Happy 10th Birthday; 2+2 Forums

[Abe]

2+2 forums are 10 years old next week, right?
(Mason serving cake and punch to all?)

I didn't find the site until the following year, but wonder if any of the "original" posters are still active. And what about forum topics from 1997? Could 2+2 top management assign a couple of interns to review the first year topics and report any surprising findings?

Happy Birthday, 2+2 Forums!

[ender]

I would love to see "Rounder" post.

[Point Point]

Below were the first posts ever made on the 2+2 forums back in July 1997. Wow! (I've put them in quotes and they are direct word for word copy and paste). Where is Jessica Vecchione today? Mason, can you let her post? She made history.

"# Welcome to the Forum
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione (JessicaVecchione@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: July 08, 1997 at 14:17:34

Welcome to the Two Plus Two Publishing Gambling Forum. To initiate the forum we have five questions, previously submitted to us, with answers from David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. Visit often with questions and answers.

* On quoting of originals in followups
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: July 13, 1997 at 19:13:40

The transmission of articles among thousands of independent usenet servers is asynchronous. Therefore it is possible to see a usenet (e.g., rec.gambling.*) followup before seeing the original. Also, there is no strict threading protocol for usenet articles, although some client software may use heuristic rules to simulate threading. The asynchronism is the reason for the convention of quoting (excerpts from) the original in a followup to a usenet article. (Although many users are indiscriminate and wasteful in the use of quotation, quoting entire originals rather than only those excerpts sufficient to provide context.)

This forum, however, is different: it is strictly synchronous and threaded. A reader of a forum followup can easily refer to the original with a mouse click. Hence it's unnecessary to honor the usenet quotation convention here. This is not meant to disparage occasional brief quotations as might be used to provide context in any written followup such as in a magazine or book.

Thanks to Jessica and the Two Plus Two authors (2+2 = 3?) for an interesting net nook.

# Expectation and Deviation
Posted by: John Spence (Spence2@earthwise.com)
Posted on: July 08, 1997 at 14:23:13

In Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Mason Malmuth states, "Keep in mind that the strategies with the highest expectation are often accompanied by the highest standard deviation. This is simply because they are usually more non-self weighting than a less profitable approach, and this higher standard deviation may not be a price that all of us want to pay." My question is this. Is there anything in poker that can increase your expectation and lower your standard deviation?

* Re: Expectation and Deviation
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: July 08, 1997 at 16:52:50

The statement quoted is generally true in all forms of gambling. Those stategies that the expert player uses to
increase his earn are usually accompanied by higher fluctuations. If you are on a short bankroll or don't like
living on a roller coaster, it may be worth giving up part of your expectation - especially in the short run.
However, there are some instances where you can increase expectation and reduce fluctuations
simultaneously. In blackjack, the surrender option has this effect, especially in a shoe game where you are
using a large bet variation. In poker, the ability to read hands well will also produce this desired effect.

This is easy to see. Suppose when playing poker you had the ability to read hands perfectly, that is, you
always know the exact cards that your opponent holds. Notice that your play would become devastating. You
would be able to bluff perfectly, make perfect value bets and raises, and never incorrectly pay off a bet on the
end (including folding some big hands). Your win rate would go way up and your fluctuations would go down.

During the past couple of years I have been working with a friend who is an expert player, and we have been
keeping careful track of our results so that we can estimate standard deviations. A while back I posted some
of these estimates on the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker. They created quite a stir because they seemed to be
too low. We feel that the reason for this is superiour hand reading skills. Here is a current update of some of
those numbers. (Note: To preserve privacy, I do not give win rates or hours involved in each game. But be
assured that these numbers are from a very strong player who puts in his time at the tables. Also, the standard
deviation [sd] is per hour.)

Game: $15 - $30 stud, sd: $202.61
Game: $20 - $40 stud, sd: $347.80
Game: $30 - $60 stud, sd: $428.25
Game: $75 - $150 stud, sd: $1,189.46
Game: $20 - $40 hold 'em, sd: $286.39

I suspect that many of you who will read this are playing with standard deviations as much as twice as large
(which means your bankroll requirements must be four times as big). Yet, you may still be winning players. I
also suspect that if this is the case, your poker skills can get much better if you begin to emphasize card reading
skills.

Related to this, in the book Poker, Gaming, and Life, David Sklansky has a short discussion of what it is that
separates the great players from the merely good players. His conclusion is the ability to read hands extremely
well. Your conclusion should be that once you learn how to play poker reasonably well, you need to start
emphasizing this area.


o Re: Expectation and Deviation
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: July 21, 1997 at 23:39:25

While I'm a winning low-limit HE player with about two years of "casino" poker experience I've found my own standard deviation to be as follows:

5-10 Hold 'Em (about 500 hours of play)

S.D. of about $140/hr.

I play in a high rake game (about 2x Vegas) and am certainly not an expert player but would be interested if anyone else is keeping these stats.

All the best!

