HOH \"outdated\"
 

i've heard some people on these forums say that HOH is "outdated"

are they no longer considered the definitve source on NLHE tourneys? if not, why?

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

It could be due to the fact that it has been out for three years or so. Thus many people have had a chance to absorb what it said and started playing in a manner to counteract it.

Having not read it yet, I am not one of those who say it is outdated.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

I say no, but I'm more of a cash game player. I think HOH2 is one of the top 3 or 4 poker books of all time.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

It was superceded by Arnold Snyder's PTF.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

It isn't outdated at all, so long as you stay aware of table conditions. Even c-betting.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was superceded by Arnold Snyder's PTF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

To the extent that I have seen it described as outdated it is not so much that the strategy is outdated, but that some of the terminology in the book has been replaced by other terminology, often with slightly different meanings.

Basically, some of the terms coined in HOH that became popular in the immediate wake of its publication have since faded in popularity on the strategy discussion forums.

I think there is also some sentiment among much of 2+2 that books in general are an outdated way to learn poker strategy, and that even the really good ones are basically a cursory summation of concepts that were extensively discussed on the strategy forums a couple years earlier. I don't read the strategy forums much, so I could be completely off, but that is just the sense I get.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

Both HoH and Snyders book were effectively superceded by this book : http://www.amazon.com/Curious-George-Fis...2100&sr=1-2

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

You're asking if these books are outdated. My simple answer is no; nothing you can read about poker can possibly be outdated.

I've seen a few posts recently saying that SS is obsolete or that this idea or that idea is outdated. To me, this seems ridiculous.

Sure, there are new styles and new ideas, many of which have been brought on by the Internet and TV revolution that poker has seen recently. But here's the important thing to remember: not everyone plays (or thinks about) poker the same way. ANYTHING you can read that might give you some insights to how other play the game -- or just as importantly, insights to how others think YOU are playing the game -- is worth your time, and you should consume it like food, water, or air if you are a poker player.

As for HOH specifically, I recommend it for anyone. Many of the ideas in the books are timeless (ex: in general, play a smaller range of hands when the blinds are low compared to when the blinds are huge; always know where you stand in relation to others [inflection points: M and Q {if you don't know what M and Q are, read the books}]; pay attention to your table image as well as that of others; don't sell yourself short when it comes to making a deal).

These ideas, and many others, are extremely well illustrated through Harrington's "problems," where readers must put themselves in situations and determine the "correct" way to act in those unique circumstances. Here's the shocker: You and I might not agree with what Harrington says are the "right" moves! Of course we won't! But the value we gain in understanding different ways of thinking about the same situations is unsurpassed in poker.

Read the books if you haven't. You'll be learning poker for the rest of your life, and this little timeslice is well worth the ticks on our clock.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

JustCuz,

very well put. I definitly agree with you. But I would like to compare it to another game of strategy. Chess is like poker. When I was a tournament chess player, I read all the different openings to understand other players attack methods..etc. There's an infinite number of ways to think about chess and poker.

Chess openings have evolved over centuries and I would't seel poker short of the same type of trends.

Harrington's mathmatics depend on call/ fold variables that he arbitrairly sets. I've heard how television has affected poker profits. I'm sure books do it as well. That being said, the mathmatics of poker is constantly changing but the core concepts are still the same.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

MrX5000,

A comparison between poker and chess can, as your post illustrates, yield some interesting similarities. I would, however, warn against too close a comparison, particularly since you are from an obvious chess background. So, for the sake of this discussion, I would like to introduce a third game, backgammon, as a sort of "in-between" to reference the divide between chess and poker.

In chess, there is absolutely no "hidden" or "unknown" information. Everything that is true, or can possibly become true, is able to be determined by either or both players based on what is visible on the board. Sure, one player might trick another one into thinking that the will do one thing and then do another, but that possibility can always be surmised by a true master.

Backgammon, on the other hand, is similar in that both players know, at all times, exactly the same information about where the game stands; one player hides nothing from the other. However, there is an unknown in backgammon: the roll of the dice. So, players respond to situation based on a marriage of what they both know to be the facts of the game (the situation on the board) and the probability of what is unknown (what opportunities the "random" rolls of the dice are likely to afford to either player). In the case of backgammon, the known information is shared equally and fully by both players, but the unknown information (the roll of the dice) is also equally mysterious to both -- netier know for sure what the dice will bring, but predictions can be made about liklihoods.

