Fundamental Theorem

Gen Sterling · #1 08-13-2007, 04:50 PM

Well, here goes a question that's bound to get flamed. I can't help it though, I don't see the answer. FLAME AWAY!

Re: Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker in the book "The Theory of Poker".

Very summarily, what am I gaining by losing a pot though a player's bad play? I can imagine the laughter and replies I get after telling my friends that the only reason I lost was that my opponent did something wrong; and then exacerbating it by claiming that "I gained something". I just lost my money to bad play, what did I gain? -LOL-

Now, I fully expect that I will be told that my gain will materialize sometime in the future. Pardon me, but I can see this guy getting up after winning the pot and putting my money in his pocket, never to ever be seen again by the likes of me; the guy who did everything right <cough> but lost.

Again, what profits the man who lost his money?

stickdude · #2 08-13-2007, 05:22 PM

You gain Sklansky Bucks, of course!! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Seriously, though, poker can be a very funny game that way in that "bad" play seems to be rewarded so often. In chess, for example, if you make a dumb move and lose your Queen, you're almost certainly not going to win the game. In poker, though, you can make a dumb move (like chasing a draw when you don't have correct odds to chase) and still win the pot - sometimes. The trick is to not think in terms of winning or losing individual pots - something you largely have no control over. If you're "doing everything right" in the sense that you're making/calling bets with positive Expected Value, then you'll make money over the long run. It might not be from the guy you just lost to, but it will be from the next fish who plays the same way he did.

AKQJ10 · #3 08-13-2007, 05:28 PM

Gen Sterling: I don't think anyone's going to flame you on this forum. We just ask that people make an effort to read appropriate FAQs etc. before asking questions, and it sounds like you've done due diligence.

stickdude: Great answer!

To restate what you wrote, it gets to the theoretical disconnect in games of chance between process and results. You want to improve your decision-making process, and trust that the results will take care of themselves.

The concrete results come over the very long term, thousands and thousands of hands, when your correct play wins you many many pots that more than offset that lucky pot your opponents won. Your friends may laugh now, but when you're making money in the long run it's harder for them to laugh.

Gen Sterling · #4 08-13-2007, 07:20 PM

Okay, I guess I can live with that. The problem is that I don't get to play very often, and when I do, I play about 3-4 hours. Somehow I get that this isn't enough time. But, win or lose, I seem to get up after this period of time.

BTW: I'm trying my luck (or minimal skill) at 3-6 Hold 'em at my local B&M. I also do the occasional charity NLHE tournaments, where I end with a respectable finish - either final table or final 3 tables. But my interest right now are the low limits.

I've seen alot of writing about positive and negative expectation, both involving individual EV and two card preflop hand EV. I haven't yet searched out the internet for these discussions, but I will. In the meantime, I would appreciate the time anyone can spend summarizing the concept of positive and negative expecatation, and how to determine it. I'm not great at math. In fact, I find it difficult keeping up with pot odds when sitting at the felt, though I do understand the method of counting the number of small bets.

Currently, I'm reading several books: Sklansky's Theory of Poker, Small Stakes Hold 'em, and Lee Jones' 2nd edition of Winning Low Limit Hold 'em.

I appreciate the replies and help.

"Old Pap" Price

Peleus · #5 08-13-2007, 07:59 PM

Ok, this is the best way I've had EV explained to me. The coinflip situation.

Lets say you're betting on heads or tails, you've got a 50/50 chance on each toss. It doesn't matter if the last flip was heads, or the last 1000 flips were heads, you've still got a 50/50 chance next toss of it being heads or tails.

You give me 1 dollar if its heads, and I give you 1 dollar if its tails. Over 5000 flips we can only expect to be even. There might be a period where you win 10 in a row, same with me, but on average we'll be even. EV is 0.

Now, you give me 1 dollar if its heads, and I give you 2 dollars if its tails. Its still a 50/50 chance, but on average you'll get $2 for every $1 of mine. So you have a +EV of $0.50. (Over 10 flips on average I'll win 5 and you'll win 5, but you'll have $10 from me and I'll have $5 from you, $5 profit over 10 flips = $0.50 a flip.)

