- Status
P
ph_il
...
Silver Level
I don't think there is anything as Perfect Poker, per se, but it could mean that they were playing 'perfect poker' themselves. Meaning they were making the right decisions, making the right moves at the right time, hitting their hands/draws, forcing their opponents to make mistakes, etc....
There have been times when Im playing, everything just seems to go my way and even though I always do my best when I play, it just feels like every decision I made was in my favor. Like I was playing perfect poker...
There have been times when Im playing, everything just seems to go my way and even though I always do my best when I play, it just feels like every decision I made was in my favor. Like I was playing perfect poker...
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Barry Greenstein discussed the concept of 'perfect' poker briefly in Ace on the River: essentially, he says that 'perfect' poker is the way you would have played if you'd known your opponent's downcards. If you could see what they held, you'd be able to make the 'perfect' play each time.
He makes the point, however, that 'perfect' poker and 'correct' poker aren't always the same thing. Because you don't know exactly what your opponent is holding, you're basing your decisions on incomplete information. You can usually come up with one (or more) 'correct' plays based on this incomplete information, but these may not always be the same as the perfect play.
I sincerely doubt, based on that definition, that Jamie Gold played 'perfect' poker to win the WSOP. I highly doubt he even played correct poker all the time - though he obviously played it often enough to win. He was probably just using the term flippantly.
He makes the point, however, that 'perfect' poker and 'correct' poker aren't always the same thing. Because you don't know exactly what your opponent is holding, you're basing your decisions on incomplete information. You can usually come up with one (or more) 'correct' plays based on this incomplete information, but these may not always be the same as the perfect play.
I sincerely doubt, based on that definition, that Jamie Gold played 'perfect' poker to win the WSOP. I highly doubt he even played correct poker all the time - though he obviously played it often enough to win. He was probably just using the term flippantly.
royalburrito24
Legend
Silver Level
OZ, i think you hit the nail right on the head...
since joining in cardschat, every single one of your posts are amazing. if i were to answer this question it would be about 2 sentences long.
but you, decide to make it 2 paragraphs...
well done and good luck
as for the question:
philthy I think also gave a great response.
Insomniac_1006
Visionary
Silver Level
Greenstein’s notion is based on the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, but I am sure most of you already knew that. The Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which follows, was introduced in The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky, first copyrighted in 1987.
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards they lose.
Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if the could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if the could see all your cards, you lose.
In No Limit Hold 'em Theory and Practice, Sklansky goes on to say, “Note that we use the term "mistake" in a specific and somewhat peculiar sense. We don't mean that you played badly, or that a more skillful player would have played differently. We just mean that you played differently than you would have if you could have seen your opponent’s hand"... Following with..."The fundamental Theorem of Poker highlights the value of hand reading and deception. One of your goals when you play no limit hold 'em is to try to deduce your opponent’s holding while disguising your own."
Indeed, if we could all play this way we would be running a perfect game, but most of us make mistakes. To me the perfect game is one in which I am fully engaged, über observant (of my opponents, the flow of the game, the action or lack there of), and making more correct decisions than my opponent is making. This usually will result in a win. A perfect game, I think is elusive, but well worth working toward.
Last edited:
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Yep, that'd be the definitive erm... definition.
What I find interesting about the way Greenstein's puts it is that he clearly distinguishes between 'perfect' and 'correct' play. I'm sure Sklansky did too. But Greenstein's book had pretty pictures so I read that first, and that's what stuck in my head
.
Anywho, point is that the perfect play is something we can work out afterwards. But while we're actually in a hand, is it practical be thinking you can make the perfect play?
By definition, you can't. It'd be nice if we could, and sometimes we'll stumble upon it either by chance or with a great read. But in general, it's neither possible nor practical - there's just no way (within the rules, at any rate) to do it.
Instead, you should be focussed on making the correct play for the situation, given the information you have.
Which is why posting results in the hand analysis section changes the answers you get: it changes the analysis from determining a correct play (of which there could be many) to determining the single perfect play.
It's being able to identify a correct play that will help you next time you're in a hand. Being able to work out the correct play is also by far the harder skill to master. Gawd knows I'm still pretty average at it.
What I find interesting about the way Greenstein's puts it is that he clearly distinguishes between 'perfect' and 'correct' play. I'm sure Sklansky did too. But Greenstein's book had pretty pictures so I read that first, and that's what stuck in my head
.Anywho, point is that the perfect play is something we can work out afterwards. But while we're actually in a hand, is it practical be thinking you can make the perfect play?