Poker, however, is a much different game strategically. In hold'em, for example, the board is known to both players, just as it is in chess and backgammon. Yet, the unknowns are two-fold: 1) The other players' hole cards (which are known to only the player holding the cards -- a type of information not present in chess or backgammon) and 2) What opportunities are likely to be realized based on the turns of the cards (turn and river as opposed to rolls of the dice).

So, we, as poker players, have to manipulate many, many more variables as they relate to the knows and unknowns of the game, and, on top of that, we have to know that our opponents, who hold unknown cards, are doing the same.

The point to all this is that a huge part of playing winning poker is the ability to navigate our way through those unknowns that are so unique in our game. And here's where I must disagree with you: Harrington has not arbitrarily set call/fold variables; he has merely given us guidelines. Just as I have my preferred counter to Bird's opening in Chess, for example, I will not use that counter every game, nor does Harrington suggest we play every hand in every situation the same way. Like you say, however, the mathematical core is still the same, and it's interesting to see how others propose playing in light that one constant in our game.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

No, it's not "outdated". The ideas are sound, and provide a good base even if you are playing against players who have advanced beyond it. Even if some top players don't play exactly that way, they still know how to, and they still need to be aware of who's playing that way. Then again, lots of players you play against will not even have absorbed that material, let alone done more advanced things.

Snyder's book does not supercede it, it augments it. Harrington's M ideas are not 100% fleshed out, and Snyder helps fill in some details related to increasing blind speed, "making plays" in position, leveraging a large chip stack, etc. I'd read Harrington first and Snyder second, possibly among other books.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
In chess, there is absolutely no "hidden" or "unknown" information. Everything that is true, or can possibly become true, is able to be determined by either or both players based on what is visible on the board. Sure, one player might trick another one into thinking that the will do one thing and then do another, but that possibility can always be surmised by a true master.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.

It's true that while playing a "true master" you won't be able to get away with anything, against opponents at your own strength (less than master), chess is really not a game of complete information in practice. You have to pick up on your opponents strengths and weaknesses. You can pick lines he's not familiar with. Not everyone has the abilitiy to recognize all the information available to him. Some players are better at book lines, some are better at strategy, some are better at tactics. Some are better with positional analysis, some are better at sharp, open games. Some are better getting to an endgame safely where they can leverage their advantage in king and pawn play, while others are better at earlier fireworks.

It certainly is possible to bluff in chess (as you said not against a "true master".) But practically speaking, different information is available to the 2 different opponents.

To make an analogy, you could have the equivalent of a 1500 chess rating and make a lot of money at poker. That rating will certainly not make you any money at chess, even though you can win most of your games :-)

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

It's funny how previous posters referenced Chess & Backgammon as games to compare to poker. Not surprisingly, Harrington was a master at ALL THREE GAMES.

Chess has an equivalent book to HoH; Reassess Your Chess (J. Silman). It essentially sets up a backbone for formulating plans during the middlegame. It gives you a broad system to utilize. It is obviously not the end all to chess, but it lays another foundation for future play, reading and study to build on.

In both games, everybody has a unique style of play that opponents must figure out. They take their knowledge of the game along with the knowledge of their opponent to place opponents in uncomfortable situations that lead to difficult decisions.

I have played tournament poker and tournament chess, but not tournament backgammon, but see the similarities. All games are a mix of styles and situations to achieve an ultimate goal.

I must admit that there is a ton of money in poker compared to chess. Also, chess has a difinitive rating system, where poker does not. The ratings can give you an idea on how strong your opponent is (if you want to know it. I personally avoid learning my opponents rating to prevent being 'beaten before going to the board.) Poker has no such luxury (or curse). You must figure this out at the felt.

Bottom line is that HoH is a solid book to build a tournament foundation for other books to build on, but it cannot stand alone.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

I agree that HOH is not outdated. Both 1&2 introduce important concepts that every player should be aware of. Whether you think that how he does something is right or wrong is irrelevant because the underlying concept is still important. A hyper-aggressive player could still learn something from HOH even though Harrington is tight.

