|
Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
I expect many comments and questions about that book. I'll reply here.
|
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
I've never heard of it. Do you consider it worth reading?
|
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
I've never heard of it. Do you consider it worth reading? [/ QUOTE ] how is this not self explanatory |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
how is this not self explanatory [/ QUOTE ] This, or the thread itself? Sorry, couldn't resist. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
DS,
We have a book forum. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
Mr. Sklansky, I haven't heard of the book, but I do have a question about the mathmatics. I was playing online last night in a cash game at Full Tilt. It was a micro limit. I was dealt three consecutive hands of pocket two's, and on all three consecutive hands I FLOPPED a set. I know many of the readers of this will not believe me but if you would like I do have the room and time down that this occurred. Again these were consecutive hands. I was curious about the probablity of this happening. I did not have the formula or the software to run it, but WE (office) came up with approx. 1 in 8,000,000,000,000,000.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. PS thanks for all your great books, they have helped me greatly. Jeff Mc. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Sklansky, I haven't heard of the book, but I do have a question about the mathmatics. I was playing online last night in a cash game at Full Tilt. It was a micro limit. I was dealt three consecutive hands of pocket two's, and on all three consecutive hands I FLOPPED a set. I know many of the readers of this will not believe me but if you would like I do have the room and time down that this occurred. Again these were consecutive hands. I was curious about the probablity of this happening. I did not have the formula or the software to run it, but WE (office) came up with approx. 1 in 8,000,000,000,000,000. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. PS thanks for all your great books, they have helped me greatly. Jeff Mc. [/ QUOTE ] A flopped set 3 times in a row would be (3/51)^3*(1/8.5)^3, or about 3 million to one. A flopped set of the same rank three times would be (3/51)^3*(4/52)^2*(1/8.5)^3, or about 500 million to one. A flopped set of deuces three times would be (4/52)^3*(4/52)^3*(1/8.5)^3, or about 6.6 billion to one. You were only off about 7 orders of magnitude. That's not so much, in the grand scheme of things. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
If you are in fact a reliable witness, then the probability is very close to certainty, although very unlikely to occur again. The probability of some other hand sequence amazing you is quite high though.
D. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
That is a superb answer and reminds me of one of Richard Feynman's favourite lecture openers, something along the lines of "I saw a car with registration number MC118GS on the way in to work today, what are the chances of that"
|
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
That is a superb answer and reminds me of one of Richard Feynman's favourite lecture openers, something along the lines of "I saw a car with registration number MC118GS on the way in to work today, what are the chances of that" [/ QUOTE ] Was that your neighbor's car? |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
I once got rolled up 5's back to back in 7 stud, what're the odds of that?
|
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
I once got rolled up 5's back to back in 7 stud, what're the odds of that? [/ QUOTE ] Somewhat worse than 7-1 |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
DS, We have a book forum. [/ QUOTE ] I'm more likely to get involved here. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
What about subscripts? Can you program this forum to accept subscripts?
Xn Doesn't seem to work. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
David,
This question isn't that great, but it's probably less disappointing than most of the others. I ordered the book from amazon almost a month ago, and it has been delayed a few times. Do you know anything about this? problems with supply, shipping, whatev? |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
craziest thing that happened to me is a guy getting kings four straight times in a live game. He got it 3rd time...they changed the deck and he got it again. He literally busted the entire table...at least it broke up aftewards.
|
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] DS, We have a book forum. [/ QUOTE ] I'm more likely to get involved here. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Oh so desperate... |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
You were only off about 7 orders of magnitude. That's not so much, in the grand scheme of things. [/ QUOTE ] Although an accurate estimate, properly it's this: I'll use the notation (x y) for "x over y", which is x!/((x-y)!*y!), or combinations. First, you need to be dealt 2 deuces: (4 2) / (52 2). That is, 2 cards out of 4 good cards, out of 52 total. Second, you need the complement chance of the flop not showing a deuce: 1 - ((48 3) / (50 3)). That is 3 cards out of 48 good cards (50 remaining minus 2 deuces) out of 50 total. Then you can multiply all this and raise it to the 3rd power for it to happen 3 times in a row. (4 2) = 4!/2!*2! = 4*3/2 = 6 (52 2) = 52*51/2 = 1326 (48 3) = (48*47*46)/(3*2) = 17296 (50 3) = (50*49*48)/6 = 19600 Gives: (6/1326) * (1 - (17296/19600)) = 0.0045248 * (1-0.88244) = 0.000531935. That's the probability of it happening once, 3 times it's: 0.000531935^3 = 1.51*10^-10. Or about one in 6,643,900,265. (that's rounded) |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
