FFR poker league -dead-

[Reach]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

Signed up to the home game league, finally (reinstalled stars).

Man I've forgotten how lol the people at the play money tables are. I'm holding the ace of spades and the flop comes 3 spades. I'm OOP so I check, checked around. Turn is another spade, I bet 6 into a pot of 12 and buddy shoves all in for like 400 more or something, and then 2 people call before me LOL, they turn over like the 6 of spades.

[Reincarnate]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

It it usually wise to check flush-draws (I'm assuming that is the equivalent of what you just described?) in early position?

[Reach]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

It it usually wise to check flush-draws (I'm assuming that is the equivalent of what you just described?) in early position?

If you're completely out of position (that is, the first person to act on the flop), it's advisable to check most hands, especially if there was an aggressive raiser. Most of the time that aggressive raiser will make a bet, and this allows you to throw away your garbage hands, call with a hand like the one I have, or raise them with certain types of hands.

Especially in this scenario where it was a family pot (6 players). If I was playing against only one opponent (that is, I was heads up), I might want to bet into them with a flush draw.

With the type of hand that I have, and with 3 spades on the board, I don't want them to fold and I don't want them to raise, and betting into them would increase the probability of both of those actions on a flop with 3 spades on it (Think about it; most hands are going to fold because most hands don't have a spade, and almost every hand that's going to raise me is way ahead of a flush draw).


With that said, in this scenario I was playing against complete idiots, so it didn't matter what I did.

[Reincarnate]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

Here is a simplified example of my thoughts on Poker in the form of rock-paper-scissors and game theory.

How do you play RPS optimally? Well, the risk-neutral strategy is to play 1/3 rock, 1/3 paper, and 1/3 scissors -- at random. Then you know that as long as the buy-in to a single game is X and the payoff to winning is Y, the game is worth playing for profit (especially over the long run) if (1/3)Y - X > 0. There's no way I can expect to receive anything lower if I play this way (esp. over a sufficiently long period of time) because I can't be exploited/predicted if I play perfectly random. As long as I don't play unless that inequality is satisfied, I will expect to earn a profit of N((1/3)Y - X) for large-N games.

However, if I wanted to get more profit out of the other player, I'd have to pay attention, over many games, how often they played each choice. If they, for instance, played rock 40% of the time, paper 30% of the time, and scissors 30% of the time, I could adapt to their strategy by playing paper 40% of the time, scissors 30% of the time, and rock 30% of the time, meaning that I would continue playing this game under the new inequality of (17/50)Y - X > 0 instead of maintaining my current strategy and not changing my profit inequality. This would mean I lose out on ((17/50)Y-X)-((1/3)Y - X)) = Y/150 per game if I don't adapt.

So let's say X = 10 cents and Y = a dollar. Assume X flows from the players and Y flows from the house (a shit deal for the house, which expects (2/3)(X-Y) when Y > X but bear with me). Under the first strategy I'd be expecting (100/3) - 10 = 23.333 cents per game, which means, after 1000 games, I'd expect to be up $233.33. The other player would expect to be up $233.33 as well, and the house would be down $600.

If I adjusted my play after realizing the opponent's game, I'd expect to be up to $240, whereas my opponent would only be up $230 via (33/100)Y - X, and the house would be down $604.

Of course, my opponent could then be smart and realize that I am now playing 60% paper, 30% rock, and 30% scissors, adjusting HIS own play to 60% scissors, 30% rock, and 30% paper. If I fail to realize his adjustment, that means I wind up on the losing end of the spectrum and fall from $240 expected profit over 1000 games to $230 profit over 1000 games.

So, when it comes to stuff like game theory, it relies on the following aspects:

1. You'll earn money in the long run if you play a sufficient number of games under certain conditions that are favorable in terms of overall EV.

2. However, this assumes you can readily calculate the EV of such things easily and know how to make the right decisions in real-time.

3. If you want to profit over risk-neutral EV, you have to exploit errors in your opponents.

4. If your exploitations are discovered, you have to swing your equilibrium so that you can now start to exploit their new playstyle.

5. In terms of game-theory, tit-for-tat is a very, very effective strategy and has, in practice with respect to human psychology, been the highest-profiting strategy on average. If they play 33-33-33 RPS, you play 33-33-33 RPS. If they play 60-40-40 RPS, you play 60-40-40 PSR. If they play 60-40-40 SRP, you play 60-40-40 RPS, and so forth.


The problem regarding Poker is that it's hard to tell when someone is switching strategies. Are they realizing something and switching after 50 games? 100? 1000? It's also hard to calculate the math in real time. It's easy enough to figure out a reasonable algorithm for randomizing your shots across rock, paper, or scissors -- but it's hard to figure out how to calculate the necessary math in real-time as you play, especially when a greater number of players are involved. It's not like we can crunch hardcore combinatorics in our head on the fly.

The guy who's going to be the best Poker player is the guy with his sensitivity sliders in the right spots. It almost feels like it comes down to being able to identify the rational players from the irrational ones. The irrational ones won't be paying as much attention to how people play/their distributions, and can therefore be exploited. The rational ones are the toughies -- and it seems like, to me, it would be safer to play risk-neutral against them. Otherwise, if they're good, you guys will just be swinging back and forth across an equilibrium playing tit-for-tat with each other.



I know this is a really, really longwinded way to explain a basic fundamental of Poker -- but I feel that to get better at something, it usually involves picking apart the fundamentals.

Of course, learning the damn game first will help me, too. XD XD XD Gotta read through quite a bit.

[nois-or-e]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

Guys, I derped. Had a horrible evening/night. Tournaments are being made now. Thinking 6:30/8:30/10:30pm. The 10:30pm will be an omaha game.

[ddrmaniacaaa]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

Guys, I derped. Had a horrible evening/night. Tournaments are being made now. Thinking 6:30/8:30/10:30pm. The 10:30pm will be an omaha game.

Hope it wasnt cause of me. I was a complete douche last night.

[TC_Halogen]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

In for the first tournament. (Damn it, why do you have to make the Omaha game at 11? )

[A2P]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

DextroPhet is my username

edit: I thoroughly enjoyed your GT approach to the game, Rubix. However, when it comes to playing casual/uNL games, it's usually more profitable to play in exploitable fashion (e.g., if someone is playing nearly all hands preflop (i.e. a loose-passive) but almost never puts any more money after, you'll be cbetting ~100% of of the time). strongly agree with everything else.
also I kinda tl;dr'd the post but i got the jist of it (the RPS example).

[lumphoboextreme]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

might go deep in the weekly 6 max 215$ pending runbad.

[A2P]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

back when i used to play i enjoyed playing 6max ring. had some pretty good cashouts some days too but then after that 2khand profit spike i had a lolvarience swing and barely broke even

whats your favorite thing about 6max?

[lumphoboextreme]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

i just seem to do much better there than at a 9 man or hu table. hu players are too loose, 9 man too tight. 6 max just seems to fit my style just right, one of the top 6 max players in the world for 2011. ^_^

[A2P]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

sounds about right. HU is actually more fun for me but the swings are so high (prob. cuz a LAG style is mandatory)

gratz on becoming top-tier

[lumphoboextreme]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

ty. if i could win this weekly 6 max i could probably give playing poker for a living a chance.

[lumphoboextreme]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

nvm some guy flopped a cooler on me

[A2P]

Re: FFR poker league -ongoing-

set vs set?