* * New Theory of Poker Study Group Session 1 * *

[Zachvdp]

Session 1
Pages 1-34

We will continue discussion from now until October 7.

Session 2 will begin on October 8 and will be on pages 35-60. Pot Odds, Effective Odds, and Implied Odds and Reverse Implied Odds. Should be good.

[CasinoR7]

Let's add some pages to that, so we can spend more time on the later chapters. The beginning chapters of TOP aren't that hard to understand. Who needs two weeks to read 34 pages?

[Zachvdp]

Well, i figured the next chapters on odds would be better.

I wanted to take it slow but not too slow.

I wanted a seperate week for the odds section.
i guess see what people want to do.

[JustCuz]

I'm fine with a slow pace if everyone else is. I've read the book before, so this is a good opportunity to read it again. I'll just read the chapters the day or two before each new group of postings is to begin and post any questions or thoughts I have as well as responses to others' questions or thoughts.

As for these first four chapters, the only thing I would point out is the emphasis toward games played with antes. I first read this book when I played stud almost exclusively. Now that I play a lot of hold'em and Omaha, the same lessons still carry over quite well when one thinks in terms of blinds instead of antes, especially escalating blinds in tournaments, but also in regard to pre-flop raises or just the way stakes tend to increase (larger initial raises and so on even though the blinds stay the same) in smaller home/underground games as the night progresses and stacks get larger and larger.

So, even if you are a person who doesn't play ante-based poker games, there's still plenty to gain from reading these opening chapters. This might be stating the obvious, but it's worth mentioning...

[Zachvdp]

OK I’ll start.

Here’s some of the stuff I highlighted while I was reading.

From the Object of Poker page 6,

“Ideally you want the pot you win to be as big as possible and the pots you lose to contain only your ante (blinds)”

Pretty basic goal…. your goal in all poker.

Same page.

“Just as it is important to not to think in terms of individual pots - not to chase money you have contributed to an individual pot – so it is important to realize you are not playing in individual games. Each individual game is part of one big poker game”
Then he talks about how to think in terms of wining and losing at the end of the year or the month.

It’s a way to keep off tilt and dealing with ups and downs that are going to happen.

Mathematic Expectation. and Hourly rate.

I never really think of this. It’s hard to understand how I can look at a game and tell how much money he can make per average hour. Does anybody do this? Explain.

Page 13

talks about feeling good making a good laydown,
How after a loosing session that lesser skilled player would have lost more money if he had been in your seat getting your cards.

Looking at the positive when you lost money, again avoid tilt.

Basically, you must realize in order to win someone has to lose, and losing is a important part of the game. You going to lose. This is the way a level headed pro deals with losing and sees the positive in losing money.

Hopefully this can get some discussion started.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
Mathematic Expectation. and Hourly rate.

I never really think of this. It’s hard to understand how I can look at a game and tell how much money he can make per average hour. Does anybody do this? Explain.

[/ QUOTE ]
At times Sklansky talks about calculating an hourly rate by determining how many times opponents will make incorrect plays in an hour, then later he suggests it is difficult to do this as one can't always make the perfect play. I think there are too many variables involved to make such a simplistic calculation, but the idea of knowing my hourly rate is relevant to me in three ways:

1) Thinking in terms of hourly rate is one thing that seperates the "hobbyist" from the pro or semi-pro. When you are playing for a hobby, winnings are still what you strive for, but in a different way. Someone who plays as a hobby might take a lot of pride in, for example, taking a $50 free bankroll and running it up to $2,000 in 6 months. To someone who makes a living at the game, that's likely to be a pretty poor 6 months.

2) For me, my goals are generally about increasing my hourly win rate. Some months I may not be able to play as much as others, but if my win rate is still good, I'm happy.

3) Thinking of the game this way is very beneficial psychologically. One or two or even several big wins or losses don't matter; all that matters is that are you making what you want to per hour in the long term.

