my thoughts on tuan le/hasan habib incident

[rexmundi 0]

I think we should discount Paul's opinion completely. He's just a "math guy" anyway. Hasan Habib obviously had a better "feel" for the table.Great laydown Hasan. Way to look into Tuan's soul. Ice

hillarious..

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

Why is "Math Guy" such a slur?I don't get it at all.. well maybe I do... here's my guess...Average Anti-Math Guy poster:1) Hated schoolB) Really hated Math in School3) Thought that Math has no use in real life, there's no reason to take it seriously or study it.D)Loves poker, loves to gamble, loves been doing it since he was a kid, loves it twice...5) HATES the idea that Math could have anything at all to do with something he loves so much, something that he could not only use in real life, but prosper from.F) Feels inadiquenate and insecure about his own Math knowledge back ground due to his uninterest in the subject in High school and College.7) Rather than confronting his fears and inadiquacies ( yeah I know, My spelling sucks.. save it), He sticks his head right into that sand, by clutching onto the pros that affirm that Poker isn't all math, and bashing on the ones who defend math.I admit that I cruised through Math in high school, and Grudgingly plodded through it in College. And now, I truly truly regret it... When I saw Hanson Call Esfandiari on the bad boys of poker with 10-8 suited, Rather than bash Gus as a crazy maniac, I realised there was something I fundimental I just didn't get about the math of poker.So now I want to know it. I want to learn the Math... if anyone has any resouces for me, books or web links, please hit me with them.... Thanks..And to all you Anti-Math guys.. face your fears, it's not too late

[ofplayer 0]

I'm not saying poker is in any way, shape, or form my forte.But isn't it possible that "the math" can be exploited by someone using a higher, more complex order of math? For example, if the math says that you need to call an all in with any two cards both ten or higher, and any pocket pairs, and fold the rest of your hands, then can't someone exploit you by not moving in with J10 anymore but instead moving in with 9-8 suited and getting the fold equity to trump that mathematical system?, and of course get other big hands like AQ to offset that evaluation? In other words, if someone has that formula, you would never play a hand within that formula, you'd only play hands that do well against that formula and hands that that formula doesn't do that well against. (9-8 suited is only gonna be in real trouble against 88-AA, all the other times it's less than a 2-1 underdog, and you gain a lot of fold equity, like I said earlier, and it's a coin flip against the lower PPs)I'd think that any time you stipulate that there is a set X which contains hands {a-p} that there would always be a mathematical way to exploit that system in poker. In other words, every time a consistent mathematical pattern is employed, there would be a way to exploit this mathematical system if you knew what the pattern is.In other words, math can be trumped by more sophisticated math. It's still math, but sometimes the initial evaluation of what should be done in a given situation doesn't work because there would be a way to beat. And not only can the initial set of math be trumped by more sophisticated math, but the more sophisticated math can be trumped by even more sophisticated math.Just for note, and I'm not sure if this just shows my ignorance, but I think Paul's point is that everything can be translated into math: reads are a way of limiting the set as to which you can apply the math. Paul's way about thinking about the game is to translate everything into math, including different orders of math. It's one way to look at the game. I personally think that thinking about the game that way makes it harder to read people, but if you can both read people and think about the whole game as math as different systems in different orders, then that's a certain way to think about it. For instance, Paul's small bet in his journal against Daniel is still math, it's just a second order of math. And rarer but still existent is a third order in which both people are thinking at the second order of math and understand (or think they understand) what people would do in certain situations, and so they both shift their play accordingly, and then make another shift to counter the shift their opponent has made.I'm probably just way off base, but I'd appreciate it if Paul could appease me.

[Meatwad 0]

I admit that I cruised through Math in high school, and Grudgingly plodded through it in College. And now, I truly truly regret it... When I saw Hanson Call Esfandiari on the bad boys of poker with 10-8 suited, Rather than bash Gus as a crazy maniac, I realised there was something I fundimental I just didn't get about the math of poker.

Antonio said when someone asked him on ub that Gus called because he put Antonio on a smaller pair so i think that was more of a read than math. Of course they cut to commercial while Gus was talking to him about it.

