daniel and "math guys"

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

In Daniel's evaluation of Paul Phillips, he wrote:Strengths: At heart Paul is a "math guy" but his application of his knowledge is excellent. He has a great understanding of the game and his fundamentals are close to flawless. Weaknesses: Predictability. Paul's greatest strength could also be deemed his biggest weakness in a sense. His approach often lends itself to patterns that are exploitable by some of the other top players in the game. If someone's fundamentals are close to flawless, they don't have patterns that are exploitable by other players. Part of having perfect fundamentals is having a strategy that is not exploitable. Daniel does a fair bit of dissing of the so called "math players". Either he has a different definition of "math player" than I do, or for some reason he believes that playing well from a game theory perspective is exploitable.

[Vade 0]

I think the idea is there are times in tournaments where the correct mathematical play might not be the correct play in the handReads and such may lead to another, less mathematically sound decision and it still is the correct play because of the structure etcCertainly possible, with no slight intended to the math junkies I think...

[711Buddha 0]

If I've determined that its optimal to bluff 55% of the time on busted draws where the board doesn't threaten, I can apply game theory (and do it correctly) to determine which 55% of the time to bluff. This may be all correct and sound, and patternless in terms of which instances I bluff at, but it doesn't change the fact that overall, I'm going to do it 55% of the time.Maybe a discription of these patterns as "meta-patterns" might have made it clearer. In this sense, there is a pattern underlying incidental behavior and an understanding of it can be leveraged. (Sometimes he will bluff here and sometimes he won't, but overall he does too often or maybe not often enough.)I don't think this is a dis on math guys, just a vulnerability in that style of play. I think <b>Vade</b> is right, his example of relying on reads when they would drive you outside of the spectrum of "math correct" plays can be a great strength to players who can read that well. Although, I will concede that on this board as a whole, there is a sort of "anti-2+2" vibe overall. That doesn't mean no one here is counting outs, pot odds or implied odds.

[princeof56k 0]

When I think of fundamentals, I think of the proper way each hand should be played. Such as when your holding certain cards with regards to positon and the personality of the players, should you call, fold, or raise (and how much you should raise). Basically text book poker. Even bluffing in certain situations is often the correct text book play.Being UNpredictable is knowing when to go AGAINST the correct play. This can be to win the hand you are playing at that time, or to put something into the minds of opponents for future hands.

[Smasharoo 0]

Daniel does a fair bit of dissing of the so called "math players"Odd, considering he is one.

[TheIceman05 0]

Hmmm... I never would have labeled Daniel a "math guy." I doubt he would label himself a math guy. When I think math guys, I think the following:"A player who uses mathematics to neutralize his 'people reading' disadvantage."IE, someone like Sklansky at the high levels. People get on his case because he's a "math guy" and "will ALWAYS get beat by guys like Ivey and Daniel." But he's got such a great understanding of game theory and randomness, that he can effectively neutralize (or minimize) their advantage in this department. I think I remember Sklansky even pointing to this as a reason why he was considered WAAAY too big a dog against Ivey in the heads up match he won. Two cents, love to hear responses, especially from HelloKittyManIce

[princeof56k 0]

After reading the intial post agian, I wonder if some people think that "math" and "fundamentals" are the same. I dont think they are the same. I think the math is a subset of the fundamentlals. There are other fundamentals besides just math.Sure you can mathematically know the correct odds, but that is only part of the equation. Fundamental poker consists of mathematical odds, position, table personality, and other things that help you make the fundamentally correct descision. Unpredictable players will sometimes go against the fundamentals.

[Smasharoo 0]

Sure you can mathematically know the correct odds, but that is only part of the equation. Fundamental poker consists of mathematical odds, position, table personality, and other things that help you make the fundamentally correct descision. Un predictable players will sometimes go against the fundamentals.Part of the math is when it's apropriate to do the unexpected. That's laregly what Game Theory is in terms of Holdem, how often to bluff.Most of what Daniel does that I've had the chance to observe on TV, and granted that's a small amount of the whole, is all based on math. There's the occasional "instinct" play but it's very rare that the instinct isn't arrived at by considering the probability of a hand being played a certain way by his opponent.

