Maths v Reading players

bohsman

When you sit down at a poker table is it all about positive ev negative or do you play more with a my cards dont matter its all about what the other person thinks I have and what he has

Iago

I think it's a combination of both, I think my reading of players has improved dramatically over the last few months and this has facilitated my increased earnings, but odds still play their part.

For me at the moment I think I play slightly more by reading players than the odds, but there isn't much in it.

DeVore

Depends who I'm playing. I wont, for example re-raise Mairead as she plays only AA!
I might try it on with people who think I'm a rock.

I hardly read people at all and only pick situations that offer decent odds of getting away with it. I also target people depending on what I know of what they think of my playing style.

I change from maths to madman and back again from time to time too. Keeps everyone guessing

DeV.

Hitman Actual

An interesting question, I reckon this could start some controversy! My feeling is that both are part of the big picture... there are other things too, like discipline, or being able to play well for 10 hours straight (after a days work!), etc,etc.

I do believe that the maths part is very important: As well as the obvious, it helps with your general "card sense", which in turn adds to your abilty in reading people. And I also think that without being able to calculate odds, you will struggle to beat any cash game (although I assume that this question is aimed at tournaments?). There are plenty of successful (local) tournament players who are poor cash game players. And look at maths-oriented players like David Sklansky.... does he ever get a mention in the major tournaments?

But in saying that, surely the biggest skill in poker has to be in accurately reading your opponents hands... the game is soooo much easier when you can do that! Just wish I could do it more often....

Hectorjelly

lenny_leonard wrote:

And look at maths-oriented players like David Sklansky.... does he ever get a mention in the major tournaments?

Sklansky doesnt play many tournaments, but has 3 bracelets.

DeVore

I think you've hit a nail on the head. I can count how many tournies I've knocked myself out of because I was tired and cranky and got a "double up or fook off" buzz in my head and played stupidly to try and fluke something. Physical fitness and concentration play a bigger part then is generally considered, imho.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

They may be boring, but hand selection and pot odds are the most important skills. (IMO)

Waylander

To my mind there are far too many variables in a game of poker to simply rely on a simple formula. Sorry HJ, I am not having a go at you, but I have seen you play hands in tournaments that you were not getting the odds on to play. I have also seen you try to steel pots with no hand at all. This totallly contradicts your last post.

Hitman Actual

Hectorjelly wrote:

Sklansky doesnt play many tournaments, but has 3 bracelets.

I don't want to get off-topic here, but this does merit a reply. Firstly, I have absolutely nothing against David Sklansky... I have three of his books, all excellent, and Theory of Poker is indispensible. But Sklansky won his bracelets in the early 80's (one in Draw!), and tournament poker strategy has surely progressed since then.

Fair enough, he finished fairly high in the main event last year (I think), but perhaps the reason he doesn't play in many tournaments is because he isn't very good at them (at least at the top level). Just my opinion, I've never actually sat down at the table with him And it's not like he can't afford to play in big events... I, you, and thousands of others have been funding him for years!

The point I was trying to make was that you need a balance of skills, something I think you'll agree with... someone who relies totally on one aspect (maths or otherwise) wont get very far. Likewise, neglecting the maths part will also hurt your game.

And before you say it, three bracelets is still more than I'm ever likely to have

Shortstack

Different strategies are required for tournaments than in cash games. In the actual tournament your strategy will change as the tournament progresses. I am a poor cash game game player as I have no patience and reads are not so good as people will call if they have the odds even if they are behind, in the long run they will win. More important in tournaments , if you are calling then you want to be ahead if it is for all your chips. Reads and position play a much more significant part in tournament poker. There is a place for maths but if you rely on it alone you will not win too many. I advise you concentrate on strategy and position whilst being aware of how many outs you have if you making a risky decision. Once you have a large stack you can play the maths game.

Example 1.
You hold 99 in the first hand of a tournament and you are sure that the the guy who has rerasied you allin has AK. In a cash game you always call as in the long run you will win money this way. In a tournament you will most likely fold and wait for a better position to get all your money in as nearly half the time you will face an early bath!

Example 2.
Exactly the same hands and reads as before yet it is down to the last 18 and you have 10 times the stack of the guy with AK who has gone all in. You call in a shot with a 50:50 chance to make it 17 left risking only 10% of your stack.

Patience, timing and positional play will take you a long way, of course it's nice to flop a monster and milk it to the river...