Ian Haar

+ Re: Expectation and Deviation
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: July 22, 1997 at 02:48:45

I have talked to a few people who are having success at the lower limits as Ian is but yet have standard deviations relatively much higher than what I indicate. My guess, and this is just an educated guess, is that the game has something to do with it, but also that your card reading skills need to get better. This is why it is better to start small and work your way up. Assuming that I am correct as time goes by I suspect that your (relative) standard deviation will gradually drop. It would be interesting to see what your sd is every three months or so. Perhaps you will keep us informed.

# Heads up with JJ
Posted by: Luigina Curran (LooLooC@aol.com)
Posted on: July 08, 1997 at 15:08:46

When playing $10 -$20 hold'em recently, a very aggressive player who was first in raised and I reraised with JhJc. He called and we were the only players in the pot. The flop came Ad Qc 4s. He bet and I threw my hand away. Was I correct to do this? When he was awarded the pot I was able to see that he held the Js10s.

* Re: Heads up with JJ
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: July 08, 1997 at 16:54:11

When I'm in this type of situation I try to categorize my opponent. If it is a timid player --category 1-- who
would never bet into your shown strength, then I believe that you should quickly throw the hand away. If it is
an aggressive player who likes to lead with his hands --category 2-- then I consider how large the pot is, and
call accordingly. In this case there will be over seven bets in the pot, in addition to your opponent's bet. Notice
that you don't have to fold very often to make it correct for your opponent to bet every time. That is, you must
call enough to make it incorrect for your aggressive opponent to bet every time no matter what he has. The
way you do this is to consider all the hands that you would three bet with in this situation and continue to play
at least 85 percent of them. (You might choose to raise instead of call.) In other words if two jacks is the
weakest hand that I would three bet with, then I would throw it away. But, if there are other weaker hands
such as two tens or perhaps a big suited connector (as well as an occasional stange hand such as seven-six
suited) then I would continue to play. If it is a player, and this type of player is quite common at the lower
limits, who is well aware that you will bet automatically and who would normally let you bet --categaory 3--
then you should probably always continue playing. There are many players who in head-up stiuations will
always lead into the player as a semi-bluff and always check raise when they have the goods. Against this type
of player, I almost always raise. Somethime I will discover that they have flopped a huge hand and are looking
for three bets and other times they proceed to make their hand anyway and my raise has cost me extra money.
But against a player who you think fits in this category you should never fold.

If you are not sure which category a person fits into, then my advice is to treat them as if they fall into the
second category, but be more conservative. That is, don't call as much as I have indicatd but do call with some
hands that can't beat top pair. By the way, the bigger you play, the more likely you are to run into a category
two player.


o Re: Heads up with JJ
Posted by: Andy Morton (andrewm@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: July 27, 1997 at 01:13:25

: When I'm in this type of situation I try to categorize my opponent. [snip] If it is
: an aggressive player who likes to lead with his hands --category 2-- then I consider how large the pot is, and
: call accordingly. In this case there will be over seven bets in the pot, in addition to your opponent's bet. Notice
: that you don't have to fold very often to make it correct for your opponent to bet every time. That is, you must
: call enough to make it incorrect for your aggressive opponent to bet every time no matter what he has. The
: way you do this is to consider all the hands that you would three bet with in this situation and continue to play
: at least 85 percent of them.


This answer has been very thought-provoking for me. Could you please elaborate on your descriptions of the 3 types of players, particularly Type 2? As I read them, they are:

Type 1. A timid player who would only bet for value into the three-bettor's shown strength.

Type 2. An aggressive player who will bet out every time in this situation (is that really what you meant?).

Type 3. A player who would normally let you bet. This player knows you will always bet here and so would always checkraise when they have the goods and always lead into the reraiser with any sort of semi bluffing hand. (Presumably they will check both when they have a semi-bluffing hand and when the flop misses them completely?)

Also, is your Type 2 player more commonly found in bigger games because his strategy is generally more correct, or for some other reason?

I sort of anticipate having a bunch of comments on this answer depending on the clarification of what a Type 2 player is. Thanks for providing the forum.


+ Re: Heads up with JJ
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: July 27, 1997 at 07:32:34

Andy:

I don't mean to disappoint you, but if I get too specific it can cut into the the "flexibility" that you need as a poker player. This player that we are now calling category two is frequently a better player, but he can also be a wild player, or perhaps someone who just plays approximately correct in this situation.

I'm afraid that my description will have to do. But experience and thinking over these type of situations should help you make the right decision much more often.

# Re: Heads up with JJ
Posted by: Andy Morton (andrewm@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: July 29, 1997 at 04:15:08

Mason:

Your answer is disappointing, as you suspected. This is primarily because your original response to the three-bettor's question was so thought-provoking. It's probably true that after you clarified what you were trying to say about a player who 'likes to lead with his hands in such situations' that i was probably going to have some sort of critical response. But that's only because i've spent a while thinking about your first response. I've read that you advocate thinking hard about the game away from the table. I think this particular situation (and especially the way you described your reaction to it) is a great opportunity for serious poker thinking, for a number of reasons. But it would be a lot more productive if i could follow a little better what you were trying to say.

