When does it get hard MK2

Mr. Flibble

I'm going to create another thread for this as is it hard to find the posts on topic in the last.

My original question:

---
After reading thebruiser500's Q&A session where he was asked at what level does online poker get hard, to which he answered it was a silly question that has no answer, I got thinking.
Perhaps this is a question which does have an answer:

If you were playing online where all of your opponents had their names blanked and each hand all the opponents were replaced randomly with another table of opponents so you have no reads - but your opponents did know who you were as if they had been playing with you for as many hands as you played in this scenario, at what level do you think NLH is beatable by a world class player?

So basically, at what level can a very good player beat the game with no reads. Only using good mechanics of NLH.
---

lenny_leonard wrote:

So if you played 10 hands, your opponents would have those 10 hands of information on you? And you have zero info on them? I don't know online poker levels well enough to answer (don't know them at all really). But the more hands you played, the more likely you are to be outplayed, so the question is a bit flawed.

Yes. The players would remember how you play but each hand you don't have any past information on them.

Another way to look at the question is to imagine that after each hand your memory of the whole poker session has been erased - and this is the first session you have had with these players.

A third way to look at it would be to ask what level a perfectly programmed computer by a world class player, which does not adjust to opponents play, could beat.

Please don't post off topic in this one.

cardshark202

Ok looking at that question, there is no answer. It's quite a silly question.

eggie

If this is the case then you are brought down to pure mathmatics against random hands. If someone raises you narrow there range based on an assumption and compare your holding to your assumption an bet accordingly. No 2 players play exactly the same so its practically not gonna happen.

Mr. Flibble

eggie wrote:

If this is the case then you are brought down to pure mathmatics against random hands. If someone raises you narrow there range based on an assumption and compare your holding to your assumption an bet accordingly. No 2 players play exactly the same so its practically not gonna happen.

If two players sit at a party .50c/$ NLH table once a day for a year and play only one hand each time, and never play against the same opponents twice, a good player will make more (or lose less) than a bad player.

Yes, you could call it just maths. It is just about knowing the mechanics of the game well and having a good understanding of how most people play most of the time.

But we must allow the other players to remember how we play or else all games would be beatable by the best player (unless we think that a table of players who know how eatch other play have an edge over a newcomer - which they probably do). For the sake of this thought experiment, lets say that the opponants do remember how we play, but we don't know how they play.


I think there certainly is an answer cardshark202. I can't think of any reason why there wouldn't be an answer, so long as we allow ourselves to generalise the ability of players at a certain level. I concede that it may be next to impossible to come up with an accurate answer, but I don't see why there is not an answer.


I think I could multitable a 5c/10c game and cover everybodys name and pay no attention to how the players play and still beat the game by playing good fundementals. I dont think I could do the same with $3/$6 games and beat them. So for me the answer lies somewhere between 5c/10c and $3/$6. My question is where does the answer lie for a world class player.

Ste05

Mr. Flibble wrote:

So basically, at what level can a very good player beat the game with no reads. Only using good mechanics of NLH.

This is the biggest problem with your query, knowing players tendancies and weaknesses is the main edge alot of players have, when they exploit them.

Ste05

Mr. Flibble wrote:

If two players sit at a party .50c/$ NLH table once a day for a year and play only one hand each time, and never play against the same opponents twice, a good player will make more (or lose less) than a bad player.

Yes, you could call it just maths. It is just about knowing the mechanics of the game well and having a good understanding of how most people play most of the time.

I get the feeling that maybe you're just having trouble properly getting your question out, but again this wouldn't work, as if the very best player only played 365 hands at .50/1 Party, then Variance would usually dictate how they get on, they may make a killing but equally he might run KK into AA 3 times and lose 3 buy-in's and vice versa for the "bad player".

Possibly one way of boiling it down to a one line question might be along the lines of: At what level does the average player playing the level make very few fundamental errors?