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

I admit that I cruised through Math in high school, and Grudgingly plodded through it in College. And now, I truly truly regret it... When I saw Hanson Call Esfandiari on the bad boys of poker with 10-8 suited, Rather than bash Gus as a crazy maniac, I realised there was something I fundimental I just didn't get about the math of poker.

Antonio said when someone asked him on ub that Gus called because he put Antonio on a smaller pair so i think that was more of a read than math. Of course they cut to commercial while Gus was talking to him about it.

Um.. that's the whole point I've begun to realize.. the point that Paul is making... Reads ARE math...

[KDawgCometh 2]

Gus has explained himself many times before. He is an amazing Backgammon player and is great at deducing odds on the spot. He is a walking calculator and practices a form of game theory that I know I don't have the brain capacity to fully comprehend, and I would classify myself as a fairly bright person. I also think Gus reads people much much better then he lets on too

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

Gus has explained himself many times before. He is an amazing Backgammon player and is great at deducing odds on the spot. He is a walking calculator and practices a form of game theory that I know I don't have the brain capacity to fully comprehend, and I would classify myself as a fairly bright person. I also think Gus reads people much much better then he lets on too

I want to know what that game theory is, I want to learn it. Because right now, saying Gus practices a form of game theory is about as meaningful to me as saying, " Gus uses Magic". Maybe It's a little.. hubric for me to think that I could, but hey, trying to learn it would be more practicle and realistic than wishing I was on the WPT.

[Anksa 0]

Staking was discussed earlier...and most seem to think staking is becuase of the other player not having money.The problem here is players owning pieces of another...to smooth out their fluctuations i suppose.Even Daniel does this - don't you Daniel?Not saying that is nesc bad...but people don't like it becuase of what can happen when you end up playing agaijnst people you have a stake in.

[KDawgCometh 2]

Gus has explained himself many times before. He is an amazing Backgammon player and is great at deducing odds on the spot. He is a walking calculator and practices a form of game theory that I know I don't have the brain capacity to fully comprehend, and I would classify myself as a fairly bright person. I also think Gus reads people much much better then he lets on too

I want to know what that game theory is, I want to learn it. Because right now, saying Gus practices a form of game theory is about as meaningful to me as saying, " Gus uses Magic". Maybe It's a little.. hubric for me to think that I could, but hey, trying to learn it would be more practicle and realistic than wishing I was on the WPT.

Andy Bloch and Chris Ferguson are game theory experts themselves. ITs a mathmatical thing where you put your opponenet on a range of hands with some sort of formula. I think that's right, but don't even take that as a full out fact. I know the gist of it, but would not even consider myself as someone who can talk about the topic with full knowledge

[Emptyeye 0]

I think the full definition of Game Theory goes beyond merely poker (Though poker is obviously one application). Yeah, a lot of math is involved, though I couldn't tell you precisely what. To drift from topic a little, Gus made the call on Antonio precisely for the reasons stated--Gus had him on a small-mid pocket pair, and was thus actually getting correct odds to call with his ten-high.People think Gus is a maniac. Perhaps he is, but he's also a great post-flop player (Master post-flop play and, really, you have a green light to play any two cards you want), and an expert at putting opponents on ranges of hands such that he can make moves that seem insane to most people--basically, the Doyle Brunson "I'm going to be hyper aggressive with everything because the odds are in my favor you don't have anything worth calling me with" refined and taken to another level.

[Absolute 0]

There are some idiots on this forum.Anyone who has seen the math on this fold knows that it is a horrible fold, beyond all reads or "feel of the table".It's not even a marginally bad fold, its a horrible fold.And some of you are arguing with Paul Phillips about this.Oh yeah, the racist Diabolical is an idiot.

[extempore 1]

But isn't it possible that "the math" can be exploited by someone using a higher, more complex order of math?

You're on your way to discovering game theory. Keep going higher-order with the other guy until you both land on the same strategy, which neither of you can find a way to exploit. That is optimal play.

