Strategy vs Tactics vs Edge

kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited January 2017 in General Concepts
Some of the toughest questions a player going pro should answer are "what's your edge?" and "what's your strategy to win?"

For years, I've though playing tighter - studying more - being patient - improving my hand reading - bluffing more in the right spots - playing premiums more aggressively - reciprocality ... were adequate answers.

But @persuadeo brings up a really good point in @Diana 's thread...
persuadeo wrote: »
Probably 1/20 posters and subscribers even understand the difference between a strategy (comprehensive plan to win) and tactics (individual or concerted actions, such as working with assumptions of age or gender).

Since I'm often told my strategies are tactics... I ask my fellow RedChippers and Coaches:

How you can you truly have a strategy in a game where so much random shyt happens that are out of your control... including how your opponent will react?

What's your strategy to win?

What's your edge?
«1345

Comments

  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    You build the adjustments into the strategy.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You build the adjustments into the strategy.

    c'mon Chin... help a brother out!

    what's your strategy?
    what's your edge?
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Set mine vs nits
    Make a pair and hold on vs lags
    Float the tight weak tags
    Raise the tags who cbet too much
    Value town the loose passives
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    Set mine vs nits
    Make a pair and hold on vs lags
    Float the tight weak tags
    Raise the tags who cbet too much
    Value town the loose passives

    Lol
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    Set mine vs nits
    Make a pair and hold on vs lags
    Float the tight weak tags
    Raise the tags who cbet too much
    Value town the loose passives

    Lol

    LoL player dependent right? Just say'in
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    You build the adjustments into the strategy.

    c'mon Chin... help a brother out!

    what's your strategy?
    what's your edge?

    I can't give out my entire strategy. But you have the tools to build your own, which I think is more important .
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 790 ✭✭✭
    Thanks for raising this @kagey.

    For those of us who are left a little confused in the discussion around strategy vs tactics, can we please get some clarity on what a poker strategy actually looks like in practice:
    - What are the elements of a poker strategy ?
    - How much detail does it need to contain ?
    - What doesn't it contain ?

    I know it's a brave move, but does someone have a written strategy they could provide as an example ?
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    I don't believe in edge....

    Multipolar NLHE:
    The North/South Pole; Tactics/Strategy
    The East/West Pole; Psychology/Calculation

    Strategic Concepts:

    1) Reciprocity/Asymmetry; Dynamic Balance and Imbalance

    2) Information/Deflection/Invisibility/Variation/Variance

    3) Implications/Levels

    4) Value/Pricing; Thresholds of Fear/Pain/Greed

    5) Coordination/Timing/Synthesizing (of all of the above over the course of a hand, a session, a life-time into one single holistic sync of the game)

    People can substitute their own terms here.

    But as in Chess, just because I know what a strategy looks like doesn't mean I can play it.

    Even though I have written about this elsewhere I will fill out what I mean by strategy as opposed to tactics.

    Of course even discussing these levels is sometimes something akin to a mistake in logical typing.

    What is on one level a strategy is on a higher level merely a tactical thrust. This is true of all strategy games and war.

    Thus the strategic value of a flanking maneuver or a king side pawn storm or a calculation of EV is obvious, but in any given battle on any given day these are simply tactical maneuvers. It is how they all fit in with higher level and long term coordination and synchronization of your overall way of playing that will give a particular move or maneuver or play its strategic weight.

    Thus the general strategic concepts I listed above can all be reduced to a tactical level with any given play.

    More later perhaps. But in the course of my non-poker career I have written about these things so many times, under the guise of so many subjects that I could elaborate for many more posts and pages.

    But first I should define all of the above general strategic concepts, none of which are my own. I am not original, I am just a synthesizer.

    Both @persuadeo and @Christian Soto will probably recognize my lack of originality (not to mention my lousy poker playing) as something to regret. But I have no need to be original. (The example of how I many young people prove Pythagorean theorems by cutting triangles and squares, as I did at age 11, shows that you can truly discover something on your own without be an originator. There is not shame in thinking for yourself through others who came before you and are better than you are.) .

