12k Post: Learning and Laziness

[DrModern]

Hey Matt,

I know I give you a lot of crap, but I really respect your posts and enjoy reading what you have to say about the game. Thanks so much for the awesome job you do moderating.

As I'm reading your post, I'm trying to figure out where I stand. I think I'd say I'm like a 2nd-semester sophomore. Definitely beyond the freshman level, done a good bit of posting, but still a little crude and missing the finer points. Not quite ready to just log hand after hand and find interesting things, still need a little guidance.

So, thanks for a cool post that's helped me do some self-assessment.

Stay real,
Looking forward to Foxwoods,
Ben

[MrWookie]

PP,

Graduation between classes is not a function of numbers of hands. It's a function of learning. As the saying goes, poker is a ruthless meritocracy. If you've logged 50k or 100k or 1M hands but haven't put in the time to study or analyze the game, you'll be held back a grade. There are some new players here who'll log as many hands in their first 4 months of playing as Aaron W. has logged in 4 years. But without the study time, they'll still likely be mediocre sophomore players, while Aaron has been putting in hours studying the game before I even knew there was a poker variant called Texas Hold'em.

Shill,

Every now and then we get some discussion on the subject, although you're right that it's not indoctrinated yet. I think it starts with numbers you've posted before: the chance of flopping something profitable. The next step is estimating how many bets will typically go in postflop if we're up against these hand ranges. The most rigorous thing to do would then be to calculate our equity on each board against the ranges, and then estimate the average number of bets go in when we're ahead, and then when we lose (either by missing our draw or making a second best hand). From there, we've got a series of EV calculations. If a Senior is looking for a thesis, or if a Junior wants to step up a grade, this is a great project for Shill or anyone. Heck, even someone just taking on one case (say, flopping a flush draw) will be a great learning experience to both them and the board.

SF,

What I didn't really talk about there was that yes, there's a really easy way to ramp up your learning, and that's to switch schools. If you pick up a new game, the learning rate for a Junior or a Senior is going to be dramatically higher than it was in their old game. Six max may be more like switching departments than switching schools - it's a change, but when you get down to it, you're at the same place you started. If you take up NL, stud, or Omaha, then all of a sudden your a freshman again, and your mind becomes a sponge for the free and easy information out there. However, this isn't really a move that will increase your profitability long term, unless you switch to a more profitable game (although honestly, it's quite likely that LHE is one of the least profitable forms of poker, maybe only better than Limit Omahan High, since it's such an established game), or one that you can learn much, much better. If you want to blend your profit and learning goals, you're better off digging deeper into your current game than you are taking up a new one.

Heh, and as for writing a book, I know you're only half serious, but I'm actually strictly verboten by my grad school dept. from collecting other income. I don't plan to tell them about poker, but a book deal would be tough to hide. Heck, I think that even by the letter of their rules, I'm not allowed to accept the $200 from writing a magazine article. Whatever. It's an anal rule, but in all honesty, I probably should be working harder at being a grad student.

[Str8Fish]

If you start working on the book, it'll be ready by the time you graduate... then you can rake in the profits. I wasn't half-kidding about the book. I'm dead serious. I expect a book out of you on poker theory at some point. I also demand a book out of Aaron. I don't care if you co-author or whatever. Just so long as it's done.

[Str8Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
PP,

Graduation between classes is not a function of numbers of hands. It's a function of learning. As the saying goes, poker is a ruthless meritocracy. If you've logged 50k or 100k or 1M hands but haven't put in the time to study or analyze the game, you'll be held back a grade. There are some new players here who'll log as many hands in their first 4 months of playing as Aaron W. has logged in 4 years. But without the study time, they'll still likely be mediocre sophomore players, while Aaron has been putting in hours studying the game before I even knew there was a poker variant called Texas Hold'em.

