one big bet an hour

[bobbytheo3 0]

is gary carson the guy who drew the "Far Side" comics?

[justblaze 0]

is gary carson the guy who drew the "Far Side" comics?

lol no hes the guy who wrote "gary carson's complete book of holdem" (available here: http://tinyurl.com/57a36)

[justblaze 0]

Here is what Gary Carson said to me about this question:You're making two assumptions here which are both pretty much nonsense.One is that there is some linear skill metric that means something. There isn't -- your skill advantage over another player depends on the interaction of the kinds of mistakes he makes and your ability to exploit that particular skill. Also, skill rankings of players aren't transative, so an attempt to tweak your metric to just make it non-linear won't work either.Secondly, you're assuming that each player has a skill level that's independent of the number of active hands. Many players do okay in full games and completely fall to pieces when just a coupld of seats go empty. That's mostly for psychological reasons, but it's no less real.

so basically it is indeterminable??? so we were all wrong with our guesses since there is no right answer??

not neccessarily. we just cant determine the answer by going about it the way we are. Smash, Gary disagrees with you. flame him!

[bobbytheo3 0]

oh, ok. i figured it was an expert of some sort....so what have we gotten out of this debate guys?? i think we've learned another example of how things in poker are never clear cut with a definitive answer, even when it seems like they might be.

[bobbytheo3 0]

did gary give you an answer, or just properly criticize the methods we were using to base ours.

[justblaze 0]

did gary give you an answer, or just properly criticize the methods we were using to base ours.

he gave me an answer. He said, not surprisingly, 'it depends'. basically he said you cant quantify this problem as an algebraic equation. Some players are better able to beat short games, and some are better able to beat full rings. He said "The preferable game is the one that has more players making mistakes that you know how to exploit and other's at the table don't. Some lineups I can beat, some I can't. The trick is to learn to read a lineup, not to count chairs and not to write down equations." I know i shouldnt be quoting gary carson on DN's forum (it's a long story - they dont like each other) but this is pretty damn good advice.

[justblaze 0]

here's some further advice Gary gave me:If you can't identify specific mistakes and specific ways to exploit thosemistakes then you're trying to quantify a skill differential that you can't even define. I'd rather play with 9 players who will stay until they go busted then 5 like that. But, that's not what you usually run accross. At a full table, even if you're the best player at the table, some of the players will soak up some money from the big losers, cutting into your win.Player skill sets don't have any transitive properties, you cannot rank players from one to ten, don't even try. If I know a really bad player, one who simply can't win, then I don't want to share him with anyone, I want to play him heads up, I want all the money and I don't want some second best player to siphon any off.

[Smasharoo 0]

Smash, Gary disagrees with you. flame him!No, he agrees with me.Do you see why?

[Smasharoo 0]

He said "The preferable game is the one that has more players making mistakes that you know how to exploit and other's at the table don't. Some lineups I can beat, some I can't. The trick is to learn to read a lineup, not to count chairs and not to write down equations." I know i shouldnt be quoting gary carson on DN's forum (it's a long story - they dont like each other) but this is pretty damn good advice.Yeah, it's allways great when someone says the exact same ****ing thing I do, but without the stigma of having to agree with me attached it becomes good advice./shrug.

[bobbytheo3 0]

did gary give you an answer, or just properly criticize the methods we were using to base ours.

he gave me an answer. He said, not surprisingly, 'it depends'. basically he said you cant quantify this problem as an algebraic equation. Some players are better able to beat short games, and some are better able to beat full rings. He said "The preferable game is the one that has more players making mistakes that you know how to exploit and other's at the table don't. Some lineups I can beat, some I can't. The trick is to learn to read a lineup, not to count chairs and not to write down equations." I know i shouldnt be quoting gary carson on DN's forum (it's a long story - they dont like each other) but this is pretty damn good advice.

it sure is. its hard to not get caught up in the math of limit holdem sometimes, because it is a mostly mathematical game. thats the reason i dont play it actually. i spend all day at work doing math, and i like the art of no limit as a contrast. i was just interested in this debate for the math theory of it, which turned out to be over rated anyway. but it was still good to kick some ideas around and get some well thought out ideas by some good posters.

[Downstream 0]

ok, makes sense. but those numbers were just pulled out of my rectum, it would be interesting to see the actual numbers on what percentage of hands were +EV vs. 9 randoms, and what % were +EV vs. 5 randoms. anyone got the numbers?Poker Room has just such a stat: www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/evstats/expValueif the link doesnt work its under "poker school" on their page.Don't have time to interpret this, but it appears that there are many more hands that are +EV with fewer players. This seems really obvious though, since you can play hands with 5 that you would never play with 10. Also, can we stop the flame wars? This is the way I see it:When you accuse another of having an inflated ego, does that not show that yours is larger?

