evolution of a poker player...

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
there was a hand where durrr bet the river with a low PP vs foxwoodfiend for value (i think it was value because it was such a small bet), then fwf raised because he thought he was ahead of the range durrr was value betting, but then durrr pushed over the top of the value raise as a bluff and fwf folded

if you search fwf's post where he mentions durrr u can probably find it

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like durr and fwf know each other pretty well and were adjusting properly. have you ever read any accounts of the hands nick dandalos and johnny moss played against each other in their 5 card stud marathon? many sound exactly like this.

[greg nice]

yes but the demise will come from all the regulars realizing the variance of trying to out aggro each other isnt worht it

not from everyone tightening up and not playing

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the best way to look at the evolution of almost any game is to compare how it is played online vs live. In this situation I am somewhat conscious of what it's like in NL. Take your average 5/5 1k buyin live game in comparison to your average 1/2 or 2/4 online game. Online people will 3bet in position and out of position often. Live people rarely 3bet. To combat the aggressive 3bets of people online one must sometimes 4bet lightly. In a similar stakes live game when you are 4betting a normal player's 3bet you probably have a very strong hand because their 3bet range is much smaller and consisting of mostly strong hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with this. the crazy part is this is even true when all of the players at the table PLAY ON LINE EXTENSIVELY...how do you explain that?

[g-p]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there was a hand where durrr bet the river with a low PP vs foxwoodfiend for value (i think it was value because it was such a small bet), then fwf raised because he thought he was ahead of the range durrr was value betting, but then durrr pushed over the top of the value raise as a bluff and fwf folded

if you search fwf's post where he mentions durrr u can probably find it

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like durr and fwf know each other pretty well and were adjusting properly. have you ever read any accounts of the hands nick dandalos and johnny moss played against each other in their 5 card stud marathon? many sound exactly like this.

[/ QUOTE ]
no, but that sounds interesting so if you know where i could read it that would be cool

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
yes but the demise will come from all the regulars realizing the variance of trying to out aggro each other isnt worht it

not from everyone tightening up and not playing

[/ QUOTE ]

i thinks this is because of their relative proximity and not their superior skills. if they all lived in the same city, borrowed from each other, ate lunch w/ each other, hung out, they would be less aggro while waiting for a fish. i know this is true because i sit w/ many online pros in my live game and they dont play LIVE like they play ONLINE.

[Sunny Mehta]

I think one huge factor these days is our exact understanding of equity calculations. I'm sure that players in the '70s understood a lot of it intuitively, and I'm sure they were very strong at making "reads" postflop. But I'd bet they would've made a lot of pure mathematical errors wrt simple (i.e. - not so simple) equity calculations which could've been exploited in ways ranging from simple preflop tactics (e.g. - knowing exactly which hands to 3-bet and with what frequency) to more sophisticated postflop tactics (e.g. - specific range manipulation based on stack sizes).

Limon, I know you're a pretty big fan of Super System. And clearly Doyle presented a framework for playing the game which intuitively has a lot of merit (aggression, playing strong draws and big hands hard, being careful with one-pair hands on scary boards, etc.). But many of his ideas are also fairly inexact and unsupported, and some are downright wrong. I think at a couple points he alludes to things like 3-betting all-in on the flop with all of his 8-out OESDs just so they don't "play back" at him in the future. Clearly something like that could be VERY exploitable.

I'll be curious to hear what you think when you read my book with Matt and Ed. We obviously tried to address NL situations in a much more exact fashion. And sure, many times the answer ends up being the same, but as we all understand the actual process instead of just "what works", we have the capability of finding more edges and exploiting them more thoroughly.

[donkmagic]

nvm

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there was a hand where durrr bet the river with a low PP vs foxwoodfiend for value (i think it was value because it was such a small bet), then fwf raised because he thought he was ahead of the range durrr was value betting, but then durrr pushed over the top of the value raise as a bluff and fwf folded

if you search fwf's post where he mentions durrr u can probably find it

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like durr and fwf know each other pretty well and were adjusting properly. have you ever read any accounts of the hands nick dandalos and johnny moss played against each other in their 5 card stud marathon? many sound exactly like this.

[/ QUOTE ]
no, but that sounds interesting so if you know where i could read it that would be cool

[/ QUOTE ]

i think its in this book...http://www.amazon.com/Biggest-Game-T...ews/0811834344

[Ship Ship McGipp]

I think it's pretty difficult to try and categorize this. The poker game has gotten so much tougher these days at the top and across the board, that many winning 1-2 players in today's game was be marginal winners at 10-20 18 months ago.

[SEABEAST]

[ QUOTE ]


i think what you are describing here is a situation where there are so many good players that they end up at the same table more often and need to adjust to each other. i would contend that he very best of a bygone era (sklansky, reese, doyle, zee, hoff, etc) if they were to find themselves at the same table would do the same things. so are you confusing more good players for better players? there is no doubt there are more good players now than a decade ago but quantity isnt quality...what is new?

[/ QUOTE ]

so because they evolved by playing against each other a lot rather than by some form of genetic mutation it doesn't count? point is, put johnny chan in a game with cts aba durr jman and PA and he gets crushed, and intuitive math/adjustments vs thinking opponents are a big part of the reason why. im sure he would start trying to adjust, but would much, much, much less good at doing it. im not trying to say they have higher iqs. just that they are better due to evolution.