Helmuth - Ferguson Head Up Match Theory Question

[rakemeplz]

Shandax

Ummm what the hell wouldnt you just try to maximize your winning chances as compared to your losing chances and ignore all the draws every single game?

Hypothetically of course. Obviously you try to adjust your game use computers and all that. And yes if you kept drawing repeatedly youd be wasting far too much of your life on a chessboard so you do take some chances to increase variance...but theoretically you would not...anyways if you had a huge lead I'd tend to play even MORE conservatively at chess since you next win would be it and you could go home. Anyways I fail to see how any of your points disprove what sklansky has to say...draws are just draws and can be ignored hypothetically.

Anyways this argument just seems like a nitpick if you're arguing to decrease your winning chance in order to avoid draws.

[Get_better_Baris]

reraise,pot,pot,pot [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

You guys should read this simple post a few times. I am someone who David made loook dumb a while back. You know why? Because I was dumb. He did not embarrass me; I embarrassed myself. When I said something particularly dense and was particuarly stubborn about it, David said he would no longer debate with me. Then he reconsidered and posted something that showed me why I was wrong.

I am a person who was glad David made me look dumb.

[tipperdog]

David,
You asked (among other things) for posters to posit:
[ QUOTE ]
a theory about what is going on in the heads of the people who are screwing this up.

[/ QUOTE ]

My "theory" is that your question misled people to assume that some strategic change was correct and that your challenge was for posters was to identify those changes. I assume this question bias was intentional. Quote from your original post:
[ QUOTE ]

Given the above, in which of the following ways would you tend to alter your play as compared to how you would play if it was simply a one match championship?

Play tighter preflop

Play looser preflop

Make your value bets bigger/smaller

Bluff more/less

Semi-bluff more/less

Be more/less inclined to call very big bets or get involved with big pots


[/ QUOTE ]

Had you asked simply: "should you change your strategy, and if so, how?" I suspect that many more posters would have answered correctly.

Now, this is not to say that your question was unfair, cheating, or any such thing. But you asked "what was going on in their minds" and this is the short answer: Many posters assumed as a given, based on your original post, that some change was desireable. Rather than challenging that assumption, they started guessing which strategic changes made sense.

[Thales]

Please forget the chess comparision. 1984 Karpov was simply tired and could not pitch the last strike out.

I have not read the entire thread but i would adjust only to my opponents strategy.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Please forget the chess comparision. 1984 Karpov was simply tired and could not pitch the last strike out.

I have not read the entire thread but i would adjust only to my opponents strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please forget the baseball analogy you don’t have a clue.
“simply tired” shows ignorance of the events, what you perceive as “simply tired” is psychological pressure 3x

[Thales]

Nonsense. From chess i understand much more than of poker and i have too much information about the background of this match from various sources.

[Karmic]

It was a bad question. It set up a false situation in order to make sure there was only one possible answer. It wasn't a poker question, it was a logic puzzle. I think applying it to a real situation would be a much better question with a completely different answer. The question assumes that you already know the best possibly strategy to use against an unchanging opponent. What if you had the same situation against an unknown opponent that you won the first match against? Should you decide in advance to play each and every match the same way because it worked the first time?

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Shandax

Ummm what the hell wouldnt you just try to maximize your winning chances as compared to your losing chances and ignore all the draws every single game?

Hypothetically of course. Obviously you try to adjust your game use computers and all that. And yes if you kept drawing repeatedly youd be wasting far too much of your life on a chessboard so you do take some chances to increase variance...but theoretically you would not...anyways if you had a huge lead I'd tend to play even MORE conservatively at chess since you next win would be it and you could go home. Anyways I fail to see how any of your points disprove what sklansky has to say...draws are just draws and can be ignored hypothetically.

[/ QUOTE ]

The strategy I suggested (playing coinflips and moving in with aces*) is actually in line with David's recommendation of playing as optimal as possible (= +/- 0 EV), I think. My idea was to max variance so the guy who cannot cope with it as well as I can goes bust first.

Actually my misunderstanding about the blinds forcing this was not too far off either. I said "without blinds going up they would push chips back and forth forever" but I should have said "for ages". Increasing blinds are just a catalyst to speed things up. With low blinds the match will be decided also, just at a much slower speed.

* depends on SC numbers if you want to be precise

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. From chess i understand much more than of poker and i have too much information about the background of this match from various sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew Karpov's 2nd, you are wrong.
You are dismissed...