[Smasharoo 0]

When you accuse another of having an inflated ego, does that not show that yours is larger?No, but trying to play traffic cop for petty arguments that don't involve you sure does.What greater ego bost than to seize the moral and maturity highground and bring an end to bickering. Oh bless you for your sentiment wise one!!!

[justblaze 0]

ok' date=' makes sense. but those numbers were just pulled out of my rectum, it would be interesting to see the actual numbers on what percentage of hands were +EV vs. 9 randoms, and what % were +EV vs. 5 randoms. anyone got the numbers?[/quote']Poker Room has just such a stat: www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/evstats/expValueif the link doesnt work its under "poker school" on their page.Don't have time to interpret this, but it appears that there are many more hands that are +EV with fewer players. This seems really obvious though, since you can play hands with 5 that you would never play with 10.

the problem with those numbers is they arent the theoretical values, they are the EV of hands played on pokerroom. theoretical EV doesnt account for betting, it just accounts for statistical value.

[justblaze 0]

He said "The preferable game is the one that has more players making mistakes that you know how to exploit and other's at the table don't. Some lineups I can beat, some I can't. The trick is to learn to read a lineup, not to count chairs and not to write down equations." I know i shouldnt be quoting gary carson on DN's forum (it's a long story - they dont like each other) but this is pretty damn good advice.Yeah, it's allways great when someone says the exact same censored thing I do, but without the stigma of having to agree with me attached it becomes good advice./shrug.

im not sure how this agrees with you, but you seem pretty offended by what i thought was a lighthearted jab. I apologize. you baby.

[Downstream 0]

When you accuse another of having an inflated ego, does that not show that yours is larger?No, but trying to play traffic cop for petty arguments that don't involve you sure does.What greater ego bost than to seize the moral and maturity highground and bring an end to bickering. Oh bless you for your sentiment wise one!!!

Bless you Smash! Your mastery of sarcasm is mind boggling. Seriously laughing my ass of at this one. At least I got a out of you...For real though, I enjoy reading good posts like these, I just don't like wading through flames to get the goods. I think most of us will second this.

[bobbytheo3 0]

ok' date=' makes sense. but those numbers were just pulled out of my rectum, it would be interesting to see the actual numbers on what percentage of hands were +EV vs. 9 randoms, and what % were +EV vs. 5 randoms. anyone got the numbers?[/quote']Poker Room has just such a stat: www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/evstats/expValueif the link doesnt work its under "poker school" on their page.Don't have time to interpret this, but it appears that there are many more hands that are +EV with fewer players. This seems really obvious though, since you can play hands with 5 that you would never play with 10. Also, can we stop the flame wars? This is the way I see it:When you accuse another of having an inflated ego, does that not show that yours is larger?

what carsons answer is saying though is that it depends on the mistakes the opponent makes. if a "bad opponent" in a ring game is only "bad" because he plays too many hands for that many players, he might not be as "bad" in a shorthanded game if he keeps his starting hand requirements the same. so you can not tell just by looking at numbers. it dpeends on the tpye of opponents and how their style plays against yours.

[justblaze 0]

what carsons answer is saying though is that it depends on the mistakes the opponent makes. if a "bad opponent" in a ring game is only "bad" because he plays too many hands for that many players, he might not be as "bad" in a shorthanded game if he keeps his starting hand requirements the same. so you can not tell just by looking at numbers. it dpeends on the tpye of opponents and how their style plays against yours.bingo.

[JFarrell20 1]

anyone know if the normal bb/100 is adjusted for shorthanded play?

I don't think it would change much... thats why it's BB/100Now BB/hr would obviously go up with shorthanded play because you're seeing more hands. But I don't think BB/100 goes up whether it be heads up or 9-handed. That all depends on what you are better at. Some people's will probably drop when it gets shorthanded, depending on their opponents.

thats incorrect. BB/100 should be much higher for shorthanded play. the reason is you can PLAY more hands, not just see more hands. you have more opportunities to either outplay your opponent or get outplayed.

Uhhh, please re-read your statement then apologize. "More opportunities to either outplay or get outplayed". Do you not realize that these cancel out and over the long run it doesn't matter?The only variable is "Are you BETTER shorthanded, or WORSE?"Playing more hands and seeing more hands shouldn't affect your BB/100 at all. Please realize this.

thats a ridiculous statement. your BB/100 is compounded when playing shorthanded. saying that "[More opportunities to either outplay or get outplayed] cancel out and over the long run" is only true if you are a break even player. if you are a winning player, this means you are playing better than your opponents. by being able to play more hands per 100 dealt, you will invariably win more bets/100. conversely, if you are a losing player, the fact that you must play more hands per 100 dealt in a shorthanded game will cause you to lose more bb/100.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Hands won is not directly proportional to money won. If you say you win more HANDS per 100, then yeah maybe, but not money. BB/100 is a money value, not a hand value. Remember because you are playing more hands you will also lose a ton of hands. BB is a $ value. the $ value/100 won't change. The ONLY variable is your strength short-handed compared to full table.EDIT: Winning 200 $1 hands shorthanded in 1 hour is no better than winning 50 $4 hands at a full table in 1 hour. Comprende!

