Poker Books

[MrX5000]

I've noticed that the newly published books provide alot of really good information. However, after a short while, the good players recognize what you're doing and it just doesn't work at all.

Does anyone have an idea of when this sort of thinking expires? The stop and go for example....Is WAY overused online now. I probably make more money off calling that sort of move that I don't buy the mathmatics behind it anymore.

Also I see alot of the shortstack theory in Harrington's book starting to become out of date like playing small pairs on the bubble.

The squeeze move is forcing people to think about smoothcalling with their Aces and Kings....stuff like that.

Any of you pros know what I'm saying? Agree/disagree?

- X

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed that the newly published books provide alot of really good information. However, after a short while, the good players recognize what you're doing and it just doesn't work at all.

Does anyone have an idea of when this sort of thinking expires? The stop and go for example....Is WAY overused online now. I probably make more money off calling that sort of move that I don't buy the mathmatics behind it anymore.

Also I see alot of the shortstack theory in Harrington's book starting to become out of date like playing small pairs on the bubble.

The squeeze move is forcing people to think about smoothcalling with their Aces and Kings....stuff like that.

Any of you pros know what I'm saying? Agree/disagree?

- X

[/ QUOTE ]
Books and Publications forum.

[Josem]

13 days

[phydaux]

Because bad players overuse a move doesn't mean that the the particular move is incorrect or will "expire."

C-Betting, Floating, Check-Raising, Semi-Bluffing, all these "moves" can be and are overdone by bad players. It's the job of a good player to recognise when a particular bad player had a tendency to overuse a particular move and exploit that tendency. Just like you have with the Stop-and-Go.

[MrX5000]

[ QUOTE ]
Because bad players overuse a move doesn't mean that the the particular move is incorrect or will "expire."

C-Betting, Floating, Check-Raising, Semi-Bluffing, all these "moves" can be and are overdone by bad players. It's the job of a good player to recognise when a particular bad player had a tendency to overuse a particular move and exploit that tendency. Just like you have with the Stop-and-Go.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you're saying actually. Let me be more specific. Here's an example. In the SNG strategy book (by Collin Moshman), Hand 2-37...A pushing scenerio where you're BB, shortstacked, and going over the top of 3 limpers and the small blind with T9s.

The author assumes in his calculations:

30% fold rate = +ev
60% one caller = -ev
10% everyone calls= -ev
total after calculation: +150 ev

The outcome is a barely positive expected value. I was really surprised to see the math behind the move because I see identical scenerios where the BB may put in a smaller raise and then follow it up with the all-in post flop because they are first to act. The move in this book just seems reckless.

Now with this move out there, I can see more people willing to gamble preflop with say AT because they understand the move thus negating the fold equity behind it (lowering the assumed 30% fold rate).

I believe that there are poker trends that can change where a move is +ev or not. Awareness changes the fold rate. In this case, it's only marginally +ev. So, changing the assumed fold rate makes it a negative equity move.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have an idea of when this sort of thinking expires? The stop and go for example....Is WAY overused online now. I probably make more money off calling that sort of move that I don't buy the mathmatics behind it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mathematics of the "move" are solid whether you call or not. Perhaps you didn't fully understand the concept. On the other hand, it's good that you understand other players are doing it, which you probably couldn't have figured out if you hadn't read the books.

This is like saying pot odds "don't work anymore" because I know my opponents are paying attention to them now.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that there are poker trends that can change where a move is +ev or not. Awareness changes the fold rate. In this case, it's only marginally +ev. So, changing the assumed fold rate makes it a negative equity move.

[/ QUOTE ]

It changes the specific numbers you plug into the formula, which might give different results. It doesn't change the theory in the least.

[MrX5000]

Jeff,

I understand the concept. I guess the fundamental question is:

Do poker trends exist? And if they do then doesn't our strategy change to continue to be profitable in certain situations? Can a trend eventually alter the "correct" move to make in a marginal +ev or -ev situation?

It's funny that you bring up pot odds because in this specific case, at least once caller is priced in. So, 30% is already a bit high. Does this just imply that the analysis is simply wrong instead of outdated? Or should I focus more on the method rather than the outcome of the calculation?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Do poker trends exist? And if they do then doesn't our strategy change to continue to be profitable in certain situations? Can a trend eventually alter the "correct" move to make in a marginal +ev or -ev situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, trends change. Strategy can change, but not so much as some people think. The 2 things you have to balance are"
- optimal poker theory
- mixing your play/adjusting to current conditions

The thing to keep in mind is that when you stray from optimal poker theory, you have to have a reason because you're taking an automatic -EV and you have to overcome that. So make sure your changes are enough +EV to overcome the -EV from straying from game theory.

I think Doyle Brunson was very good at this - I don't claim to know his style really well, but I understand he knowingly took -EV situations to improve his overall EV in the game. This is a very slippery slope though.

Here's one mistake I see sometimes. Some players like to bluff, and they like to show their bluffs. It might be some showoff balla thing, but when I ask them, they say "This is so I get paid off when I have a big hand."

Well, the problems are:
- they bluff more than they hit a big hand
- they usually slowplay their big hands anyway
- this is a real problem in late stages of tournaments and SnGs, where I see it a lot in home games. At that stage of the game, you want believability in stealing, not payoffs when you hit a big hand. You don't have time to wait for cards, so you shouldn't be showing your bluffs.

This might not be exactly what you had in mind when thinking of "mixing your play", but I think it describes a certain problem in thinking very well.

Getting back to the stop-n-go, we have to start with the assumption that if you raise all-in preflop, you are going to get called 100%. This might not happen in practice, but if we go all-in and an opponent folds when he should not, even if he was bluffing with 72o, then we make a note on that player. We assume if someone had a legitimate hand to raise with and is getting 3-1 or 5-1 or whatever, they are going to call 100%.

So we're trading that 100% chance of a fold preflop for something less postflop. It's always going to be less in practice, even if it's 95% or 90% that our opponent will call now.

But notice that sometimes the stop-n-go is unexploitable. If you decide you are always going to call if you think your opponent is pulling a stop-n-go on you after you raised preflop, then you are never going to be able to raise hands like 65s preflop anymore, because you'll be calling with 6 high too often and giving up too much EV, even if you know for sure he's doing a stop-n-go. Remember, your opponent has decided he's going all-in on this hand and his hand is worth it. That means he can beat 6 high.

To answer your question specifically, can trends change a +EV play to a -EV play? Sure, theoretically. But I think those would have been very close plays to begin with. Let's say you noticed a trend where people are pushing all in with flush draws on the flop a lot more. Well now you're going to start calling with top pair/any kicker. This really doesn't change the EV situation a whole lot. Sometimes you'll be behind (it still won't be a flush draw 100% of the time), and even if you knew the exact situation, it'll probably be something like a 1.5:1 payoff or thereabouts for your opponent when he only needs 2:1, and he almost surely has some other outs too. So best case, it's still a close play.