Poker's 1% Study Group/Blog

The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
edited January 2017 in General Concepts
There was some interest on another thread regarding a study group focussed on GTO play, specifically working through some of the poker books on the topic.

I am about to work my way through Poker's 1%. This will be my third reading of the book, and given how much I learnt on my second read I expect there will still be some value for me.

I want to extend the invitation to the forum to join me. If anyone is interested, it will be a study group. If not, I plan to put my thoughts in this thread on a regular basis as a sort of blog (please note I have zero blogging experience or writing talent). People are welcome to jump in whenever they have the time or inclination. As much as anything this is a test of the concept to try to get some momentum and interest before tackling some of the more challenging books on the topic.

The book is quite short and easy to read, I am thinking of aiming for one section per week. This week I will be reading the section titled "The Frequency Game" (the material before this is all pretty introductory) and maybe "The Secret of the 1%" depending on how we go.
«1345

Comments

  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    I love this idea.

    I have three problems with doing it now. Right now I am rereading "Professional No-Limit Hold-em" because now I think I will get more out of it. Then I want to move on to "Playing the Player." My third problem is that I ordered 1% from Amazon and it got lost in the mail. I'm getting a refund but it will take time for the book to come in again.

    But I will say it again. I love this idea.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,094 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yeah, like I said, I needed a little time to finish some other things. Will be ready in two weeks.
  • kytmagickytmagic Red Chipper Posts: 184 ✭✭
    I'm in, colldav.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    I will be ready for this in two weeks myself.
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    Excellent ! I'm happy to wait a couple of weeks to start. KYT, is this ok with you ?

    I have as little experience in study groups as I do in blogging, so I am looking for guidance on the structural aspects. My vision is something pretty informal, with an agreed time to read a given amount of the book (weekly sounds about right), and then have a discussion either publicly in the forum or through the direct message functionality, where we all post our thoughts, questions and any supporting material such as hand reviews, relevant videos and articles. How does this sound ? Skype sessions would be good but I'm in a very different time zone to you guys so it would be unlikely I could participate.
  • thepokermonkthepokermonk Red Chipper Posts: 320 ✭✭✭
    I'm in too. Just let me know when you guys decide to start so I can make sure I'm finished with the section in time. Looking forward to this!
  • ChibberChibber Red Chipper Posts: 376 ✭✭✭
    I would be interested as well if there is room...
  • BortzorkBortzork Red Chipper Posts: 2 ✭✭
    Have read them all, Janda, Tipton, MOP (minus the hard math), and of course everything that Ed Miller has written. Would like to participate when you get this set up.
  • JoeOffsuitJoeOffsuit Red Chipper Posts: 404 ✭✭✭
    Count me in also. I did read this one cover-to-cover in 2015, and while it hasn't been high on my priority list for re-reading, I will re-read it with a study group.
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    Great to see so much interest ! You're all very welcome to participate. I'm sure we'll get some really good discussion going.

    I think we should aim to have read up to the start of the section titled "The Frequency Game" by 23 April, so we can read that section by 30 April. The early sections don't have a lot to do with the frequency-based approach the book is about, so I would prefer not to spend much time on these.

    In the meantime, it might be interesting to hear what people want/expect to get out of this (this feels a little bit "corporate soft-skills training"...).

    For me, I've read the book a couple of times, and have been trying to implement the strategy playing NL10 online on 888 with reasonable success. My personal goals for the study group are:
    - improve my practical implementation of the strategy - which hands go in which ranges, when to deviate from the strategy etc.
    - understand how the strategy relates to the other poker wisdom we learn (SPR, implied odds, etc.)
  • SixthStreetSixthStreet Red Chipper Posts: 254 ✭✭
    I will get book and join in. So what is your commission on book sales. :)
  • SixthStreetSixthStreet Red Chipper Posts: 254 ✭✭
    Maybe not it not for sale on Kindle just here or paper back.
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    It's also available on Miller's website "Noted Poker Authority". That's where I got my Kindle copy from.

    I'd be happy to take a discount on his next book.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    The first book I ordered from Amazon never arrived. They gave me a refund.

    The second one I ordered they are giving this range for arrival.