The problems are also one of the best tools (besides playing) to learn how to think in a logical manner.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

Not only is Harrington on Hold'em NOT outdated, it's still the best work on NLHE tournament play. Snyder's book has merit despite a few problems.

Sklansky of course has his mega-revised Tourny Poker book coming soon an it's supposed to have an assload on new NLHE stuff too.

But HoH being outdated? No way.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

To make an analogy, you could have the equivalent of a 1500 chess rating and make a lot of money at poker. That rating will certainly not make you any money at chess, even though you can win most of your games :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

You can make money with the ability level of a 1500 rating if your official rating is lower and you can get into the u1200 section at the World Open or other similar tournament. Even in chess, it's all about game selection if you're in it to maximize profits. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 100 new pages as per Mason, most concerning NHLE. It's not a minor revision.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 100 new pages as per Mason, most concerning NHLE. It's not a minor revision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't answer the (somewhat rhetorical) question.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can make money with the ability level of a 1500 rating if your official rating is lower and you can get into the u1200 section at the World Open or other similar tournament. Even in chess, it's all about game selection if you're in it to maximize profits. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You win money at the World Open at low ratings? I didn't know that.

Anyway, basically you're saying you can win by cheating :-)

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

It's hard to imagine it becoming outdated. The ideas are sound regardless of how the game progresses. However, like SSH, some ideas just may not apply as often as games change. The really loose limit games that SSH talked about rarely exist online anymore beyond micro levels.

However, it seems more and more like tournament winners are just insanely aggressive. I'd like to see a book describing how to play this type of game as a flip side to HoH's very tight style. Yea, HoH talks about a "hyper aggressive" game, but doesn't go into detail (it is, after all, not Dan's style).

I'd love to see a chapter by someone like Raymer on running over the table with a big stack. They'll take more risks to get that stack and I'd like to understand the thinking about the types of hands they play differently to take that shot at big stack status.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was superceded by Arnold Snyder's PTF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol

[/ QUOTE ]

second that LOL [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 100 new pages as per Mason, most concerning NHLE. It's not a minor revision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't answer the (somewhat rhetorical) question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't take it as if you were literally asking a question. You expected me to guess about the usefulness of a book that's not even going to print for a couple of months?

It's a Sklansky book with 100+ new pages, most on NLHE. Other than that, who knows.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 100 new pages as per Mason, most concerning NHLE. It's not a minor revision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't answer the (somewhat rhetorical) question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you want me to guess or something? lol

[/ QUOTE ]
Guess, or use whatever process for measuring expectation you usually use. My prejudices say Sklansky has nothing new or useful to say on no-limit holdem tournaments but if others expected better I could review my opinion.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

Ok, well, that was beoynd the scope of my post. You could always read some reviews or read it yourself for the $25 or whatever it will cost. There's no point in guessing how useful the book may or may not be... and even less in changing my guess based on other peoples guesses.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

You have no expectations whatsoever? I like that way of living. Never disappointed.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have no expectations whatsoever? I like that way of living. Never disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to read it make up my own mind, if that makes sense. If you like guessing games you can do that without me... I don't really see the point but w/e

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]


This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.



[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, I've seen you make this claim a few times. In game theory terminology, chess is indeed a game of complete information, and poker is a game of incomplete information. What people choose to do with this information is another thing, but that doesn't change the definition of the game.

If you want to say that the players if they are amateurs don't follow a Nash Equilibrium strategy, that's fine, and that's exactly what's going on. If you want to denote something else, you probably should chose different words that don't have a specific meaning in game theory already.

shane

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.



[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, I've seen you make this claim a few times. In game theory terminology, chess is indeed a game of complete information, and poker is a game of incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said. I also am saying that in practice you don't make all your decisions based strictly on game theory. In many actual game situations in chess, you can knowingly make theoretically incorrect moves and still gain an advantage over a (non master) opponent. You obviously cannot do this in a game theory sense. The fact that chess is theoretically a game of complete information is irrelevant sometimes, yet people keep talking about it as if chess is a game played against perfect computers, not against people. Since their assumption is wrong, sometimes their conclusion is wrong.