1. Have you read the book yet?
2. How do you rate it on a 1-10 scale (rounded to nearest .25 multiple) 3. Will the book prove itself immediately useful for limit or NL hold em? |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You were only off about 7 orders of magnitude. That's not so much, in the grand scheme of things. [/ QUOTE ] lol, are you [censored] high? go read the "verizon puts a 71$ beat on someone" thread in BBV, and realize that your level of stupidity is up there with the average verizon service rep. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
David,
The authors show that unexploitable strategies are often pure. So, they recommend always raising the same amount in each position when opening in NLHE (except for short stacks). This is very different from the advice in your NLHE book, where you recommend varying raise size with hand strength, with occasional mixups for deception. Could you comment on this? |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
DS, We have a book forum. [/ QUOTE ] We have a sticky at the top of this forum as well. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
Mr Sklansky,
Given the way the game is played in BLM casino's today is it possible to develop an optimal (holdem) poker stategy using game theory? Heads-up? NL? limit? If not what is the ultimate value of the use of game theory to a poker player? Also, is the reason that your No Limit holdem Book written with Ed Miller is so vague about strategy because you TWO really do not grasp the nonmathematical aspects of the game? leaponthis |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
I have a question about a computation on page 41. Specifically, for the 5-column chart on that page, I would like to have clarified how the entries under the column "p(A|B)" are derived.
In second paragraph, the authors write: "We cannot directly find the probability of a particular win rate being observed (because the normal is a continuous distribution.) We will instead substitute..." Then the chart is displayed. Could someone walk me through a calculation of one of the entries under the columns with the heading "p(A|B)"? Thanks. (Also note the typo where the heading of the 5th column of the chart should be "p(not(B))") |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question about a computation on page 41. Specifically, for the 5-column chart on that page, I would like to have clarified how the entries under the column "p(A|B)" are derived. In second paragraph, the authors write: "We cannot directly find the probability of a particular win rate being observed (because the normal is a continuous distribution.) We will instead substitute..." Then the chart is displayed. Could someone walk me through a calculation of one of the entries under the columns with the heading "p(A|B)"? Thanks. (Also note the typo where the heading of the 5th column of the chart should be "p(not(B))") [/ QUOTE ] Sure. If you have Excel handy, this'll be easy. If not, you can probably follow along anyway. In cell A1, put a "true" win rate, say 0. Now we want the probability that *given* that A1 is our true win rate, we would have observed a value of 1.15. We can't do this exactly, because the distribution is continuous. So we're going to use a proxy of any probability between 1.14 and 1.16. In cell A2, put the value 1.16. In cell A3, put the value 1.14. In A4, calculate the standard deviation of the win rates. In this case, it's 2.1 bb/h, with a sample of 16900 hands, normalized to bb/100. A4 = sqrt((2.1*16900))/100 which is like 1.615. Using these, we can get two z-scores (one for 1.16 and one for 1.14) -- (A2-A1)/(A4) and (A3-A1)/(A4). Put these formulas into A5 and A6. Now find the cumulative normal distribution phi(x) for these two: A7: normsdist(A5) A8: normsdist(A6) Subtract them, and voila! The values from the table. Now you can just change the "true" win rate in A1 to see each row of the table. Jerrod |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
<font color="blue"> Also, is the reason that your No Limit holdem Book written with Ed Miller is so vague about strategy because you TWO really do not grasp the nonmathematical aspects of the game? </font>
Just how would you even think it possible that Sklansky would not grasp the non-mathematical aspects of the game? I am NOT sucking up to DS!! The question just strikes me as insane. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
Your calculations are way off because you would not start counting such a thing until after you flopped your first set of ducks.
|
Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play.