For example, if the math says that you need to call an all in with any two cards both ten or higher, and any pocket pairs, and fold the rest of your hands, then can't someone exploit you by not moving in with J10 anymore but instead moving in with 9-8 suited and getting the fold equity to trump that mathematical system?

If you are playing optimally there is no adjustment they can make to improve their results. That's the whole idea. For instance the optimal strategy in rock-paper-scissors is to always go random. There is no way for an opponent to do better than break even against you... but you can't do any better than break even against them either.It is obviously possible to do better than optimal play; exploitive strategies deviate from optimal play to get a better result against sub-optimal opponents. But as soon as you deviate you leave yourself open to be exploited as well, so optimal play (whatever it is, nobody knows) should be your ground state, and then you can figure out how to take advantage of peoples' errors with the minimum possible amount of deviation.

I'd think that any time you stipulate that there is a set X which contains hands {a-p} that there would always be a mathematical way to exploit that system in poker.  In other words, every time a consistent mathematical pattern is employed, there would be a way to exploit this mathematical system if you knew what the pattern is.

All the "consistent mathematical patterns" in this context exhibit elements of randomness. If there are three bets in the pot on the river when I bet and you know I am bluffing 20% of the time, how are you going to exploit this consistent mathematical system? No matter what you do, no matter how often you choose to call or fold, your expectation is zero. I have removed you from the equation.

And not only can the initial set of math be trumped by more sophisticated math, but the more sophisticated math can be trumped by even more sophisticated math.

It may or may not be intuitive that the series converges.

[Absolute 0]

At what point does one then digress from his or her metaphysical stance on the universe? His or her ontological being? When does one put aside the factors of one's primordial freedom and realize...Sometimes it's just a fucking card game and there is a correct and incorrect decision.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

Sometimes it's just a ****ing card game and there is a correct and incorrect decision.

The wisest, most important thing I've personally learned from posting and reading on this forum regularly is that poker is a very, VERY objective game. At low limits, which is all I plan on playing for a while, there almost always is a mathematically correct or a mathematically incorrect decision. The difference to what these decisions can do to your bankroll is quantifiable and necessarily calculable.I hope this thread helps people who didn't quite realize this that it's entirely true.

[Guest]

But isn't it possible that "the math" can be exploited by someone using a higher, more complex order of math?

If the math is done properly this isn't the case. The best example I can think of is the following:The game is head's up no limit hold'em with no blinds or antes. Your opponent goes all-in before you act. After you look at your hand, what hands would you call with?The answer is VERY dependent upon what hands your opponent will go all-in with in this situation. You should call with any hand that is at least a 50% chance to win against his possible range of hands as a whole. You only get in trouble if you overestimate his range of hands (you think your opponent is looser than he actually is.) Not calling with a hand that is profitable costs you in expected income though don't cause you to lose more, but calling with hands that are worse than 50% to win do hurt you.All of this hinges on how accurate you determine your opponents range of hands. Your opponent can change this but it's still the same math, just a sort of chess game of what hands your opponent will go all-in with.Trying to translate this to the Habib case is much harder. First, because of pot odds you only have to win about 1/3 of the time for it be profitable. Also, the range of Tuan's hands is quite large knowing how he plays. He is a very loose and aggressive player and is able to make the all-in move with a VERY wide array of hands. KJs is almost guaranteed to be at worst a coin flip and is quite likely to be ahead based on Tuan's playing style.There are also a myriad of other issues that can come into play but almost ALL of them point towards calling in this situation rather than folding with the known information available to us. One such piece of information is the amount in the pot in relation to Tuan's chip stack. It is HUGE so it is VERY worthwhile for Tuan to try and steal it by going all-in. With the blinds at this point, it is reasonable for Tuan to try and steal the pot with almost ANY hand, not just reasonable or even monsters.Tuan loosening his standards makes it that much more profitable for Hasan to call with KJs, and based on Tuan's past playing it is VERY unlikely Tuan is all of a sudden playing tight enough to make a call with KJs unprofitable. The added option of knocking a person out and be guaranteed second place money AND get rid of an aggressive player also leads to it being a good call, even if slightly unprofitable.Other than Hasan just making a bad play (which I think it was), the only way Hasan folding being the right play is with him having a large piece of Tuan as Paul was nice enough to calculate in his blog. This is the only way that mathematically, it was a good fold.That being said, the better question is "What can we do to prevent softplaying and collusion in big tournaments?" This is far more productive and I honestly don't know what the answer is since there is a huge gray area between collusion/cheating and just making a bad play as this proving quite well.As to McDee and basic game theory. Try a search on google, I've dabbled in it a little and that's how I found some interesting basics on the subject though I don't remember any links.ZaraEdit: Paul said this much better and more succinctly than I. The paper-rock-scissors is far better a choice of examples.

