I Have A Good Card (fr) (3/6)

[David_Nicoson 1]

If he doubles through, he's probably going to tighten his range a touch, which is less +EV for us.

If you really believe this, OK. I don't, though. He's just going to play stupid with a big stack.

[simo_8ball 0]

If you really believe this, OK. I don't, though. He's just going to play stupid with a big stack.

Ok, but he did state that he would start playing properly if he doubled twice. I don't like you undermining my argument.And anyway, I can just change the name from Jordan to Jeffrey and we have a theoretical situation where I can make whatever assumptions I like. So there. :)I think the overall gist of my argument is that while it is always immediately -$EV to pass up an edge, certain metagame considerations can make it greater +$EV in the long run to wait for a better spot.

[simo_8ball 0]

I think I've come up with a more tangible example. How about this:There is a certain player at your cash table whose plays are causing the rest of the table to change styles completely. Work with me on this. Say he's a tourist and everyone is targetting him specifically, almost to the point of ignoring the rest of the table.While he is there you are able to take advantage of everyone at the table without being noticed, and your natural winrate is far higher than normal against the lineup. You ideally want this guy to be there for as long as possible.Now suppose, because he is a tourist, he is only playing one or maybe two buyins. It can be correct to pass up a small edge against him to keep him in the game.Make sense? Agree? Disagree?

[Zach6668 513]

All of the examples makes sense, simo, but in theory, it all doesn't matter, because all of those situations are to be repeated an infinite amount of times, thus creating a long run, which we all play for, right?So, something can certainly be said for something that will invariably be a one time situation, but on the base theory level, these things don't matter.Real life may be somewhat different.

[simo_8ball 0]

All of the examples makes sense, simo, but in theory, it all doesn't matter, because all of those situations are to be repeated an infinite amount of times, thus creating a long run, which we all play for, right?So, something can certainly be said for something that will invariably be a one time situation, but on the base theory level, these things don't matter.Real life may be somewhat different.

I appreciate that. We need to know what makes the most money over the long run.I think you're trying to separate every hand from those around it, which isn't how poker works (for either short or long term).

[David_Nicoson 1]

I appreciate that. We need to know what makes the most money over the long run.I think you're trying to separate every hand from those around it, which isn't how poker works (for either short or long term).

Sigh.Yeah, you're right. But that's never the sense that we see it used. It's always, "This situation isn't very +EV. You want to play pots with big +EV instead," without any regard for the metagame issues.Can you think of how we can word this to make it clear and correct?It's really like those endless discussions of when to fold AA in a tournament. The exception dominates the discussion way out of proportion to its significance.

[Zach6668 513]

I think the long run takes into account the metagame implications, and the expectation that creates.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I think the long run takes into account the metagame implications, and the expectation that creates.

I believe this as well. I feel that the long run EV of a hand includes that current hand as well as every hand that will be directly influenced by the play of that single hand. Therefore, if you make some memory-searing image play that costs you a big pot, it might actually be the most +EV move you've ever made because losing a 200BB pot is a small price to pay for a maniacal image (that you know how to exploit) that is not representative of how you play.

[Zach6668 513]

I think of it kinda like we would think of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, for any business or economics students.Basically, it just states that the market takes into account every single piece of information that is available, so that it's impossible to beat the market over the long run.Just like, in poker, it's impossible to get better than optimality by forgoing +EV situations.

[simo_8ball 0]

Ok, this is a good (but abstract) analogy.Suppose in the long run of life we want to experience the least amount of pain.Every night when going to bed, we have two choices of rooms. One is packed to the brim with cushions, pillows, and all manner of soft and cuddly things. Unfortunately, to get into this room we have to slap ourselves hard across the face. It's a very strange lock on the door, but this is a very strange situation.The other room is packed with needles, flames, mousetraps, all kinds of torture devices, and also a fat guy called Albert who will sodomize you painfully every hour on the hour. The door into this room is automatic, and opens for you, so you can enter with no discomfort at all.Which room should you choose to minimise your long term pain EV?

[simo_8ball 0]

optimality

Bingo. I've got where the problem is in your thought process.Optimal does not mean best. It means unexploitable.Against perfect opponents we should never pass up an edge. However, in poker almost every situation is exploitable. Playing optimally works to minimise losses, not maximise gains.