When Sklansky goes on to talk about hourly expectations at different tables, this is something most of us do, but not usually in quite the same way. Table selection is all about choosing tables that will result in the greatest hourly expectation, but I sure don't try to calculate my hourly rate at each table. Less sharks, more fish = good table...of course, that's a little simplified.

However, I DO calculate my hourly expectation from site to site and decide where to play based on that information. That's not based on individual players however, but on overall player strength + bonus + RB, etc.

[bellatrix]

I hope I'm not too late on this. I read the 35 pages and basically are ok with what's presented. I might write up a short summary.

I do have 2 questions that perhaps other people might answer:

1) This one seems simple. If the pot is 10 bets and there's only one card to come. I have top pair and I know the other player is on nothing more than a flush draw. I bet for value, opponent calls, because he has odds. To simplify, let's say that the odds of the flush hitting are 4-1. So I bet, because my EV is (12*0.8) - 1 = 8.6bets?
The other player calls because his EV is 12*0.2 - 1 = 1.4 bets. I already discounted the bets he had to put in.
But in terms of the fundamental theorem of poker, neither of us has gained ANYTHING, since we both played it as if the hand were turned up. So the gain in this situation is 0, for both players? Kinda like taking odds in craps?

2) Sklansky says that against weak opponents you should not push small edges with a short stack. Isn't this what short-stack strategy is about? If you bust, then you reload. Perhaps I misunderstood short-stack strategy. Should I not move all-in with TT on short-stack, knowing that I will likely get called by AK?
According to the Kelly Criterion your bet should be in line with your advantage. Well if my advantage is small, then my bet should be small and short stack should maximize that value.

[mcpst17]

[ QUOTE ]

1) This one seems simple. If the pot is 10 bets and there's only one card to come. I have top pair and I know the other player is on nothing more than a flush draw. I bet for value, opponent calls, because he has odds. To simplify, let's say that the odds of the flush hitting are 4-1. So I bet, because my EV is (12*0.8) - 1 = 8.6bets?
The other player calls because his EV is 12*0.2 - 1 = 1.4 bets. I already discounted the bets he had to put in.
But in terms of the fundamental theorem of poker, neither of us has gained ANYTHING, since we both played it as if the hand were turned up. So the gain in this situation is 0, for both players? Kinda like taking odds in craps?

[/ QUOTE ]


Lets look at 2 possible scenarios to see how this relates to the fundamental theorem of poker. Lets make one additional assumption to simplify things that no matter what the river is you will both check and showdown the hand.

Scenario A: 10bb in pot + 1bb turn bet + 1bb turn call = 12bb
12bb*.8-1bb = 8.6bb
12bb*.2-1bb = 1.4bb

Scenario B: 10bb in pot + 0bb turn bet + 0bb turn call = 10bb
10bb*.8 = 8bb
10bb*.2 = 2bb

Therefore, if you do not bet you are making a mistake and your opponent gains. He is also correct to call since by folding he would give up his entire +ev.

[mcpst17]

Here is my comments on the first 3 chapters trying not to duplicate anyone's comments.


Chapter 2: On page 13 Sklansky gives an example on expected value showing that it may be correct to play a hand with -ev if by folding you actually lose more. This example mostly relates to blind play but the key point, as everyone knows, is to minimize your loses. This ties into the point that you should gain satisfaction in choosing the play with the highest ev.

[mcpst17]

[ QUOTE ]

2) Sklansky says that against weak opponents you should not push small edges with a short stack. Isn't this what short-stack strategy is about? If you bust, then you reload. Perhaps I misunderstood short-stack strategy. Should I not move all-in with TT on short-stack, knowing that I will likely get called by AK?
According to the Kelly Criterion your bet should be in line with your advantage. Well if my advantage is small, then my bet should be small and short stack should maximize that value.

[/ QUOTE ]

He may be pointing out that there is no need to push small advantages since you can wait for a better opportunity when you have a much larger advantage. Also if there is a chance the player may leave after winning a big pot, not giving you an opportunity to win it back, you may want to wait for a better opportunity. Just my 2 cents.