Special Thread For Chen-Ankenman Mathematics of Poker

[Shandrax]

I have a problem with all of this wisdom spread around and that's when I watch Gus Hansen on TV or on FT. Either he is far ahead of anybody or he is a complete idiot. It seems to me that the first case is more likely, but what does it tell us about published theory? Worthless?

Btw, I have still NOT received the book despite getting in one of the first pre-orders WORLDWIDE!!! Hell, what is this? Conspiracy against me like all those stacked decks on Pary? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with all of this wisdom spread around and that's when I watch Gus Hansen on TV or on FT. Either he is far ahead of anybody or he is a complete idiot. It seems to me that the first case is more likely,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that if these were the only two choices Hansen certainly would not be far ahead of anybody. But Sklansky has said in the past that Hansen is a very intelligent fellow. I guess intelligence can sometimes help overcome idiocy [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. But finding myself lacking in it I can't be sure. I will say that Hansen probably is not the best poker player to model ones game after. Tournament play? Maybe...nahh.

leaponthis

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation.
Small raises in the early positions.

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/pro-tip...son&tip=20

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation.
Small raises in the early positions.

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/pro-tip...son&tip=20

[/ QUOTE ]

Both Ferguson and Mathematics of Poker seem to think that an UTG minraise is often going to win the blinds.

In a full ring cash game, this is not the case.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
I never get tired of saying it: If you're the first to enter the pot in a No-Limit Hold 'em game, never call. If you aren't prepared to raise, throw your hand away.



[/ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson

He never gets tired of saying it. I wonder what Sklansky thinks of this statement? I can tell you for a fact that I don't have to wonder, Sklansky will say "Baloney".

leaponthis

[skillzilla]

serious question

DS are you jealous that people might place this book before, lets say theory of poker
do you feel you might need to top this

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation.
Small raises in the early positions.

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/pro-tip...son&tip=20

[/ QUOTE ]

Both Ferguson and Mathematics of Poker seem to think that an UTG minraise is often going to win the blinds.

In a full ring cash game, this is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread it. Ferguson did NOT say the UTG minraise will often win the blinds. He just said it was the best size opening raise from an early position.
Remember the object of the game is to win the maximum amount of money, not the maximum number of pots.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Chen and Ankenmann's suggestion of minraising preflop UTG with all hands that they care to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation.
Small raises in the early positions.

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/pro-tip...son&tip=20

[/ QUOTE ]

Both Ferguson and Mathematics of Poker seem to think that an UTG minraise is often going to win the blinds.

In a full ring cash game, this is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread it. Ferguson did NOT say the UTG minraise will often win the blinds. He just said it was the best size opening raise from an early position.
Remember the object of the game is to win the maximum amount of money, not the maximum number of pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quoting from Ferguson:

"You always want to make your opponents' decisions as difficult as possible. In choosing the size of your raise, you want to give the big blind a tough decision between calling or folding if the rest of the table folds around to him."

[...]

He later suggests that you change up your raising strategy

"if you find yourself in [loose] games and you can't steal the blinds with a normal raise."

So clearly Ferguson is envisioning a game where a 'normal' minraise will successfully steal the blinds a reasonable amount of time. That's just not true in the internet game or in a live cash game.

I really don't see how minraising with 100 BBs behind is presenting the big blind with a tough decision, or how he wouldn't jump at the chance to try to bust you with just about anything, since he'd be getting big implied odds if he knew that you were minraising a tight range UTG (which is what both Ferguson and Chen & Ankenmannn recommend).

In tourneys, where the effective stack in later rounds is a lot smaller, the BB's implied odds are, of course, much reduced, which makes this play stronger, but I'd like to see a caveat that pretty much all cash games are too loose for this advice to apply.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
... minraising UTG with all hands that they care to play ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris Ferguson makes the same recommendation.
Small raises in the early positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth nothing that this isn't really independent confirmation - I mean, we've talked with Chris about this a lot, so y'know.

[ QUOTE ]
Both Ferguson and Mathematics of Poker seem to think that an UTG minraise is often going to win the blinds.

In a full ring cash game, this is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I dunno. I don't expect anything out of my actions. If my opponents want to call me with weak hands and play postflop, I'm happy. The pot is somewhat bigger and I have a strong distribution and position. If they don't, I have the $75. The point of raising the minimum isn't to cause your opponents to act in one way or another - you can't control that! It's to put them to a tough theoretical decision, so that whatever way they play, I still get EV.

There are other, more exploitive ways to play. For example, if your opponents will call your jams preflop with weak hands, you should probably jam with AA and KK. But that's getting away from our style of trying to play unexploitably rather than to exploit our opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see how minraising with 100 BBs behind is presenting the big blind with a tough decision, or how he wouldn't jump at the chance to try to bust you with just about anything, since he'd be getting big implied odds if he knew that you were minraising a tight range UTG (which is what both Ferguson and Chen & Ankenmannn recommend).

[/ QUOTE ]

If your range is so tight that your opponent really has sufficient odds to try to "bust you" with anything, then you should a) loosen up a little, especially toward nut-maker hands, and b) play better after the flop. I think you are overweighting the hands where the blind flops two pair or whatever and wins a big pot versus the amount of money that the strong distribution makes from the rest of the hands. I'm perfectly content playing my UTG distributions against a random hand with stacks of 25 pots.

[ QUOTE ]
In tourneys, where the effective stack in later rounds is a lot smaller, the BB's implied odds are, of course, much reduced, which makes this play stronger, but I'd like to see a caveat that pretty much all cash games are too loose for this advice to apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true about the tournaments, of course. But even in cash games, I don't agree with the caveat you suggest. When I (not that often, admittedly) play $25-$50 NL online I raise the minimum from early position and it seems effective. It's pretty hard to flop a hand good enough to beat an UTG raiser and have his hand be good enough to put a lot of money in the pot but not beat you.

jerrod

[David Sklansky]

"DS are you jealous that people might place this book before, lets say theory of poker"

Even THEY don't do that.