    Arriving Apr 28 - May 26 !!!!!

    If that is not a loose passive fish range I don't know what is.

    Bottom line. I should have ordered the book from Ed directly. And I don't know how much I will be able to participate in the study group.
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 1,191 ✭✭✭✭
    Cancel Amazon and order from Ed. He will even sign it for you. Win/Win
    Twitter = @ChipXtractor
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    Welcome to week 1 of the Poker's 1% Study Group !

    The aim for the group was to have read the sections up to and including The Big Picture" by today. A (very) brief summary of the sections:

    Section - Introduction:
    The book is about the open secret (not stated, but refers to GTO) that separates the top 1% of poker players from the rest of us.
    With this "secret" and a lot of work most people can become "pretty darn good at poker".
    Using this idea to analyse your hands will highlight systematic errors in your game.
    Book is written for "good enough", not "perfect".

    Section - Don't play no limit like a slot machine:
    Shows flaws in strategy of waiting for a big hand and expecting to get paid off.

    Section - Smashing tight aggressive players:
    Shows flaws in the TAG strategy.

    Section - The Big Picture:
    Poker is a math problem, with a math solution.
    The book aims to give an intuitive understanding of how to play poker.

    With that, let's get started. We've get a lot of ground to cover...



    Questions/comments that I have from these sections:

    I don't think there's a whole lot of new material in these sections so a few general questions.

    Has anyone tried to implement the strategy in the book ?
    If so, what was your experience ?
    Has anyone tried any other GTO or balanced strategy ?

    I have tried to play in a similar (but less aggressive) style to what the book proposed.
    It was profitable at nl10 online. There were no player types that gave me trouble.

    In most cases I was able to get the frequencies close to correct. There were a few spots in game my range was too strong/too weak, and I found I had too few/too many bluffs. These spots were usually the result of a poorly constructed range on an earlier street.

    I also found I was less inclined to tilt, because when I was sucked out I could move on in the knowledge that either I'd played the hand correctly, or I made an error, and I'd learn which when I reviewed the hand.


    I think to play this strategy you need to be able to keep track in your head of your range at each street. I think this is intimately related to hand reading (I've heard it referred to as reading your own hand). I found my hand reading improved by trying to play the strategy, despite deliberately not focussing on my opponents play.

    Anyone want to share their thoughts ?
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    Week 2 - The Frequency Game

    Summary of the section:
    Frequencies are the main point of the book
    Most players don't know when frequencies are wrong

    Folding Frequencies
    When your opponent bets, you have a folding frequency, a calling frequency and a raising frequency
    To a significant degree your cards do not matter a As long as you choose hands with some degree of intelligence - that make some poker sense
    Tweaking your hand choice will improve you incrementally, but the frequencies are most important
    The bettor wins when their opponent folds too often in a particular spot
    Regs fold the turn and river too much
    If you don't know what to look for you might not notice people's frequencies are wildly off

    Betting Frequencies
    A critical question is, When you call a bet, how often are you calling bets on a future street ?
    When you bet, you must bet the next street a certain percentage of the time
    Most people are exploitable because they bet too much in some situations, and not enough in others


    Discussion:
    I think the first step to thinking in terms of frequencies is thinking in terms of relative rather than absolute hand strength.

    Do your cards really not matter ?

    The more I think about this, the more I think they do. I think this statement was just for dramatic effect.

    On the river, most players call all hands they think are +ev against their opponents betting range, and fold all hands they think are -ev.
    So, is Miller suggesting we call -ev hands sometimes and fold +ev hands sometimes, if the frequencies demand ? Or If we are playing correctly, will calling at the right frequency result in us calling +ev hands and folding -ev hands ?

    If cards don't matter, when we choose to call one hand and fold another we end up with the same ev. This implies the two hands have the same ev. And if we're not going to be calling -ev and folding +ev, does this imply most of these hands are close to zero ev ? If most of the hands are close to zero ev, this would imply it doesn't matter if we call or fold, ie. The frequency is not important. Given this logical inconsistency, I prefer to think the hands are not important assumption is incorrect rather than the frequencies are not correct conclusion.

