a little devils advocate...

it depends what sebok's calling range is...thats basically impossible to get into without being at the table but we can make guesses for arguments sake

fact #1: 32o has more equity against 4 certain hands (AJ+ 11%,AA 5%)
fact #2: AT has much more equity against pocket pairs

if you say sebok will call with all pocket pairs...i agree AT is stronger then any two cards...but if he is folding 22-99 then it becomes much closer

if you widen joe's calling range due to him being pretty short...that would go towards arguing that his opening range is more narrow then ike gave him credit for

I probably shouldn't nit up your argument, because I don't really disagree with you, but I found it interesting that in the back of the envelope calculation you did up above, giving the AT 33% equity when called, if you replace that with 72o which has 20% equity when called by the same range it's STILL a +EV result by a good amount.

Which I think points to an equilibrium where Joe can't fold 80% of the time when pushed on here.

this is what i was trying to get at but is much more clear

A simpler way to put it: sometimes +EV plays can be too risky and aren't worth the risk.

Also, my reason for posting was to point out that while Ike accused Joe of not thinking about poker the "right way," that I don't believe, from the short interview I heard, that he approaches thinking about tournament situations the "best way."

I can only talk about the way that I approach tournaments, but I like to go through a few steps before I even get into whether or not a play is the right one to make, briefly:

Table Composition- is my table super soft or tough? Obviously at a super soft table I would look to avoid lots of high risk +EV situations as better opportunities will arise with lower risk. At a tough table, I will simply take more chances and take a more mathematical approach. This approach allows you to exploit situations when you have donkeys at your table. Being aware of when that is is super important, IMO.

Position- where are the big stacks, and where are the tough players. Similar to above, if the tough players are behind me with big stacks, I'll start taking thinner +EV plays. Conversely, if I have weak tight players on my left I will take the safer approach on a more regular basis.

Stage of the Tournament- depending on what I'm planning to do image wise, the stage of the tournament plays a role.

Tournament Structure- fast structure= taking on more +EV plays. Slower structure allows me to be picky.

When does my table break- this is important for obvious reasons.

Mental State of my Opponents- it's always changing and my game changes along with it.

Opponents perception of me- this is huge obviously as it affects how often you'll be called which directly effects the EV of any given play.

Recent History- what have my opponents seen me doing recently and what do I think, that they think, it all means. If I start limping into pots, are they fearful of strength or do they assume I'm limping weak, etc.

To Ike:

THAT's how you think about poker my friend. You obviously incorporate math in making decisions, but even before you get to that point, you think about the PEOPLE you are facing. You think about why your KJ play has less value because of the play that preceded it.

QFT
lol
Reads his soul obv.

lol wtf?

agreed that in a live tournament...all the things you mentioned together are much more important then the math...but not a single one of them are individually as important as the math is by itself

i'm pretty sure howard lederer has said that his tournament strategy is to focus on each individual decision of each individual hand and ignore a lot of the other stuff

this argument of how to think about tournament approach is much more of a matter of opinion and i think you hit on what a lot of other people in this thread were trying to get at by bringing up david pham etc;

its a different discussion because when asked by ike why sebok felt the way he did, he did not bring up any of the things in your post...he had nothing to say besides dude its just not how i play

i think difference is, mathplayers first think off the math then adjust their play with their reads while liveplayers only know what to do when they have reads, which is actually fairly uncommon that you have.

playing against unknowns how much about their shortstackskills and handranges do you actually learn over a few hours? and when you finally do you get changed to another table lol.

blah, gaucho everyone knows u've rocked online and live...seriously compare the 2 tho...that's much more interesting than falling into the trap of another one of these posts.l

Daniel,

All of the other factors you listed are of course very relevant and I promise you Ike is well aware of all of them.

The reason he harps on the math stuff so much in the interview is because Joe flat out states that he doesn't understand the math including the incredibly important equity calculations which are by far the most relevant single piece of information when making these types of decisions when the stacks get short.

You can feed that kind of thing into PokerStove: The reason you have a hand requirement is that you need to win the pot a certain percentage of the time when called. AT wins against his range of calling hands more often than 67 does. Being behind doesn't matter.

That post wasn't a defense of Joe's argument on the show at all. It's my argument, and what I would have said if I were Joe, but of course, Joe didn't say that as you pointed out.

I sense arrogance on both parts, from live players and online players and it is all pretty silly. I will say this, though, I don't think no limit hold'em will ever be "solved" and because of that, success in live tournaments will always require both math and people skills. I've spoken with many online players who don't seem to think there is much of a difference at all between playing live and online. What they are missing, IMO, are the extra situations that you can exploit in a live tournament that are not present online. It's a mistake to neglect those opportunities or to believe they don't exist.

does it really win against his range that much more often to make a huge difference??

if sebok folds KT+,A2-9, and will fold any PPs its actually pretty close

the only way having AT matters is if he will call with all pocket pairs

Thanks Daniel Negreanu... Negreanu Daniel..... Daniel Negreanu Negreanu Daniel... just what I was trying to say.

You have to admit that passing up +ev spots would be the exception, rather than the rule. Of course specific circumstances can skew any decision, but all things being equal you're not going to knowingly leave chips behind.

it's like you've never played live before... people are much easier to read than you think, and i think after 2 orbits you can have some idea of how people are playing

if cardrunner pros can sit at a table at a stake they never play in and have reads within 10 minutes and adjust their play to people that quickly

and then saying liveplayers don't know any math and play by soul reads? lol
what a terrible post

ugh im trying so hard to stop posting in this thread but i cant resist

ive had more success in live tournaments then i have online...i think live is much easier (and more fun) for a few reasons

1. you can much more quickly figure out what a player is capable of and remember him by face easier then sn
2. your not missing vital info due to distractions
3. when it gets deep players are less likely to have a solid understanding of short stack strategy live

the only opinion i feel like im qualified to give is that it is harder for me to beat online tournaments therefore i consider the online players stronger...it might have more to do with me but thats just how i see it