Introduction to Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money - Page 39 - Poker News

You would need to code your own bots to play like fish and then code a bot to play like you and compare the EV of the two strategies after running multiple million hand simulations in the same way Saulo Costa did with his GTO bots.

or

You can trust players that are much better than you

Those are your only two options.

Quote

04-16-2024 , 10:36 PM

#952

PointlessWords

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2020 Posts: 4,370

Quote:

Originally Posted by DooDooPoker

who are they players that are much better than me?

Quote

04-16-2024 , 11:11 PM

#953

DooDooPoker

Verified Coach NLHE

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 18,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by PointlessWords

who are they players that are much better than me?

David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth.

Quote

04-16-2024 , 11:12 PM

#954

PointlessWords

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2020 Posts: 4,370

Quote:

Originally Posted by DooDooPoker

David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth.

Nope

Quote

04-16-2024 , 11:46 PM

#955

dude45

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 2,818

Quote:

Originally Posted by DooDooPoker

David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth.

The guys who can't get past low stakes live?

Quote

04-17-2024 , 01:36 AM

#956

DooDooPoker

Verified Coach NLHE

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 18,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude45

The guys who can't get past low stakes live?

Have you read the book?

Quote

04-17-2024 , 08:57 AM

#957

PointlessWords

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2020 Posts: 4,370

Quote:

Originally Posted by DooDooPoker

Have you read the book?

Have you lived in vegas for the last 10 years?

I’ll read the book next week

Quote

04-17-2024 , 09:07 AM

#958

dude45

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 2,818

Quote:

Originally Posted by DooDooPoker

Have you read the book?

No I can tell by what's posted in this thread I don't need to. As soon as someone starts advocating intentionally putting yourself in multiway spots and checking hands like KK in lose passive games That's all I need to see. Now if it was an aggressive game it's little less horrible as you have a better chance of going for a back raise. In a 1-2 or similar game playing kings the way Sklansky played them you're literally saying I would like to play them in a 4 or 5 way pot.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 12:16 PM

#959

Mason Malmuth

Former Top Dog

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 13,014

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude45

We don't say this. You'll need to read the book to see exactly what we do say.

Mason

Quote

04-17-2024 , 12:17 PM

#960

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,100

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude45

I would not prefer to play them in a 4 or 5 way pot and the book doesn't say anything like that.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 01:08 PM

#961

DooDooPoker

Verified Coach NLHE

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 18,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude45

No I can tell by what's posted in this thread I don't need to.

This may come off rude but it needs to be said.

You can't trust your own judgement if you are making statements like the one below. You should defer to people who have been experts in the field for almost 50 years.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 01:39 PM

#962

PointlessWords

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2020 Posts: 4,370

Dude45 is right btw. 0EV means 0EV. What you do will change your frequencies and that will cause opponents to possibly change theirs

Additionally something can be 0EV but have ICM implications, also you can have 0EV but calling let’s you see their hand etc

Quote

04-17-2024 , 01:43 PM

#963

DooDooPoker

Verified Coach NLHE

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 18,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by PointlessWords

No 0EV means you don't gain or lose EV either way and your play has the same EV as folding. So it does not matter what you do theoretically

dude45 is saying the opposite (and apparently you are too).

I'm glad you are agreeing with him though since you are making my point for me.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 01:45 PM

#964

PointlessWords

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2020 Posts: 4,370

Expected Value does not have ICM integrated nor does it take into account seeing your villains hand nor does it take into account not showing villain your hand

EV is quantitative

The other stuff is qualitative

Edit: 0 EV means the EV of all of the actions are the same. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter what you do.

EV is not the guideline for what matters, it’s the guideline for quantitative value

Quote

04-17-2024 , 02:07 PM

#965

DooDooPoker

Verified Coach NLHE

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 18,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by PointlessWords

Expected Value does not have ICM integrated nor does it take into account seeing your villains hand nor does it take into account not showing villain your hand

EV is quantitative

The other stuff is qualitative

Edit: 0 EV means the EV of all of the actions are the same. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter what you do.

