question related to mike's and andy's recent posts

[danzasmack]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we're talking semantics here, but it's the suboptimal play (or lack thereof) of my opponent that figures into my decision, not the possibility of my messing up.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is key. Against a bad player giving a slight edge early is bad. Against a good player, especially in a good game where there are softer seats to pick on, I think it's ok.

It's funny, that's what I always based my winrate on. I had a long conversation with my dad explaining how at a full ring game online, say there are 9 other players. 3 awful ones, 3 ok ones, and 3 players better than you. When I first started I had to wait to get my money from the 1st 3. Then i started picking on the 2nd 3. Then you start playing back at the final 3. Then you can beat the game.

[El Diablo]

Gabe,

Absolutely, but I think the paradox goes away if you think about the hand as a whole rather than bets/streets individually.

Whether a specific move at this very moment is +EV or -EV is not important. What's important is whether the whole hand including that move is going to be +EV or -EV. Of course, that can be extended to your session and even you whole poker game.

[LarsVegas]

Hi Gabe,

Yes, to me I would say it has been. Actually, the way you state your question, the answer would always be yes. The claim can only be disputed if you believe that you will always make the right decision and should look at each decision in poker separately.

It is a very interesting fundamental poker discussion as it has arguments on both sides, and I suspect the less you have to worry over future decision in a hand (not potential outcomes, I am talking about decision processes), the longer you have come as a player.

It is easier to you No-Limit analogues in this theoretical discussion, such as advicing an intermediate player against trying to make sophisticated slowplays without a complete lock on the hand (and rarely even then), ever up to a level of small mistakes which everyone including probably Phil Ivey is prone to make.

However it goes without saying that for limit holdem experts, these mistakes will be so few and far between and so relatively small, that it will rarely count for much. I do recognize myself in mike l.'s postings in the JJ thread however, and I certainly wouldn't rule out the correctness in getting rid there and then.

The numbers say that the odds + implied odds are there, but only if perfect poker is applied postflop. This includes the preflop read of pocket aces being 100% bang on, applying that knowledge postflop and getting the right amount of action postflop without losing a dime too many when set-under-set occurs.

lars

[TheWorstPlayer]

Seems to me the answer has to be 'yes'. Just as it can be +EV to leave before the big blind if you're steaming. Sure you get to see the hand for free, but if you're going to play the hand badly it's better not even to take a look at it. Same principle applies here, IMO.

[SparkyDog]

I think we can all agree at some point a situation becomes so marginal that it is uncertain that it is even +EV at all. So, couldn't we do some thinking about the standard deviation, winrate, and confidence intervals of specific hands? Hands that could be played in a more fit or fold fashion would have a lower standard deviation, so perhaps we could be a little looser with those?

I understand that these are statistical concepts, and can only be useful with a sample of data since the numbers are so difficult to estimate. But by building a general model of it and playing around with the inputs we could see how the different factors affect the EV of the equation.

I'm imagining this all in my head as a graph, with a bell curve centered at the actual EV of the hand, and if the area underneath the curve on the positive side of the x-axis is greater the hand would be worth playing. This could all be rubbish, but it's how I thought of the concept that yall are talking about.