By definition, you can't. It'd be nice if we could, and sometimes we'll stumble upon it either by chance or with a great read. But in general, it's neither possible nor practical - there's just no way (within the rules, at any rate) to do it.
Instead, you should be focussed on making the correct play for the situation, given the information you have.
Which is why posting results in the hand analysis section changes the answers you get: it changes the analysis from determining a correct play (of which there could be many) to determining the single perfect play.
It's being able to identify a correct play that will help you next time you're in a hand. Being able to work out the correct play is also by far the harder skill to master. Gawd knows I'm still pretty average at it
.
R
RankXaroth
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Last days I am really asking the same question. May be not exactly the same, but very simillar. How to play perfect poker? You know all those strategies, how to play GOOD poker. Like ... you have to raise or re-raise with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ ... so I play it like this and usually some fool calls my raise or sometimes all-in with hand like Q2 suited or 67 offsuited. And then the poker god dosen't look at me and more times stands behind my opponent. And I believe, that I did everything right ... but still I loose.
So, I really want to repeat the question? How to play perfect poker? How the well known poker stars play their on-line tournaments?
So, I really want to repeat the question? How to play perfect poker? How the well known poker stars play their on-line tournaments?
Effexor
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
You can play perfectly, make all the correct decisions and still lose. Thats the nature of gambling. Winning any one specific hand has nothing to do with the way you played it, but long term it has every thing to do with the way you play. Lets say you do have AA preflop, and manage to get all your money in the middle against someone with Q2 suited. You will be roughly a 85% favorite to win the pot. You made the correct play, got your money in good and thats all you can do. 15 times out of 100 you'll still lose, but and the end of the year the person with the AA will have won money, while the Q2 person will have lost.
Don't be results oriented.
Don't be results oriented.
rainsoaked
Rock Star
Silver Level
^^^^This is what I'm thinking as well. Perfect play refers to making correct decisions for the proper mathematical/theory based reasons, is how I interpreted it. Which is what most of y'all are saying here too (I think, it's early). Doesn't mean an immediate win, but gives better odds of success over the long haul while still not guaranteeing anything if one doesn't:
A: Play opponents you can beat or
2: Live long enough to be on the statistical good side of 'long term'
Maybe.
A: Play opponents you can beat or
2: Live long enough to be on the statistical good side of 'long term'
Maybe.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Not quite - the idea is that there's a difference between correct play and perfect play. Sometimes the two overlap, but you can't know that while you're in the hand.
There's an example in that Absolute hole card schomozzle that illustrates it - the whole "10-high on the river" thing.
If you've got nothing but 10 high and your opponent is betting into you on the river, unless you've got some amazing read the correct play would almost always be to fold.
If you could see your opponent's hole cards though, and you could see that they only had 9-high, then the perfect play would actually be raising. If they fold, you weren't getting any more money anyway, and if they try to bluff you back, so much the better.
This is probably getting bogged down in semantics... point is, perfect play is a retrospective concept - by definition, unless you're cheating you can only find out what the perfect play was after the hand is finished. Finding the correct play while you're in a hand should be what you're most concerned about.
Rainsoaked does make an interesting point though: even the perfect play won't win every time.
There's an example in that Absolute hole card schomozzle that illustrates it - the whole "10-high on the river" thing.
If you've got nothing but 10 high and your opponent is betting into you on the river, unless you've got some amazing read the correct play would almost always be to fold.
If you could see your opponent's hole cards though, and you could see that they only had 9-high, then the perfect play would actually be raising. If they fold, you weren't getting any more money anyway, and if they try to bluff you back, so much the better.
This is probably getting bogged down in semantics... point is, perfect play is a retrospective concept - by definition, unless you're cheating you can only find out what the perfect play was after the hand is finished. Finding the correct play while you're in a hand should be what you're most concerned about.
Rainsoaked does make an interesting point though: even the perfect play won't win every time.
V
viking999
Visionary
Silver Level
I'm going to have to disagree with the Sklansky/Greenstein definition of perfect poker. It's incomplete because there's more to poker than just the cards.
I say perfect poker is how you'd play if you knew your opponent's down cards AND how they'd react to your play.
For example:
Preflop: You and your opponent both have 10xBB. You have 23o in the BB, and your opponent has A5o in the SB. It folds to him, and he limps. Correct play here seems to be to check.