EV is not the guideline for what matters, it’s the guideline for quantitative value

No, if a bluff catcher is 0EV then calling and folding are the same EV so it literally does not matter what you do. The fact that you are saying it matters show's you don't understand the concept.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 04:53 PM

#966

MarkD

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 4,624

Quote:

Originally Posted by PointlessWords

You talk about solvers and such, and then you continually post things that make no sense.

Hint: Solvers implement Counterfactual Regret Minimization. What regret are they trying to minimize? The regret of not taking the highest EV option. EV is all that matters.

Also, ICM is quantitative and has absolutely no meaning in cash games. At this point, you are just saying stuff.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 05:13 PM

#967

DooDooPoker

Verified Coach NLHE

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 18,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkD

You can't make this stuff up.

We have two guys (dude45/Pointless Words) bashing a book that they haven't read while demonstrating they do not understand basic poker theory.

Live games will never die.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 05:45 PM

#968

Mason Malmuth

Former Top Dog

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 13,014

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkD

Also, ICM is quantitative and has absolutely no meaning in cash games. At this point, you are just saying stuff.

I wonder if they're aware that the method known as ICM was first introduced by me (to the poker world) in 1986.

Mason

Quote

04-17-2024 , 05:53 PM

#969

DooDooPoker

Verified Coach NLHE

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 18,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

I wonder if they're aware that the method known as ICM was first introduced by me (to the poker world) in 1986.

Mason

Fate loves irony.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 06:03 PM

#970

PointlessWords

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2020 Posts: 4,370

so how do you guys quantify things like seeing someones hand vs them not seeing yours etc?

Im glad you invented it.

ofc I can be wrong, doesnt mean I am tho

Quote

04-17-2024 , 06:26 PM

#971

Mason Malmuth

Former Top Dog

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 13,014

Quote:

Originally Posted by PointlessWords

Im glad you invented it.

ICM is a conditional probability problem, and I did not invent conditional probability. But in 1986 I wrote an article for the old Poker Player Newspaper where I was addressing the question of whether it was right to rebuy and computed the value of the chip stacks after the rebuy was purchased and taking into account some specific payoffs, and what became known as ICM was how I approached the problem. That article then appeared in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics which was first published in 1987. And, it's still in the current expanded edition of this book as well as some other comments on ICM.

By the way, the name Independent Chip Model (ICM) did not come from me, and I don't know where it came from.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 06:33 PM

#972

BrickMMA

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 658

Quote:

Originally Posted by DooDooPoker

PW and dude getting absolutely torn up over the past few pages. We need a mercy rule. The level of self-own from those two is pretty impressive.

Quote

04-17-2024 , 07:20 PM

#973

PointlessWords

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2020 Posts: 4,370

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

Sure, I feel like this was well discussed throughout super system and various 2p2 books from 2000 onward

Does ICM take into account the benefit of seeing your opponents cards

Quote

04-17-2024 , 09:17 PM

#974

dude45

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 2,818

Quote:

Originally Posted by DooDooPoker

Sorry the only reason you would flat in the kk hand posted earlier in this thread is because you want to play multiway. Also it can be easily proven that while it may not matter for any one hand defaulting to any one action 100% does matter to your overall strategy

Quote

04-17-2024 , 09:59 PM

#975

DooDooPoker

Verified Coach NLHE

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 18,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude45

Sorry the only reason you would flat in the kk hand posted earlier in this thread is because you want to play multiway. Also it can be easily proven that while it may not matter for any one hand defaulting to any one action 100% does matter to your overall strategy

You're back and you've decided to double down on your faulty logic.

Nope that isn't correct in the context that we have been talking about throughout this thread.

If raising and calling were both 0EV then I could fold 100% of the time and I wouldn't lose any EV in my strategy.

Hit me!

Quote

Page 39 of 41

First

19 29 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 39 of 41

First

19 29 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Last