"agressive" vs. "weak" - different maximization problems

[Confiscator]

I think the key to the "agressive" style vs. "weak" style discussions is to realize that different players have different goals for the play.

We can certainly assume some players' goal is a pure entertainment, no monetary goal at all. Good for them.

Others play for money.

I think the "looser" players are generally concerned with maximizing the absolute amount of money they win over a period of time, basically without many other restrictions.

While "tighter" players want to maximize the absolute amount of money they win over a period of time and to keep the variance of their bankroll under strict limits.

Obviously, it's 2 different maximization problems and they have different solutions.

Pushing small edges lets your variance to rock-n-roll like 60s are still here. While only playing nearly nuts keeps your variance rock ... small.

So when a hand play is discussed, it should be put into context what you allow for your variance. That allowance will change the solution.

[Scott Y.]

This is a very poor way to think about poker. If you want to talk about limiting preflop raising, many people may disagree with you but it's a reasonable argument for shrinking variance in passive games. But if you want to talk about limiting aggression, you're making a terrible mistake. Any tight player worth his salt still plays very aggressively to maximize EV postflop.

Most of the "small edges" you consider passing up with a "weak-tight" strategy are in reality not very small at all. In my experience, players who find excuses to sidestep aggressive play for these reasons dwell in mediocrity for a very long time. It's very similar to playing "scared" money for the duration of one's career.

[ZenMusician]

Very confusing post. Loose players build big pots to win
a huge pot RIGHT NOW, not win over time. A tight player
figures his strategy to win over the long-run, so is not
concerned with pots, only decisions.

P.S. Sorry about the beat I put on you yesterday [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-ZEN

[Confiscator]

First of all, this is a very poor way to argue. What am I supposed to do with your This is a very poor way to think about poker. ? It’s undefined in my system of logic. It’s not an argument. It’s a judgment. I am currently accepting only court judgments.

And actually, the first of the first of all: I try to speak in more formal, if appropriate in mathematical terms, while responses lean to the language arts and sophistry.

Now, there are 3 optimization problems A, B, and C, each with its own utility function and a set of constraints. Presumably, all problems have a correct solution.

So a prudent approach for a person would be to select a problem he likes, and then follow the correct solution of his problem.

You see, the solution of a problem is not linked to the choice of the problem. Select whatever fits you, just follow the correct solution afterwards.

Now, problem A – to get maximum entertainment value out of poker.
Problem B – to get maximum monetary value without any restrictions on the bankroll variance.
Problem C – to get maximum monetary value with some limit on the bankroll variance (note the word “some”).

A person can choose any one of the problems and follow the correct solution. Can you understand that?

You have chosen the problem B – that’s your right. But at the same time you criticize the solution for the problem C, which solution you might not even understand completely. See the issue here?

Finally, I have not even mentioned any solution to any problem. I am just trying to formalize the situation as any formal (scientific) discussion would do. Meanwhile, you have already given me your ultimate judgment… Poor me.

[Confiscator]

Very confusing response.

Do you suggest I have to say sorry to all people I beat yesterday?

[Scott Y.]

lol. I wasn't arguing, just stating my opinion, the crux being that limiting aggression (in the aggregate) is a poor way build a winning low variance game. You are much better off selectively limiting it, (i.e. preflop and on the come w/ profitable draws) by playing unnecessarily passive.

Some people want to play a purely mathematical game and make a little money. I suppose you can do that in Omaha. But if you want to improve you need to embrace risk and the slightly non-mathematical. That means 2nd-level+ thinking, where your opponents' range of hands and playing styles enter the equation, where estimated bluffing frequency and the notion of fold equity become important.

You don't have to make that adjustment. In fact, you can probably crush a lot of smaller online games (and some bigger ones live) without ever thinking too deeply about your opponents' hands or their perceptions of your hand. Thats a major crutch in loose-passive O/8, since drawing to the nuts is so close to optimum strategy that your opponents' hands hardly matter sometimes.

