Jump to content

matros' cardplayer article


Recommended Posts

And alf, why don't you actually refute some of the points in the article made instead of mindlessly bashing the author?
There is no point to be made.Mattros says that the chances of winning for the average player is 1 in 1,024 (the number of entries)....that is flawed.But lets just say for arguements sake that he is right.....Then I could argue that you are correct to call with 32 offsuit in that spot.He tries to make a mathematical point...but his numbers really don't add up....WHY? BECAUSE HE MADE THEM UP.....to suit his arguement of course.The villain revealing his hand is just....well....stupid.
I emailed Matt to see if he'd take the time to respond to this thread/ defend his article. In the meantime...Alf, how is calling with 32 off vs AK the same as calling with QQ? You said you could argue that based on Matt's logic/math, and I'd be interested to hear you do so. Also, could you point out where his math is incorrect, or 'made up'?Not a flame, I just think if you make statements like that you should back it up with something substantial. For the record, I am not sure I agree with Matt in this case, but nothing that I have seen said brings his mathematical abilities into question.Patrick
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I emailed Matt to see if he'd take the time to respond to this thread/ defend his article.  In the meantime...Alf, how is calling with 32 off vs AK the same as calling with QQ?  You said you could argue that based on Matt's logic/math, and I'd be interested to hear you do so.  Also, could you point out where his math is incorrect, or 'made up'?Not a flame, I just think if you make statements like that you should back it up with something substantial.  For the record, I am not sure I agree with Matt in this case, but nothing that I have seen said brings his mathematical abilities into question.Patrick
Matt says that the chances of winning for the average player is 1 to (The amount of entries)....Now...lets say that there are 1,000 entries.....and you find 32o in the BB and the SB pushes....what is the worst shape you can be in?.....Now.....lets say that you increase your chance of winning by being 100% ahead of whatever the "average" stack is in a tournament.......what percentage do you think you would increase your chances by doubling up to stay at least 100% above the average? Lets say 10% to be modest.......if you do the raw math.....you come up with a system where by you would be required to double up everytime you reached the "average" stack number.....THUS....the math never beats you until you are heads up for the whole thing.That type of mathematical monogamy is incorrect. It assumes too much....it assumes that the numbers will stay true. as an aside....you do know that it is entirely possible that you flip a coin and it falls on Heads 600 times in a row.....you do know that? Right? Mathematical monogamy would suggest that THAT is impossible since the odds of Heads coming up over Tails is 50% and vice versa.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please use the example Matros provided when arguing his point. This was not an online tournament and hypothetically you can see the opponents cards.I have seen other pros (Paul Phillips, Greg Raymer) say they are willing to push small (55/45) edges in a tournament regardless of the stage so I dont think Matros' math or philosophy is wrong. I just believe some people think they are better post flop and would rather get their money in at that time, even if they are not mathematically correct to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I emailed Matt to see if he'd take the time to respond to this thread/ defend his article.  In the meantime...Alf, how is calling with 32 off vs AK the same as calling with QQ?  You said you could argue that based on Matt's logic/math, and I'd be interested to hear you do so.  Also, could you point out where his math is incorrect, or 'made up'?Not a flame, I just think if you make statements like that you should back it up with something substantial.  For the record, I am not sure I agree with Matt in this case, but nothing that I have seen said brings his mathematical abilities into question.Patrick
Matt says that the chances of winning for the average player is 1 to (The amount of entries)....Now...lets say that there are 1,000 entries.....and you find 32o in the BB and the SB pushes....what is the worst shape you can be in?.....Now.....lets say that you increase your chance of winning by being 100% ahead of whatever the "average" stack is in a tournament.......what percentage do you think you would increase your chances by? Lets say 10% to be modest.......if you do the raw math.....you come up with a system where by you would be required to double up everytime you reached the "average" stack number.....THUS....the math never beats you until you are heads up for the whole thing.That type of mathematical monogamy is incorrect. It assumes too much....it assumes that the numbers will stay true. as an aside....you do know that it is entirely possible that you flip a coin and it falls on Heads 600 times in a row.....you do know that? Right? Mathematical monogamy would suggest that THAT is impossible since the odds of Heads coming up over Tails is 50% and vice versa.