Let's talk full ring. My guess is that minraising preflop will lead to an average of 4 players in a pot, with two opponents with position on you postflop. It seems to me that if your opponents are good, and have 100 BB stacks, and your raising range is heavily oriented toward high cards and overpairs, that situation is quite unprofitable for you: opponents can use position and board texture to pummel you by raising hard when it's very unlikely that you can have more than one pair. Obviously they could do this just as easily vs. a bigger raise, but with a larger raise you're giving them worse implied odds and will generally be up against fewer opponents. If you mix a larger proportion of suited aces/suited connectors/small pairs into your UTG minraising hand frequency, then you sometimes hit unexpectedly strong hands on small boards, but you're making a lot of raises overall and you're vulnerable to the guy acting late who decides to reraise hard preflop to steal the dead money in the pot, which is also gonna happen a lot vs. an UTG minraise. I just don't see a good way out of this situation with moderately deep stacks. I think with shorter stacks (30-50 BBs, say), where you can jam/fold in response to a preflop reraise or a flop raise, the minraising is a reasonable plan, but I see a lot of downsides for typical internet ring games. In a live game with 100 BB stacks, the minraises give up a lot of value vs. live game fish who are happy to (exploitably) call 6 BB raises with trash. |
minraising pre
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play.
Let's talk full ring. My guess is that minraising preflop will lead to an average of 4 players in a pot, with two opponents with position on you postflop. It seems to me that if your opponents are good, and have 100 BB stacks, and your raising range is heavily oriented toward high cards and overpairs, that situation is quite unprofitable for you: opponents can use position and board texture to pummel you by raising hard when it's very unlikely that you can have more than one pair. Obviously they could do this just as easily vs. a bigger raise, but with a larger raise you're giving them worse implied odds and will generally be up against fewer opponents. If you mix a larger proportion of suited aces/suited connectors/small pairs into your UTG minraising hand frequency, then you sometimes hit unexpectedly strong hands on small boards, but you're making a lot of raises overall and you're vulnerable to the guy acting late who decides to reraise hard preflop to steal the dead money in the pot, which is also gonna happen a lot vs. an UTG minraise. I just don't see a good way out of this situation with moderately deep stacks. I think with shorter stacks (30-50 BBs, say), where you can jam/fold in response to a preflop reraise or a flop raise, the minraising is a reasonable plan, but I see a lot of downsides for typical internet ring games. In a live game with 100 BB stacks, the minraises give up a lot of value vs. live game fish who are happy to (exploitably) call 6 BB raises with trash. |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
Just how would you even think it possible that Sklansky would not grasp the non-mathematical aspects of the game? [/ QUOTE ] Well of the two, David, it appears to me, is the theorist. Now it also appears to me that Mason is the poker player. They seem to compliment each other very well and look at a situation a bit differently. David seems mainly focused on the +EV (math) of a situation whereas Mason appears to have a better feel of how best to approach (play) in a situation. As for Ed Miller...who knows. Of course I was just trying to piss Sklansky off with my remarks but as usual it didn't work. [ QUOTE ] I am NOT sucking up to DS!! [/ QUOTE ] Well that makes you different from most posters on this forum. Present poster excluded. leaponthis |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
I have a problem with all of this wisdom spread around and that's when I watch Gus Hansen on TV or on FT. Either he is far ahead of anybody or he is a complete idiot. It seems to me that the first case is more likely, but what does it tell us about published theory? Worthless?
Btw, I have still NOT received the book despite getting in one of the first pre-orders WORLDWIDE!!! Hell, what is this? Conspiracy against me like all those stacked decks on Pary? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
Re: Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with all of this wisdom spread around and that's when I watch Gus Hansen on TV or on FT. Either he is far ahead of anybody or he is a complete idiot. It seems to me that the first case is more likely, [/ QUOTE ] I'd say that if these were the only two choices Hansen certainly would not be far ahead of anybody. But Sklansky has said in the past that Hansen is a very intelligent fellow. I guess intelligence can sometimes help overcome idiocy [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. But finding myself lacking in it I can't be sure. I will say that Hansen probably is not the best poker player to model ones game after. Tournament play? Maybe...nahh. leaponthis |
Re: Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation. Small raises in the early positions. http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/pro-tip...son&tip=20 |
Re: Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation. Small raises in the early positions. http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/pro-tip...son&tip=20 [/ QUOTE ] Both Ferguson and Mathematics of Poker seem to think that an UTG minraise is often going to win the blinds. In a full ring cash game, this is not the case. |
Re: Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
[ QUOTE ]
