The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)

[silencee]

To be fair, he's in the big blind next hand, so it's really three hands until the "raising every hand" comments apply.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
3. When I call in this situation and I do, in fact, have junk, it has an affect on my table image, so that I will get paid off when I "steal" raise with my good hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's sweet, because the next time you're on the button you're bound to have aces.

Steve

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
That's sweet, because the next time you're on the button you're bound to have aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the problem with my strategy. I never actually get aces, so I'm never able to take advantage of my image, so it all ends up being for nothing, which is why I'm a huge loser in MTTs.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's sweet, because the next time you're on the button you're bound to have aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the problem with my strategy. I never actually get aces, so I'm never able to take advantage of my image, so it all ends up being for nothing, which is why I'm a huge loser in MTTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just saying that all the people saying that your strategy is brilliant because your image lets you steal more and get paid off on your big hands are talking crazy. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH. If they start playing back at you more, then stealing becomes less effective but your big hands are more likely to be paid off. End of story.

Steve

[A_PLUS]

Awesome thread.

I don't get why people are making such a huge deal about the hand. Was it -CEV, yeah, probably. Was it likely to be a HUGE mistake? Nah.

It was interesting reading this thread develop. I think it caused such a stir, b/c Nath came across more than a little smug in the way it was presented, and is pretty clearly being at least somewhat results oriented.

But still, the only rational discussion I read was by Apefish, Woodguy, and Curtains.

I think people are really overestimating how well players adjust to someone like Nath, especially when a big jump in money is invloved. Anyone who plays a lot of SNGs knows that it is often correct to fold +CEV plays when Nath raises you, if you think someone else will risk their stack first.

I am as mathy a player as you will find, and I think Nath is most likely playing a very high ROI style. Saying that you always have to justify your moves with math is a little over the top. For a single hand, yeah, EV calcs are usually reasonable (although the assumptions may not be).
Outside of an individual hand, I haven't seen one theory relating to $EV in MTTs that I find all that 'correct'.

FWIW, I think most people drastically underestimate the value of taking a gambool for a big stack. Playing 10xBB poker before the final 30-40 players is a recipe for distaster long term if the rest of the table is deep. At some points, I think the variance is as important as the CEV of a play.

A lot of styles work in poker. Just b/c Nath's doesnt fit the typical 2+2 mold, doesn't mean he is just a luckbox. I think we could all probably learn something if we stop being so freaking petty (and Nath, you could turn down "I'm the new Doyle Brunson" routine).

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Awesome thread.

I don't get why people are making such a huge deal about the hand. Was it -CEV, yeah, probably. Was it likely to be a HUGE mistake? Nah.

[/ QUOTE ] It wasn't the hand so much as the rationales provided for the hand. I personally have never read so many flaky, vague rationales for a simple hand.

[ QUOTE ]
It was interesting reading this thread develop. I think it caused such a stir, b/c Nath came across more than a little smug in the way it was presented, and is pretty clearly being at least somewhat results oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]
actually, Nath lost the hand to a set of 3s.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that you always have to justify your moves with math is a little over the top. For a single hand, yeah, EV calcs are usually reasonable (although the assumptions may not be).

[/ QUOTE ] You should be able to justify, in mathematical or logical terms, either the present EV or future EV of a play. As stevepa pointed out, the justifications provided were neither mathematical or logical (your opponents apparently fold more out of fear of Nath, except when Nath gets pocket aces, and then suddenly they are calling more).
[ QUOTE ]
I think most people drastically underestimate the value of taking a gambool for a big stack.

[/ QUOTE ] Nath already had a big stack. What he was gambooling with was losing that big stack, or at least making a serious dent in it.
[ QUOTE ]
I think we could all probably learn something if we stop being so freaking petty (and Nath, you could turn down "I'm the new Doyle Brunson" routine).

[/ QUOTE ] This thread was a serious discussion on the merits of an unorthodox move. It engendered a lot of passion, but I don't see pettiness anywhere (well, maybe a few Ansky-like digs, but not many for a thread of this size).

