Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
David -
You asked somebody to comment on your four 'points'. Here is my initial gut reaction.
[ QUOTE ]
1. Dan is certainly the better player and will thus gain from avoiding playing big pots when the situation is close. It is true that this factor is not a big deal when the blinds are this high, especially if the opponent is aggressive, but it does count for something.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe (haven't read the article in question or HoH) that Lee asserts his 'system' is applicable only when blinds are high. He said in a NVG thread that:
"1. We specifically said that if the stack:blind ratios are large, you can't employ a fold/jam strategy without getting killed. Our strategy shows +EV for the small blind when the ratio of the smallest stack to the large blind (after the blinds are posted) is smaller than 7:1. Note that this is almost always true in S&Gs. It is also almost never true in major large buyin tournaments."
So, to your "point" #1 (which you finish with "this factor is not a big deal when the blinds are this high"), you've already negated the relevance of. I don't see why you want others to do this, too.
But more importantly, you say "Dan is certainly the better player and will thus gain from avoiding big pots when the situation is close". I'm pretty sure that Dan didn't write his book for him. He probably wrote his book for lesser players, who aspire to be like him. Moreover, I'd bet lots of money that Lee's system isn't aimed at improving Dan Harrington's sit N go game, but rather at lesser players' game. So, again, your point has no relevance.
[ QUOTE ]
2. To make the call correct, requires that the opponent is as loose or looser than the game theory move in strategy that the article espouses. But the fact is that most players play tighter than this AS THEIR OWN ARTICLE ADMITS in the fifth paragraph. The notion that the right strategy against an unknown player is game theory strategy is DEAD WRONG. Even if this was the last hand you would ever play, the right strategy against an unknown player is a strategy based on the average playing styles of unknown opponents.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I agree.
[ QUOTE ]
3. Even if you believed your opponent played as well as you and even if you thought he probably played approximately game theory strategy, you should still fold a close decision. Because as long as you think there is a decent chance that he is actually significantly tighter than expected, (in the situation given, remember, this is only the second hand of the head up match) your overall EV is negative if you make this call. Folding can only be a small error. Calling might be a big one.
[/ QUOTE ]
WHAT? This 'point' only has relevance if:
a.) We think our opponent is as good as us.
b.) We think our opponent uses good game theory.
c.) We think our opponent is "significantly tighter than expected"
The fact that you could write such a painfully obvious contradiction in the same post where you criticize other professional writers is comical.
[ QUOTE ]
4. The above holds true even if this is the last hand you will play. But the effect is even stronger because there are more hands to come. In other words if it turns out upon further obsetrvation that he is significantly tighter than he should be preflop, your bad call becomes that much worse because such an opponent is in terrible shape once you deduce this. To make this point clearer, suppose you both had giant stacks and a player moved in on his first hand. If there is a reasonable chance you are up against someone who plays too tightly preflop, which practically guarantees you the tournament, you should fold this first hand with anything short of aces or kings. The same principle applies here, though not as strongly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree (not withstanding the "above holds true" comment).
Josh
|