    But if I have time tomorrow I will try to define #1 by way of Kasparov's explanation of Bobby Fischer; in a sense the ideas of reciprocity/asymmetry and the breaking of symmetry; dynamic balance and imbalance were for me chess concepts before I found similar strategic ideas in poker.
  • JCWJCW Red Chipper Posts: 93 ✭✭
    I too think of poker as Strategy and Tactics. Strategies being your overall plans and tactics being the judgements to adjust and even abandon your strategies.

    Your Edge live in being a step ahead of your opponent's adjustments. Knowing where their mindset is at and staying one level ahead of them.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    1) The divisions between theory/strategy and strategy/tactics in any given field is not fast, fixed, or frozen. It evolves with the development of the field and with the development of the individuals on the field.

    2) Theoretical depth and conceptual frameworks are discovered in every complicated strategic field until that field is "solved."

    3) A strategic concept at one point of development in any given place, at any given time, can be used as a mere tactical plan. An example of this is how we use Expected Value as a long range concept and as part of a tactical decision. Or the way that we use the concept of "range" in a tactical spot and for long range strategic planning.

    Or look at the concept of the Pawn Storm in chess. Wikipedia correctly labels this concept a "chess strategy." The strategic nature lies in the fact that one may choose a particular opening (The King's Indian Defense, for instance.. [an example of a pawn storm]) that will lead to the strategic development of a Pawn Storm. But when actually making the particular moves leading to the pawn storm, and the final sacrifice necessary for completing the attack, you are then engaging in tactical computations.

    Similarly, any particular calculation of your opponents range and his number of combos is a tactical calculation. But the concept of "range" was at first a theoretical concept and a strategic idea. Also, when you put the idea of "range vs. range" within the larger concepts of reciprocity and balance you are enlarging the strategic concept of range and coordinating this strategic view within any game you are playing. Further more. when you synthesize "range vs. range", reciprocity, balance, with the other theoretical concepts of value and pricing, along with working your opponents fear, greed, and pain while collecting information from your opponent and sending your own (dis)information, then you will be able to reduce your coordinated strategy into the tactical moment.

    If you can't reduce a coordinated strategy to a tactical moment then your strategy is useless.
    *****

    I wish I knew how to do all of this. And I have to say I get a little annoyed sometimes when I'm told I need a strategy and a plan for my hand. I'm not being told anything I don't already know. I do have a strategy and a plan for my hand. Sometimes it is a good strategy and plan; sometimes it is frozen from a previous game and it is a bad strategy and plan. But often enough I know a good strategy "exists" in some Platonic realm of my own brain but the conduit for applying it "the plan for my hand" is tactically misconceived from beginning to end. I will say it again: If you can't reduce a coordinated strategy to a tactical moment then your strategy is useless.

    Forgive me for writing so quickly.... But I think that this is an explanation of the strategy/tactics polarization.

    My main point is that there is no clear division between strategy and tactics.

    But here is a problem. You always need to be better at tactics (first) in order to employ a strategy. This is true of all situations in which a strategy is possible. If you can't calculate pot odds or even see how much is in a pot (compared to say your bet size or to stack sizes) then knowing a strategic concepts and trying to apply them is almost useless. In the battle of the theoretical poles of calculation/psychology, tactics/strategy, tactics and calculation will always win out for beginners.

    No matter what all of our coaches say about planning our hands or applying a sound strategy being tactically sound and basic calculation is the foundation for everything else. This is true of all strategic fields.

    More later if anybody can stand it.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    Like the Godfather, I will answer all your questions, but unlike him, I'm not going to solve all your problems. (Did he even actually solve everyone's problems, anyway?)

    1. In the Land of the Blind, One-Eye is King.

    What we are talking about is hard and is always a work in progress. What I do know is that understanding and working toward an overall strategy is a revolutionary step in one's game.

    Naturally, you learned to walk without a Philosophy of walking, and you can play cards with just a list of Tactics.

    Amble to cage. Stumble to table. Set mine that Nit. Call down that LAG.

    There's no need for a coherent strategy, unless of course, there is one. For instance, what happens when everyone has the same tactics? Are we going to just try to do them a little better, like some rake back grinder trying to squeeze an extra .5bb out over twenty tables of rake back grinders? Maybe, if you like that sort of thing.

    But not all of us do. Some of us want to try to try something else. So they put everything down, they let their Multipolar Armor clatter to the ground, and tried to reassemble it in a new way. Maybe they'll have to melt it down entirely.