In some ways, amateur chess in practice has more in common with poker, a game of incomplete information, than with a game of complete information. This is the point I'm trying to get across.

For example, in poker you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent has and he's not sure what I have, but based on his play I think he has something like ABC, and he probably thinks I have something like XYZ."

In chess you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent's up to here, but based on his last couple moves he's very worried about this threat, even though there is an easy defense to it that he's obviously not aware of. I will continue with this "bluff". I might be exposing myself here, but I'm not sure since I can only imagine a couple moves ahead, and furthermore I doubt he'd see that anway even if it is an exposure."

I'm trying clear up the misconception that just because a game is one of "complete information", you can't bluff and you can't outplay your opponent in many of the same ways you can in poker. If your opponent does not know how to use information or is not aware of it, then that information might as well not exist, making the game one of incomplete information in practice. And then the game plays more like a theoretical game of incomplete information.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.



[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, I've seen you make this claim a few times. In game theory terminology, chess is indeed a game of complete information, and poker is a game of incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said. I also am saying that in practice you don't make all your decisions based strictly on game theory. In many actual game situations in chess, you can knowingly make theoretically incorrect moves and still gain an advantage over a (non master) opponent. You obviously cannot do this in a game theory sense. The fact that chess is theoretically a game of complete information is irrelevant sometimes, yet people keep talking about it as if chess is a game played against perfect computers, not against people. Since their assumption is wrong, sometimes their conclusion is wrong.

In some ways, amateur chess in practice has more in common with poker, a game of incomplete information, than with a game of complete information. This is the point I'm trying to get across.

For example, in poker you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent has and he's not sure what I have, but based on his play I think he has something like ABC, and he probably thinks I have something like XYZ."

In chess you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent's up to here, but based on his last couple moves he's very worried about this threat, even though there is an easy defense to it that he's obviously not aware of. I will continue with this "bluff". I might be exposing myself here, but I'm not sure since I can only imagine a couple moves ahead, and furthermore I doubt he'd see that anway even if it is an exposure."

I'm trying clear up the misconception that just because a game is one of "complete information", you can't bluff and you can't outplay your opponent in many of the same ways you can in poker. If your opponent does not know how to use information or is not aware of it, then that information might as well not exist, making the game one of incomplete information in practice. And then the game plays more like a theoretical game of incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff--

I do (and did) see your point, and I understand it. My only point is that you're messing up the terminology--the game itself is a game of complete information, and so to attach a tag of 'incomplete information' is misleading. What you're saying is that it is a game of complete information, but the equilibrium is very difficult (if not impossible in some situations to find) so that opponents can and do play non-equilibrium strategies. As such, you can play non-equilibrium strategies (your 'bluff') because that's a best response to your opponent's mistakes.

So the game is the game--it doesn't become incomplete information because of what or how some people play. If I were to sit down and play a game of Go, it would still be a game of complete information, even though I would play it terribly, and not even close to an equilibrium strategy. So my opponent might catch on and make 'mistakes' of his own to induce more mistakes from me, or even bluff (I don't know enough about Go to know if that's even possible...).

What I'm saying is that it is true in theory and practice in Go, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe, and whatever else, that the game is of complete information. To claim otherwise is either wrong, or as in your case, abusing the nomenclature. That's all I'm saying, and being a theorist in the field, I don't like seeing people abuse the notation...again, not saying your point is wrong, it's just that your wording is poor.

Shane

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can make money with the ability level of a 1500 rating if your official rating is lower and you can get into the u1200 section at the World Open or other similar tournament. Even in chess, it's all about game selection if you're in it to maximize profits. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You win money at the World Open at low ratings? I didn't know that.

Anyway, basically you're saying you can win by cheating :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

At lot of major tournaments give rather sizable prizes for sections down to u1200 or even lower. I did win the u1200 in a situation like I proposed a few years ago, but actually without cheating; I got back into chess with a rating that was still the one I had when I was 8 years old, played in as many tournaments as I could, and got my rating up to 1175. Then that summer I found out about the $3,000 first prize for the u1200 section and signed up, and won it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I was probably legitimately around a 1400 player at the time, though to be honest, I wasn't even sure about that going into the tournament. I just knew I'd have a chance (and got very lucky in a few games to boot).