    On earlier streets, I also think hand choice is much more important than Miller suggests. Choosing hands based on equity for example seems to make "poker sense", but I think is a poor strategy. Middle pair has more equity than a weak flush draw on some boards but if the flush comes in it would be very difficult to call at the right frequency if you have no flushes in your range.

    Do you really need to keep firing once you start ?

    I don't think the book makes a very good case for this.
    Miller talks about some exploitable situations if you bet too much, which seem reasonable.
    The argument for betting to "charge draws" by continuing to bet the turn has some appeal, but doesn't explain why you should bet the river most of the time if the draws miss. And what if the draw hits ? What if there are no draws ?

    How does continuing to bet fit in with the "streets of value" concept ?

    The idea of generally betting one street when you bet the last implies taking the streets of value starting from the flop - a one street hand would just bet flop, two streets flop and turn, three streets flop, turn and river. I don't think this is optimal strategy, even with no information.

    How does "range advantage" fit in to this theory ?

    Splitsuit wrote an article on Range Advantage recommending that:
    When you have range advantage, apply pressure.
    When you don't have range advantage, be cautious.

    http://redchippoker.com/what-is-range-advantage/

    The idea of range advantage requires you to know/estimate your opponents range.
    Ed's strategy claims to work regardless of your opponents strategy (hence range).
    Is range advantage then an exploitive concept ? I think yes in the sense you need some level of knowledge of your opponent's range, but it is really pretty basic information so I think this should be an obvious first step on adjusting from Ed's strategy to an exploitative strategy.


    Overall I found this section pretty weak on explaining the rationale for what I actually find to be a profitable strategy.
  • JoeOffsuitJoeOffsuit Red Chipper Posts: 404 ✭✭✭
    After reviewing this chapter, one might get a sense the author is suggesting that if you have Game Theory Optimal (GTO) frequencies for check/bet and raise/call/fold, then the cards you have are of less importance.

    I suppose in a game that does not see a lot of showdowns, such as a very deep stacked cash game, or a tournament table where no one is in danger of being eliminated by the blinds, then one could hold there own quite well if they played only by GTO frequencies (Perhaps by using the second hand on a clock on the wall to make decisions, as opposed to looking at their hole cards) as long as none of the hands go to showdown....

    However, I think we would all agree that once we get to showdown, our cards will matter a bit... And if we are caught several times at showdown getting out of line playing random cards, then even with perfect GTO frequencies, we would find ourselves maybe a tad exploitable!

    Back to your questions from the first week, after reading the book my first time several months ago, I have not tried to implement any of the proposed strategies in my game. The reason is I don't believe I play against strong enough opponents where I would want to go to GTO to try to beat them. But who knows, maybe after my second read and this study group, I may find something I can implement.

    Thanks for setting up the group!
  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭✭
    JoeOffsuit wrote: »
    After reviewing this chapter, one might get a sense the author is suggesting that if you have Game Theory Optimal (GTO) frequencies for check/bet and raise/call/fold, then the cards you have are of less importance.

    I suppose in a game that does not see a lot of showdowns, such as a very deep stacked cash game, or a tournament table where no one is in danger of being eliminated by the blinds, then one could hold there own quite well if they played only by GTO frequencies (Perhaps by using the second hand on a clock on the wall to make decisions, as opposed to looking at their hole cards) as long as none of the hands go to showdown....

    However, I think we would all agree that once we get to showdown, our cards will matter a bit... And if we are caught several times at showdown getting out of line playing random cards, then even with perfect GTO frequencies, we would find ourselves maybe a tad exploitable!

    Back to your questions from the first week, after reading the book my first time several months ago, I have not tried to implement any of the proposed strategies in my game. The reason is I don't believe I play against strong enough opponents where I would want to go to GTO to try to beat them. But who knows, maybe after my second read and this study group, I may find something I can implement.

    Thanks for setting up the group!

    Unless I am mistaken, you are leaving out a major idea with this assumption.