And TBH, even something along these lines is almost impossible to answer, because everyday you'd find people "taking shots" or playing drunk and above their BR, Tilting away at a higher level, etc. etc. etc.

For this type of discussion you'd have to somehow incorporate the theoretic long term into it where anomolies like this will be taken into account, but I don't know how something like that could possibly be quantified.

Also since very few players ever make the "long term" and certainly not at every level to be able to give an informed opinion on something such as this. But I suppose.

TBH, the more I think about this, the less likely I think it's possible to even come close to a proper hypothesis never mind finding the answer to it...

Mr. Flibble

Ste05 wrote:

This is the biggest problem with your query, knowing players tendancies and weaknesses is the main edge alot of players have, when they exploit them.

Yep, I suspect that the answer is quite a low level.

Ste05 wrote:

I get the feeling that maybe you're just having trouble properly getting your question out

I do too!!

bigreddogue

Aren't there people out there playing twelve or more tables and doing very well at it. Surely they dont have any reads on there more than 100 opponents.

Would that be like the scenario in question?

luckylucky

bigreddogue wrote:

Aren't there people out there playing twelve or more tables and doing very well at it. Surely they dont have any reads on there more than 100 opponents.

Would that be like the scenario in question?

To say they have no reads on opponents is not totally true, of course they have a lot less information to work with than if they were just playing 1 or 2 tables, but successful multi-tablers are nearly all using software like pahud to get statistics on their opponents, then when they are involved in a hand with a specific player they can quickly check out this players tendancies and this aids them in making a decision. Even with this type of aid though to play 12 tables successfully takes some doing imo, though there are some super players who can do it that's for sure.

jimbling

whats most interesting about this question, or more the responses that are coming in... is that it shows how little pure maths actually comes into the equation. Largest part of any poker related maths equation is your own opinion. (i.e. what range the player has, what folding equity is there..... etc etc)

This is something people get confused about when they first enter the poker arena. they start reading all the forums, and what they hear is that if you can learn the maths of poker then you can be a winner. this just isn't true, as all the maths is based on reading of players and reading of situations.

as regards the guys playing lots of tables, yes its kind of true, but they're still using there own reasoning on what players at this level are most likely doing. A lot would use pt information as well.

I'm not sure how you can work out an answer for this.... hmmm.... you could just build a bot to do it for you..... i.e. play every hand uniquely, basing everything on the cards (Vs random hands) rather than information about the players, and previous play. Pretty easy to do, but why would anyone really want to know the answer for this???

im pretty hung over, so this may make no sense whatsoever :eek:

Mr. Flibble

jimbling wrote:

I'm not sure how you can work out an answer for this.... hmmm.... you could just build a bot to do it for you..... i.e. play every hand uniquely, basing everything on the cards (Vs random hands) rather than information about the players, and previous play. Pretty easy to do, but why would anyone really want to know the answer for this???

This would be a great way of finding the answer. I think there are a number of organisations putting some effort into building bots. They probably do take into account the history of their opponents but even so, knowing the answer to this question would be of great interest to them.

pok3rplaya

It's pretty easy to 12 table 200NL 6max with no reads for 2 or 3ptBB/100 if you know good really good ABC poker theory and have a HUD running.

I've never played higher then 3/6 but I'd call 5/10 and above "player based" online. I'm sure even that can be beated with solid basic play.

The problem with your question is that no one knows the definition of a "read".

Mr. Flibble

Lets say for this argument that read is any information you have based on hands previously played with a particular opponent. No HUD allowed.

Lazare

I think you can rephrase your question as follows:

At what level do opponents pay attention at all to what you're doing?

Solid ABC poker is sufficient enough to beat micro limits, at what level do you need to add more to your game in order to beat it?

Mr. Flibble

Lazare wrote:

I think you can rephrase your question as follows:
At what level do opponents pay attention at all to what you're doing?

Not quite. I would play attention at 10/20 - probably couldn't beat it.