This is the basis of expectation. On every single flip, you're making $0.50. Now you could have a bad beat, and flip the coin with me 5 times, I fluke all 5 and get $5 and get up and walk away. Sucks for you, but you've still made in a sense $2.50. You know that if you keep playing me, and I keep making the same stupid deal, by the time we get to 5000 flips, you'll have a lot more money then me.

chrisyt · #6 08-13-2007, 08:56 PM

If the last 1000 flips were heads, i'd be betting on heads. Dodgy coin.

sos just had to say that
Naturally i (being serious) agree, coin has no memory. false logic, us humans like to see patterns, when (randomly) there are none.

Albert Moulton · #7 08-13-2007, 10:25 PM

Let's say that you limped with AA in early position. Then your friend raised. Next, you reraised an amount that makes your friend convinced that you must have "AK," so he pushes all in with QQ. You call and lose to a Q on the river despite getting all in as an 80% favorite.

You gained $1.8 for every $1 you put in that pot over the lifetime of hands in which you make a similar play. Now, that still means that you'll lose 20% of the time. In fact, you'll lose twice in a row about 4% of the time. And you may very well lose 3 or 4 times in a row. However, over the course of your lifetime of these situations, you can expect to win about $1.8 for every dollar that you risk despite any short term variance to the contrary.

If you play in a manner that maximizes your opponents mistakes and minimizes your own, then in the long run you will overcome variance and win money.

Worrying about a particular hand that you lost when the money went in as a favorite is what's called being "results oriented." That is a bad thing to be, especailly when you win. For example, let's say you call an all-in with 1:1 pot odds on a 2:1 flush draw and you win. If you think, "gee, that was a great call, I should do that every time..." then eventually you will lose your bankroll.

stickdude · #8 08-14-2007, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You give me 1 dollar if its heads, and I give you 1 dollar if its tails. Over 5000 flips we can only expect to be even. There might be a period where you win 10 in a row, same with me, but on average we'll be even. EV is 0.

Now, you give me 1 dollar if its heads, and I give you 2 dollars if its tails. Its still a 50/50 chance, but on average you'll get $2 for every $1 of mine. So you have a +EV of $0.50. (Over 10 flips on average I'll win 5 and you'll win 5, but you'll have $10 from me and I'll have $5 from you, $5 profit over 10 flips = $0.50 a flip.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now that's scary. I was going to explain it exactly like that when I got home, even down to the $1/$2 bets and 1000 flips...

vixticator · #9 08-14-2007, 12:50 AM

Draws get there a % of the time. By definition.

Gen Sterling · #10 08-14-2007, 01:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say that you limped with AA in early position. Then your friend raised. Next, you reraised an amount that makes your friend convinced that you must have "AK," so he pushes all in with QQ. You call and lose to a Q on the river despite getting all in as an 80% favorite.

You gained $1.8 for every $1 you put in that pot over the lifetime of hands in which you make a similar play. Now, that still means that you'll lose 20% of the time. In fact, you'll lose twice in a row about 4% of the time. And you may very well lose 3 or 4 times in a row. However, over the course of your lifetime of these situations, you can expect to win about $1.8 for every dollar that you risk despite any short term variance to the contrary.

If you play in a manner that maximizes your opponents mistakes and minimizes your own, then in the long run you will overcome variance and win money.

Worrying about a particular hand that you lost when the money went in as a favorite is what's called being "results oriented." That is a bad thing to be, especailly when you win. For example, let's say you call an all-in with 1:1 pot odds on a 2:1 flush draw and you win. If you think, "gee, that was a great call, I should do that every time..." then eventually you will lose your bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You raise for a number of reasons. First, we likely have an immediate equity edge -- that is, with 6 people in the pot, we have more than 17% chance of winning it. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Honey Badger wrote the above quote in another thread over in the low limit forum about playing JQs in CO. - sorry, I'm all over the forums [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, so I accept that we have to look at our long term rather than the short. Of course, if I have AA or KK or similar, I'm getting my money in the pot, and leave the rest to the poker gods.

However, Honey says that we are +17% to win with the JQs. How is this percentage arrived at, and is this related to EV?