Daniel Negreneau Verifies His Agreement With Me

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Great, cEV =/= $EV to an exact degree.

Anyone with any understanding knows that your equity doesn't increase on a scale perfectly similar to your stack.

That is not the debate (or at least isn't the meaningful one), the question is what kind of edge should be passed up. Not just conjecture, math.

2007 WSOP ME
You have t70,000
Avg stack is t22,000
You are Daniel Negreanu

Please put a number on what kind of edge should be passed up on a AIPF decision for a player of his caliber against a field the strength of the average ME. Disregard the hourly rate discussion, I am looking for the answer with the highest $EV specific to this one tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill Chen did the math, search through the intelligent gambler. Of course the math makes assumptions that may not be true.

Here is the issue

http://www.conjelco.com/IG/IG23.pdf

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
...maybe he wants a publishing contract with you and Mason

[/ QUOTE ]Because DN has made it really clear his goal in life is to write poker books?

[NMcNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Of all theortical opponents, I think that kind of limpaggro opponent is the hardest to adjust to and play against, especially since it's incredibly difficult to induce mistakes from him postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly I can't see how any decent TAG can lose to it. Its a strategy designed to extract the absolute max from the donks at the table who will just always fold no pair/no draw but will lose their stack if their top pair is beat. Its not designed to baffle the TAGs. If its me, DanN., a couple other good players and the rest donks at the tournament table, DanN. will get the most chips because he's the best player and knows how to extract from the donks better than anyone. However, I believe I would be making money from DN being at the table simply because I'm making solid preflop reraises picking off all that crap he plays. I don't care how good of a player he is, I'll take my 20% of hands range against his 70%+ any day of the week as long as I'm playing aggressively and reasonably unpredictably.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take my 20% of hands range against his 70%+ any day of the week as long as I'm playing aggressively and reasonably unpredictably.

[/ QUOTE ]I think your 20% hand range is playing reasonably predictably.

Personally, I'm pretty sure DN would own me at the table.

[saeute]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I believe I would be making money from DN

[/ QUOTE ]

And I would beat Kasparov in chess. You should really think about why DN is a professionel poker player. The reason is he has an edge over almost every amateur player, no matter which style they play.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of all theortical opponents, I think that kind of limpaggro opponent is the hardest to adjust to and play against, especially since it's incredibly difficult to induce mistakes from him postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly I can't see how any decent TAG can lose to it. Its a strategy designed to extract the absolute max from the donks at the table who will just always fold no pair/no draw but will lose their stack if their top pair is beat. Its not designed to baffle the TAGs. If its me, DanN., a couple other good players and the rest donks at the tournament table, DanN. will get the most chips because he's the best player and knows how to extract from the donks better than anyone. However, I believe I would be making money from DN being at the table simply because I'm making solid preflop reraises picking off all that crap he plays. I don't care how good of a player he is, I'll take my 20% of hands range against his 70%+ any day of the week as long as I'm playing aggressively and reasonably unpredictably.

[/ QUOTE ]

"A decent TAG who plays aggressively and unpredictably."

What are you gonna do, pull a KP on him? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Anticipated and acccounted for in the strategy, btw.

[David Sklansky]

"So while yes there is an important theoretical distinction to be made, practically it his very few applications."

The big application occurs in the early rounds of major tournaments where you are lucky enough to start with an easy table. And the strategy change isn't just avoiding calling an all in bet. Its playing the whole hand (when the alternatives are close) in a way that reduces the likelihood that you will find yourself in that spot. In other words you don't reraise a late position opener in the samll blind with AK suited. Stuff like that.

As far as quantifying how much positive EV you should give up to avoid a confrontation that will bust you, there are many parameters with the most important two being the skill of your opponents and whether you will have lots of chips to work with if you pass the gamble up.

In spite of the above, I agree that the concept isn't important even for great players, and is almost irrelevant for merely good ones. In fact the concept that if your stack falls below a certain threshold you need to gamble is the more important one. When I explined both concepts in the magazine here, Snyder should have seized upon that as vindication for his strategy. Instead the moron chose to write a lengthy fallacious dissertion in an insane attempt to overturn a mathematical/logical principle that I and even Mike Caro had thought about greatly, with the comment "good math, bad logic". Until that occurred I pretty much ignored the subject.

[David Sklansky]

"However, I believe I would be making money from DN"


"And I would beat Kasparov in chess. You should really think about why DN is a professionel poker player. The reason is he has an edge over almost every amateur player, no matter which style they play."

You are wrong. The thing is though that Daniel would agree and not care. If his style takes a lot of money out of the pocket of a few players while simultaneously putting a little bit in the pockets of others, so what?

We devote quite a few words to this exact topic in NLTAP.

[FortunaMaximus]

Indeed? I'm certainly looking forward to it.

[David Sklansky]

Uh, the books been out for six months.