[AC BillP 0]

I suppose Daniel is saying that once he puts Paul on a hand, he uses the read to manipulate the pot odds so that there is a negative expectation for the opponent. Which certainly SEEMS math oriented TO ME!!!The other way to take it, is the purely correct math play for a hand may not be really correct, if it's a tournament. In other words as the payout of a tournament is non-linear, you have to take the overall implied odds of the whole turnament into consideration. This goes for the extra added value of a big stack at a late stage as well, even if you have a high risk of busting out on that one hand.

[TheIceman05 0]

Sure you can mathematically know the correct odds, but that is only part of the equation. Fundamental poker consists of mathematical odds, position, table personality, and other things that help you make the fundamentally correct descision. Un predictable players will sometimes go against the fundamentals.Part of the math is when it's apropriate to do the unexpected.  That's laregly what Game Theory is in terms of Holdem, how often to bluff.Most of what Daniel does that I've had the chance to observe on TV, and granted that's a small amount of the whole, is all based on math.  There's the occasional "instinct" play but it's very rare that the instinct isn't arrived at by considering the probability of a hand being played a certain way by his opponent.

Eh, you're kinda making things fuzzy, now... Yeah, I'm sure there's significant math that goes into a decision a player like Daniel makes based upon his instincts, but is it fair to say he ARRIVES at that instinct BECAUSE of probability? Naw. He makes his read, THEN he decides whether or not to go with it based on math. IE, "I was pretty sure he only had top two, and there's 20,000 in the bot, and I might be able to push him off it with my flush draw, but I could still win, and it'll happen like this x% of the time, so I push, blah, etc."But the important thing is, he is significantly better at making those initial reads than most people. It's not really instinct, it's careful observation and logical decision making, but he's very VERY good at it. David Sklansky is not as good at him, so he must neutralize by randomizing his own play, so Daniel's reads are all but useless. Anyway, to say that he USES math to make his "instinctual read" is completely out of context, in terms of the OP's use of "math guy."Ice

[Smasharoo 0]

The other way to take it, is the purely correct math play for a hand may not be really correct, if it's a tournament. In other words as the payout of a tournament is non-linear, you have to take the overall implied odds of the whole turnament into consideration. This goes for the extra added value of a big stack at a late stage as well, even if you have a high risk of busting out on that one hand.Still math.The only things in poker that aren't math based are plays where one player says "I don't believe this guy, I'm going to call even though my hand is beat most of the time here" or "I'm going to bluff, not because a card got there that would complete any draw I was on, but because I just think this guy is weak and will lay it down."Really rarely ever happens.

[Smasharoo 0]

Anyway, to say that he USES math to make his "instinctual read" is completely out of context, in terms of the OP's use of "math guy." I don't think so.When daniel makes a "read" without any knowledge of betting patterns or play in the hand, when he walks in and looks at someone and says "Hmm, he's got the straight, his eye is twitching" let me know.Daniel is better at pattern recognition than most players. If anything that makes him *more* of a math guy. Sklansky recognising that and using a mechanical strategy to mitigate hardly makes him more of a "math" guy.

[faketree 0]

Still math.The only things in poker that aren't math based are plays where one player says "I don't believe this guy, I'm going to call even though my hand is beat most of the time here"  or  "I'm going to bluff, not because a card got there that would complete any draw I was on, but because I just think this guy is weak and will lay it down."Really rarely ever happens.

Actually smash, and you know this, that first quote, even though you describe it as a player who doesn't know what he is doing math-wise, sometimes its mathematically correct to call even though you may only win the hand 30% of the time. i know i didn't have to tell you this but i wanted to clarify to the readers.i've seen daniel do this quite a few times on TV and its quite interesting.