Flop: KhJd8c.
You both have garbage. He checks. Now what is the right play here? In general, I'd say the correct play is to bet. But if you knew your opponent was very aggressive, it might be a mistake. He could bluff over the top all-in, and you are left without any option but to fold. You could always shove all-in first, but there's no guarantee he's not going to make a huge call. To make the right play, you have to know exactly how he's going to react. If you knew he would bluff all-in versus a 1-3BB bet and make a huge call versus any bet 6-9BB, then perfect poker would be to bet 4-5BB to get him to fold.
I say perfect poker is how you'd play if you knew your opponent's down cards AND how they'd react to your play.
For example:
Preflop: You and your opponent both have 10xBB. You have 23o in the BB, and your opponent has A5o in the SB. It folds to him, and he limps. Correct play here seems to be to check.
Flop: KhJd8c.
You both have garbage. He checks. Now what is the right play here? In general, I'd say the correct play is to bet. But if you knew your opponent was very aggressive, it might be a mistake. He could bluff over the top all-in, and you are left without any option but to fold. You could always shove all-in first, but there's no guarantee he's not going to make a huge call. To make the right play, you have to know exactly how he's going to react. If you knew he would bluff all-in versus a 1-3BB bet and make a huge call versus any bet 6-9BB, then perfect poker would be to bet 4-5BB to get him to fold.
rainsoaked
Rock Star
Silver Level
I agree with you, Oz, and the poster above me, to a large extent. And Effexor, also, but we might be getting lost in words here. The OP mentioned online power players. These guys might be be playing "winning poker" but I'm thinking that's another concept and another flavor.
Winning poker is most likely a combination of everything mentioned before. Plus some stuff nobody's brought up yet.
I'm happy to stand corrected on the perfect/correct scale, though. Makes sense to me.
Winning poker is most likely a combination of everything mentioned before. Plus some stuff nobody's brought up yet.
I'm happy to stand corrected on the perfect/correct scale, though. Makes sense to me.
M
maltz
Rock Star
Silver Level
Technically Sklansky's definition of perfect poker is correct, but I think there are also a lot of psychology elements in there.
For example, even if I know I am beat because I know you have top pair, I can still bluff you out of the pot because of the image I built, and the terrible stare I give, etc.
Recently people are doubting that whether certain accounts are rigged on Absolute Poker. Those accounts are (doubted to be) able to see your hole cards. And if you look at their playing logs... are they playing perfect poker? Their play is so abnormal (like infinite river aggression factor) and now they might actually get caught. That's far from perfect.
For example, even if I know I am beat because I know you have top pair, I can still bluff you out of the pot because of the image I built, and the terrible stare I give, etc.
Recently people are doubting that whether certain accounts are rigged on Absolute Poker. Those accounts are (doubted to be) able to see your hole cards. And if you look at their playing logs... are they playing perfect poker? Their play is so abnormal (like infinite river aggression factor) and now they might actually get caught. That's far from perfect.
A
Apocolypseclown
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Ive played a game where its called perfect poker. My cuz (who's a big and pretty lucky gambler) showed me. If i can remember right it has the same rule of comparing the strength of five cards.From start to finish you do not show your opponent your cards. Each person is dealt 5 cards in the beginning. From there if there are any useless cards, you may discard and redraw. With no burn cards excluding jokers there 52 cards in the deck. every turn your are obligated to at least change one card, so if your thinking that you can get an easy royal flush one unlike discard and it could ruin your game. After that each player in order chooses check or showdown. Check is that same as regular poker in that you pass betting priority to your opponent. If everyone calls check that match is a draw and once again change cards and start a new turn. but if a person is against the others check they call showdown forcing a match. in response the everyone else can call or drop out with a fold. In a case of a call the hands are revealed and the match is decided. In the case of a fold the hands as they are proceed into the next turn , those who call and lose are out of the match till there's one person left. as a penalty to the others tthere opponent is allowed one additional change that turn. so in other words if your opponent desires he may change twice in a row , if your consider theres only 52 cards in a deck that a pretty big handy. If the whole deck is used up, the match proceeds into the final showdown.also all the discards are discarded face up
Hands are also the same as ordinary rules. suits do not affect strength and thus a draw can occur
Hands are also the same as ordinary rules. suits do not affect strength and thus a draw can occur
SeaRun
Visionary
Silver Level
And thank you for bringing it up, great reading here
IPlay
Bum hunts 25NL
Silver Level
- Status