Gigabet Match 5 of the $22s - Analyze his heads up play

[Jack Fate]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem will remain, obviously, that people who consider themselves to have some edge (nevermind if it's completely imaginary) will argue that they prefer surviving over exploiting what is in their mind tiny +EV spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think the problem is that because it is a simple matter to compute the EV in push/fold situations, those who are proponents of pushing whenever they calculate the EV > epsilon will always appear to win the arguments.

The opponents are handicapped in that the game space is too large for them to compute the EV of just completing or just calling the SB's mini-raise. And that's just for the EV of that hand nevermind the fact of how decisions in this hand could impact EV of future hands.

The pushing proponents just simply state dogmatically that if you pass on 0.3% EV pushes there is no way to overcome this by outplaying the opponent on the flop. Of course it will be hard for them to prove that this is or is not the case.

I've been lurking on this board for several months, and I believe that both sides have something to learn from each other.

It does not advance the knowledge of the forum to post things with a dogmatic tone when actually no one can actually prove if the statement is correct.

Curtains, you found some of Giga's claims about his ROI in the 215s last year to be unrealistic. Isn't it possible that those numbers would just be unrealistic for someone who plays the same style as you? Isn't it possible that with the style you use the theoretical ROI is going to max out at 20%. Sng theory has come a long way in the last two years alone (look in the archives) and most of the work was done by the people who contribute this forum. And it was done by people considering that there may be a better approach to the game than their current approach and then thinking about those ideas. We would have gotten nowhere on the problem if all posters just discarded the possibility that there could be other plays that are more +EV than the currently widely accepted plays.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of how one can prove that a style like Gigabet was using with this particular opponent is better or worse than the style that curtains suggests. I believe both of them to be +EV, I'm just not sure which one is larger and by how much. One could propose an emperical study, but then the logistics of that are near impossible to set-up. So, I see no solution to the debate without one side stating beliefs and opinions

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem will remain, obviously, that people who consider themselves to have some edge (nevermind if it's completely imaginary) will argue that they prefer surviving over exploiting what is in their mind tiny +EV spots.


[/ QUOTE ] Actually, I think the problem is that because it is a simple matter to compute the EV in push/fold situations, those who are proponents of pushing whenever they calculate the EV > epsilon will always appear to win the arguments.

The opponents are handicapped in that the game space is too large for them to compute the EV of just completing or just calling the SB's mini-raise. And that's just for the EV of that hand nevermind the fact of how decisions in this hand could impact EV of future hands.

The pushing proponents just simply state dogmatically that if you pass on 0.3% EV pushes there is no way to overcome this by outplaying the opponent on the flop. Of course it will be hard for them to prove that this is or is not the case.

I've been lurking on this board for several months, and I believe that both sides have something to learn from each other.

It does not advance the knowledge of the forum to post things with a dogmatic tone when actually no one can actually prove if the statement is correct.

Curtains, you found some of Giga's claims about his ROI in the 215s last year to be unrealistic. Isn't it possible that those numbers would just be unrealistic for someone who plays the same style as you? Isn't it possible that with the style you use the theoretical ROI is going to max out at 20%. Sng theory has come a long way in the last two years alone (look in the archives) and most of the work was done by the people who contribute this forum. And it was done by people considering that there may be a better approach to the game than their current approach and then thinking about those ideas. We would have gotten nowhere on the problem if all posters just discarded the possibility that there could be other plays that are more +EV than the currently widely accepted plays.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of how one can prove that a style like Gigabet was using with this particular opponent is better or worse than the style that curtains suggests. I believe both of them to be +EV, I'm just not sure which one is larger and by how much. One could propose an emperical study, but then the logistics of that are near impossible to set-up. So, I see no solution to the debate without one side stating beliefs and opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much disagree. I have already mentioned in this thread the many arguments and discussions at the MTT forums with regard to passing on +EV spots in order to survive deeper into a MTT. The tone of those many discussions, quite like the nature of the logic behind the "surviving" idea, was basically very similar to the logic presented here with regard to why should a strong player fold "marginal" +EV spots.

However, some miracle happened during the last 2 years or so, and the 'you're broke - you're done' approach (TPFAP was responsible for much of this kind of thinking) which called for a more survivalist strategy for "better players", is now considered, generally speaking, wrong. And the vast majority of "theoreticians" and strong players, are on the other side, that is - take ANY possible +EV spot you find (it changes around bubble of course, but that's irrelevant to the point, since we are talking about early-mid game), since CEV=$EV, and by giving up CEV you are giving up on money, regardless of the risk.