Thank you sir; very interesting. I'll leave it to the math geeks (I say that in a loving manner :-) ) to say if that is all correct or not. As far as the 32 o example, he goes into depth saying a very good player can take a 48 percent edge, but he really doesn't go into how big of a dog it would be acceptable for an 'average' player to go with. (AK being a 65-35 fav or so if no suits are shared). I see where you are going with you assertion though based on that. Patrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt said he had no interest in posting on this thread, but he did discuss the article in a thread on RGP. He also gave this old RGP thread as the inspiration for the article:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gamblin...f4c1dfa3391fb68Bill Chen has a book coming out soon called The Mathematics of Poker, and a few of the other names on the thread should be recognizable. Barbara Yoon (not real name) was also a mathematician of incredible ability.Patrick

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I really don't like about the article is that he has no mention whatsoever of playing styles. I would like to think that as a tighter player I do have the ability to recognizea better situation and get my money in better. If I were a looser player, I would think that since I am playing more pots, and most likely winning more pots, that I would have to put my money in getting slightly worse on my money. I would also think that having the larger stack would mean that you would be able to bully people around more, which is very important if you are LAG.I remember listening to the WSOP broadcast on Cardplayer and hearing Hellmuth say that Barch's stack was worth 2 or 3 mil more than it was since he was playing tight. I view my own play the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing I really don't like about the article is that he has no mention whatsoever of playing styles. I would like to think that as a tighter player I do have the ability to recognizea better situation and get my money in better. If I were a looser player, I would think that since I am playing more pots, and most likely winning more pots, that I would have to put my money in getting slightly worse on my money. I would also think that having the larger stack would mean that you would be able to bully people around more, which is very important if you are LAG.I remember listening to the WSOP broadcast on Cardplayer and hearing Hellmuth say that Barch's stack was worth 2 or 3 mil more than it was since he was playing tight. I view my own play the same way.
Yeah, playing styles are a factor in the overall picture, but I think Matt was looking at it more from a mathematical POV. Some players are much better at playing a big stack then others, so I would think that group would lean towards taking the coin flip early more often then your average tournament player. Patrick
Link to post
Share on other sites
I emailed Matt to see if he'd take the time to respond to this thread/ defend his article. In the meantime...Alf, how is calling with 32 off vs AK the same as calling with QQ? You said you could argue that based on Matt's logic/math, and I'd be interested to hear you do so. Also, could you point out where his math is incorrect, or 'made up'?Not a flame, I just think if you make statements like that you should back it up with something substantial. For the record, I am not sure I agree with Matt in this case, but nothing that I have seen said brings his mathematical abilities into question.Patrick
Matt says that the chances of winning for the average player is 1 to (The amount of entries)....Now...lets say that there are 1,000 entries.....and you find 32o in the BB and the SB pushes....what is the worst shape you can be in?.....Now.....lets say that you increase your chance of winning by being 100% ahead of whatever the "average" stack is in a tournament.......what percentage do you think you would increase your chances by doubling up to stay at least 100% above the average? Lets say 10% to be modest.......if you do the raw math.....you come up with a system where by you would be required to double up everytime you reached the "average" stack number.....THUS....the math never beats you until you are heads up for the whole thing.That type of mathematical monogamy is incorrect. It assumes too much....it assumes that the numbers will stay true. as an aside....you do know that it is entirely possible that you flip a coin and it falls on Heads 600 times in a row.....you do know that? Right? Mathematical monogamy would suggest that THAT is impossible since the odds of Heads coming up over Tails is 50% and vice versa.
The chance of the average player winning is obviously 1/number of players. That's the definition of average.So what do you think your odds of winning a 1000 players tournament are?What do you think your odds of winning a 999 players tournament in which you start with twice the chips that the other players start with?All you need is those two numbers and you know whether you should call with 23o or with QQ or with KK or with AA...The article gave one way of estimating those numbers and determined that a call with QQ was good (and 23o woul d be bad). Just give the two numbers and the math is mechanical.Of course if you care about finishing in the money and not just winning then the numbers you want to determine are your expected winnings in both situations.As for the coin flipping, the math tells you it's impossible for heads to NOT come up 600 times in a row if you flip coins for long enough.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My friend and I argue about this all the time. I don't believe on putting all my money in on a coinflip but he does. I'd rather wait for a better spot to get my money in. If i'm tired in a low limit mtt then yea i might put my money in on coinflip first hand but otherwise, i'd rather be a dominating favorite then a coinflip. I'd have to agree with DN on this one.