    My understanding of the book (and I plan on reading it a couple more times to absorb all of the info) is not only that you have the 70% betting/defending frequency because people either A) fold too much or B) play too much trash but you are also only betting 70% of your range from the previous street. A tangible example would be if you look at the hand reading exercise threads that have just recently started. By the time you get to showdown, you would only be carrying the upper part of your opening range (along with some bluffs for balancing). If you're betting all the way to showdown and are concerned about showing trash hands then you should tighten your preflop opening range some more.
  • JoeOffsuitJoeOffsuit Red Chipper Posts: 404 ✭✭✭
    Ninjah: No fair, you are reading ahead :-)

    My comments were based on just this chapter by itself, where there is no discussion of ranges, or percent of range on previous street, but only frequencies! Read the 3rd to the last paragraph in the chapter again. Which leads into Colldav's question (on just this chapter), do cards really not matter? (which is what I also got from this chapter alone!)

    If a person never played poker before, and were just to read one chapter of of one book before going to a game, this would probably not be it!

    But I agree with Colldav, lets take this book one chapter at a time.

  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    Ninjah wrote: »
    My understanding of the book ... is not only that you have the 70% betting/defending frequency because people either A) fold too much or B) play too much trash but you are also only betting 70% of your range from the previous street. ... By the time you get to showdown, you would only be carrying the upper part of your opening range (along with some bluffs for balancing).

    I want to ask another question:

    What is it that Miller is actually giving us here?

    I am suspicious that there is a simple formula for aggression. But if we accept the guidelines as only guidelines for thinking through board textures, of betting and bluffing ranges, then we can go from there. Let us suppose that Miller is smart enough to realize that he is not giving us a formula, but a way of thinking about the problem.

    So what is this way of thinking about the problem? What is the core way to think about what Miller is getting at?

    Looking upside down.

    We are not betting 70% of our range on each street, we are folding 30% on each street. We have a particular board texture where we always fold the hand and a particular texture where we always bet a hand. In between are marginal value hands, bluffs and and semi-bluffs.

    A Stopping Rule: Decision Theory, and Range Construction

    I look at betting and bluffing, once you enter a pot, as a classic optimal stopping problem in decision theory. In other words how much of your range should you bet at any given time and how much should you bet once you enter the pot. Or put it another way when should you fold or check fold?

    Ask yourself what are your conditions for folding? When you ask this question you are asking the following: What is yourstopping rule for each hand?

    First, decide on your opening range, your calling range, etc: You decide on that range given the conditions of the table and who you are aiming to play against. You play a wild table differently than you play a table of NITs.. You play against bad players differently than you play against decent players.

    So what ever your opening/calling range is you essentially have the same problem for the next three streets.When do you decide to stop betting?

    So let us propose that once you are in a pot you should value bet or bluff between 32% and %37 of your range when calculating your bets over all three streets. This comes out to be 67% to 72% of your range on each individual street. (Believe it or not I think I am being "tight" here. I actually believe that in many cases you should be betting up to 75% of your hands on each street. To see why read below.)

    The reason I select this range is because 37% is the classic optimal stopping range for Martin Gardner's Secretary Problem. My suggestion is that if you have a loose opening range you would go down to 30% and for a tight opening range you go up to 37% over all three streets. In other words distributing your value bets and bluffs over three streets on average over the course of play you should be value betting or bluffing between 67% and 72% of your range on each street.

    I think it is too mechanical to distribute this betting and bluffing range equally over all three streets. But we are only looking at are a "rule of thumb."

    For example: Betting 67% of your original opening hand on the flop and 67% of that on the turn and 67% of that on the river is 30% of your original preflop range. (.72x.72x.72 = ~.37 ) Betting 72% of your original preflop range on the flop and 72% of that on the turn and 72% of that on the river is a little more than 37% of your original preflop range. (67x.67x.67 = ~.30) This is the optimal decision theory range that we are talking about. Above I said we should bet up to 75% of our range on each street. This is because I believe that sometimes we should be willing to go down to %30 of our original range by the river when playing tight and sometimes up to 42% of our original range when when playing loose.

    Deciding Not to Bet

    We should first look at where we want to stop not where we want to bet. If we decide where we want to stop betting then the rest of the range we bet. For me this is the game and decision theory way of looking at these things.

    After we decide where we want to stop betting then we have to decide what we want to bet when we do bet.

    Deciding to Bet Is a Different Type of Decision

    It is my belief that deciding not to bet can be more or less mathematical.