[mln_falcon 0]

Bingo. I've got where the problem is in your thought process.Optimal does not mean best. It means unexploitable.Against perfect opponents we should never pass up an edge. However, in poker almost every situation is exploitable. Playing optimally works to minimise losses, not maximise gains.

Winnah

[Zach6668 513]

Please don't use my lack of knowledge on specific terms against me.When I say optimal, I mean maximizing EV. That is my long term goal.

[simo_8ball 0]

Please don't use my lack of knowledge on specific terms against me.When I say optimal, I mean maximizing EV. That is my long term goal.

Ah, I thought you were meaning a game theoretic sense of optimal. I still think that's where your logic may be getting caught up though. If you know game theory/optimality from business classes it would be understandable.You give the example of the EMH. In poker we can exploit current information that others don't (which is why we make money). EMH isn't the right way of assessing poker IMO.The whole idea of not passing up edges is that it operates on the specific condition that it does not affect the ability to take later, larger edges. There are situations where that condition does not hold. If, in taking a slight edge, the chance of future ++EV situations is significantly reduced then you should pass it up. It's rare, but it can happen.If passing up edges can sometimes be correct in tournaments, then there should be similar, but rarer situations in cash games. Example from a tournament:Everyone playing overly tight on the bubble, and you can steal regularly as chipleader. You can sometimes pass up edges against shortstacks to keep the whole table playing scared for as long as possible. That is what I'm trying to modify and apply in my tourist cash game example. There are infinite tournaments, just as there are infinite tourist cash game situations. Where is the difference?Please convince me otherwise if you (or anyone) think/know it's wrong. If I'm wrong I'd honestly like to know.

[Zach6668 513]

I don't really know how to explain it, and for all I know, I may be off here, but, for that tournament setting you described, where we keep a shorty alive to punish the bubble, I think of the entire series of plays as being +EV or -EV. It's overall +EV to keep him around, long run, as that situation plays out infinite times.So, I guess what I'm saying is that you can't really look at EV in terms of one specific hand only. If we're in Jordan's situation, I suppose I'm looking at the EV of the overall series.Basically, I think we just kinda assume a few different things, with respect to the terminology, and I guess I do agree with you that, in a vacuum, we can turn down +EV situations. It's just that when I talk about EV, I'm referring to it as a whole, in the series of events, including all metagame aspects. I think we're just confusing each other on terminology. I don't think anything metagame can every be ignored, which is essentially what we're dealing with here.

[simo_8ball 0]

I guess I do agree with you that, in a vacuum, we can turn down +EV situations.

Don't you mean that in a vacuum we can't turn down +EV situations? In single situations, metagame doesn't exist.

[Acid_Knight 2]

also a fat guy called Albert who will sodomize you painfully every hour on the hour.

Can't he do it nicely?Also, WTF?!

[Zach6668 513]

Don't you mean that in a vacuum we can't turn down +EV situations? In single situations, metagame doesn't exist.

Mmm, yeah, sorry.I mean, in a vacuum, a hand may be slightly +EV, but when you add metagame implications, it may be correct to pass on it as the overall EV becomes more +EV.

[David_Nicoson 1]

[x] Don't pass up slightly profitable situations in hands simply because the profit is small. If you take a line that in not optimal for the current hand, you should have a clear metagame explanation for how it will affect future hands.?I feel like this is a more correct statement but less useful advice. We generally have one poster submit a hand; a second analyze it showing a call is correct; and then a third advocate a fold since since the call has only a small profit (but perhaps large variance). The OP never suggests how future hands will be affected.I'm deeply suspicious of metagame arguments when they rationalize emotional tendencies. "I'm going to play this K8s for a raise in middle position, because, umm, it will really tilt the raiser if I beat him with that hand." That's probably bullshit. We want to play the K8s because we like to play hands, not because of some elaborate metagame mouse trap."I'm going to keep the short stack in so I can continue to steal blinds." That's probably bullshit, too. It's an extremely rare case that we wouldn't prefer to have the chips in our own stacks. This can be a rationalization of a desire to avoid near coin flips, even when they are +EV.Hands do affect future hands, but in ways that are difficult to predict and control. A butterfly flapping its wings may cause a cyclone on the other side of the planet, but trying to catch all the butterflies to stop it is madness.

[Acid_Knight 2]

The OP never suggests how future hands will be affected.

That's often because metagame considerations are relatively unimportant in low stakes cash games where players aren't paying attention and taking notes and where the player pools are large and you're unlikely to find yourself in similar situations against the same opponent on a regular basis.