Why did the "survivalists camp "lost" the battle? There are many reasons, but it is certainly not just a matter of abstract opinion and beliefs, even if me and others use the words "belief" around here, since things might get a bit too complicated otherwise. I somewhat agree that it will be very difficult to actually prove, without question, that some approach is 100% true. That's because poker is about human beings, and if someone is SO good that he can see right into his opponents' soul and have a clear vision of his cards, or maybe can see into the future and predict flops, then this guy should definitely fold many small +EV spots that put his whole stack at risk. He doesn't need these spots. But for normal creatures like us, you will need a very very good reason to convince me that folding a +CEV push HU is correct, and I don't see anything remotely convincing in this thread, for instance, quite like in any similar thread before (and there were many).

BTW, if I'm shown for a fact that Gigabet actually had those 60% ROI runs at 1K games over at the $215, and that his life-time ROI there is also some completely insane number, and that he can actually beat the $11s for 70% ROI for a big enough sample, then maybe yes, Gigabet can fold whatever +CEV spots, and it would be probably +$EV for him. I have no idea. In fact, he could be playing some completely crazy -EV game for all we know (in our eyes), and it would still, obviously, be +EV for Gigabet by definition. And then we should start talking about "Giga-EV" and normal, "Non-Giga-EV", because those are very different animals in this hypothetical unvierse I'm talking about.

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did the survivalists camp "lose" the battle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe because the internet has made it possible for people to play enough poker tournaments in a year that an industrial strength, win in the long run and don't worry about short term variance strategy is pratical.

Before internet poker, there was an opportunity cost to every tournament you played. It was much more important to win this tournament than to follow a "long run" strategy because you were going to be dead or broke in the long run. Now you can play more tournaments in a week than use to be playable in a year.

Also, the survivalist strategy emphasizes read based decision making which requires you to have reads on your opponents and your opponents to have reads on you. 10 tabling does not encourage the development of good reads, and even if you single table, most of your opponents aren't paying that much attention to you anyway (at least not at the lower limits).

Thus a mathematical based strategy is appealing since much of the psychological aspect of the game has been minimized.

I'm personally not completely convinced by the "push any 2" crowd, but that may be because I don't understand the game well enough yet (and the forcefulness of some of the proponents of the strategy makes me cautious about taking it on "faith").

[fifield]

[ QUOTE ]
I somewhat agree that it will be very difficult to actually prove, without question, that some approach is 100% true. That's because poker is about human beings, and if someone is SO good that he can see right into his opponents' soul and have a clear vision of his cards, or maybe can see into the future and predict flops, then this guy should definitely fold many small +EV spots that put his whole stack at risk. He doesn't need these spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made great points regarding the posted hands, PM. However, you should NOT even somewhat agree that your, curtains' & co.'s approach is NOT PROVEABLE or even difficult to prove. The math behind any EV calculation is subject to the read on the oppenent that the decision maker employs. What hands will this opponent do *what* with *when*? Thus, any time a situation is determined +EV by the decision maker, it is, BY DEFINITION based on the object of the game, a poor decision to pass; and, if this decision is continually made, it is PROVEABLY INCORRECT. It IS a mistake.

Even with the supernatural condition you put forth as reason for potential/somewhat agreement, such a SUPERFREAK of a poker player will still be using his/her own analysis of the situation to assess EV +/-. For instance, said FREAK "sees" into the future that the river will bust his AA and that, given the stack sizes, his opponent will call his allin, well, then what would be assessed as a HUGELY +EV situation by us normal people would be KNOWN as -EV by SUPERFREAK. Thus, that and such examples cannot be seen as examples of appropriate times to pass up +EV, because, from the perspective of the decision maker, they are -EV. So, even in your extreme example provided to show a potential exception to the +EV rule, no exception exists.

Furthermore, in a more realistic scenario, with a "Gigabet-quality player" who has a supposed advantage over an opponent based on read/whatever, the specific information the read on the opponent is supplying the superior player is the information through which +/- EV will be assessed. Given such exceptional ability and a better read, assessed EV for that exceptional player will differ from others' assessed EV in that exact situation. Many examples could illustrate this basic point.

However, in the situations posted above, what has been argued ALL ALONG by the more mathematically inclined is that NO MATTER WHAT GIGABET'S POTENTIAL READ ON HIS OPPONENT, and NO MATTER THE PERCEIVED ADVANTAGE OVER HIS OPPONENT HE THOUGHT HE HAD, HIS EV ASSESSMENT IN MANY OF THE POSTED SITUATIONS COULD NOT HAVE VARIED ENOUGH TO HAVE SUGGESTED A -EV. Thus, however you prefer to put it, he 100%, absolutely, without a doubt, did in fact make several mistakes (passing up +EV) over the course of the posted hands (save for the (unlikely?) possibility he's a PSYCHIC SUPERFREAK and knew the outcomes of the hands he folded to be -EV - but I haven't heard that argued). His play in this posted HH WAS, INARGUABLY, flawed.