There are a lot of people who do go out of their way to sandbag for these tournaments though. With a first prize this year of $12k in the u1400 section and $7k in the u1100 section, it's not hard to see why.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that it is true in theory and practice in Go, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe, and whatever else, that the game is of complete information. To claim otherwise is either wrong, or as in your case, abusing the nomenclature. That's all I'm saying, and being a theorist in the field, I don't like seeing people abuse the notation...again, not saying your point is wrong, it's just that your wording is poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

We constantly have to invent new wording to get new ideas across. Let me give you an example. If you were a "theorist in the field" of zoology, you'd know that balsa wood is a hardwood and pine is a softwood. But that's pretty misleading isn't it? So I would tell most people that balsa is a soft wood and you would correct me and say no, it must be a hardwood.

Yes, I know chess is a game of complete information. But in practice that's pretty misleading. In practice it's a game of incomplete information. This is no more wrong in my view than saying that balsa is a hardwood and balsa is a soft wood in practice.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of people who do go out of their way to sandbag for these tournaments though. With a first prize this year of $12k in the u1400 section and $7k in the u1100 section, it's not hard to see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the difference between handicapped games like chess, bowling and golf and a non handicapped game like poker to be pretty interesting, especially since poker is played with money virtually always.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that it is true in theory and practice in Go, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe, and whatever else, that the game is of complete information. To claim otherwise is either wrong, or as in your case, abusing the nomenclature. That's all I'm saying, and being a theorist in the field, I don't like seeing people abuse the notation...again, not saying your point is wrong, it's just that your wording is poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

We constantly have to invent new wording to get new ideas across. Let me give you an example. If you were a "theorist in the field" of zoology, you'd know that balsa wood is a hardwood and pine is a softwood. But that's pretty misleading isn't it? So I would tell most people that balsa is a soft wood and you would correct me and say no, it must be a hardwood.

Yes, I know chess is a game of complete information. But in practice that's pretty misleading. In practice it's a game of incomplete information. This is no more wrong in my view than saying that balsa is a hardwood and balsa is a soft wood in practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...(sorry for the nit, but it kind of goes with my point). But it would be pretty easy to explain to someone confused about it that (I think..I'm not a botanist) hardwood versus softwood is an issue of rigidity, not of strength.

But the key thing is the definition of complete information isn't open to interpretation. Are there hidden chess pieces? Do the pieces move in a different way that isn't known to both participants? Complete information games are defined as having the state of the world/system known to all. Complete information versus Incomplete information just has to do with the rules of the game, it has nothing to do with how complex the game is, or if people are playing the Nash Equilibrium strategy.

Looking at it another way...would you say Tic-Tac-Toe is a game of complete information? (it is). But according to your 'definitions', it would become a game of incomplete information if I was playing an idiot. Or I could define a simple game of incomplete information where the participants easily identify and play the Nash Equlibrium, and evidentally this would make it (according to a slight extension of your definition) a game of complete information. This makes your definitions useless, since now you need to specify the complexity of the thinking of the participants.

If you want to use a new word, fine. But when you take an established word with a concrete meaning and use it for something else, you muddle up the interpretation and argument.

I'm guessing a bit of trying to get chess called a game of incomplete information is that you're trying to show poker is a game of skill. That is, chess is a game of skill, and then by calling chess a game of incomplete information, those games then can be games of skill and thus poker is. But what I would say is just because a game is a game of incomplete information, doesn't make it a game without skill. After all, there are games of complete information that are entirely games of chance (Chutes and Ladders for a prime example), so the categorization of Complete or Incomplete information doesn't (or shouldn't) determine whether a game is skill or luck.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...

[/ QUOTE ]
My ex-girlfriend, a theorist in the field of zoology, is fond of the fact that balsa is a hardwood and talks of it often. Also, apparently, whelks have the largest penis-to-body ratio of any animal. Point is, when you can see the other guy knows what he's talking about, as jeff does, then mere pedantry loses arguments.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...