You didn't even read the article, did you? Because if you did, you would realize how dumb your bolded statement was, and is. Care to elaborate?Who is DN and what is their position on this? I can't find it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?"
Better to lose it in 30 seconds than spend hours playing and bubble. You don't waste a tournament by taking a coinflip early and losing, because when you win the coinflip you're better setting yourself up for success later in the tourney. 1 1st place win and being the first out 49 times is better than 50 barely in the money finishes.
So what you're saying is that you'd rather put lose a tournament in 30 seconds if at BEST you're in a coinflip situation or most likely dominated then actually play poker to get chips and put your money in when you're a favorite? Another thing, most people who play this reckless and think that they need to double up early to win a tournament most likely don't win because a tournament doesn't last 30 seconds. Doubling up on the first hand is only a confidence booster but other than that, it means nothing because the blinds are so small that it won't even afftect your play.
You obviously play for the enjoyment. You would probably sit and get blinded out, all the time wanting to "get your money's worth". Myself, on the other hand, would happily double up early with 53%. Why? Because you have no idea whether or not you will actually double up. What if you run into Aces, or get cracked by a set? You can't afford not to put your money in here. And doubling up on the first hand puts you in a completely different place than being even stacked to the others.Keep to the penny home game and the online freerolls.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing I really don't like about the article is that he has no mention whatsoever of playing styles.  I would like to think that as a tighter player I do have the ability to recognizea better situation and get my money in better.  If I were a looser player, I would think that since I am playing more pots, and most likely winning more pots, that I would have to put my money in getting slightly worse on my money.  I would also think that having the larger stack would mean that you would be able to bully people around more, which is very important if you are LAG.I remember listening to the WSOP broadcast on Cardplayer and hearing Hellmuth say that Barch's stack was worth 2 or 3 mil more than it was since he was playing tight.  I view my own play the same way.
Yeah, playing styles are a factor in the overall picture, but I think Matt was looking at it more from a mathematical POV. Some players are much better at playing a big stack then others, so I would think that group would lean towards taking the coin flip early more often then your average tournament player. Patrick
This is definitely true. Ie, Raymer would jam in a heartbeat, and Hellmuth would fold quicker than he could start promoting his next book.This part of the argument is the thing I don't like about Matt's article. He recognizes that there are other points of view, but he says that flat out he is RIGHT, and everyone else is wrong. His mathematical analysis was very interesting, and very correct. However, as we all have seen, math isn't the be-all end-all in poker. If it was, Sklansky would be the most successful tournament player ever...*shudder* :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites

It really amazes me how people will take the time to write 5 posts bashing an article, but won't take the time to read the article and understand it. Matros' point was that the gain in equity by getting all-in as a 53-47 favorite is not negligible, and will gain you significant EV in the long run. He explained that point very clearly and articulately.Now, people who apparently read one sentence out of the article are saying that he's advocating going all-in every time you get queens or better, or else they argue against the point he made by making the same arguments that Matros just clearly refuted. For the record, on Matros's site, he tells a story about the WPT Final (where he ultimately finished third), about a hand where he had QQ against TJ Cloutier's AA and didn't go all-in, but rather managed to get away from it without losing too many chips.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It really amazes me how people will take the time to write 5 posts bashing an article, but won't take the time to read the article and understand it. Matros' point was that the gain in equity by getting all-in as a 53-47 favorite is not negligible, and will gain you significant EV in the long run. He explained that point very clearly and articulately.Now, people who apparently read one sentence out of the article are saying that he's advocating going all-in every time you get queens or better, or else they argue against the point he made by making the same arguments that Matros just clearly refuted.  For the record, on Matros's site, he tells a story about the WPT Final (where he ultimately finished third), about a hand where he had QQ against TJ Cloutier's AA and didn't go all-in, but rather managed to get away from it without losing too many chips.