[Nikki_N 17]

This is what makes it so tough to talk about poker online.If computer forums were like poker forums:A: "To reboot your machine press ctrl-alt-delete."B:  "I did exactly what you said and it didn't work."A: "What did you do?"B: "I poured a glass of water into the case, licked the keyboard, and winked thrice."A: "That's exactly what I said?"B: "More or less."

Ok, that was hillarious.

[Stylistic 0]

I promise that I will do this at every final table that I am at in the future in any tournament that is considsered a major.  [...] Hasan was also out of position here as well should he just call. Hasan was at the table and may have read Tuan as strong. I would be more concerned by a standard raise than an all in move when the short stack would only have 5BB's left.

I don't think you'll have to worry about living up to that promise anytime soon.

LOL OMG THAT IS FUNNY

[HarryDemetriou 0]

So called pros who complain about all these bad/internet/dead money players although imo entitled to their opinion are simply not good players.By definition a good player is one who adapts to the prevailing conditions the best eg the blind structure chip stack sizes and types of opponents at thier table.If they cannot adapt successfully then they are simply not good players.In the same way you tread carefully against a big blind player who plays for free against you when you decide to limp with aces (they could be holding any two cards and fit any flop in any way) so too do you play with caution against a weak or non experienced player who may well call you with a hand that you yourself would fold regardless of your raise and size of bet.It's part of being a good player who adapts and it's as simple as that.Long live the large fields and many thanks to television and the internet sites for helping promote poker and getting it to where it is today.and finally............The best internet players (IMHO) are most likely better than the best "Live" players and do not deserve the disrespect they seem to get from these same so called whingeing pros.The very best internet players come from a VERY LARGE subset of players (hundreds of thousands) whilst the best of the live players come from a pool of no more than around 500-1000 players. Admittedly there are a lot more bad players from the itnernet too than existed prior to this explosion of new faces but that still doesn't mean that the better ones are not at least as good as the best live players.

[ddudley 0]

and finally............The best internet players (IMHO) are most likely better than the best "Live" players and do not deserve the disrespect they seem to get from these same so called whingeing pros.The very best internet players come from a VERY LARGE subset of players (hundreds of thousands) whilst the best of the live players come from a pool of no more than around 500-1000 players. Admittedly there are a lot more bad players from the itnernet too than existed prior to this explosion of new faces but that still doesn't mean that the better ones are not at least as good as the best live players.

Nice post Harry... I've had the same theory for a while now. I'm glad to know I wasn't completely deluding myself.whingeing = what in American English? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the intricacies of British English.

[ofplayer 0]