But all games don't play that way, especially online games. And when games aren't loose-passive, the surest way to become a significant winner is to pursue aggressive play and high-level thinking. I think you'll find very little complacency across these forums in terms of winrates and variance. Just about everyone wants to improve in all aspects of the game, by any means possible, and even if they sometimes bitch about variance they are rarely willing to sacrifice EV (and, to a lesser extent [since people may gravitate toward comfortable stakes], their bottom line) to potentially reduce it.

Anyway, that was long. In a nutshell, you can't usefully talk about "maximizing monetary value" with a caveat that significantly reduces your maximization (i.e. play weak-tight poker). The most compelling reason is that weak-tight cannot win at the higher levels (and this may be as low as 3/6 or 5/10) that, "theoretically", your bankroll should now be able to endure. You'll just go broke.

You CAN raise less preflop, and to a lesser extent play weaker postflop, and reduce variance in some games. But eventually your opponents will use the tactics you neglect (aggression, high-level thinking) to destroy you, because you have become tight/passive/predictable, the easiest opponent for a good player to pick off because they don't even suspect what is happening to them on every street. They never learned.

Good luck.

[vingte]

There is no question of variance for me : if you play "for money", you must have a BR large enough to make any push when you have a +0$01 edge.

I don't care if I loose $25 in one hand ; my BR is bigger than what is required for playing PL08 $25 safely but I still play tight weak [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] (that's why I'll not give my screen name here). In my very small 1000 hands sample in PTO (I'll get full version soon [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), I'm 24/3.5/1.23 with +30PTBB/100hh on PP (certainly on a rush of good cards).

You can see that "Weak tight" style works perfectly for me, but I want to change it because it will not work on higher limits I guess, and it's not easy to do it. I don't try to minimize variations with my style, I just want to take every +ev decision, but it's my natural style.

I've got a lot of respect for good LAG. I'll spend a lot of hours trying to modify my style at PLO8 $25 before being one of them ...

[Fiasco]

Its interesting, I have very similar PTO numbers (over 11k PLO8 hands im 26/5.5/1.3 with +12BB/100) but I consider myself anything but weak tight.

So im sitting here trying to figure out which PTO stat would reflect my Aggro nature and your weak/tight nature. The best I can do is W$WSF. Mine is 31.3, I assume yours is significantly lower.

[Confiscator]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no question of variance for me : if you play "for money", you must have a BR large enough to make any push when you have a +0$01 edge.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just want to take every +ev decision

[/ QUOTE ]

"take every +ev decision" is quite a dangerous way. If by "+0$01 edge" you meant 0.01% edge, then according to Kelly criterion you should, roughly speaking, have some $250,000 "to make any push" at $25 PL/NL tables and not be worried about getting broke. Good for you if you have set asside $250,000.

An additional problem with pushing 0.01% is that the huge variance, accompanying those small edges, requires a huge time for your results to average to your EV, which means you would never even know if you have +EV or -EV, which means you won't be able to correct your game, if you are doing bad. Also I find it's quite challenging psychologically to look at my yesterday's profits to be wiped by today's downturn, to be followed by a new upswing, to be smashed by the next huge fall.

I truly believe, steadiness is the sign of the master.

[Confiscator]

Scott,

I appreciate the time you take to answer me. I carefully read your responses. Thank you for them.

But you are trying to convince me in things I have been convinced in for years.

If you think that I never risk, raise the flop, or bluff, that I never evaluate my opponents' possible hands and playing styles - you are mistaken. Could I still improve in that? – Positively yes. Do I have to improve in that? – Absolutely yes.

The thing I want and look for is a balance between risk and reward. Also I want that balance expressed in a somewhat tangible form of logical conclusions and mathematical statements, not just someone’s “authoritative” general statements, common sense recommendations, and such. Things like bluffing and 2-level thinking were described and researched in the mathematical game theory (I’m sure you heard about that), which is BTW essentially a theory to solve optimization problems. So it’s not that I want to “to play a purely mathematical game and make a little money”, I want to express this in a unambiguous and provable form, and mathematics is the only tool for that.