Lazare

Mr. Flibble wrote:

Not quite. I would play attention at 10/20 - probably couldn't beat it.

That's not the point. You asked at what level can a top class pro beat a game with no reads.
You're basically asking at what level is ABC no longer viable.

In your hypothetical example, a top class pro would not beat the bigger games.

Mr. Flibble

Lazare wrote:

That's not the point. You asked at what level can a top class pro beat a game with no reads.
You're basically asking at what level is ABC no longer viable.

In your hypothetical example, a top class pro would not beat the bigger games.

My question is what level can a top player beat without reads, not when do players start pay attention. Bad players can pay attention at a game but still be beat by a top player who has no reads.

I agree that a top player wouldn't beat the bigger games alright.

jimbling

Lazare wrote:

That's not the point. You asked at what level can a top class pro beat a game with no reads.
You're basically asking at what level is ABC no longer viable.

In your hypothetical example, a top class pro would not beat the bigger games.

hmmmm.... is there some confusion about what ABC poker is?
you seem to think its when a player ONLY plays the cards and does not pay any attention to other players. This is not the case at all. ABC is just basic poker... i.e. not trying fancy moves, big bluffs etc etc. Keeping it simple. It still involves the inputting of information about the other players at the table.

Lazare

jimbling wrote:

hmmmm.... is there some confusion about what ABC poker is?
you seem to think its when a player ONLY plays the cards and does not pay any attention to other players. This is not the case at all. ABC is just basic poker... i.e. not trying fancy moves, big bluffs etc etc. Keeping it simple. It still involves the inputting of information about the other players at the table.

Of course it does, but not so much if at all at micro limits.
I mean, if you're multi tabling six .25 .50 tables, folding everything but big hands, and playing them fast, you will beat that game. It's because nobody is paying attention to the fact that you've folded everything for three orbits and now you're coming out firing.
Also there's no way you can pay attention to how all your opponents are playing.

This is a similar situation as the OP's hypothetical one.

The question I thought he was asking was, at what level does the above strategy no longer beat the game?

I know there are players successfully multi tabling the bigger games, and to be honest I can't understand how they beat them, maybe that's for another thread.

robinlacey

i agree that this is kind of a silly question,however,if a player was truly world class,he would be able to beat up to at least 5/10 nl playing with no reads,since there are still plenty of people who make basic errors all the time at these levels,thus all he would have to do would be avoid making mistakes and he would automatically win...
this is obviously just in theory though,since in practice many great players also makes basic mistakes,but more than make up for it with factors which could be broadly categorised as "reads",and there are probably other players who never make major mistakes but will also never quite be world class...

so basically you wouldn't have to be world class to beat 5/10 with no reads whatsoever,you'd just have to be solid,but with superhuman concentration and discipline...

Mr. Flibble

robinlacey wrote:

i agree that this is kind of a silly question,however,if a player was truly world class,he would be able to beat up to at least 5/10 nl playing with no reads,since there are still plenty of people who make basic errors all the time at these levels,thus all he would have to do would be avoid making mistakes and he would automatically win...
this is obviously just in theory though,since in practice many great players also makes basic mistakes,but more than make up for it with factors which could be broadly categorised as "reads",and there are probably other players who never make major mistakes but will also never quite be world class...

so basically you wouldn't have to be world class to beat 5/10 with no reads whatsoever,you'd just have to be solid,but with superhuman concentration and discipline...

World class players must be abysmal at communication then as they haven't yet been able to describe how to not make basic errors to a programmer trying to create a bot. Perhaps its possible to beat a 5/10 game with no reads, maybe its not, but I would imagine that the rest of the players at the table would get a read on our guy when a similar situation came up twice and take advantage making it very hard for him to win. Our player wouldn't know if he's been in the same situation with his opponents before so would not be able to modify his play.


People saying its a silly question; why do you think so - because you think it has no answer, the answer is just very difficult to pin down, or some other reason?