Reading easy.Comprehension hard.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My friend and I argue about this all the time. I don't believe on putting all my money in on a coinflip but he does. I'd rather wait for a better spot to get my money in. If i'm tired in a low limit mtt then yea i might put my money in on coinflip first hand but otherwise, i'd rather be a dominating favorite then a coinflip. I'd have to agree with DN on this one.
You didn't even read the article, did you? Because if you did, you would realize how dumb your bolded statement was, and is. Care to elaborate?Who is DN and what is their position on this? I can't find it.
AHAHAHAHAH.....funny guy. You must be the smartest poster on FCP.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok just for the sake of arguement lets say you lost that coinflip. Now what do you say to yourself? "Why did i lose a tournament in 30 seconds?"
Better to lose it in 30 seconds than spend hours playing and bubble. You don't waste a tournament by taking a coinflip early and losing, because when you win the coinflip you're better setting yourself up for success later in the tourney. 1 1st place win and being the first out 49 times is better than 50 barely in the money finishes.
So what you're saying is that you'd rather put lose a tournament in 30 seconds if at BEST you're in a coinflip situation or most likely dominated then actually play poker to get chips and put your money in when you're a favorite? Another thing, most people who play this reckless and think that they need to double up early to win a tournament most likely don't win because a tournament doesn't last 30 seconds. Doubling up on the first hand is only a confidence booster but other than that, it means nothing because the blinds are so small that it won't even afftect your play.
You obviously play for the enjoyment. You would probably sit and get blinded out, all the time wanting to "get your money's worth". Myself, on the other hand, would happily double up early with 53%. Why? Because you have no idea whether or not you will actually double up. What if you run into Aces, or get cracked by a set? You can't afford not to put your money in here. And doubling up on the first hand puts you in a completely different place than being even stacked to the others.Keep to the penny home game and the online freerolls.
Actually i'm the exact opposite of getting blinded out but i'm not the donkey that thinks they need to double up on the first hand to have a chance to win a poker tournament. Let me repeat what i've said before: DOUBLING UP ON THE FIRST HAND OF A POKER TOURAMENT MEANS NOTHING. The only thing it gives you is a little boost of confidence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually i'm the exact opposite of getting blinded out but i'm not the donkey that thinks they need to double up on the first hand to have a chance to win a poker tournament.  Let me repeat what i've said before: DOUBLING UP ON THE FIRST HAND OF A POKER TOURAMENT MEANS NOTHING. The only thing it gives you is a little boost of confidence.
If it truly means nothing, then why even play the first hand?Screw it, why play the first level? You can't win there, you can only lose.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually i'm the exact opposite of getting blinded out but i'm not the donkey that thinks they need to double up on the first hand to have a chance to win a poker tournament.  Let me repeat what i've said before: DOUBLING UP ON THE FIRST HAND OF A POKER TOURAMENT MEANS NOTHING. The only thing it gives you is a little boost of confidence.
If it truly means nothing, then why even play the first hand?Screw it, why play the first level? You can't win there, you can only lose.
Ask a pro what it means to be the chip leader of a major tournament after the first level of play. They'll say "Nothing, but maybe a little confidence booster."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ask a pro what it means to be the chip leader of a major tournament after the first level of play. They'll  say "Nothing, but maybe a little confidence booster."
So basically what you are telling me is that your chip count doesn't matter. My question to you is this...when does it matter? When does your chip count in relation to the field begin to matter?I think you are missing one of the main points of this argument. If you ask a pro what it means, they will say "not much." If you ask a pro if being chipleader at the end of the first level (especially if they are that chip leader) if their chances of winning have improved, and they will say "definitely."I'd like to take your argument slightly further. I assume that you saw the WSOP this year. First day, Farha has A10 and the flop is AA10, turn is Queen. When the other player puts in the third raise against you, do you fold here to a third, large all in bet, because you only have the second nuts? If Farha folds there, he doesn't have the chips to later call a raise of 1000 with 33. He ended up being the day1b chipleader, largely because with his style of play, a large stack is just brutal on the rest of the table.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ask a pro what it means to be the chip leader of a major tournament after the first level of play. They'll  say "Nothing, but maybe a little confidence booster."
