I've been thinking alot about position...

[c_stop]

I love this theory stuff. Interesting thing about position is that it can never affect the outcome of a showdown. Its value comes from the way it can influence winrate.

When one talks about coming up with a quantitive value for position, do you mean in terms of BB/100?

[mjws00]

I'll go out on a limb and say you can't quantify the value of position. It's value comes from each players capacity to use the additional information. So position is worth more to a player like Brunson or Chan who can utilize it better, than Joey McDonk.

Even though mathematically the conditions may be exactly the same at the table. Quantitatively the value is extremely dependant on the player. Expressing this number as an average or statistic will not correlate in any meaningful way to an individual in a given hand.

I'm not certain it is accurate to say that effective value can move around the table either or is additive. The difference between acting last, and the ability to act first last is significant. But the relationship is non linear and completely dependant on the skill of the player to utilize the advantage.

Two more bits and a little fuel on your fire.

[Antinome]

Magazine article on quantifying value of position

[ThePortuguee]

Here are my two cents:

OP's intention here is to formalize and articulate the principles which comprise the REASON that something we all know to be true is true: specifically, the value of position.

Fundamentally, there's no wrong in what he's trying to do. When he talks about the idea of wanting "grace" he's essentially seeking praise and validation for the intellectual value of his comprehension of one of the most important concepts in hold 'em. At least that's how I understand it. Beyond that, though, the explication (yes, explication) of the subtlety underlying concepts can have the practical value of improving our understanding of them in a general sense, which can allow us to better see how these concepts fit into the game of poker.

Intellectual and theoretical analysis of things we might consider obvious have their place in these forums, but all that said, I have to say that I don't see anything all together groundbreaking in the original post, and the esoteric nature of the language, and general denseness of the way it reads detracts from its substantive value.

I think that your heart is in the right place, OP, trying to really get at the heart of the concept of position and its importance, but I don't think you can really quantify it in a general sense. One important aspect of poker is the lack of absolutes and the nature of the game as depending largely on feel and reads, on observation of our opponents and the application of that observation. If we could somehow quantify these subtleties, we might be able to perform the mathematical assement you're attempting.

As a final thought, I'd like to point out that i think this aspect of poker is both fascinating and important, and constitutes one of the two parts that are necessary to poker success: there is intellectual skill, and a more esoteric type of skill that comes from reading ability, heart, and general feel. The former is much easier to learn, but both require talent and practice.

Many people get by successfully on just feel, becuase they somehow just seem to always be right about what their opponents have. This idea is formalized by the fundamental theory of poker, and Sklansky's legacy comes from formally bringing the intellecutal part of poker to prominence. This is something you can LEARN, and the best players, the Negreanus, teh Hansen's, and the Cunninghams, are the best because they have BOTH the intellectual grasp of the game, and the difficult-to-describe feel.

[BukNaked36]

My thesis on position:

It makes hands, especially draws, much easier to play.

[ThePortuguee]

[ QUOTE ]
My thesis on position:

It makes hands, especially draws, much easier to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to argue with that.

[flubsy]

[ QUOTE ]
I love this theory stuff. Interesting thing about position is that it can never affect the outcome of a showdown. Its value comes from the way it can influence winrate.

When one talks about coming up with a quantitive value for position, do you mean in terms of BB/100?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was playing around with the idea of collecting PT stats for 1,000,000+ hands from breakeven players and using their $won without seeing a flop from each position to get a good range of how much each positions' value increases from the previous position. Think that would work or am I overlooking a logical flaw with that?

[flubsy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[
3. When a position loses value, it's value doesn't just disappear, the other players get a shot to add it to their own position's value. (An example of this is raising from the CO to steal the button. The button folds, and so their value = 0; and now the person to the right of you absorbs that position; they now have the power to be last to act.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that all you're saying is that the person last to act has a positional advantage throughout the hand. Everyone knows this and understands the importance of this.

I guess my question is: what exactly do you have to say about position that has something new to add? I'm not trying to be an ass either. I'm truly being sincere.

Try not to get caught up in the great style of your post and worry more about substance. What is the substance of your post? I really don't get it. It seems like you're trying to find a rounder wheel.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your just stopping at every example I make and thinking that is the end-all and be-all of the whole concept. Since predictability decreases a positions' effective value; that would be an example of another time that the positions' to the right left to act aquire the lost value.

I dont think you are being an ass, but I think your thinking is boxed in. If you really want to see what is different about what I am saying (as opposed to what rhetoric is already out there) take a few of the rules and...I dunno...postulates?...and try to find several situations where they apply.

I'll grant you, the OP is made up of several concepts that good players instinctively understand already; but the way position is viewed as a whole is made up of alot of boxed-in, generally incorrect concepts.

[flubsy]

[ QUOTE ]
Magazine article on quantifying value of position

[/ QUOTE ]

THANKYOU!!!

[flubsy]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are my two cents:

When he talks about the idea of wanting "grace" he's essentially seeking praise and validation for the intellectual value of his comprehension of one of the most important concepts in hold 'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

no. grace is grace. it is generally absent things like ego and praise. I find it everywhere, but most often math, art and music.

poker tends to have alot of math and art involved-