    Deciding to bet transforms the quality of your decision into a different realm. It is no longer a realm of calculation alone. When we decide to bet we are looking for the obvious pressure points. We are looking at both the range and the psychology of the people we are playing with and against. We are in the world that Berkey and Sotto are talking about all the time. That world is a lot more nebulous and you have to be a better player than I am currently to play there.

    The Distribution Problem
    But let me get back to the game theory problem or rather how the game theory problem matches up with how we learn.

    It is easier to distribute these percentages evenly over all three streets but I see no particular reason why you should. The reason we do so is because (as Hull and SplitSuit are constantly saying) it is the kind of study that we can do off-the-felt. In other words, for reasons of pedagogy we are distributing ranges evenly across each street. We are trying to teach our minds and eyes to see what is the correct move and the only way we common mortals have of doing this is by working very hard with Flopzilla, etc. We are trying to teach our selves to have a feel so that we can make snap "calculations" over-the-felt.

    But we should never fool ourselves that this is anything but what is teachable. When we are over-the-felt we are not looking for what is teachable; we are looking for what is thinkable and doable.

    So let me explain further...Why am I saying that the equal distribution of 70% bet, 30% fold of our range over each street is simply about how we teach our selves to see, but not how we teach ourselves to think and do?

    Let me go back to the Secretary Problem: There is no reason why the boss should find a secretary at exactly 37% of the total of all possible interviews. Sometimes the boss will find the optimal stopping point before and sometimes after. The 37% is only optimal.

    For us playing poker; these stopping and betting percentages are generally only optimal when you are playing (in effect) against the board and (in effect) playing heads-up. Everything changes in a multi-player pot and the rules of thumb become even wider estimates. (The Secretary Problem itself gets a combinatorial aspect when there is more than one position to fill. Then you are in effect in a multiplayer game and your stopping rule is a lot harder to find.)

    You have to develop your own appropriate algorithm and bets sizes to go with your various players and in order to study off the board. You have to use a lot of hypothetical processes. What if this? What if that? Where will I always do this? Where will I never do that? It depends on the table and the amount of folds you get if you value bet or bluff. It depends on the individual players. It depends on the math. It depends on the stack size. It depends.... Where does it depend?

    Again we are talking about how we can learn in general. That is the way we always learn. When we play, we play not in general but in the specific.

    And remember I am looking at this stopping rule upside down. I am looking at the range as if it was the number of applicants and the three streets as the range of the range. In order to get it right you have to play the player and not just the hand, but that is another of Miller's books.
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    I'm very happy to see some good discussion.

    I too am struggling to keep my comments to the section for the week, but I think we'll get more out of the discussion if we resist the temptation. We'll get to the good stuff soon enough.


    JoeOffsuit (can we call you Joe ?), I think you're right, however if Miller had said "the cards you have are of less importance" I'd still want to discuss it, but I think we could make a good argument for this. By saying "to a significant degree, the hands you hold do not matter" I think he was pushing it too far.

    A couple of points on this:
    1. He said this in the "folding frequencies" section, so the degree to which we go to showdown is directly a function of our frequency.
    2. Showdown "errors" are generally the most expensive, because bets tend to increase exponentially. Also errors on early streets carry through to your range on later streets.

    I think it will be interesting to work through how the strategy makes money against different player types, but that's another section.


    Joe, can I ask what stakes are you playing ? Live or online ? Did you change your game at all after reading the book ?


    Imperator,

    I think this is a very interesting idea. If it's ok I'd rather save the discussion of the maths for later sections, and keep it qualitative for now. Looking at how it relates to Miller's comments that "whenever you make a bet, in order to play a strong math based strategy, you must also bet the next street a certain percentage of the time", the issue I see with the "optimal stopping problem" approach you talk about is that "not betting" is not equal to folding. When you choose to check rather than bet, you still have three options - check-fold, check-call or check-raise. Only folding stops the hand. Also, checking is not stopping betting - unless you fold, you still have the option to bet on a later street. If you check behind on the turn with a hand you have decided is only good for two streets of value, you can bet the river if your opponent checks. I suspect you could transform the problem to remove these issues, for example treating a check-call like a zero bet.