    They started with a philosophy, from which they derived a strategy. From there, they will choose their tactics and make adjustments. This is wholistic.

    When you do the opposite, as we are mostly encouraged to do, both by the false idols of empirical results and the supposed fail safe of a la carte poker advice, building the foundation backwards, the structure comes apart and you can't figure out what's going on. And then you need someone else to do it for you.

    That's not the worst thing. Building a coherent strategy requires experience, time, and effort. Who said you had to do it alone?

    But for whoever does it, it's very valuable. When I think of all the people poker dumped out after a few years or who never got beyond small stakes, I'm beginning to see why it really happened... why they couldn't make it past whatever their issue was or when their copied and pasted poker tools finally failed them.

    2.
    kagey wrote: »
    How you can you truly have a strategy in a game where so much random shyt happens that are out of your control... including how your opponent will react?
    Your question answers itself... in such a wild and uncontrollable game, actually built on the mystery of non-information and randomness, how could you not work toward an overall vision, one that will provide context and answers and sanity?

    3. I have written up a document describing what you would be getting from me as a poker coach. Its opening section refers to my strategy without giving it away entirely.

    Yet is the wish for someone else's strategy a good one? Maybe what we really need isn't someone's document at all.

    But nevermind, because we don't have to wonder. There is one, right here, available on this site...

    4. Clear example of a Strategy: a coherent document like Poker 1% does describe a poker strategy. It may have brought you to this forum, as it did me. It is an all encompassing view of how to beat the game. It answers all questions and presents a framework for thinking. Can it be reduced to a single tactical moment? Sometimes, if seen through a certain light. So does it pass the Imperator's test of a Strategy? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe purity tests aren't as useful as they might seem.

    5. Of course you believe in edge, because you believe in the relative excellence of players: Edge is its measurement. It's a word that can be used in multiple ways. And it's a more useful word than win-rate, even though it seems more ambiguous. Now why is that?

    6. As for everything else our munificent Imperator has written, of course nothing in this world can be completely disentangled or seen to be absolutely clear.

    His poetry in the Senate on this one is compelling.

    Yet consider this: write one ambiguous thing in these forums, and Imperator will deliver twenty paragraphs clarifying it. Think about that conundrum. Proportionality and simplicity are hard, but without them, it will be hard to play well, because carrying the weight of all the Multipolar Armor, whose bells and whistles you never quite knew when to use or why, is heavy, heavy lifting.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Yet consider this: write one ambiguous thing in these forums, and Imperator will deliver twenty paragraphs clarifying it.

    Brevity takes work.

  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    persuadeo wrote: »
    5. Of course you believe in edge, because you believe in the relative excellence of players: Edge is its measurement. It's a word that can be used in multiple ways. And it's a more useful word than win-rate, even though it seems more ambiguous. Now why is that?

    I don't believe in Edge. It is an insiders term. It is also used by the confidence hucksters I knew in my own family. I have heard it used in the financial industry in precisely this way. The bookies, numbers runners, and casino owners in my grandparent's generation used the term edge in this way especially when talking about "marks". So I don't use it. I prefer the non-gambling term, advantage -- skill advantage, tool-set advantage etc. I believe in advantage but the notion of edge has connotations I try to avoid. And I think those connotations can be misleading. I don't mind the notion, I just don't believe that all of its many meanings are useful.

    Words are tools.

    This is just something personal, I suppose. But the personal is strategic, to paraphrase the feminists.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    By the way, @persuadeo, the reason I follow you is that I always find myself in almost complete agreement with you.

    But where I agree with you always rubs me wrong. And where I disagree with you is what I always find most useful to think about. And this is why I think you are important to me. (I do not expect this to be reciprocal by the way.)

    Of course, if I do become useful to you by some fluke, all of this could be a basis for an continuing correspondence (Jefferson/Adams) or an enduring antagonism (Jefferson/Adams) or just sustained ignorance of each other (Jefferson/Adams). (I wish the musical had been Jefferson/Adams instead of Hamilton/Burr.)
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »

    4. Clear example of a Strategy: a coherent document like Poker 1% does describe a poker strategy. It may have brought you to this forum, as it did me. It is an all encompassing view of how to beat the game. It answers all questions and presents a framework for thinking. Can it be reduced to a single tactical moment? Sometimes, if seen through a certain light. So does it pass the Imperator's test of a Strategy? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe purity tests aren't as useful as they might seem.