[justblaze 0]

anyone know if the normal bb/100 is adjusted for shorthanded play?

I don't think it would change much... thats why it's BB/100Now BB/hr would obviously go up with shorthanded play because you're seeing more hands. But I don't think BB/100 goes up whether it be heads up or 9-handed. That all depends on what you are better at. Some people's will probably drop when it gets shorthanded, depending on their opponents.

thats incorrect. BB/100 should be much higher for shorthanded play. the reason is you can PLAY more hands, not just see more hands. you have more opportunities to either outplay your opponent or get outplayed.

Uhhh, please re-read your statement then apologize. "More opportunities to either outplay or get outplayed". Do you not realize that these cancel out and over the long run it doesn't matter?The only variable is "Are you BETTER shorthanded, or WORSE?"Playing more hands and seeing more hands shouldn't affect your BB/100 at all. Please realize this.

thats a ridiculous statement. your BB/100 is compounded when playing shorthanded. saying that "[More opportunities to either outplay or get outplayed] cancel out and over the long run" is only true if you are a break even player. if you are a winning player, this means you are playing better than your opponents. by being able to play more hands per 100 dealt, you will invariably win more bets/100. conversely, if you are a losing player, the fact that you must play more hands per 100 dealt in a shorthanded game will cause you to lose more bb/100.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Hands won is not directly proportional to money won. If you say you win more HANDS per 100, then yeah maybe, but not money. BB/100 is a money value, not a hand value. Remember because you are playing more hands you will also lose a ton of hands. BB is a $ value. the $ value/100 won't change. The ONLY variable is your strength short-handed compared to full table.EDIT: Winning 200 $1 hands shorthanded in 1 hour is no better than winning 50 $4 hands at a full table in 1 hour. Comprende!

lol ur way behind on this argument there buddy. gary freaking carson has already weighed in.

[JFarrell20 1]

anyone know if the normal bb/100 is adjusted for shorthanded play?

I don't think it would change much... thats why it's BB/100Now BB/hr would obviously go up with shorthanded play because you're seeing more hands. But I don't think BB/100 goes up whether it be heads up or 9-handed. That all depends on what you are better at. Some people's will probably drop when it gets shorthanded, depending on their opponents.

thats incorrect. BB/100 should be much higher for shorthanded play. the reason is you can PLAY more hands, not just see more hands. you have more opportunities to either outplay your opponent or get outplayed.

Uhhh, please re-read your statement then apologize. "More opportunities to either outplay or get outplayed". Do you not realize that these cancel out and over the long run it doesn't matter?The only variable is "Are you BETTER shorthanded, or WORSE?"Playing more hands and seeing more hands shouldn't affect your BB/100 at all. Please realize this.

thats a ridiculous statement. your BB/100 is compounded when playing shorthanded. saying that "[More opportunities to either outplay or get outplayed] cancel out and over the long run" is only true if you are a break even player. if you are a winning player, this means you are playing better than your opponents. by being able to play more hands per 100 dealt, you will invariably win more bets/100. conversely, if you are a losing player, the fact that you must play more hands per 100 dealt in a shorthanded game will cause you to lose more bb/100.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Hands won is not directly proportional to money won. If you say you win more HANDS per 100, then yeah maybe, but not money. BB/100 is a money value, not a hand value. Remember because you are playing more hands you will also lose a ton of hands. BB is a $ value. the $ value/100 won't change. The ONLY variable is your strength short-handed compared to full table.EDIT: Winning 200 $1 hands shorthanded in 1 hour is no better than winning 50 $4 hands at a full table in 1 hour. Comprende!

lol ur way behind on this argument there buddy. gary freaking carson has already weighed in.

well i was out of the office today so... I know it looks like I missed a lot. Didn't read all of it. What does this Gary Carson guy say? And have you come around yet to see my point, or not?

[Awful 0]

I see where Carson and Smash are coming from, since the aggregate +EV you collect is is based on the -EV decisions the remainder of the table makes (and how many you make). As a result, edge is a result of the number and quality of opponent's decisions. Since the number of decisions is increased per opponent, but the number of people is correspondingly cut, the quality of the opponent's decisions seems to be at worst such a fudge factor to make it unsolvable. Especially considering the gap between the amount of published material for ring games vs. SH games, and the nature of SH games to attract action junkies and LAGs.The mathematical aspect of shorthanded play I wonder about, but can probably be solved is the increase in volatility. While you're making increasingly marginal decisions, you're directly making more of them. Is the volatility increase a result of the more frequent blinds, since the number of bets and the win% of those bets seem to negate one another?Anyone got anything good besides the hearth wisdom and anecdotes on that?

