HOH "outdated"

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
You can make money with the ability level of a 1500 rating if your official rating is lower and you can get into the u1200 section at the World Open or other similar tournament. Even in chess, it's all about game selection if you're in it to maximize profits. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You win money at the World Open at low ratings? I didn't know that.

Anyway, basically you're saying you can win by cheating :-)

[bogey1]

It's hard to imagine it becoming outdated. The ideas are sound regardless of how the game progresses. However, like SSH, some ideas just may not apply as often as games change. The really loose limit games that SSH talked about rarely exist online anymore beyond micro levels.

However, it seems more and more like tournament winners are just insanely aggressive. I'd like to see a book describing how to play this type of game as a flip side to HoH's very tight style. Yea, HoH talks about a "hyper aggressive" game, but doesn't go into detail (it is, after all, not Dan's style).

I'd love to see a chapter by someone like Raymer on running over the table with a big stack. They'll take more risks to get that stack and I'd like to understand the thinking about the types of hands they play differently to take that shot at big stack status.

[DafarginNuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was superceded by Arnold Snyder's PTF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol

[/ QUOTE ]

second that LOL [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 100 new pages as per Mason, most concerning NHLE. It's not a minor revision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't answer the (somewhat rhetorical) question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't take it as if you were literally asking a question. You expected me to guess about the usefulness of a book that's not even going to print for a couple of months?

It's a Sklansky book with 100+ new pages, most on NLHE. Other than that, who knows.

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 100 new pages as per Mason, most concerning NHLE. It's not a minor revision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't answer the (somewhat rhetorical) question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you want me to guess or something? lol

[/ QUOTE ]
Guess, or use whatever process for measuring expectation you usually use. My prejudices say Sklansky has nothing new or useful to say on no-limit holdem tournaments but if others expected better I could review my opinion.

[Gonso]

Ok, well, that was beoynd the scope of my post. You could always read some reviews or read it yourself for the $25 or whatever it will cost. There's no point in guessing how useful the book may or may not be... and even less in changing my guess based on other peoples guesses.

[fraac]

You have no expectations whatsoever? I like that way of living. Never disappointed.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
You have no expectations whatsoever? I like that way of living. Never disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to read it make up my own mind, if that makes sense. If you like guessing games you can do that without me... I don't really see the point but w/e

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]


This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.



[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, I've seen you make this claim a few times. In game theory terminology, chess is indeed a game of complete information, and poker is a game of incomplete information. What people choose to do with this information is another thing, but that doesn't change the definition of the game.

If you want to say that the players if they are amateurs don't follow a Nash Equilibrium strategy, that's fine, and that's exactly what's going on. If you want to denote something else, you probably should chose different words that don't have a specific meaning in game theory already.

shane

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.



[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, I've seen you make this claim a few times. In game theory terminology, chess is indeed a game of complete information, and poker is a game of incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said. I also am saying that in practice you don't make all your decisions based strictly on game theory. In many actual game situations in chess, you can knowingly make theoretically incorrect moves and still gain an advantage over a (non master) opponent. You obviously cannot do this in a game theory sense. The fact that chess is theoretically a game of complete information is irrelevant sometimes, yet people keep talking about it as if chess is a game played against perfect computers, not against people. Since their assumption is wrong, sometimes their conclusion is wrong.

In some ways, amateur chess in practice has more in common with poker, a game of incomplete information, than with a game of complete information. This is the point I'm trying to get across.

For example, in poker you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent has and he's not sure what I have, but based on his play I think he has something like ABC, and he probably thinks I have something like XYZ."

In chess you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent's up to here, but based on his last couple moves he's very worried about this threat, even though there is an easy defense to it that he's obviously not aware of. I will continue with this "bluff". I might be exposing myself here, but I'm not sure since I can only imagine a couple moves ahead, and furthermore I doubt he'd see that anway even if it is an exposure."

I'm trying clear up the misconception that just because a game is one of "complete information", you can't bluff and you can't outplay your opponent in many of the same ways you can in poker. If your opponent does not know how to use information or is not aware of it, then that information might as well not exist, making the game one of incomplete information in practice. And then the game plays more like a theoretical game of incomplete information.