    Yes!!! I agree here. And I think it does pass my test.

    The way that frequencies coordinate with board texture, stack sizes, position, information, reciprocity, value, pricing, is exactly what I mean by the tactical moment.

    I do think that Poker's 1% is an example of a presentation of a coordinated strategy. I also think it is a fantastic book.

    It is also an example of a book that proves the cliche that a little knowledge is worse than ignorance, at least in the short run.

    That is why I am so grateful to @colldav for his explication of the text. And when you, @persuadeo , chime in on that thread I find it even more helpful and interesting. So please chime in more.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    I know what you are trying to escape. But the dirty casinos and their crafty combatants use the word Advantage. Advantage player. Advantage play.

    It is, in fact, one of the seminal gambling terms. Edge is an old school poker player's term, players who in most cases are not The Man. I prefer it- as I do Earn, another term that is now passe.

    You want more anodyne terms, but ask yourself, for instance, from directly where EV came into the poker world and who needed to understand it.

    And what word did your Grandmother, who we are supposed to look up to, use? Remember that you are, in many senses, the real insider. Most of us have no colorful gambling past or family history, and for an extreme case, I myself do not enjoy games, and poker is the only one I play.

    But who cares? It makes no difference here. It's a thing and gives color but if we want to take some of the crayons out of the box and throw them away, no one will stop us.

    Really, it's my fault for even answering that question, which could have been ignored, because the real dialectic here is Strat and Tactics. Let's forget Edge.

    Which brings me back to my point, through yours. Words are indeed tools. If we can separate strategy from tactics, we can clarify things in a confusing game, even just experimentally... and maybe get somewhere.

    If the argument is that it's all just a soup, an emulsion we can't make sense of or look into, I find it to be less helpful, and what happens is everyone goes back to their miscellaneous tactics, and nothing is enlightened.

    In other words, in creating a Strategy, it's going to be very hard to be a purist. But it might still be worth it.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    persuadeo wrote: »

    You want more anodyne terms, but ask yourself, for instance, from directly where EV came into the poker world and who needed to understand it.

    And what word did your Grandmother, who we are supposed to look up to, use? Remember that you are, in many senses, the real insider. Most of us have no colorful gambling past or family history, and for an extreme case, I myself do not enjoy games, and poker is the only one I play.

    You are correct. It is an example of my moral prudery. And my Grandmother did use the term "edge" and did talk of "marks" in her Saturday night games.

    Her memory certainly was her edge.

    Generations on you try to separate yourself from the foundations of your family's money, especially if you have gone away to an elite university (but are still paying the rent by gambling) and are a budding Bolshevik or some such crazy youthful thing.

    In the history of mathematics the concept of expected value comes from exactly where we think it comes from.... mathematicians in the early renaissance who were fascinated with gambling and odds and new notions of what eventually became probability. These mathematicians were mainly sponsored in their work by Northern Italian Bankers and financiers who sold shipping insurance. They also realized that the best gamblers were already aware of rules of thumb that they could codify into formulas.

    It is also interesting that the idea of expected value plays a crucial role in information theory, though the concept is not precisely the same. (Claude Shannon was one of my early mathematical heroes.)

    I bring this up because it speaks to something you said.

    I don't believe it is all one big soup.... but unless you can do the basics of coordinating information and EV, a problem I have some of the time, not all the time (but too often), then your application of your strategy fails. It is not that your strategy is wrong. It is just a failure on the level of tactical calculation. I know you know this.

    But I think you are trying to get me to understand something else that I got wrong. But I'm not sure if I do understand this.

    If anything perhaps I'm provoking you to educate @kagey and @colldav , even if my head is too thick.

    But the reason I write here is not because I'm the expert, it is because Soto and sometimes you, @persuadeo can be a bit Delphic in your responses to a question like kagey's. So I take up arms and try to answer the question myself. I try to educate myself by arguing with myself. Right or wrong. I'm not afraid to be wrong and not afraid to admit I'm wrong. How else do you learn.