    All that said, I do like the idea and think it's something we should explore more as we progress through the book.


    Cheers,
    David.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    colldav wrote: »
    Imperator,

    I think this is a very interesting idea. ..... When you choose to check rather than bet, you still have three options - check-fold, check-call or check-raise. Only folding stops the hand. Also, checking is not stopping betting - unless you fold, you still have the option to bet on a later street. If you check behind on the turn with a hand you have decided is only good for two streets of value, you can bet the river if your opponent checks. I suspect you could transform the problem to remove these issues, for example treating a check-call like a zero bet.

    All that said, I do like the idea and think it's something we should explore more as we progress through the book.


    Cheers,
    David.

    You are correct in your analysis. And correct in pointing out a flaw in my analysis. And there are other flaws also... mostly having to do with simplification. When the time comes I will point out the other flaws.

    It is a flaw in most "game theory" analysis and other math based analysis that usually we can only factor in the simplest scenarios and only one at a time. So check/folding is not a problem to the above analysis. Check floating, check calling and even check raising or any continuation on further streets is a separate problem. The more choices and the more variations the more complicated the math. That is why SplitSuit in his videos always gives you the basic choices. He is a good teacher because he puts these things in terms of "Always, Never, It Depends" as one of his videos is titled.

    But we are always simplifying just to get some clarity and then complicating things little by little to get to the "It Depends" point.

    Your point about this being a qualitative chapter is also well taken.

    I need to confess something. My book has not arrived yet. So I read the first assignment thoroughly and the rest of the book very quickly. I read it off a friend's book shelf between poker playing sessions. Usually my notes and marginalia is very thorough but for now I am working from memory. If I don't get my copy of the book before the next "assignment" I might have to wait to make further comments.

    "Reading" such books is not enough. You actually have to think them through and sometimes "play" them through. With only my quick reading of the rest of the book I don't feel as if I have thought enough to make further comments. Hopefully my book will arrive soon.

    But that is also why I have taken a more holistic view of the current chapter.
  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭✭
    JoeOffsuit wrote: »
    Ninjah: No fair, you are reading ahead :-)

    My comments were based on just this chapter by itself, where there is no discussion of ranges, or percent of range on previous street, but only frequencies! Read the 3rd to the last paragraph in the chapter again. Which leads into Colldav's question (on just this chapter), do cards really not matter? (which is what I also got from this chapter alone!)

    If a person never played poker before, and were just to read one chapter of of one book before going to a game, this would probably not be it!

    But I agree with Colldav, lets take this book one chapter at a time.

    My apologies. I haven't been following this thread very well and I let a friend borrow my book so I'm not sure about moving chapter to chapter. Maybe I should stay out of the conversation until I get my copy back :)
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    Imperator, Ninjah,

    I certainly think it would be a great loss if either of you held back from commenting because you don't currently possess the book, particularly given you've both read it, however quickly. I'll try to steer the discussion to topics relevant to the section we're on, and if you happen to refer to future sections it's not a big deal.
  • JoeOffsuitJoeOffsuit Red Chipper Posts: 404 ✭✭✭
    Imperator wrote: »
    What is it that Miller is actually giving us here?
    In order to get it right you have to play the player and not just the hand, but that is another of Miller's books.
    He is giving us an intro to "game theory optimum" (GTO) play. It is widely believed that if a person plays GTO, he will have an edge against all players not playing GTO, regardless of they are nits and rocks, or lags and maniacs, or ABC players, or however they play. This is a completely new direction from his other books.

    However, it is also widely believed that if a person were capable of perfect GTO, this would NOT be the best strategy against villains who make exploitable mistakes. So my preference has been to focus more on exploiting my opponents than figuring out how to play perfect GTO.
    colldav wrote: »
    JoeOffsuit (can we call you Joe ?),
    I have been called so much worse, that would actually be nice!
    colldav wrote: »
    Joe, can I ask what stakes are you playing ? Live or online ? Did you change your game at all after reading the book ?