I never get tired of saying it: If you're the first to enter the pot in a No-Limit Hold 'em game, never call. If you aren't prepared to raise, throw your hand away. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson He never gets tired of saying it. I wonder what Sklansky thinks of this statement? I can tell you for a fact that I don't have to wonder, Sklansky will say "Baloney". leaponthis |
Re: Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
serious question
DS are you jealous that people might place this book before, lets say theory of poker do you feel you might need to top this |
Re: Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation. Small raises in the early positions. http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/pro-tip...son&tip=20 [/ QUOTE ] Both Ferguson and Mathematics of Poker seem to think that an UTG minraise is often going to win the blinds. In a full ring cash game, this is not the case. [/ QUOTE ] Reread it. Ferguson did NOT say the UTG minraise will often win the blinds. He just said it was the best size opening raise from an early position. Remember the object of the game is to win the maximum amount of money, not the maximum number of pots. |
Re: Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation. Small raises in the early positions. http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/pro-tip...son&tip=20 [/ QUOTE ] Both Ferguson and Mathematics of Poker seem to think that an UTG minraise is often going to win the blinds. In a full ring cash game, this is not the case. [/ QUOTE ] Reread it. Ferguson did NOT say the UTG minraise will often win the blinds. He just said it was the best size opening raise from an early position. Remember the object of the game is to win the maximum amount of money, not the maximum number of pots. [/ QUOTE ] Quoting from Ferguson: "You always want to make your opponents' decisions as difficult as possible. In choosing the size of your raise, you want to give the big blind a tough decision between calling or folding if the rest of the table folds around to him." [...] He later suggests that you change up your raising strategy "if you find yourself in [loose] games and you can't steal the blinds with a normal raise." So clearly Ferguson is envisioning a game where a 'normal' minraise will successfully steal the blinds a reasonable amount of time. That's just not true in the internet game or in a live cash game. I really don't see how minraising with 100 BBs behind is presenting the big blind with a tough decision, or how he wouldn't jump at the chance to try to bust you with just about anything, since he'd be getting big implied odds if he knew that you were minraising a tight range UTG (which is what both Ferguson and Chen & Ankenmannn recommend). In tourneys, where the effective stack in later rounds is a lot smaller, the BB's implied odds are, of course, much reduced, which makes this play stronger, but I'd like to see a caveat that pretty much all cash games are too loose for this advice to apply. |
Re: Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
[ QUOTE ]
... minraising UTG with all hands that they care to play ... [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation. Small raises in the early positions. [/ QUOTE ] It's worth nothing that this isn't really independent confirmation - I mean, we've talked with Chris about this a lot, so y'know. [ QUOTE ] Both Ferguson and Mathematics of Poker seem to think that an UTG minraise is often going to win the blinds. In a full ring cash game, this is not the case. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I dunno. I don't expect anything out of my actions. If my opponents want to call me with weak hands and play postflop, I'm happy. The pot is somewhat bigger and I have a strong distribution and position. If they don't, I have the $75. The point of raising the minimum isn't to cause your opponents to act in one way or another - you can't control that! It's to put them to a tough theoretical decision, so that whatever way they play, I still get EV. There are other, more exploitive ways to play. For example, if your opponents will call your jams preflop with weak hands, you should probably jam with AA and KK. But that's getting away from our style of trying to play unexploitably rather than to exploit our opponents. [ QUOTE ] I really don't see how minraising with 100 BBs behind is presenting the big blind with a tough decision, or how he wouldn't jump at the chance to try to bust you with just about anything, since he'd be getting big implied odds if he knew that you were minraising a tight range UTG (which is what both Ferguson and Chen & Ankenmannn recommend). [/ QUOTE ] If your range is so tight that your opponent really has sufficient odds to try to "bust you" with anything, then you should a) loosen up a little, especially toward nut-maker hands, and b) play better after the flop. I think you are overweighting the hands where the blind flops two pair or whatever and wins a big pot versus the amount of money that the strong distribution makes from the rest of the hands. I'm perfectly content playing my UTG distributions against a random hand with stacks of 25 pots. [ QUOTE ] In tourneys, where the effective stack in later rounds is a lot smaller, the BB's implied odds are, of course, much reduced, which makes this play stronger, but I'd like to see a caveat that pretty much all cash games are too loose for this advice to apply. [/ QUOTE ] That's true about the tournaments, of course. But even in cash games, I don't agree with the caveat you suggest. When I (not that often, admittedly) play $25-$50 NL online I raise the minimum from early position and it seems effective. It's pretty hard to flop a hand good enough to beat an UTG raiser and have his hand be good enough to put a lot of money in the pot but not beat you. jerrod |
Re: Mathematics of Poker: minraising preflop
"DS are you jealous that people might place this book before, lets say theory of poker"
Even THEY don't do that. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.