evolution of a poker player...

[creedofhubris]

1. multitabling

2. pokertracker

3. rakeback

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
1. multitabling

2. pokertracker

3. rakeback

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. no doubt. but i would categorize these as something other than playing better poker. if technology allowed basketball players to play four games at once would they be a better basketball players or just the same guys in four games? would lebrons jumper improve if he was in 4 games at once...how?

[greg nice]

he would see 4x as many defense schemes against him. thus allowing him to adjust and exploit them better and create easier shots for himself

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
he would see 4x as many defense schemes against him. thus allowing him to adjust and exploit them better and create easier shots for himself

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, good. so in the realm of poker what are the new adjustments and exploitations that have been devised by the multitablers?

[RainbowBright]

In terms of how math and math models have effected poker games, a good example would be Single Table Tournaments. The Independent Chip Model has done such a good job at providing a model for giving a $ value to chip stacks and since at the later part of a tournament the blinds are so high relative to stack sizes that the game becomes a push / fold match which simplifies the options that we have a good way of playing near optimally if you can put your opponent on proper ranges (at the same time, many of the times you push is unexploitable regardless of the range of your opponent).

[Bokonon1972]

The best players of the 90s might get crushed playing today's internet players while playing online; on the other hand, playing them at a table might be a different story. Sorry, but I just can't see Chip Reese getting crushed by anybody.

[greg nice]

what about sam farha?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of how math and math models have effected poker games, a good example would be Single Table Tournaments. The Independent Chip Model has done such a good job at providing a model for giving a $ value to chip stacks and since at the later part of a tournament the blinds are so high relative to stack sizes that the game becomes a push / fold match which simplifies the options that we have a good way of playing near optimally if you can put your opponent on proper ranges (at the same time, many of the times you push is unexploitable regardless of the range of your opponent).

[/ QUOTE ]

this is good. i have studied icm extesively. BUT its really not anything new about poker you would have learned in the last 5 years because SNG's didnt exist 5 years ago and we all had to start from scratch. also you still need to put your opponent on proper ranges, which is nothing new. i put this in the same category as groundbreaking new work done on badugi. that said i do like the way sng's have been dissected. when im taliking about the new players, new style, new era im remarking about those who apply this "newness" to games that have been around, studied and written about for at least 20 years. what is new?

[TxRedMan]

Sometime in the last year I was playing PLHE at a club in Dallas.

I believe there was a live straddle UTG and it folded to me in LP, and I opened for a pot sized raise w/ QQ. I think I was about 200 BB's deep.

A player I had a lot of history with raised from the SB. I think I opened for $40 and he raised to $130 or so. iirc, we had similar stacks. my friend was sitting next to him, but the SB didn't know we were friends. He didn't even know we knew eachother. I mucked QQ faceup after about five seconds worth of thought.

SB used to hate me being at the tables when I first started playing 15-30 LHE, b/c I'd raise any two a lot, play stupid aggressive against him, and often got the best of it despite losing in the game overall for about six months. I'd played $25-50 PLO/PLHE w/ him before. He played straight forward, and sort of nitty, but mainly against players like me who he thought he was supposed to play that way against. i.e., the last time he played with me I was a much worse player than I was then.

I knew that for him to re-raise me out of the SB when I was playing deep and straight forward, he had QQ beat. My friend confirmed this.

A year earlier, I would have recklessly re-raised the pot and got it in, never considering what hand he might have. I suppose that's what I've learned in the last couple of years, that everything is relative, including hand values.

[SEABEAST]

well, one of the most obvious is preflop aggression. people are much better now at putting pressure on opponents preflop by threebetting in position (with weak hands but that are relatively easy to play postflop), and then the corrolary to this is that people respond and start adjusting to some extent. todays top players are much better at adjusting to the adjustments, shifting ranges, intuitively calculating roughly how often someone might be threebetting light, squeezing vs a raise and coldcall, resqueezing because they suspect you are squeezing, fourbetting light because they suspect you are bluff threebetting, with what range, how often each hand folds, your equity vs the hands that call, etc etc.

this stuff is complicated and there is too much guesswork to ever know for sure for any of the specific situations, so the intuitive math capabilities of a regular HSNLer get a real workout in this day and age and in terms of the mental muscles associated with all of this the game has evolved to the extent that todays top players could own pros of the past just with this intuitive math aspect alone.