[/ QUOTE ]
My ex-girlfriend, a theorist in the field of zoology, is fond of the fact that balsa is a hardwood and talks of it often. Also, apparently, whelks have the largest penis-to-body ratio of any animal. Point is, when you can see the other guy knows what he's talking about, as jeff does, then mere pedantry loses arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's fine...if you want to ignore the body of the argument and focus on what was more or less a joke, ok. But that wasn't the point at all. I could care less about hardwood versus softwood...I probably shouldn't have even said that, because (I know that was being a bit nittish) people would latch onto that rather than the actual argument...oh well, I was just trying to bring a slight amount of humor

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...

[/ QUOTE ]
My ex-girlfriend, a theorist in the field of zoology, is fond of the fact that balsa is a hardwood and talks of it often. Also, apparently, whelks have the largest penis-to-body ratio of any animal. Point is, when you can see the other guy knows what he's talking about, as jeff does, then mere pedantry loses arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's fine...if you want to ignore the body of the argument and focus on what was more or less a joke, ok. But that wasn't the point at all. I could care less about hardwood versus softwood...I probably shouldn't have even said that, because (I know that was being a bit nittish) people would latch onto that rather than the actual argument...oh well, I was just trying to bring a slight amount of humor

[/ QUOTE ]
The 'body' of your argument is that you like terms to be used precisely and to not shift in meaning (as all good language does) when no one here was confused anyway. You are arguing to an empty room. Jeff's point that the amount of information in chess increases with ability, and thus the best strategy not only changes but relies on a completely different underlying theory, has interesting implications. If you can find the link to curtains' turn in The Well, he hints at exploitative chess strategies being a new avenue for him. And he's a pro. So, it's interesting. No one was talking about whether poker is a game of skill, but if you must be precise then I suggest that exploitation takes more 'skill' than does the application of a theoretically 'optimal' strategy, and poker is more skillful than high-level chess. Which is, like your argument, pointless semantic marshland.

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...

[/ QUOTE ]
My ex-girlfriend, a theorist in the field of zoology, is fond of the fact that balsa is a hardwood and talks of it often. Also, apparently, whelks have the largest penis-to-body ratio of any animal. Point is, when you can see the other guy knows what he's talking about, as jeff does, then mere pedantry loses arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's fine...if you want to ignore the body of the argument and focus on what was more or less a joke, ok. But that wasn't the point at all. I could care less about hardwood versus softwood...I probably shouldn't have even said that, because (I know that was being a bit nittish) people would latch onto that rather than the actual argument...oh well, I was just trying to bring a slight amount of humor

[/ QUOTE ]
The 'body' of your argument is that you like terms to be used precisely and to not shift in meaning (as all good language does) when no one here was confused anyway. You are arguing to an empty room. Jeff's point that the amount of information in chess increases with ability, and thus the best strategy not only changes but relies on a completely different underlying theory, has interesting implications. If you can find the link to curtains' turn in The Well, he hints at exploitative chess strategies being a new avenue for him. And he's a pro. So, it's interesting. No one was talking about whether poker is a game of skill, but if you must be precise then I suggest that exploitation takes more 'skill' than does the application of a theoretically 'optimal' strategy, and poker is more skillful than high-level chess. Which is, like your argument, pointless semantic marshland.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite an empty room; there have been replies. And I would say it's interesting a game of perfect information can have room for 'non-optimal' strategies being better than the optimal replies based on one's opponent.

But the argument jeff put forward, if your summary is correct, is wrong. There's more information if I'm good at chess? hardly. I can see the board, I can see the pieces, I know how they move. All the information is readily available to any participant. Pieces are not revealed to a GM when they remain hidden from someone of my chess ability. I think the only 'pointless marshland' is the place where people define words however they want, and use them to prove whatever it is they want.

Although, my guess is there's a mixing of information (the state) with the action space for a game. What my opponent is doing or thinking in no way influences the information in a game as far as calling it complete or incomplete. It is a part of the game, and it would influence my strategies, but calling it something it isn't defeats the purpose of defining what it is in the first place. A good language may have words shift meaning, but good science has concrete definitions that are not subject to the whims of the person uttering the words. And the phrase 'incomplete information' is and was being used in a scientific sense, quite incorrectly--and I've seen jeffnc use it in that way several times in previous threads...

Re: HOH \"outdated\"
 

What term should he use instead?