Negreanu advise to math players

[sirio11]

Reading this post in NVG, I found this gem by Daniel:

------
What I often question is whether or not "math players" are able to factor in the human element as much as they should. Based on talking with Bill and Chris Ferguson, they try to play poker in such a way that makes them impossible to exploit. That is a good strategy, but I could illustrate several scenarios where it wouldn't be the best strategy.

I'd go as far as to say that if you feel as though you may be an underdog in a certain game that applying a strategy that isn't exploitable might just be the best course of action.

However, if you are at a table where you are the best player at the table, you should be less concerned with your opponents exploiting you, and more concerned with taking advantage of holes in their game.

-----

I consider myself a math type, and I think this is very, very good advise for us.

I remember asking MLG in his well about some advise to improve my game, and he told me to stop over analyzing players and concentrate in their mistakes; and Daniel in the last paragraph explains clearly why this is specially important in Internet tournaments.

BTW, hopefully the idiots in NVG don't drive Daniel away from this forum.

[flyingmoose]

I agree that this is very good advice in general. I do feel that it would be difficult advice to apply while playing 6-10 tables, however.

[RichC.]

Maybe we can just get DN to post in MTT more than NVG. Pretty sure he would get a very warm welcome here.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
I often question is whether or not "math players" are able to factor in the human element as much as they should. Based on talking with Bill and Chris Ferguson, they try to play poker in such a way that makes them impossible to exploit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find this rather weird, seeing as how Bill's (if it's Bill Chen he's talking about that is, I assume so) book contains the idea that playing in the optimal, unexploitable way usually won't be as profitable as making small mistakes. I haven't read the book myself, but that's what I heard.

Also, in NLHTAP, Sklansky talks about this very subject, so it's not like Daniel's on to something new. Of course, that doesn't stop it from being useful and I'm sure many haven't seen this advice before.

[zoobird]

I've read maybe a third of the book, and Bill (and I also assume he means Chen) does indeed spend plenty of time talking about how an unexploitable strategy is not always the most profitable strategy. However he also says that this is mostly true against bad players, and that against better players, the 'reads' that you're trying to exploit probably aren't as good as you think due to small sample size, players adjusting to conditions and learning, and a variety of other factors. Because of this, the book does encourage non-exploitable play as a general approach against decent players.

[RichC.]

Having not read the book, bill chen's that is, and also not being sure what this inexploitable strategy is, could someone with a much better understanding of it explain it here? Please?

[zoobird]

I'm sure other people can explain it much more clearly and accurately, but I'll take a stab at it. The basic idea is that certain strategies can't be taken advantage of - in other words, it doesn't really matter what your opponent does...your EV (and yours) will be about the same no matter what he does. These unexploitable strategies do not necessarily take advantage of your opponents mistakes, but they do prevent smart opponents from taking advantage of yours. When they talk about strategies in the book, they're including 'mixed strategies', where you take a mix of different lines that makes your play harder to exploit. So an example of unexploitable vs. exploitable strategies:
In any situation, there's a bluffing frequency that's unexploitable - even if your opponent knows exactly what % of the time you're bluffing in this situation, he can't take advantage of it, because his overall results (and yours) will be the same no matter what. The tradeoff for this is that if you're playing a very tight player who will fold to most bluffs, your unexploitable strategy will be much less +EV than a more aggressive strategy. But if you employe the more aggressive strategy, a thinking opponent can exploit you by calling you much more frequently. The unexploitable strategies for both players are kind of an equilibrium point.

I hope that made some sense and was reasonably accurate.

[stevepa]

Does this make me as good as Negreanu?

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this make me as good as Negreanu?

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve,

You're an awesome poster, I don't know why I keep missing some of your posts.

[deankeaton7]

yeah, when the hell did that happen and where was I? Steve, TY for the link, and Sirio, TY too.