[TheIceman05 0]

Anyway, to say that he USES math to make his "instinctual read" is completely out of context, in terms of the OP's use of "math guy."  I don't think so.When daniel makes a "read" without any knowledge of betting patterns or play in the hand, when he walks in and looks at someone and says "Hmm, he's got the straight, his eye is twitching" let me know.Daniel is better at pattern recognition than most players.  If anything that makes him *more* of a math guy.  Sklansky recognising that and using a mechanical strategy to mitigate hardly makes him more of a "math" guy.

See, this is where we disagree, and I'm pretty sure I'm right about how DANIEL uses the phrase. Example: You recognize some betting pattern, and are reasonably confident your opponent is on a straight draw. A complete blank comes off. He moves all in. You, sure of your pattern recognizing skills, call with merely King high. Everyone's impressed. What do they say? "Wow, what a read."I guess we could get into semantics and decide that "uncanny, and oftentimes subconcious, pattern recognition skills, especially in relation to human behaviors" is math, but it just doesn't seem like that's how the word math is being used, you know? If a detective notices some human characteristic, and can reasonably use it to detect whether a suspect is lying or being truthful, would we say he's a good "math guy?" Maybe the analogy is weak, but I think my point comes across. Math guys are bad at reading the people. Math guys are good at closing that gap by randomizing their play VERY effectively, and trusting a greater percentage of their decisions to mathematical skill.Ice

[SapphireTiger 0]

i'm confused. I thought it was popular knowledge that Daniel's play is founded in mathematics and that he was one of the most knowledgable about using those probablilities to his advantage (i.e. Gus Hansen)

[Smasharoo 0]

Maybe the analogy is weak, but I think my point comes across. Math guys are bad at reading the people. Math guys are good at closing that gap by randomizing their play VERY effectively, and trusting a greater percentage of their decisions to mathematical skill. I don't think your point makes much sense, frankly. Does someone who plays perfect Blackjack strategy learned through years of playing become less of a "math" guy because they don't know *why* it's perfect strategy mathmatically?What your arguemtn comes down to is that the "math" guys are more self aware of the math involved and of their liitations.

[TheIceman05 0]

Maybe the analogy is weak, but I think my point comes across. Math guys are bad at reading the people. Math guys are good at closing that gap by randomizing their play VERY effectively, and trusting a greater percentage of their decisions to mathematical skill. I don't think your point makes much sense, frankly. Does someone who plays perfect Blackjack strategy learned through years of playing become less of a "math" guy because they don't know *why* it's perfect strategy mathmatically?What your arguemtn comes down to is that the "math" guys are more self aware of the math involved and of their liitations.

In response, no. Not at all. But that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, because YOUR analogy is an absolute non sequitur. Math (and not getting caught) is the ONLY necessary skill in blackjack. There aren't "math guys" and "nonmath guys" in blackjack. Your argument comes down to this: "Anyone who wins money over the long term is a math guy, because he has made mathematically proper decisions."Then again, maybe that's your point. Maybe your point is that EVERYONE uses math, and is therefore a math guy, and the idea of "math guys" is absurd in the first place. (shrug) Perhaps that's a valid point, but it doesn't change the fact that people use the term all the time, and even "math guys" themselves- even very smart, very strong players- would admit to being "math guys." I think, to me, it matters "what angle you're coming from." It has to do with how one thinks of poker. Andy Bloch comes from a highly specialized math background... he's a math whiz, and that's how he sees poker, as a gigantic mathematical equation he's trying to solve. Sklansky relies completely and fully on his ability to play a perfect statistical game, and use game theory to nullify any hand-reading edge his opponent might have on him. Daniel, it appears to me, thinks of the game as a kind of creative dance, a back and forth battle of with and blah blah blah. Seems like a left-brain, right-brain thing. Maybe that's what "math guy" means. If that's the case, I'd absolutely agree that the term's a valid one, even if they both played every hand the same way.Ice