Now, what I wonder is this: is it possible - would Gigabet, potentially, consciously consider - that his play would be analyzed in this manner, and perhaps purposely vary from his usual HU play in order to NOT reveal his usual strategy? Or are his $215+ HHs scrutinized similarly? And for GOD'S/PETE'S/CHRIST'S sake, Gigabet, respond already! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

fifield

[Jack Fate]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, any time a situation is determined +EV by the decision maker, it is, BY DEFINITION based on the object of the game, a poor decision to pass; and, if this decision is continually made, it is PROVEABLY INCORRECT. It IS a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Writing it in capital letters doesn't prove it to be true. In fact based on the quote above it makes it even more clear that you may not understand the depth of the problem. According to you BY DEFINITION, if I can simplify the game to a level that it will be easy to compute that my decision is +EV (even just marginally), then I should ignore the fact that a more complex strategy might end up being a much larger EV. And to mock and say things like "seeing into your soul" or "imaginary edge" is exactly what I'm talking about in you guys dismissing this without proof.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, any time a situation is determined +EV by the decision maker, it is, BY DEFINITION based on the object of the game, a poor decision to pass; and, if this decision is continually made, it is PROVEABLY INCORRECT. It IS a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Writing it in capital letters doesn't prove it to be true. In fact based on the quote above it makes it even more clear that you may not understand the depth of the problem. According to you BY DEFINITION, if I can simplify the game to a level that it will be easy to compute that my decision is +EV (even just marginally), then I should ignore the fact that a more complex strategy might end up being a much larger EV. And to mock and say things like "seeing into your soul" or "imaginary edge" is exactly what I'm talking about in you guys dismissing this without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the major factor that topedoes the "wait and exploit" strategy in this case is the size of the blinds.

I think everyone here agree that if you sit down and play a HU SnG you will be most successful when you identify weaknesses and exploit them.

[fifield]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, any time a situation is determined +EV by the decision maker, it is, BY DEFINITION based on the object of the game, a poor decision to pass; and, if this decision is continually made, it is PROVEABLY INCORRECT. It IS a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Writing it in capital letters doesn't prove it to be true. In fact based on the quote above it makes it even more clear that you may not understand the depth of the problem. According to you BY DEFINITION, if I can simplify the game to a level that it will be easy to compute that my decision is +EV (even just marginally), then I should ignore the fact that a more complex strategy might end up being a much larger EV. And to mock and say things like "seeing into your soul" or "imaginary edge" is exactly what I'm talking about in you guys dismissing this without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then perhaps you did not understand the GREATEST point of my post: that there were several situations where HE WOULD HAD TO HAVE BEEN PSYCHIC to NOT have analyzed the situation to be +EV.

And, furthermore, you entirely misunderstand when you say "if I can simplify the game to a level that it will be easy to compute that my decision is +EV (even just marginally), then I should ignore the fact that a more complex strategy might end up being a much larger EV," because that is EXACTLY what I AM NOT saying. I AM saying that EV assessment IS VERY MUCH up to the decision maker, and that the decision maker will OBVIOUSLY want for himself what he assesses to be the highest possible EV move at any given point. I say exactly, that "with a 'Gigabet-quality player' who has a supposed advantage over an opponent based on read/whatever, the specific information the read on the opponent is supplying the superior player is the information through which +/- EV will be assessed." This DOES account for the possibility of differences of EV assessment between players IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION. I stand by all my comments as correct.

AND LESS IMPORTANTLY, THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS IS *NOT* ME YELLING OR ANNOYED (all the time, at least) OR ANGRY; it is simply emphasis and easier, usually, than using bold or italics. I AIM NOT TO OFFEND.

fifield

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
The years hadn't softened Moronie. He continued to murder the English Language, and anyone who got in his way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel: You lousy corksuckers. You have violated my farging rights. Dis somanumbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens like me could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The years hadn't softened Moronie. He continued to murder the English Language, and anyone who got in his way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel: You lousy corksuckers. You have violated my farging rights. Dis somanumbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens like me could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what I'm looking at here, but it's awesome.

[Gobgogbog]

LET YOUR WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, MAN. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ADD SO MUCH EMPHASIS!!!!