| This is a discussion on Schooling within the online poker forums, in the Cash Games section; From this thread: Originally Posted by Cheetah Actually, excluding the natural bias that may exist, some forms of poker are subject to more luck than ... |
| | ||||||
![]() |
| |
|
#1 | ||||
| ||||
| Schooling From this thread: Quote:
|
| Play Texas Hold'em Online Poker | Schooling | |
|
|
|
#2 | ||||
| ||||
| Interesting Article. I have never heard of schooling before. I can see why it would be an compelling argument for a person that keeps loosing to poor players. The articles do a good job of explaining why that isn't the case however, except in very rare instances. I mean really how many times are you going to get 9 callers on the turn. Thanks AG, I always love the links you provide to articles. I may not agree with them but that are always informative. |
|
#3 | ||||
| ||||
| Although I disagree with the idea of schooling being something that cuts into winrates, Cheetah doesn't seem to be primarily saying that, but rather that high variance reduces winnings for people with strict bankroll management. However, and I believe this is key, high variance only reduces profitability of it's high variance but same EV. I ran quite a lot of simulations for this at one point, and unless I made the difference in EV almost 0, it was always better to choose the +EV, high variance game for profitability. |
|
#4 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Schooling poker Quote:
|
|
#6 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
In order to investigate this issue, one must consider all possible hands and a variety of players. The author only considers maniacs who play any two hands and only two hands. On top of that, one of the hands is AA which is probably the worst hand to show fish schooling. Despite these special circumstances, in the author's admission, he could observe schooling effect, but chose to label it small and disregard it. He simply doesn't have the data to draw any conclusions. He has basically used 2 points: one type opponents against AJ or AA. One cannot extrapolate from this to all hands and all types of players. This would be like saying that since Cheetah was in his den on Sunday at 1pm and Friday at 1 pm, therefore he is always in his den. As FP mentions, there are also the additional effects from increased variance that may not be compensated enough by the increase in profits. I am too busy right now to investigate this myself and it is not a priority for me. However, a starting point would be to run all possible hands against several types of players, say 5 types. Even that is not sufficient since post-flop play is very important in cash games and early in tourneys. When using showdown simulations, we are neglecting, among other things, the huge reverse-implied odds of big pairs against multiple callers. FP, what kind of simulations have you done? I would be interested to see the results and any conclusions you have drawn from them. |
|
#7 | ||||
| ||||
| Without going into too much detail, from my point of view it helps with bad beats. When you constantly make the correct move and get sucked out it can make you mad. However, I am now of the opinion where the situation described is not a big deal to me now. If I`m sitting with AA I will make a semi standard raise. If a lot of ppl want to call, so be it. What I do know, however, is that at that time I am the fav to win the hand, all be it if overall I`m less than 50% v 4 other callers. So I have made the correct move and I have made a lot of people made the wrong move. Then you make your decision on the flop. The good news is, if your hand improves on the flop and u r sitting with the nuts, because the other ppl are looking at their holding and their holding only, u can then push and u will probably get a caller, or at worst win a bigger pot than u would normally have. |
|
#8 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Schooling poker Quote:
a) I will beat my opponent for an amount that is proportional to the stakes I play, and b) with higher variance I'm more likely to go on swings that will force me to move down in stakes and therefore make proportionately less money until I'm back up to where I started. Since moving down effectively halves my income (stakes are usually like that) the idea is (was) that the safer route might generate more money since it will not be at all as likely to risk moving down. So I decided to test how variance/EV effected money made. The simulator basically runs random all-in coin-toss situations where one guy will bet money on every toss that's 50% or better to win (pushing the edges, and the variance, to the max) and the other guy will be more careful, only taking, say, 55% edges or better before getting the money in. I did not manage to run any simulation over any meaningful period of time where it wasn't better to take the +EV, high variance route in terms of earning money. Of course, this is a very rough model. My code doesn't properly account for rake (although it does to some extent) which hits the high variance player harder. On the other hand, it doesn't consider pot odds at all either, which works in favor of the high variance player, so perhaps those two simplifications somewhat cancel each other out. Another, very real, problem with the model is that people aren't machines, and running a high variance game may be psychologically detrimental. But the pure mechanics of variance vs. EV speaks strongly (very strongly) in favor of EV. |
|
#10 | ||||
| ||||
| That's one of the best pieces of information that I have seen. If you want to see it in action look at the first or second hand of almost any large free roll. You would see most of the table if not go all in for the first or second hands. Then a hand like Q3o wins with quad 3's. |
|
#11 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#12 | ||||
| ||||
| re: Schooling poker Quote:
One more note. I think that the ratio EV/variance is more relevant than using either one separately, regardless of how we define variance. Of course, a ratio is very simplistic and the only way to truly account for their effects on overall profitability is to link them to BR management. This is what I am currently trying to do by avoiding any definition of variance. I wished there was a sub-forum for math stuff where we could post formulas and numbers without fear of decreasing the CC membership due to premature death from excessive exposure to numbers. |
Number of Posts: 13
Number of Authors: 7