A5s in blind battle.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to figure out ways to avoid getting yourself in trouble, to protect yourself from yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

step 1: listen to people that have won money at poker
step 2: ?????
step 3: profit

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
baltostar, at one point you recommended that someone take an intro probability course
as I have taken an intro probability course, can you explain to me what 'better quality variance' is?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the avg hand risk distribution curve, if your strategy involves adding variance to move your mean to the right (because right-skew comes along with the variance), then better quality variance is an achievable shape that better improves your mean.

I think that the flood of similar-styled players is causing the tails to get too long and fat and is reducing the amount of skew. I think that if you avoid pursuing lines that tend to scale to allin in the most marginal perceived cEV+ scenarios that you can slim-down the tails and get back some of the skew.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know what the 'avg hand risk distribution curve' is, but ignoring that, I can't tell whether you think that adding variance to move your mean to the right (presumably you're talking about increasing profit here) is a good or bad strategy. To clarify, it is in fact a good strategy. I also don't know what 'an achievable shape' means, so I dont know whether you think added variance that adds to your expected profit counts as better quality variance or not.

basically I have no idea wtf you're talking about, shocker.

also adanthar, your steps suck. most people who win money at poker are terrible at giving advice (and terrible at poker)

[curtains]

btw for a TON of people, drastically lowering variance, even if it reduces your profit by 10-30% will be hugely +EV in poker and in life. There are many reasons for this, but I strongly believe it to be true. I have no idea if this is what people are talking about, as I refuse to read through all the neverending posts, but maybe seems like it's sort of being discussed?

[NHFunkii]

that's actually a really good point, and should probably be a new thread, but no I'm almost positive that's not what's being discussed

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
that's actually a really good point, and should probably be a new thread, but no I'm almost positive that's not what's being discussed

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I can't figure it out, its too long [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Also I can never understand what baltostar is talking about.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
btw for a TON of people, drastically lowering variance, even if it reduces your profit by 10-30% will be hugely +EV in poker and in life.

[/ QUOTE ]

curtains, I don't know what exactly you mean by 10-30% drop (in ROI?), but I'm not sure at all that most winning mtt players (specifically online players who play tons of tourneys), will accept that offer (if winning would drop a lot less, sure I might consider it). I don't play massive volume and I'd not accept it.

This might sound absurd to you, but for me, and I'm sure that for many others, the ups and downs of poker and the struggle that come with them, are big part of what makes poker (and other forms of lets call it "intelligent gambling") so appealing.

I don't know, maybe I see it this way cause I had a v big cash recently, that was so amazingly satisfying. And it was worth going through a lot of variance, to "get there" (edit: no, it didn't change much, as I'm sure was thinking the same way before that).

Also there was a big thread about this subject in hsnl, maybe a year and a half ago, interesting stuff, but most of it has to do with people's psychology, not a lot more.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be absolutely hilarious to watch baltostar play a limit holdem tournament.

He'd limp the button with JTo, the bb would raise and he'd fold because he's risking TWICE AS MUCH OF HIS STACK AS BEFORE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be ridiculous, gobbo. The bound of expectation for JTo OTB is OBV 1.5 BB. Thus, he would RAISE JT on the button. Then, if the BB 3-bets, the pot is > 1.5 BB, outside the boundary, into the murky waters of OMG too much risk, so then you fold. Jeez.

Edit to add: And the good lord help you if the BB TRIPLE 3-BETS DUH DUH DUHHHHHHH

[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know what the 'avg hand risk distribution curve' is, but ignoring that, I can't tell whether you think that adding variance to move your mean to the right (presumably you're talking about increasing profit here) is a good or bad strategy. To clarify, it is in fact a good strategy. I also don't know what 'an achievable shape' means, so I dont know whether you think added variance that adds to your expected profit counts as better quality variance or not.

basically I have no idea wtf you're talking about, shocker.


[/ QUOTE ]

NHFunkii : if I had some pictures, I bet you'd find my argument easy to follow. It's not advanced stuff. My bad for not having pics.

"Avg hand risk distribution curve" is easy to picture: play 100,000 tournament hands and graph the magnitude of gain/loss (x axis) against the frequency each magnitude of gain/loss occurs (y axis).

We're in total agreement that the principle way aggressive players get such an advantage over donks and tight players is by adding variance to the curve in an advantageous manner: they scale-up risk when they perceive cEV+.

Compared to a tight player's avg hand risk distribution curve, the aggressive player's curve is squashed down and spread-out and skewed to the right (the mean is positive).

So, yes, I agree with you, adding cEV+ variance is good.

However, as a flood of similar-styled aggressive players enter the game, when the aggressive player picks a line that tends to scale risk, more and more often it's against another aggressive player, and so your FE doesn't work as hard for you -- the aggressive guys just don't lie down as much as the donks and the tight players.

This is fine in significant cEV+ scenarios. But in marginal perceived cEV+ scenarios, it's very easy to be a little off in your cEV+ perception and, without the FE working as hard for you, you tend to kill off a lot of stack-utility.

The flood of similar-style aggressive players flattens your curve, and because your FE is blunted it causes the curve to lose some of its rightwards skew.

How to combat this ? By pursuing a curve that has somewhat less variance, but better quality.

You still have an awful lot of variance compared to the tight players, but you have less than the avg aggressive player.

If you can avoid scaling risk in the significantly sub-par opportunities then, on avg, when you do scale risk it doesn't matter so much that your FE isn't as powerful a weapon as it once was. You don't mind getting it allin when you have good confidence that you're ahead.

So, your flat squashed curve perks up a bit, it transfers some fat from its tails to its midsection, and it adds-back some rightward skew. You have a "better shaped" curve than the avg aggressive player: it has less variance and a more positive mean.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
So, yes, I agree with you, adding cEV+ variance is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unreal. Well, done, NHFunkii. You made him say that.

Yeah, I know that then come 7 more paragraphs with same old imbecilic notions about "flood of similar-styled aggressive players", but who cares.

[ QUOTE ]
if I had some pictures, I bet you'd find my argument easy to follow. It's not advanced stuff. My bad for not having pics.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should really bring them pics, baltostar, this thread is worthless without pics.

[MLG]

Im pretty sure we're just talking about this...

"I will say one other thing, and I think it may be the point you are getting at. For a long time, players in MTTS by and large were bad in a very specific way. They were weak tight, especially when faced with a decision for all their chips. Therefore playing in a manner which increased your own varience almost definitionally increased your EV. That in my opinion is no longer the case. That doesnt mean that you should turn down EV ever, it just means that increasingly the most EV strategy may not be the most aggresive one."


which, you know, i said a while ago.