Rizen just wrote a great article on P5's...

[aejones]

after shaniac's well, i predict open limping will become thenew open raising. discuss.

[LearnedfromTV]

Good article, Rizen.

One of the things that interests me most about the evolution of poker is the interaction between online and live play.

Obviously online play greatly sped up the overall learning curve, both because of the volume people play and the increased emphasis on quantitative analysis with statistical data and no live reads. The best online players are much farther along technically/quantitatively/mathematically than would have been possible without online play

Most interesting is how different low/mid limit live play is. Aggressive short-stack pushing and aggression in general is still looked at by a lot of exclusively live players, especially the fish in $500-$1000 buyin tournaments, as a weakness of online players. The $10k events probably track online evolution more closely, and everyone shoves a lot (albiet often horribly) in fast structured live tourneys, but a lot of live players who have had decent success in the mid levels have a completely different view of correct strategy. I think this is mostly because they play in weaker games and they don't have the proper sample size to analyze the aggression they think is bad play. I'm talking about completely standard stuff like threebet shoving AK, reraising hands other than AA-KK. Live cash games, (up to 5-10 at least) are also extremely loose-passive relative to online games, which creates a whole class of "good" players who are tight passive, yet win, and think the more aggressive play typical of online games is bad. I wonder how long it will take for the things online multitablers have learned playing 50k hands a month to fully seep into the live games, if it ever happens. Even if all the online pros quit online play and started playing full time live, it would take the broader group of live players years to play as many hands as could be played in one year online, so even if the evidence will eventually be out there in live results, it will take a while for everyone to realize what's happening. Maybe they never will, as long as the live poker economy gets enough money from old-school fish, old-school ideas will persist, because they can be more successful in that environment.

Also, completely aside, I'm curious what impact the Chen/Ankenmann book will eventually have. Because it doesn't provide tangible strategy advice in the way HArrington's M did, maybe it won't have much effect outside the brainy subset. I hope so.

[NoahSD]

In tournaments, unexploitable play would cause you to make massive mistakes in late game. You wouldn't steal and resteal nearly enough, and you wouldn't choose your targets.

But, it wouldn't really hurt you in early game that much (For most it'd almost certainly help). You'd bluff a little too much and you wouldn't value bet enough, and you'd fold too much--but all of this is pretty subtle and not that significant.

In cash, it's all early game. I doubt there are many cash players who earn more than an unexploitable player would.

[NHFunkii]

yeah, aejones's definition is wrong.

and yeah steve, I was including people doing dumb things because of tilt/not paying attention/whatever. But like you said, it's pretty hard to say what that would consist of, and you may well be right about tournaments. I do think in cash games 3/6 and up, playing unexploitably 100% of the time would give you some pretty sick results.

but really I'm just guessing.

[shaundeeb]

[ QUOTE ]
after shaniac's well, i predict open limping will become thenew open raising. discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

um shaniac was a day late,
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...0&fpart=all

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the only thing i disagree with is that harrington's books are fantastic. they're marginal at best, teach you how to play terrible postflop, and they were archiac right after they came out. the author of this article writes a decent post though in the basic idea of staying ahead of the evolution of the game.

of course, you could just play a sick, unexploitable style, if you don't want to evolve your own game.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

0WNAGE

THAY3R what'd you end up doing in the $55+R+A last night? That table we were at last night was disgusting...

[shaundeeb]

war most likely he folded his way to FT than made a shove with AQo lost to 74s calling his 3bb shove in the BB and than he made a post bitching about a bad beat. He got 6th and brags about how good he is.

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
war most likely he folded his way to FT than made a shove with AQo lost to 74s calling his 3bb shove in the BB and than he made a post bitching about a bad beat. He got 6th and brags about how good he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha good stuff... Are you sure he didn't push J4?

Our table at one point consisted of: Me, THAY3R, ZBT, busto_soon, xthesteinx, gboro780, and PlayaPlz

Please tell me how that was fair?

Needless to say I got eliminated by the 1 losing player at the table...

[shaundeeb]

I see 2 losing players lol

[uclabruinz]

Playing unexploitably vs optimally is a great topic for discussion. From NLHTP:

"No matter who you are playing, the fundamental remains the same. For every play, try to think of what the perfect strategy [Paul: "unexploitable"] might be. Then adjust that strategy to capitalize on your opponents' weaknesses [Paul: "optimal"]. Be aware of how your strategy deviates from an unexploitable one, and watch out for opponents who might be trying to exploit your mistakes [Paul: so you can exploit their effort to exploit you]."

Online when multi-tabling I tend to shoot for unexploitable early and optimal late. Live I try to lean more toward optimal, but am willing to shift to unexploitable at tough tables.