[DanielNegreanu 141]

When I use the term "math guy" I'm generally talking about players that spend virtually all of there time working on the numbers side of the game rather than the people side of the game. Some are very good at it, but there are a million examples of how a player with good feel can exploit it. Here is one example: On the river against a math guy, if you want to be sure that he calls you all you have to do is "price" him in. If you gave a math guy 4-1 on the call on the river, he will virtually always call. Their thought process often goes something like, "Well, I am getting 4-1 odds on the call so he only has to be bluffing 25% of the time to make this call correct." Rather than this, "Hmmm... he only bet a quarter of the pot? It looks like he's begging for a call and trying to exploit the fact that he knows I will call getting such a great price. He is either pulling a reverse on me, or he has to have it." A math guy thinks "He only has to be bluffing 25% of the time" while a feel player thinks like this, "There is no way this guy would try to rob this pot here in this spot with a bet that small. Or would he?"

[Suited_Up 2]

Damn damn damn!Well Daniel stole my thunder. I was about to chime in and give the point about being able to manipulate "Math guys" by your betting amounts, and I figured that is what he meant in the profile. He beat me to it though... oh well. I swear I was gonna say that though.

[Smasharoo 0]

A math guy thinks "He only has to be bluffing 25% of the time" while a feel player thinks like this, "There is no way this guy would try to rob this pot here in this spot with a bet that small. Or would he?"Don't they both end up calling the vast majority of the time, anyway? That's my main point, that "feel" players are making the mathmatically correct play 99.99999% of the time regardless of how they get there.

[PrtyPSux 0]

"There is no way this guy would try to rob this pot here in this spot with a bet that small. Or would he?"

Can't you also use this mentality to exploit a feel player when you don't want to get called?ie. The bluff against Deeb.

[Suited_Up 2]

A math guy thinks "He only has to be bluffing 25% of the time" while a feel player thinks like this, "There is no way this guy would try to rob this pot here in this spot with a bet that small. Or would he?"Don't they both end up calling the vast majority of the time, anyway? That's my main point, that "feel" players are making the mathmatically correct play 99.99999% of the time regardless of how they get there.

Unless they're thinking you bet low looking for a fold, by reversing the math on them.... and if you bet big they think you're making it seem like you want a fold, when you really do want a call. Depends on the person you're playing and how they think you are trying to play them.

[dna4ever 2]

A math guy thinks "He only has to be bluffing 25% of the time" while a feel player thinks like this, "There is no way this guy would try to rob this pot here in this spot with a bet that small. Or would he?"Don't they both end up calling the vast majority of the time, anyway? That's my main point, that "feel" players are making the mathmatically correct play 99.99999% of the time regardless of how they get there.

Unless they're thinking you bet low looking for a fold, by reversing the math on them.... and if you bet big they think you're making it seem like you want a fold, when you really do want a call. Depends on the person you're playing and how they think you are trying to play them.

this is starting to become one of those "what do you think i think you think i have"'s

[Smasharoo 0]

Unless they're thinking you bet low looking for a fold, by reversing the math on them.... and if you bet big they think you're making it seem like you want a fold, when you really do want a call.Depends on the person you're playing and how they think you are trying to play them.Not really.When are your really going to fold to a small bet on the end even if you suspect it means you're beat?Knowing they want a call doesn't mean you're going to fold.

[Suited_Up 2]

Unless they're thinking you bet low looking for a fold, by reversing the math on them.... and if you bet big they think you're making it seem like you want a fold, when you really do want a call.Depends on the person you're playing and how they think you are trying to play them.Not really.When are your really going to fold to a small bet on the end even if you suspect it means you're beat?Knowing they want a call doesn't mean you're going to fold.

Well, i guess if it's really small then you are right. I guess i'm thinkin more in terms of reasonable size, vs extra big bet.