[A_PLUS]

Instead of the double quote, I will just go in order
#1) I agree, shaky rational at best.
#2) Dude, please forget about the hand. I was talking about his overall results. I think he misplayed the hand. So, no need to convert me.
#3) I wasn't defending Nath's rational. Steve was right. It is silly to say that you need to be able to justify your moves based on math. I am not saying that math and logic don't inherently underly every decision in poker. They do. My point is trying to force yourself to be able to explain every aspect of it in terms of math/logic means that your game will never develop beyond your math/logical ability. I am more math/logic savy than the average player, yet I do certain things, b/c they 'feel' right to me. I think someone more formally trained in mathemetics, could give a proof of why it is correct. So, a play is either right or wrong, regardless of wether you can justify it. I think Nath will agree that his poker is well beyond his math and logic skills. Just b/c you can express yourself in a logical way, does not mean that you are the best at poker.
#4) Again, I was not talking about the 74s hand. I meant overall why we don't 'get' Nath's play as a whole.
#5)Nath tried a few times to move beyond the hand, but no one would. I was trying to. I failed.

Again. I think the 74s hand was a bad play. I dont think it was horrible, just kinda bad.

I think it is possible that Nath's results would get worse if he didnt make plays like this. (not the actual 74s hand).

Lets say he makes 40 plays like this a MTT. Lets say 25-30 of them are +CEV (and the group of 40 is overall +CEV).
I think there is a chance that they all look about the same to us, during live play. So rather than eliminating all of them (which is what most of us do), Nath makes them all.
Would his results improve if he isolated the 10 'bad' plays like the 74s hand, and eliminated them? Sure, can he actually do that? No. So, he is better off making them all.

This might be all b/s and Nath might be a giant luckbox. But I am trying to give a real world example of why making -CEV moves could make sense, even if it had nothing to do with table image, or setting up future moves. Its possible when Nath makes these 'donk' moves, he is maximizing the CEV of all of the plays the way he sees them.

[jcm4ccc]

Nice post. Seriously. I have issue with one thing:

[ QUOTE ]
Would his results improve if he isolated the 10 'bad' plays like the 74s hand, and eliminated them? Sure, can he actually do that? No. So, he is better off making them all.


[/ QUOTE ] I think Nath can eliminate the poor decisions and keep the good ones, and if he did, he could move up into the realm of the adanthars and the stevepas and the harringtons and all of that. If not, he will be stuck with being good but not great. And what I noticed in his replies was this lack of critical self-evaluation which is necessary for moving up to the next level. His attitude was, basically, "I did it, I'm a good player, [censored] you if you don't like it." Even after 140 posts in which almost no good player said it was a good play, nath is still saying it's a good play.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. Seriously. I have issue with one thing:

[ QUOTE ]
Would his results improve if he isolated the 10 'bad' plays like the 74s hand, and eliminated them? Sure, can he actually do that? No. So, he is better off making them all.


[/ QUOTE ] I think Nath can eliminate the poor decisions and keep the good ones, and if he did, he could move up into the realm of the adanthars and the stevepas and the harringtons and all of that. If not, he will be stuck with being good but not great. And what I noticed in his replies was this lack of critical self-evaluation which is necessary for moving up to the next level. His attitude was, basically, "I did it, I'm a good player, [censored] you if you don't like it." Even after 140 posts in which almost no good player said it was a good play, nath is still saying it's a good play.

[/ QUOTE ] See, here's the thing about nath. I think he's kind of wild and loose, and he doesn't always think critically about what he's doing. He just does it, and because he has good instincts, it generally works out for him.

The hand directly before the 74s, he folded K7o in a more favorable position when it was folded to him. Now why would he do that, when the K7o would clearly be more +EV than the 74s hand? I'm sure he could give a rationale post hoc, but at the time, I doubt he was thinking much about it all.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Nath can eliminate the poor decisions and keep the good ones, and if he did, he could move up into the realm of the adanthars and the stevepas and the harringtons and all of that. If not, he will be stuck with being good but not great. And what I noticed in his replies was this lack of critical self-evaluation which is necessary for moving up to the next level. His attitude was, basically, "I did it, I'm a good player, [censored] you if you don't like it." Even after 140 posts in which almost no good player said it was a good play, nath is still saying it's a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I do think that some players just need to play by feel, and too much critical thinking during play will just get in the way. However, they need to do there thinking away from the table. My main issue with the thread is we got so caught up in the hand, we never talked about Naths overall style, and why it is effective. I think I could learn a lot about pure LAG play, it is a gear I dont currently have.

I do enjoy arguing with you JCM, having you in a thread makes me reread my post before I post it.