Listen to the drummer or the number?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
pooh, nuggetz,

I agree. "Feel," "intuition," "rhythm," "flow," etc, words like this are absolutely essential to expert poker.

But at the end of the analysis, my feel and intuition regarding the rhythm and flow of a hand are ultimately expressed in a specific numerical range for the villain. I might be wrong in coming up with the range, but that's my problem, not SNGPT's.

SNGPT doesn't screw up the numbers, we do.

Poker is very qualitative, and can be super hard to quantify. But we should always try. And that's when SNGPT comes in. I don't think the numbers are ever "wrong."

In other words: Listen to the drummer, because he's drumming you a number.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great response...my assertion is merely that it is not "math" that fails us and I agree with you. What I am saying is that the variables we use in our post game analysis are limited and at this time, can not be fully brought together in a coherent manner. If one were to start out using SNGPT and constantly use it properly, they will always be a winning player. My post was inspired more by the fact that language and math limit my own expression of what I think is the right play.

And yes, the drummer is drumming you a number, but the number is an abstraction and in the end we really can't factor in every variable to quantify a "True EV"...a "meta ev" that is even more accurate than $EV. I think its a good thing that SNGPT doesn't merely tell us how to play and that the user is ultimately what makes it useful, but I am saying there is yet more...and for this I am happy.

Would it be fair to say: cEV is to $EV what $EV is to "true ev"? Once we gather up all the other variables and quantify them accordingly, words like "feel" are no longer necessary. I feel bad to have used that word in the first place because I knew it would be taken out of context. "feel" IS quantifiable and I merely don't know how to do it.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]


Would it be fair to say: cEV is to $EV what $EV is to "true ev"? Once we gather up all the other variables and quantify them accordingly, words like "feel" are no longer necessary. I feel bad to have used that word in the first place because I knew it would be taken out of context. "feel" IS quantifiable and I merely don't know how to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a "gist" of what we are all trying to say.

[djames]

So you're saying the ranges we plug in for the villains actually change on a hand by hand basis?!?! Whoa.

[MikeMcQ1]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying the ranges we plug in for the villains actually change on a hand by hand basis?!?! Whoa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But they can only be one of 4 choices.

[modnareno]

Could you post an example hand where you made a decision by feel and it disagreed with SNGPT but you know you made the right choice?

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying the ranges we plug in for the villains actually change on a hand by hand basis?!?! Whoa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no that isn't even close to what he is saying. In my own words I think he is trying to get at is that ICM does not account for all the factors that go into the decision to push or call or whatever. Because of this we need to mentally account for these missing components. If however you were to be able to quanitfy all of the factors you could then put them into a ICM formula that would give you a definative answer but as off right now we do not know how to do this. Leaving us to the knowledge that Stts in general still have a large area that is "skill" based factoring on the Ev of a given situation and thus are overall "True ROI". Actual ranges of hands is only a part of this grey area.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you post an example hand where you made a decision by feel and it disagreed with SNGPT but you know you made the right choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was the point I was trying to make in this thread here.
LINKY

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you post an example hand where you made a decision by feel and it disagreed with SNGPT but you know you made the right choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was the point I was trying to make in this thread here.
LINKY

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, thats a good hand in theory and a great example of what I am getting at.

Also, reverse position isn't even the whole story, you just want to at least to compromise his position, for example:

Hero: 2500
A: 2500
Hero: 3000
Target: 5500

If blinds are 3/6 you will not reverse postions with chip leader, BUT, you will have closed the gap so that he cannot call with you impunity anymore if you steal from him here. This opens up a leveraging point that is hugely +EV. IOW, if your future pushes would put him in 4th position then you have already achieved a great deal. The window where this can occur is often brief and once it passes you might have to just go into survival mode, but if you can jump this hurdle you can accelerate EV like crazy.

[Knight Vision]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Pooh and Roland won't be playing SNGs for long. Either that or they'll pwn beyond beleif as ryanghall leads on.

Basically this line of thinking goes way beyond push-botting.

NH

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you post an example hand where you made a decision by feel and it disagreed with SNGPT but you know you made the right choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was the point I was trying to make in this thread here.
LINKY

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a post I made in Beenz's thread just now that gives some other variables that go beyond SNGPT.

And hey, if this is nothing new, I apologize. I write this stuff for myself because I think it helps my game and thinking...putting it on the board might be a waste but if anyone takes away something, or even sees what I am saying is completely idiotic, at least it generates discussion.

Another Link