First, I apologize to Paul by misunderstanding what you meant by strategy Paul. Let me make sure I understand this correctly...There is a perfect strategy that is theoretically possible that the play involves making a certain play a random percentage of the time. For example, it is very conceivable (I'm not making any claims because I don't UNDERSTAND poker right now, but I am interested) that A10 suited UTG 8 handed could be a play that it would be correct to fold 25% of the time, call 50% of the time, and raise 25% of the time. This is what you're saying rather than: "There is a correct play, and that is to ALWAYS bet when you called a 2nd position raise in 5th position, you have AJ, and the flop comes J86, two spades, and everyone checks to you." The nature of the latter claim I disagree with, while the nature of the former claim I do agree with (I'm not talking about the plays themselves).If that's what you mean by strategy, then I think I understand. If it's the latter then I still don't understand.In this sense, I agree, except for the three practical points:1. it's very hard to apply, because it's VERY VERY hard to calculate, and the fact of the matter is that tells kind of have to exist, and tells sort of ruin the perfectness of the mathematical system, since if the other guy reads you better than you read them, then unfortunately that skews the math to their favor. Really, there's just no practical method of doing this perfectly, it's too hard. 2. It's not the best way to make money off most players.3. Humans just don't do that sort of thing. If you tell yourself: "Over the long term, I should do x 90% of the time in this situation", and you have 1000 of those commands in your head, most humans just simplify that to "Do X all the time in that situation". It's wrong, but people generally do that.I'm probably way off base, as usual...Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Some of what Paul wrote:You're on your way to discovering game theory. Keep going higher-order with the other guy until you both land on the same strategy, which neither of you can find a way to exploit. That is optimal play.If you are playing optimally there is no adjustment they can make to improve their results. That's the whole idea. For instance the optimal strategy in rock-paper-scissors is to always go random. There is no way for an opponent to do better than break even against you... but you can't do any better than break even against them either.It may or may not be intuitive that the series converges.

[ddudley 0]

Nothing proved, the mathematics are unaffected, but the 10 other random people think folding was the correct decision.

Indeed, it's funny seeing how many people think that our knowing tuan's cards would somehow uncover new insights regarding whether hasan should have called.

And all along I thought Paul's screen name here was Smasharoo... I guess he's using his new one now.

[mrdannyg 274]

i've noticed a couple people catching on to it, and some people not. to help understand guy's like paul, and why they are excellent at poker, it is probably helpful to remember that (for all intensive purposes) there is ALWAYS higher-level math.i have studied economics, mathematics and game theory, and i can only begin to work my way around paul's reasoning often.to exemplify it, picture this:you are heads-up, with 40% of chips. you are in a situation where you are quite sure you are a favourite in the hand, and your opponent has put you all-in. obviously, the fact that you might lose the tournament if you lose the hand means you may not want to call if you're only 51%. however, this is because you believe you may be able to outplay your opponent. now attach a mathematical value to your belief of your ability to win the tournament if you fold, and another for your ability if you call and win the hand, etc, etc. do the math, and you'll have your result.to paraphrase paul, optimal play removes your opponent from the equation, except as a variable. for a math player, beating predictable opponents is easy, and it is even a proper strategy against world-class players, since high-level math takes human behaviour into account, and can therefore counter-strategize.sorry to ramble, but basically don't think of 'math' as just pot odds on flush draws.daniel

[rexmundi 0]

1.  it's very hard to apply, because it's VERY VERY hard to calculate, and the fact of the matter is that tells kind of have to exist, and tells sort of ruin the perfectness of the mathematical system, since if the other guy reads you better than you read them, then unfortunately that skews the math to their favor.  Really, there's just no practical method of doing this perfectly, it's too hard.  

ahh. don't know why you're coming at paulp this way, but as my ol' pa used to say, "son, by useing the word very, you weaken your very arguement very tremendously." yeah, muh pah was a wizeman!

[TheIceman05 0]

You guys are all kinda misinterpreting...The idea is this...Make the following assumptions:1) You and your opponent both understand optimal strategy.2) You and your opponent both KNOW that the other understands optimal stragegy.3) Neither of you are giving any significant amount of information away with your bodyAt this point, the idea becomes"Since every strategy designed to take advantage of my opponent's play is in turn vulnerable to a counter-strategy designed to take advantage of my now non-optimal play, I must design some strategy that takes my opponent out of the equation. For example, if there 75 dollars in the pot on the river, and I and 20% of my 25 dollar bets are bluffs, my opponent's EV for calling and folding is 0 (zero, goose egg, nada), even if he is completely aware that I'm bluffing 1/5 river bets. All he can do is close his eyes, and hope to guess right. He can design no strategy to combat this situation to his advantage."And that's game theory, in a very small nutshell. Ice

[faisal 0]

Where's Horatio when you need him?