Shill,

Every now and then we get some discussion on the subject, although you're right that it's not indoctrinated yet. I think it starts with numbers you've posted before: the chance of flopping something profitable. The next step is estimating how many bets will typically go in postflop if we're up against these hand ranges. The most rigorous thing to do would then be to calculate our equity on each board against the ranges, and then estimate the average number of bets go in when we're ahead, and then when we lose (either by missing our draw or making a second best hand). From there, we've got a series of EV calculations. If a Senior is looking for a thesis, or if a Junior wants to step up a grade, this is a great project for Shill or anyone. Heck, even someone just taking on one case (say, flopping a flush draw) will be a great learning experience to both them and the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently saw some discussion of manipulating the coding of the PokerStove to do just this. It was something like, figuring out what kind of equity do we have for all flops/turns that come out. I don't know if this ever materialized, but it was very interesting.

[Str8Fish]

Aaron W already covered it here btw:

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/show...rue#Post1833461

[MrWookie]

I'm going to have to take a look at that W post again. It's not clear to me how we can take his data an use it to answer the question of how many opponents we need to call two bets in the BB holding 76s. It's pretty abstract.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to have to take a look at that W post again. It's not clear to me how we can take his data an use it to answer the question of how many opponents we need to call two bets in the BB holding 76s. It's pretty abstract.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... unfortunately, it's just data and no analysis. At that time, I wasn't sure what to do with the data to get useful information out of it, mostly due to lack of experience and a weaker postflop game. I still think I'm underqualified to do something of depth with it since I currently lack the raw experience to intuitively know the values of different situations (hence, I'm working on the Tired of Grinding project, and just taking a shot at moving up levels.)

There was a dream back then to really wrap my mind around understanding the "luck comes early" factor of hold'em, and trying to find which hands to add to my tight (at the time) hand selection.

The basic idea is that preflop mistakes tend to be small relative to the number of bets that will eventually go into the pot. Even in bad situations, say when you're a 4:1 dog preflop (heads up), you only lose .6 SB per bet you put into that situation. If (magically) you knew that 20% of the time you will flop well and get an average of one bet per street out of one villain (+6 SB when you include his preflop bet), then

EV of limping: (.20)*(+1) + (.80)*(-1) = -.6 SB

but

EV of limping and playing well postflop: (.20)*(+6) + (.80)*(-1) = .4 SB

It was this thought that got me past a lot of preflop tightness (once I started to trust my postflop play a little more).

[Befolder]

[ QUOTE ]

Full ring is much more about pre-calculated EV decisions. In 6-max you have to adjust to conditions because stealing is the critical factor and the players at the table should dictate how often you steal/re-steal. But in ring play stealing becomes less important and pot size manipulation takes center stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post Wook.

Good follow up Shillx. I needed to hear the quote above, just having moved back to FR to try and keep moving up the chain.

I feel like I just entered my junior status according to Wook's analysis. A lot of work to be put in, moreso on my ability to leave the game when I'm not playing well.

Cold turkey is hard though when you've set aside a small amount of time to play. I bet it would help me if I started by at least forcing myself to take a 10-minute penalty away from the computer or something.

Would 'Tao of Poker' help me stay at peace longer? It's one of the few I haven't read yet.

[Kwaz]

Here you go Shill.

You might save yourself a little effort by looking here.


And Wook, I find myself asking the same questions about learning all the time. It's made up of three areas:

1. What you already know.
2. What you know you don't know.
3. What you don't know you don't know.

These days, I find the hardest part is getting a 3 to become a 2. Or finding a 3 in the first place.
I love it when a 1 becomes a 2. It gives me an excuse to learn.

Nevertheless, I find myself challenging my (or other's) everyday poker beliefs in order to make new learning experiences.

Here's an example of me being a dick in an attempt to learn something.

[Guruman]

i owe a lot to poker, and most of what I owe comes from the process of learning how to learn that I've had to undergo to become a winner.

I've been in the process of putting myself in difficult and complex situations for a while now - by playing very shorthanded and headsup at wpex. The goal of all of this is to become comfortable with those difficult situations and use my familiarity with them to take advantage of others who are not so comfortable.

I like to stay right out on the edge of my abilities poker-wise. I have not gotten bored with that quite yet.