Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3.

[Threesixes]

I just decided to re-read TOP with you guys because there was plenty I didnt understand the 1st time I read it, espescially when it came to the other games which i dont play.

Ch1. a few good points are:
Good players take the most bad beats because they have the better hand most of the time.

The math is important, but only a small part of pokerlogic & far less important than understanding and using the underlying concepts of poker.
(I think sometimes people get a little too hung up on the math myself.)

When youre having a losing session, try to figure out what the reason is I.E youre tired,outclassed etc, and dont be afraid to end your session a loser. Its better than losing more money.

 

[Threesixes]

I have a hard time applying the fundamental theory of poker to hands when I think both players played it correctly. For example today I played in a CC tourney and had Q 10 in the small or big blind I dont remember. My opponent had pocket aces and made a small enough raise that I felt ok calling it to see a flop. Flop came AKJ giving me the nut straight and him trip aces. He went all in to protect himself from being outdrawn, and I of course called with the nut straight. The board paired with a J on the river and I was pretty much done. Can anyone explain how the fundamental theorum of poker plays into this hand because I think we both played it right and even though my opponent would have folded rather than pushed had he seen my cards I dont feel I earned any expectation due to him playing his cards correctly in my view.

 

[Threesixes]

Not that it makes any difference, but I acted 1st after the flop and checked for the trap. I cant edit my post.

 

[F Paulsson]

He made a mistake on the flop; He would surely not have pushed all in if he had seen your cards. He has about 10 outs, which gives him roughly 40% equity in this pot, so you "won" 60% of his all-in bet.

Given the implied odds, you might have made an okay call preflop, this depends on stack sizes, though. Would you have called preflop if you knew he had pocket aces?

What the fundamental theorem says is that if you know what everyone has, there's a mathematically correct way to play, and that every time you deviate from this, you lose money. Since we can never (well, barring the time when someone actually shows us their cards) know what anyone has, we have to put people on a range of hands and act according to the most likely scenario. We will often be wrong, but that's alright as long as our opponents make worse mistakes than we do.

It's clear that deception plays a powerful role when it comes to forcing people to make mistakes; fooling people into making raises or calls they shouldn't be making, or especially fooling people into folding the best hand. But for low stakes games, deception is among the most overrated aspects of the game, given how prone to make mistakes your opponents already are.

 

[ChuckTs]

im so lost with what you guys are saying ive gotta read this one...sounds very technical though - lots of theory (duh)
the only poker books/info i've read are all strategy and not much theory
-sorry for interrupting-

 

[Threesixes]

Would you have called preflop if you knew he had pocket aces?

Yes, the raise was small and if the flop hit me like it did I stood to make a killing. I guess what I'm saying is that if I had flopped the trip aces I'm pretty sure I would have gotten all my money in on that hand too, Probably not all at once, but it would have ended up in there,so when it happens to me it will even out.

 

[trancnd]

Hey guys great idea on the disscussion topic for this book. I myself have just finished and started reading again through SS2 as well as reading Sklansky's Tournament Poker for Advanced players. As well as loving playing online i also have a liking for playing homegames and soon some local cardroom games, so i thought it benificial to at least have a read of Caros book of tells. Not sure where i stand as to this book just yet.

I have just ordered theory of poker as i would like to part of this disscussion. Should be here tomorrow. I will go over what has been covered and catch up and look forward to taking part.

 

[F Paulsson]

Yes, the raise was small and if the flop hit me like it did I stood to make a killing. I guess what I'm saying is that if I had flopped the trip aces I'm pretty sure I would have gotten all my money in on that hand too, Probably not all at once, but it would have ended up in there,so when it happens to me it will even out.

I would have, too. But if you actually KNOW that you're drawing to 10 outs, you won't be at all as willing to get your money in, even with trip aces. And that's what the fundamental theorem says: When you play it differently from how you should play it if you see all the cards, you lose. In this particular case, he lost, and his expectation is negative for this move.

In actuality, we rarely get to act with that much information, though, so all we can do is decide on a probable range for our opponents. In this case, QT was possible, but hardly probable. It's hard to say that he played it "wrong," but it's certainly possible to say that he would have played it differently had he seen all the cards.

 

[smd173]

smd173, was that supposed to be sarcasm? He entered three tournaments last year and finished 6th, 15th and 16th, grossing $90k. That looks pretty okay to me.

It was a small jab. I do respect David Sklansky, I'm not saying that ToP doesn't belong on the bookshelf, but I did find it interesting that his career tournament poker winnings are only $303,695.

We actually don't know how many tournaments he entered last year. I'm sure it was well more than 3. But he only cashed in 3 tournies.

This actually gave me an idea, when I get a chance, I think I'm going to look up the notable authors and see how they've done in tourney play. I bet it will produce some interesting results.

 

[F Paulsson]

While I can see where you're coming from, I'm not so sure it's fair to judge a poker player on his tournament record, given that many - most, is my guess - of the B&M professionals make their primary income from playing cash games. His career poker income is probably something that is known only to him and the IRS (and I'm not so sure about the IRS )

Then again, he DID write Tournament Poker for Advanced Players. So if he does enter a lot of tournaments and don't really fare well in them - fair enough.

 

[Xandit]

One more on Expectation. Is it a positive EV to raise on a flush draw with only the river to come?

Say there are 3 in the pot and your are second to act. You have AD 10D and have been check/calling the flop and turn. Now with 7.5BB in the pot and the first players raises making the pot 8.5BB.

Would raising here on the draw be a positive EV situation, given that the flush is the best possible hand?
Or would it be better to call and raise the river if the flush comes?

 

[F Paulsson]

No, it would not be positive EV.

You have 9 outs, giving you about 20% chance to hit your flush on the river. I'm presuming here that you will not win if you bluff, of course, so the only chance for you to take down this pot is to get your flush.

You could then say that your equity in this pot is 20%. For every dollar that goes in at this point, you get to keep 20% of it. However, since there are only three of you in the pot, for every dollar that goes in, you pay 33 cents, but only get to keep 20. It's a losing proposition.

Of course, your pot odds definitely warrant staying in, but you should try to get to the river as cheaply as possible.

 

[tenbob]

ToP Just arrived in the mail, ill do a little reading and i can jump into this discussion this evening.

 

[Xandit]

Thanks, that clears it up. The math is what was tripping up. It's kind of funny that the pot odds warrant staying in by calling and a sightly better line for ev would be to call and raise the river if you hit.

 

[Gizzi315]

Good thing there were lots of examples for mathemetical expectation, hourly rate and the fundamental theorem as the first time they were explained it made my eyes cross.

I think I got a handle on the theory now, but actually applying it will be more difficult. I am not sure I am experienced enough to know what all the "right" ways to play are to say anything about trying to get the other players to make the wrong ones, but as I gain experience I am sure it will make more sense.

This is defintely a book I will be able to get more out of each time I read it as I learn more about poker. Right now, it seems like the more I learn the more I discover I have yet to learn. I hope that is a good thing!

 

[F Paulsson]

A thought just popped into my head, figured I'd add it to this discussion:

Given that no-limit is a more complex game than limit (there are many more options on how to play a hand, specifically in regards to how much to bet), does that mean that an expert is less or more likely to win money against beginning players according to the fundamental theorem?

This was just a pit stop, moving on to chapters 8-10 in a new thread tomorrow.

 

[Threesixes]

I think that since beginners could lose a big part of or their whole stack on one hand which they would have played differently if they had seen their oponents cards, the expert is more likely to win in NL. Just the simple fact that their are more options gives weaker players more oppurtunities to make mistakes.