    I live in a state where all forms of gambling are illegal. I play $1-$2 or $1-$3 when I can play live, and micro-stakes online (I don't move much money to off-shores)
    Ninjah wrote: »
    My apologies. I haven't been following this thread very well and I let a friend borrow my book so I'm not sure about moving chapter to chapter. Maybe I should stay out of the conversation until I get my copy back :)

    No need to apologize my friend!!! I was just clarifying my observation was in context of the chapter, as opposed to what is written later in the book. (hence the happy face.) You are in this conversation, so don't leave!
    colldav wrote: »
    I certainly think it would be a great loss if either of you held back from commenting because you don't currently possess the book, particularly given you've both read it, however quickly. I'll try to steer the discussion to topics relevant to the section we're on, and if you happen to refer to future sections it's not a big deal.

    I will go on to say, feel free to comment on any chapter, or any other book. I am going to comment on another book I read but I forget which one (I think it was either Ciafonne or Harrington) who outright suggested there are specific situations you need to randomize your actions, and he recommended getting to those frequencies by taking a quick look at your watch, and base your action on where the second hand is.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    JoeOffsuit wrote: »
    He is giving us an intro to "game theory optimum" (GTO) play. It is widely believed that if a person plays GTO, he will have an edge against all players not playing GTO, regardless of they are nits and rocks, or lags and maniacs, or ABC players, or however they play. This is a completely new direction from his other books.

    Yes, that is what the book is about. But my question was neither literal nor rhetorical.

    I was actually asking how can this mathematical way of thinking be approached from another angle.

    I was trying to see if I could turn things around and discover my own way of thinking.

    I was looking for an optimal strategy that took into account the math but actually, through an opening in the calculation left room for psychology etc.

    In another thread I was trying to think through these same issues of how Miller is teaching in another way. I will quote myself:
    Imperator wrote: »

    The Multi-polar Understanding of Poker: Strategy/Tactics and Calculation/Psychology

    What I understand James Sweeney to be doing ... is trying to get us to understand the basic patterns of NLHE. Sweeney is presenting us with tactical situations and trying to get us to understand how we plan our basic strategy around those tactical situations. He is trying to give us the tools to study the specific situation on our own.

    I would like to make a comparison to what Ed Miller is doing in his books. He is coming at the game from the other end. He is presenting us with basic strategies and asking us to study the tactical situations in relation to those strategies. Miller and Sweeney compliment each other. If I have one criticism it is that I don't think that either of them realize that they are coming at their pedagogy from the opposite end of the strategy/tactic divide. In other words the two of them together would make for an educational little tug-of-war of teaching styles.

    ... I know that the best chess players are the ones that combine the following into a unified way of thinking -- strategy, tactics, calculation, psychology..... these are the unifying elements of all high level games. I am sure Sweeney and Miller know this, but I wonder if they self-consciously realize that their pedagogical approaches come from specific ends of the strategy/tactics spectrum. And that as far as I can tell each of them come to the calculation/psychology divide through either strategy (Miller) and tactics (Sweeney). These are legitimate pedagogical techniques, but I wonder if they are self-conscious.

    For example my feeling from watching Soto's videos is that he tends to come at these things through the pole of psychology in the calculation/psychology divide.

    All of these are important and legitimate pedagogical approaches... I would favor "calculation" in my approach and I would guess that is where Doug Hull is coming from.

    If you approach the idea of betting/folding through a different angle then you (might) realize that the math you use to decide your folds is qualitatively different from the math you use to decide when you bet. And the math you use to decide when you bet is often qualitatively different than the psychological and tactical ideas you use for deciding how much you bet.

    I was trying to get at all of this by discussing a stopping rule instead of a "starting rule."
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    Just a quick interruption to mention to those following along, please read "The Secret of the 1%" by the 7th. This chapter introduces the key rules around betting and folding frequencies, so we're getting into the good stuff.
  • ChibberChibber Red Chipper Posts: 376 ✭✭✭
    Sorry I have been unable to participate in the discussion. I have been busy trying to ready a house for sale and updating a house a to move into. I hope to catch up if that is okay...
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 787 ✭✭✭
    You're most welcome to join in whenever you're ready, as is anyone else who wants to contribute. I don't think it will be hard to catch up, it's a pretty easy read.

    Good luck with the move !

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file