My own experience is that I have busted myself out of many many more tournaments through bad play due to my state of mind than bad beats. If you can stay focused then you will find bad beats will only cost you a portion of your stack rather than all of it. Excepting the times you get your rockets cracked!

Hectorjelly

Waylander wrote:

To my mind there are far too many variables in a game of poker to simply rely on a simple formula. Sorry HJ, I am not having a go at you, but I have seen you play hands in tournaments that you were not getting the odds on to play. I have also seen you try to steel pots with no hand at all. This totallly contradicts your last post.

Your right, there are a lot of skills that you need; far more than just maths or hand reading skills. However I think that pot odds and hand selection are the most important skills to have, it would be very difficult to be successfull without them. Thats not to take away from the other skills, just that I think they are the important ones to master first.

Id be interested to know which hands I played without getting the right odds to play them, Im not disputing it, just interested.

Im not sure how my trying to bluff affects this argument ?

Hectorjelly

lenny_leonard wrote:

I don't want to get off-topic here, but this does merit a reply. Firstly, I have absolutely nothing against David Sklansky... I have three of his books, all excellent, and Theory of Poker is indispensible. But Sklansky won his bracelets in the early 80's (one in Draw!), and tournament poker strategy has surely progressed since then.

Fair enough, he finished fairly high in the main event last year (I think), but perhaps the reason he doesn't play in many tournaments is because he isn't very good at them (at least at the top level). Just my opinion, I've never actually sat down at the table with him And it's not like he can't afford to play in big events... I, you, and thousands of others have been funding him for years!

The point I was trying to make was that you need a balance of skills, something I think you'll agree with... someone who relies totally on one aspect (maths or otherwise) wont get very far. Likewise, neglecting the maths part will also hurt your game.

And before you say it, three bracelets is still more than I'm ever likely to have

This topic comes up on 2+2 from time to time. There are many reasons why a good player like sklansky wouldnt play tournaments, for one thing (AFAIK) he prefers limit to no limit, so perhaps he doesnt really enjoy them. Maybe he doesnt like to travel, or can make more per hour playing 300/600 limit. I really doubt that he would fail to be successfull , but thats just conjecture on my part.

Funnily enough, I think Tournament Poker for advanced players is the weakest of all the 2+2 books. Its also responsable for a huge amount of wooly thinking, I dont think there is any other poker book out there that is so misunderstood.

I agree completely on the balance.

Hyzepher

The ONE certainty about poker is that there is NO perfect playing strategy or perfect playing style. The only thing we can do as players is to try and reduce the amount that luck plays a part in our game. Pot odds, starting hands, reading skills, bluffing are all important parts of the game, but there is a lot more involved than just using them. Otherwise we would all be winners.

The real trick is to try and master as many skills as possible so that when you do sit down to play you have more in your arsenal than any of the other players - so when the different situations/scenarios arise you are better equipped to handle them and come out on top.

Discipline is a big factor in becoming successful. Being able to stick to your strengths, adapt your game etc. Luck will always play a part and once I can justify my play with myself then I am not too bothered about being outdrawn etc. Being able to walk away from the table without cursing a badly played hand or being the victim of ones own boredom etc. is a sign that things are progressing in the right direction.

Hyzepher

Hectorjelly

Shortstack wrote:

Example 1.
You hold 99 in the first hand of a tournament and you are sure that the the guy who has rerasied you allin has AK. In a cash game you always call as in the long run you will win money this way. In a tournament you will most likely fold and wait for a better position to get all your money in as nearly half the time you will face an early bath!

What would you do if there is a juicy side game going on nearby?

The point Im trying to make is that life doesnt end once the tournament ends, life is on long session, and Im not sure you should pass up this opportunity. This is one situation in which online differs significently to offline, as offline there are more indirect costs added to a tournament, such as travel etc.

In reality however this would be a fold for other reasons, namely that you are likely to be the better side of a coin flip, but also at risk of being dominated with very little chance of dominating (oo er).

Hectorjelly

Hyzepher wrote:

Discipline is a big factor in becoming successful. Being able to stick to your strengths, adapt your game etc. Luck will always play a part and once I can justify my play with myself then I am not too bothered about being outdrawn etc. Being able to walk away from the table without cursing a badly played hand or being the victim of ones own boredom etc. is a sign that things are progressing in the right direction.

I think being able to lose well is a very important factor in the long run.

