Jump to content

lederer's take on heads up w/ daniel:


Recommended Posts

It seems that the popular thing to these days is talk about how much trouble I'm in in all of these matches, yet neglect to play me for one reason or another.  
Yeah, he doesn't have time to play daniel, but he would probably wait in line for hours to take a swing at Andy Beale.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with Daniel conceiving this promotion to help the Wynn. What is wrong however is to make innaccurate implications about someone turning him down. He gains from an even bet. Others don't. "-Sklansky
There is something wrong with that statement. If someone was ACTUALLY a significant favorite over me they WOULD gain from an even bet- equity. If someone was a 2-1 favorite over me how can you possibly state that they wouldn't gain from an even bet. He might to re-read that book called, "Getting the Best of It" or "Theory of Poker." Both very good books :club::D
Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that the popular thing to these days is talk about how much trouble I'm in in all of these matches, yet neglect to play me for one reason or another.  
Yeah, he doesn't have time to play daniel, but he would probably wait in line for hours to take a swing at Andy Beale.
I sense sarcasm - but if I had the skills of a top-tier poker player I would definately rather stand in line to take a ton of money off of Andy Beale than play DN heads-up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that the popular thing to these days is talk about how much trouble I'm in in all of these matches, yet neglect to play me for one reason or another.  
Yeah, he doesn't have time to play daniel, but he would probably wait in line for hours to take a swing at Andy Beale.
I sense sarcasm - but if I had the skills of a top-tier poker player I would definately rather stand in line to take a ton of money off of Andy Beale than play DN heads-up.
Regardless what the higher EV situation is, my point is he claims he's too busy, but like I said, he'd play Beale in a minute.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that the popular thing to these days is talk about how much trouble I'm in in all of these matches, yet neglect to play me for one reason or another.  
Yeah, he doesn't have time to play daniel, but he would probably wait in line for hours to take a swing at Andy Beale.
I sense sarcasm - but if I had the skills of a top-tier poker player I would definately rather stand in line to take a ton of money off of Andy Beale than play DN heads-up.
Regardless what the higher EV situation is, my point is he claims he's too busy, but like I said, he'd play Beale in a minute.
ya, because 500k for 8 hours is just like playing beal and winning 9.3 million in that same amount of time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that the popular thing to these days is talk about how much trouble I'm in in all of these matches, yet neglect to play me for one reason or another.
Yeah, he doesn't have time to play daniel, but he would probably wait in line for hours to take a swing at Andy Beale.
I sense sarcasm - but if I had the skills of a top-tier poker player I would definately rather stand in line to take a ton of money off of Andy Beale than play DN heads-up.
Regardless what the higher EV situation is, my point is he claims he's too busy, but like I said, he'd play Beale in a minute.
ya, because 500k for 8 hours is just like playing beal and winning 9.3 million in that same amount of time.
Doesn't matter. He said "I think I have large positive EV in a few games, but I am not playing any cash game poker these days, too busy"Direct quote. That isn't contestable. He could have said "well if I had more pos EV then it would be worth my time", but he didn't.I could argue with you about which has more pos EV for Lederer, however, we're not arguing about that, now we're arguing why we are arguing.Bottom line is he said he doesn't have time. Period. Not "it's not worth my time".
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sklansky and malmuth are so full of it. I really doubt that Daniel gets any more from the Wynn through playing these matches than he would if he decided to play his hours at the 1-2 limit holdem tables. The only valid excuse that they have put forth is that the stakes are too high for their bankroll. To play heads up 100k matches with a 1% edge, one needs an enormous bankroll. It's the Kelly Criterion. They write so much crap and everyone worships them because they use high school statistics class. Everyone talks about how they use higher math in Theory of Poker and their other books. Where is the higher math?What did they write in Theory of Poker that someone with a very elementary understanding of game theory couldn't figure out for themselves? And honestly you don't even need to know game theory. Anyone can intuit that if your opponent bluffs %50 of the time and you are getting better than 1:1, then you call. And that section about "optimal bluffing" is not really about optimal bluffing. It actually means that you are bluffing at a frequency such that it doesn't matter how often your opponent folds or calls. All that accomplishes is that you will get the expectation inherent to your game. No matter how bad or how good your opponent is, you will get that same expectation. But poker is a zero sum game meaning that if everyone played at the same level, everyone should break even. If your main goal is to make money, why would you ever use this optimal bluffing strategy? You want to take advantage of your opponent's tendencies to drift away from the optimal bluffing/calling strategies. If they call too much, bluff less, etc. etc. Another stupid thing they say about loose Holdem games is that you shouldn't bet on the flop in big pots, but you should wait to the turn to knock them out! NO. Tell me which game you would want to play:The pot is $17.5. The board is A K Q. You have T2. Malmuth has A2.game 1: You see another card. Basically you are around a 10:1 to hit your gutshot so your EV is about $1.5 probably.game 2: You see two cards for $3 ($1 flop bet $2 turn bet). This time your are about 17% to hit the gutshot. So EV is .17 * ($17.5 + 2 * 3) but minus that $3 charge which comes out to an EV of about $0.9. Is there any pot size where you wouldn't want malmuth to wait for the turn to bet and knock you out??.........This was probably the wrong thread to rant and ramble about Sklansky and Malmuth, but at least it's pretty buried here. I think i said one thing that pertained to the heads up matches.. ':roll:'

Link to post
Share on other sites
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with Daniel conceiving this promotion to help the Wynn. What is wrong however is to make innaccurate implications about someone turning him down. He gains from an even bet. Others don't. "-Sklansky
There is something wrong with that statement. If someone was ACTUALLY a significant favorite over me they WOULD gain from an even bet- equity. If someone was a 2-1 favorite over me how can you possibly state that they wouldn't gain from an even bet. He might to re-read that book called, "Getting the Best of It" or "Theory of Poker." Both very good books :club::D
First of all...you are too good a player to be a 2-1 underdog.....AND there is nobody that bad to be a 2-1 underdog against you either....You lay 2-1 to any "competent" poker player...and just sign me up to take the underdog....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...