I'm deeply suspicious of metagame arguments when they rationalize emotional tendencies. "I'm going to play this K8s for a raise in middle position, because, umm, it will really tilt the raiser if I beat him with that hand." That's probably bullshit. We want to play the K8s because we like to play hands, not because of some elaborate metagame mouse trap.

Any very good/decent player can tell you the exact reasons for why they choose to play a hand that should not be played. Bad players will justify it by saying it's an "image play" or other metagame considerations, but if you often ask "which players are the table are you trying to affect?" they cannot answer.

"I'm going to keep the short stack in so I can continue to steal blinds." That's probably bullshit, too. It's an extremely rare case that we wouldn't prefer to have the chips in our own stacks. This can be a rationalization of a desire to avoid near coin flips, even when they are +EV.

This one is very rare, but I have done it myself. I have played in SNGs before where you just get this retarded chip lead 4 handed, where you might have 75 or 80% of the chips 4-handed and each of the other 3 players has 3 or 4 BBs. Say stacks are 10k to 2k to 2k to 1k with blinds at 1/200. I have called the all-in of the shortstacked player with hands as weak as 8 high because I know that if I double him up, the others will continue to let me steal their blinds in an effort to make money in the sng. I give up an edge in that hand, but the overall idea that I'm gonna be able to essentially win the sng 4-handed makes it a very +EV proposition for me. Of course, I could always get lucky and bust him out of the tourney and then it's a similar situation.

[simo_8ball 0]

[x] Don't pass up edges.

That'll do. :)The exceptions are so unbelievably rare and abstract that it's not worth modifying the rule.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Any very good/decent player can tell you the exact reasons for why they choose to play a hand that should not be played. Bad players will justify it by saying it's an "image play" or other metagame considerations, but if you often ask "which players are the table are you trying to affect?" they cannot answer.

I'm most concerned about a competent player believing he's doing something for a metagame reason that he can articulate when in fact he's doing it for some other reason.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I'm most concerned about a competent player believing he's doing something for a metagame reason that he can articulate when in fact he's doing it for some other reason.

It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference.I'd want to hear something along the lines of:I play with players X and Y all of the time and I'm positive that they think I play too tight and too weakly and so I'm gonna start raising 78hh UTG when it's one of their blinds and I'm gonna hope to get to show the hand down so that they'll have to reevaluate his play of me and give me more action when I do open pots, even from EP, since I do have mostly tight standards. I think that I might be giving up a little edge each time I do this, but once they see it I'm sure they'll remember (becuase they're good players) and they'll be less likely to give me credit for a hand. So, I will hopefully invest somewhere between 15-20BBs into this pot and get to showdown and it will benefit me immensely agains these regulars in the future because now they'll call my 4BB opener with weaker hands that they never would've given me action with prior.

[David_Nicoson 1]

It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference.I'd want to hear something along the lines of:I play with players X and Y all of the time and I'm positive that they think I play too tight and too weakly and so I'm gonna start raising 78hh UTG when it's one of their blinds and I'm gonna hope to get to show the hand down so that they'll have to reevaluate his play of me and give me more action when I do open pots, even from EP, since I do have mostly tight standards. I think that I might be giving up a little edge each time I do this, but once they see it I'm sure they'll remember (becuase they're good players) and they'll be less likely to give me credit for a hand. So, I will hopefully invest somewhere between 15-20BBs into this pot and get to showdown and it will benefit me immensely agains these regulars in the future because now they'll call my 4BB opener with weaker hands that they never would've given me action with prior.

It's possible to construct arguments from true statements that still aren't the real reason for the action.I want to have a child because I believe that I can pass on my values and improve the world. Children can be a lot of fun. Raising them is rewarding and meaningful.All true, but we mostly have children because we have an instinct to do so. Or because our women have an instinct to do so and we have an instinct to get laid.

[Acid_Knight 2]

It's possible to construct arguments from true statements that still aren't the real reason for the action.I want to have a child because I believe that I can pass on my values and improve the world. Children can be a lot of fun. Raising them is rewarding and meaningful.All true, but we mostly have children because we have an instinct to do so. Or because our women have an instinct to do so and we have an instinct to get laid.

I feel like I cannot argue against you because I'm pretty sure I'm right and I'm pretty sure you know this in principle, but you have much better examples than I do and you post things like this that I cannot possibly argue with