So basically what you are telling me is that your chip count doesn't matter. My question to you is this...when does it matter? When does your chip count in relation to the field begin to matter?I think you are missing one of the main points of this argument. If you ask a pro what it means, they will say "not much." If you ask a pro if being chipleader at the end of the first level (especially if they are that chip leader) if their chances of winning have improved, and they will say "definitely."I'd like to take your argument slightly further. I assume that you saw the WSOP this year. First day, Farha has A10 and the flop is AA10, turn is Queen. When the other player puts in the third raise against you, do you fold here to a third, large all in bet, because you only have the second nuts? If Farha folds there, he doesn't have the chips to later call a raise of 1000 with 33. He ended up being the day1b chipleader, largely because with his style of play, a large stack is just brutal on the rest of the table.
Did Farha go all in on the first hand on a coinflip? Would anyone go all in on the first hand on a coinflip at the WSOP ME? You would risk a chance at 7.5 mil. on the first hand on a coinflip?Ok i see what you're saying but it still doesn't matter. Lets say you start off with 1500 in an online tournament and the blinds are 5/10. You double up on the first hand. Now the rest of the players have 150 X the bb and you have 300. They both mean the same thing. Having 3000 vs. 1500 this early means absolutely nothing. Now lets take another example. You have 30k at a final table with the blinds at 500/1k. Now you double up to 60k. Does that mean something? Absolutely. I think that when chip count starts to become a factor is near the bubble. This is where if you have a substantial amount of chips compared to your opponent you can play aggressive picking up a lot of pot knowing that you can't go broke. Does chip count mean anything on the first hand? Absolutely not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If your talking about a WPT or WSOP, where you put up 10k, and your gonna go all in with only a 50% chance of winning? Why not wait for a better chance?I would much rather wait till I have the nuts to get all my money in the middle.
Did you even read the article? Because if you did, I think you missed the point.
no I did not
Link to post
Share on other sites
The chance of the average player winning is obviously 1/number of players. That's the definition of average.So what do you think your odds of winning a 1000 players tournament are?What do you think your odds of winning a 999 players tournament in which you start with twice the chips that the other players start with?All you need is those two numbers and you know whether you should call with 23o or with QQ or with KK or with AA...The article gave one way of estimating those numbers and determined that a call with QQ was good (and 23o woul d be bad).  Just give the two numbers and the math is mechanical.Of course if you care about finishing in the money and not just winning then the numbers you want to determine are your expected winnings in both situations.As for the coin flipping, the math tells you it's impossible for heads to NOT come up 600 times in a row if you flip coins for long enough.
You didn't understand my post.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we have an interesting situation. doublemeup, you have a way of showing a certain amount of arrogance in presenting your arguments. Now, after you stating multiple times that no pro would ever think that doubling up early in a tournament was important, Paul Phillips has actually come to this thread and directly disagreed with one of your statements. Is there any chance this will actually cause you to step back a little, and maybe even apologize for the somewhat rude manner in which you responded to some people? Just wondering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any chance this will actually cause you to step back a little
Now why would we want him to do that?I hear people say variants of that all the time. Life is a lot more interesting when people take positions that aren't obviously wrong. When a tournament starts your 10K (or whatever) in chips has some real money EV depending on lots of factors. If you're an average player and we ignore juice it's $10K. If you're some guys it's maybe $30K or $40K. If you're some other guys it's $100 if you're lucky.So what's 40K worth at the end of the first level? The same as 10K but with "confidence boost" sprinkled on top? If someone wanted to sell 100% of himself at that point would you offer $10K because hey, it' s just confidence? Would you bet even money on the guy with 10K against the guy with 40K?I suppose the ironically named "doublemeup" is this confused because he's correctly observed that doubling up early doesn't guarantee you anything. If you need guarantees in life then you should be an insurance agent, not a poker player. Understanding EV requires visualizing the whole universe of possibilities from a fixed point in time. If all you ever see are actual results then you will never understand EV. Winning doesn't happen in a vacuum, and neither does losing.
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...