For instance, one reason i liked your response to the initial question was the way you suggested that different categories of opponents require different strategies. Categorizing opponents is an important skill in poker, i believe, and one that is difficult to address in books or on newsgroups. But this example seems 'compartmentalized' enough that fairly simple categorizations might be analytically tractable. As such, it offers a nice sort of case study in how one can learn to categorize opponents, and then how to exploit the behavior of the different categories. This topic isn't addressed as much as some others in the 2+2 literature, and i was delighted to see it happen on the new forum. But part of the utility of this sort of approach is that you get to think about what the formally correct strategy is against stereotypical opponents, perhaps even to the point of writing the equations involved. After you've determined correct strategy against stereotypical opponents, then you can go back and think about the flexibility needed against real opponents.

I don't mean to sound overly pedantic -- i come from an academic background and this is simply the way i speak. Also, please don't tell me "Poker is not blackjack." I've never played blackjack in any serious fashion. Finally, I still think the forum is a great idea; i'm sure you have been spending a lot of time with it recently, and i'm sure people are benefitting from it. Still looking forward to meeting you Thursday,

Andy Morton

* Re: Heads up with JJ
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@das.honeywell.com)
Posted on: July 13, 1997 at 01:00:37

: When playing $10 -$20 hold'em recently, a very aggressive player who was first in raised and I reraised with JhJc. He called and we were the only players in the pot. The flop came Ad Qc 4s. He bet and I threw my hand away. Was I correct to do this? When he was awarded the pot I was able to see that he held the Js10s.

I think Mason Malmuth�s analysis is very insightful and puts some parameters on the problem that I hadn�t thought of. There are a lot of good things about that play. I have an alternative play that may or may not be appropriate depending on whether the very aggressive player is capable of a re-raise semi-bluff on the
turn or a bluff on the river when you have showed strength on the turn. You could smooth call on the flop and raise on the turn. Here is the rationale for this play. Think about what your opponent thinks you have. I don�t know what your re-raising standards are but you have to believe that your opponent put you on a
very good hand. Certainly one of the possibilities was a big pair. When the aggressive player bets into you here, he has either got at least a very good hand which you are virtually dead against or a marginal holding. He knows that you are going to play a big set or top two pair aggressively at some point. He also
knows that a pair of Queens or Jacks is a trouble hand at this point. If you are going to call on the flop, call on the turn and call on the river. You would be putting $50 more into the pot. If you smooth call on the flop and raise on the turn, thus mimicking a slow play of big trips or top two pair, the following
possibilities occur:
1. He could give up which would be fine if he has a marginal hand that beats your marginal hand. He may fold something like K,Qs, K,Js or a pair of Queens.
2. He might call you with a long shot.
3. He could re-raise you. If you know he is not capable of a semi-bluff re-raise on the turn you could throw your hand away safely and it costs you $50.
You would also have to believe he would not bluff on the river after you have raised him on the turn.
4. On the river, if you don�t improve check it back, if you catch another Jack bet it out.
Some players would raise on the flop, but I think your opponent would question why you raised on the flop instead of the turn. Also, a fast playing opponent
is a lot more likely to mix it up on the flop than on the turn when they hold something that is marginal that could improve to something that is a big hand."

[Mike Gallo]

Wow,I think I made my first post in 2000 or 20001.

Congratulations on running a successful business.

[George Lind III]

I think my first post was in 1999 but I probably started reading it within a few months of it opening; I spent many an hour at while I was at "work" reading the forum (there was only one forum at the time). I'm pretty sure I have read every post that was posted between 1997-1999.

The forum(s) sure has come a long way.

[SkinnyLittleTwig]

[ QUOTE ]
The transmission of articles among thousands of independent usenet servers is asynchronous. Therefore it is possible to see a usenet (e.g., rec.gambling.*) followup before seeing the original. Also, there is no strict threading protocol for usenet articles, although some client software may use heuristic rules to simulate threading. The asynchronism is the reason for the convention of quoting (excerpts from) the original in a followup to a usenet article. (Although many users are indiscriminate and wasteful in the use of quotation, quoting entire originals rather than only those excerpts sufficient to provide context.)

This forum, however, is different: it is strictly synchronous and threaded. A reader of a forum followup can easily refer to the original with a mouse click. Hence it's unnecessary to honor the usenet quotation convention here. This is not meant to disparage occasional brief quotations as might be used to provide context in any written followup such as in a magazine or book.

[/ QUOTE ]

heheh wow, this is so nerdy and serious. and where have we come? people posting about genital warts and EM2 seeking vegas whores.

[Jackal69]

is it possible to see a list of the first 100 (or 500, or 1000) people to sign up here? that would be cool.

[ipp147]

[ QUOTE ]
is it possible to see a list of the first 100 (or 500, or 1000) people to sign up here? that would be cool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they had assigned member numbers or had proper login's at the start.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I think my first post was in 1999 but I probably started reading it within a few months of it opening; I spent many an hour at while I was at "work" reading the forum (there was only one forum at the time). I'm pretty sure I have read every post that was posted between 1997-1999.

The forum(s) sure has come a long way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Around 99 or so is when it started to get too big to read evey post. I don't know when I started reading here, but my first post was in 98.

[Andy B]

I found this forum in 1997 and read it pretty much every day. My first post was in early 1998.