"agressive" vs. "weak" - different maximization problems

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]

The whole LAG/weak-tight dichotomy is nonsense. There is no such thing. Poker is made of thousands of specific situations, each with the opportunity to make the correct play. The correct play is defined as one which makes the most money in the long run.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I'll point out that there can be several correct plays you can make in any one given decision, based on your opponents and your own image.

ie. Dan Harrington's optimal play on a hand could be to slowplay a monster cause when he bets everyone folds, while Gus Hansen's optimal play could be to bet the monster cause he gets paid. Similarly, a calling station and rock have optimal plays vs. them.

You also may need to occasionally play some hands SLIGHTLY suboptimally, to increase your aggregated winrate across all hands (ie. Shania). (ie. in holdem usually you want to raise with AA but sometimes you need to call so that the times you do call they can't always know you don't have AA -- and the O8 equivalent).

I also agree the whole TAG/LAG thing is way overblow. LAGs are just people who are comfortable playing marginal hands. some of them are good lags, some are bad lags (also called Lagtards).

Confiscator seems like a troll or a retard, so i won't repeat other's advice to him, except to say that his definitons are screwy

-g

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil,

I am trying to work through the math here and I'm getting different results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy crap that was a painful post. Let me first say - THIS [censored] DOESN'T MATTER.

Now, to answer your questions. Firstly I use the terms odds, chance, probability interchangably, which is imprecise and I apologise. People usually know what I mean though. EV = 0.3333 = odds of winning the hand as stated by the poster. I have no idea why the numbers are different. I'm using a binomial calculation function (not excel). Regardless, same ballpark.

Secondly, this stuff is nonsense, because winning players regularly get edges larger than 0.01%. You've missed the point on that comment completely. Taking or not taking 0.01% edges doesn't matter in terms of your ultimate winrate. Taking 5 and 10% edges does.

Secondly, I don't care about discussing the merits of taking small edges. It's pointless. I was simply responding to vingte and kurto's comments. You seem to be missing the point in a spectacular fashion, and I've got better things to do than be a math nerd [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[vingte]

[ QUOTE ]

300 wins or less =BINOMDIST(300,1000,0.33,TRUE)= 0.022973 = 2.2%
(I’m using MS Excel BINOMDIST function)

Order of the numbers is same as yours but they are different. Do I miss something?


[/ QUOTE ]
BINOMDIST(300,1000,0.33,TRUE)= 0.022973
BINOMDIST(300,1000,0.333333333,TRUE)= 0.013278

[Confiscator]

[ QUOTE ]
People usually know what I mean though

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't.


[ QUOTE ]
EV = 0.3333 = odds of winning the hand as stated by the poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes absolutely no sense to anybody who has any slightest clue.


[ QUOTE ]
was simply responding to vingte and kurto's comments

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, and the numbers you had given them were meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be missing the point in a spectacular fashion,

[/ QUOTE ]

Same to you.

[ QUOTE ]
and I've got better things to do than be a math nerd

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Let's play poker.

[Confiscator]

ty

That's surprising. That's a very good observation.

Talk about rounding errors...

[Confiscator]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll point out that there can be several correct plays you can make in any one given decision,

[/ QUOTE ]

Moron, you've just repeated what I has been saying all the time.

[Phil153]

My post was perfectly clear if you read vingte's first. I was using his terminology. It's the same way that 2dimes uses the term.

Anyway, you're the first on my ignore list. Congratulations.

[ZenMusician]

Phil: [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Confiscator: Is there a language you DO understand so we
can communicate with you? And in our culture, we try
to actually READ replies and respond to them with
something that follows and makes sense.

You have been told like infinity times that you
are focusing on random crap that will not help your game.

Are you here to learn or to pontificate? If you are here
to learn, shut up and LISTEN, if else, take your drivel to
RGP.

-ZEN

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People usually know what I mean though

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't.



[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone that has a clue knew exactly what Phil meant. When someone gives odds they are always stated as (Chance to lose) to (Chance to win) or (Chance to lose)Chance to win). When a single number is given, it is always equity (which is the same as probabilty and EV as a fraction of the pot). There is never any confusion to players who know what is going on. The only possible source of confusion is if people reported chances which are (Total possible outcomes)Number of outcomes you win), but noone ever uses this so no worries here either.

You appear to be the douche here.

[Confiscator]

My dear poker connoisseur and English language expert, also know as Zen The Musician,

[ QUOTE ]
like infinity times

[/ QUOTE ]

Even Chinese immigrants speak better.

[ QUOTE ]
take your drivel to
RGP.


[/ QUOTE ]

Shakespeare would not understand that.

[ QUOTE ]
You make an very
unintelligible post

[/ QUOTE ]

That would explain your bad SAT score.


Go play to sandbox with other kiddies. Come back when you grow up.