DeVore

Or that you feel you are a superior player and can wait for a better shot then 50/50. I'm not a bad player, I've had some results and made some money. I'm aware that I'm better then some other players and I'm aware that I'm not as good as others. I might be more inclined to take the 50/50 against the latter and reject it against the former (though as has been said above, a whole host of other factors will impinge on the decision too. Poker is a sum of the probabilities of the possibilities as I've said before....)

DeV.

Hitman Actual

Hyzepher wrote:

Being able to walk away from the table without cursing a badly played hand or being the victim of ones own boredom etc. is a sign that things are progressing in the right direction.

Hyzepher

Agreed! And surely one of the worst feelings in tournament poker is getting knocked out because of a stupid mistake. Usually, I even get annoyed if I get lucky and win a hand that I played badly.

DeVore

Hyzepher wrote:

Discipline is a big factor in becoming successful. Being able to stick to your strengths, adapt your game etc. Luck will always play a part and once I can justify my play with myself then I am not too bothered about being outdrawn etc. Being able to walk away from the table without cursing a badly played hand or being the victim of ones own boredom etc. is a sign that things are progressing in the right direction.

Yeah, last night you were very philsophical about it. I was trying to explain what was going on in my head when I made that poor call and hit. I certainly wasnt trying to justify it beyond "I didnt think he had an ace and I had him well covered".

I'm getting better at that, and while being outdrawn still hurts (especially for serious cash) its nothing like the mental kicking I give myself if I play poorly. Once I can say "I did the right thing in the situation" I'll sleep fine that night. If I dont, I'll play the hand over and over again cursing my stupidity. (or I'll bug Amp about how I could be so *thick* etc etc).

I felt dreadful after that hand too. You know I'd be happier to take you down then most players just for the sheer competition between us but not like that. I'd rather have lost.

DeV.

Hyzepher

DeVore wrote:

If I dont, I'll play the hand over and over again cursing my stupidity. (or I'll bug Amp about how I could be so *thick* etc etc).

Don't know him - is he a relative of Pam?

DeVore wrote:

I felt dreadful after that hand too. You know I'd be happier to take you down then most players just for the sheer competition between us but not like that. I'd rather have lost.

Yeah - I got that feeling from you last night - Not

Hyzepher

DeVore

Ok, noones SORRY they just got handed a ticket to the final table but honestly, I would rather beat you straight then outdraw you.



Of course, the day I do I will be doing my russian jumping-dance of victory on the table, waving my hole cards at you while you walk away and occasionally turning around to wiggle my backside in your general direction.



I'm a classy guy!


DeV.

Lafortezza

The answer to every single poker question you could ever think of is "It depends".

Hectorjelly

lafortezza wrote:

The answer to every single poker question you could ever think of is "It depends".

Not quite, but heres an interesting post on the subject of math anyway;

"Among pros you may be right that the only excuse is laziness.

Out here in the rank-and-file, however, I think there is a depressing amount of reliance upon bad poker books and unexamined platitudes.

If you don't take a mathematical approach to the game, you run the risk of letting emotion rule you instead. Many players, if they get their chips in as a 60-40 favorite and lose, will think "that's what I deserve for betting all my chips on a coinflip." Now there are times to pass up a 60-40 advantage, but that is not my point. My point is that all attempts at rational analysis go by the wayside. Getting busted out of a tournament is tough on the psyche and some people look at it as a sign from the Almighty that they must have played wrong. That's not an approach conducive to improving your game.

Another self-destructive form of fuzzy thinking is a resistance to learning the mathematics of a situation, because "poker is more complicated than that." Of course there is more to poker than pure mathematics, but the math is still a basic tool that you need. If you know your opponent perfectly and know that he would only make that raise with a pair higher than 88, what good does that knowledge do you if you can't figure out whether a call is mathematically correct against that range of hands? As I've said elsewhere, there are a million factors you can consider in playing a poker hand, but it's a lot easier to make a decision if you know the mathematically "correct" play and then can decide if extraneous factors should cause you to deviate from that play.

I don't mean to come off as cocksure because I am just another player. Some aspects of my game (I hope) are better than average; some (I know) are worse than average. But when it comes to those few areas of the game that I do understand, it hurts to see people come to these forums, time after time, with the same misconceptions about poker and about tournament play. In a sense maybe it should be encouraging that even top pros can fall into the trap of neglecting to think about the mathematics"



http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1203890&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1