[JFarrell20 1]

Again, I don't think there is any difference.BB/100 is a $ quantity. You may be playing more hands but the pots will all be inherently smaller due to "less money in play".Like I said 100 $2 pots is no better than 20 $10 pots.You will WIN more hands/100 as well as LOSE more hands/100but your BB/100 won't change, UNLESS you are BETTER shorthanded than at a full table. The blinds don't affect anything as they are equally detrimental to all players at all times. Doesn't matter if you pay 1.5 Big Blinds every 3 hands...so do the other 2 players. Get it?Actually this isn't ENTIRELY true due to the fact that shorthanded, (at small enough stakes) you'll pay less in rake tax, than you will at a large table. SO..... yeah I guess your BB/100 would go up. But only due to "less rake" (if applicable) and "do you personally play better shorthanded?"

[Awful 0]

Again, I don't think there is any difference.BB/100 is a $ quantity. You may be playing more hands but the pots will all be inherently smaller due to "less money in play".Like I said 100 $2 pots is no better than 20 $10 pots.You will WIN more hands/100 as well as LOSE more hands/100but your BB/100 won't change, UNLESS you are BETTER shorthanded than at a full table. The blinds don't affect anything as they are equally detrimental to all players at all times. Doesn't matter if you pay 1.5 Big Blinds every 3 hands...so do the other 2 players. Get it?Actually this isn't ENTIRELY true due to the fact that shorthanded, (at small enough stakes) you'll pay less in rake tax, than you will at a large table. SO..... yeah I guess your BB/100 would go up. But only due to "less rake" (if applicable) and "do you personally play better shorthanded?"

You're wrong at several points here. Most places lower their rake caps for HU and 4 players or fewer, but for 6-max, the rake is the same as for full rings. Rake then hurts all the same.Another point where you're wrong is the idea that the difference in play has to be intrinsic. If you're just as good at 6-max and full ring, you want to play whichever game is being played more poorly by the opposition. Usually that's 6-max.6-max pots are NOT vastly smaller than ring hands above even the 1-2 level. Run through the lists at Stars or UB and check the full 6-max vs. the full ring stats for avg. pot. Difference is at most 1bb.

[JFarrell20 1]

If you're just as good at 6-max and full ring' date=' [b']you want to play whichever game is being played more poorly by the opposition. Usually that's 6-max.[/b]6-max pots are NOT vastly smaller than ring hands above even the 1-2 level. Run through the lists at Stars or UB and check the full 6-max vs. the full ring stats for avg. pot. Difference is at most 1bb.[/quote]Where are you getting this from?? "Usually that's 6 max"? 6 max pots may not be directly-proportianately smaller than 9 handed, BUT you are forgetting the fact that many pots won at 6 max dont see a flop which means people are doing more blind stealing, and bluffing on ragged flops. This means that you may win a $2 pot shorthanded, on a bluff, but a plurality of the money in that pot is yours, whereas as a larger table, you aren't putting up as much to win the same amount. I know I'm probably not explaining myself well, which is common for me, but I really don't think it matters. The only factor is less rake and whether or not you're personally better shorthanded.

[Awful 0]

Where are you getting this from?? "Usually that's 6 max"?

Experience. 6-max is played infinitely worse due to a variety of traps regarding thinking about the game, the players it attracts (those who are too loose for ring games assume they'll be good at 6-max), and the ability of most players to have some sort of decent ring game but find new ways to suck at shorthanded tables.

6 max pots may not be directly-proportianately smaller than 9 handed, BUT you are forgetting the fact that many pots won at 6 max dont see a flop which means people are doing more blind stealing, and bluffing on ragged flops. This means that you may win a $2 pot shorthanded, on a bluff, but a plurality of the money in that pot is yours, whereas as a larger table, you aren't putting up as much to win the same amount. I know I'm probably not explaining myself well, which is common for me, but I really don't think it matters. The only factor is less rake and whether or not you're personally better shorthanded.

If you're worse shorthanded but your opponents are twice as bad vs. their ring game, and you were beating the ring game, you'd beat them for more shorthanded. It's ALWAYS the gap in skills, not some sort of absolute personal skill level. The opponent's always matter. The 7th best poker player on earth will lose if he's always playing with the 6 guys above him.As I'd said, it's usually HU and 3-4 opponents where the rake cap slips down. Above 5, rake is standard on every online site I know of.I was never saying that more of each 6-max pot was not your own contribution; I was addressing the factual error, not the theory behind it. Of course more of the pot was originally yours, but I was underlining the aggression and the number of bets placed by each player on a hand.