    So I will read a chapter of Chen's book and then write here. I will do Sweeney's workbook, then write here. I will read a chapter of Janda's book and write here.

    I am a person of books, many books. I have a huge library. Books and reading and writing have been my life for 40 years. This is one thing I can't change anymore.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    Alright... i think our convo is heading in the right direction.

    Let's see if I can expand with our example:

    Strategy: Miller's 1% - adopting a frequency-based approach

    Tactic: betting/calling each consecutive street with 70% of your range... to keep our triangle smooth.
    (There will obviously be times when this isn't possible or smart... but those are the exceptions to the our plan/strategy.)

    Edge: By becoming more "balanced" we will be less exploitable and actually be able to exploit our opponents better... which results in realizing your full equity in hands that actually have equity... and winning hands when your true equity is less than your opponents.

    yea or nay?
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Imperator wrote: »
    Brevity takes work.

    "I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter."
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm a little surprised at the length of this discussion, since a quick Googling should provide the answer, such as
    http://www.diffen.com/difference/Strategy_vs_Tactic

    Not sure why "Strategy" and "Edge" are being discussed in the same question, but saying you don't "believe" in "edge" is a little silly since it exists just fine whether you believe in it or not.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @jeffnc, yes that is true but try this in turn: google "poker strategy" and what do you end up learning? This is actually a very hard conversation, and all these strong players and posters and thinkers are struggling with it.

    @kagey, sure I think that is a good summary. And like all strategies, the big picture still leaves all the work ahead of you, but you still couldn't do it in reverse.

    @imperator, well I think the nature of our special pursuit lends itself to a certain mystery, the Delphic stuff, for a variety of very strong reasons.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    persuadeo wrote: »
    @imperator, well I think the nature of our special pursuit lends itself to a certain mystery, the Delphic stuff, for a variety of very strong reasons.

    A little like a magician keeping her secrets?

    Or like a Zen master teaching through koans?

    Both; neither?

    The below sounds like one of @berkey11 's thought experiments

    The Zen master holds a club above the head of an apprentice: He asks:
    "Who are you?"
    Then says: Before you answer know this: If your answer is wrong, I will hit you over the head with this club. If your answer is correct, I will hit you over the head with this club. If you do not answer, I will hit you over the head with this club. Answer now!

    Hard to know what the correct answer is: I would reach up and grab the club. The answer is an action.

    The Zen Master said: "Men of immeasurable greatness are tossed about in the ebb and flow of words."

    Then the monk asks the master: Where do all the questions come from?
    The master answers Next question please.

    The living spirit of Tommy Angelo!
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Not sure why "Strategy" and "Edge" are being discussed in the same question, but saying you don't "believe" in "edge" is a little silly since it exists just fine whether you believe in it or not.

    @persuadeo has my number here. But @jeffnc I will explain it to you by PM, on your wall. No reason to disturb the peace on-thread. In short it is not a question of reality but of ought.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    I don't think the book 1% is a strategy.

    Everyone has a frequency, even by mistake. And tweeking frequencies is not a strategy.

    If your strategy simply GTO then that's one strategy. However, no one can accomplish GTO.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thanks for sharing @Austin
    I think there are a lot of us that would consider your thoughts to be an appropriate response...

    Austin wrote: »
    Set mine vs nits
    Make a pair and hold on vs lags
    Float the tight weak tags
    Raise the tags who cbet too much
    Value town the loose passives

    But I think what makes this cause @Christian Soto to "LOL" is that your plans are too generic and too specific at the same time. (Not to mention they're something that most educated players are already doing... which means probably don't have much of an edge)

    I'm going to address the first one... because it's a common strategy that players like myself use... set mining.

    First, for this plan to work - we've got a number in our head that we want V to have in V's stack. Since we flop a set one out of 7.5 times, most of us want at least 10X his bet size to be left in his stack. (Some want 15. Others want 20. Whatever.) So it's not something we will do against a short stacker who raises half his stack pre...

    Second, must we always be against a nit?
    What if he's a LAG? Or what if he's a nit on the button?
    The overall plan seems too specific.
    It seems that it'd be better if we set-mine ALL players with our pps.
    But also take into consideration their commitment to their hand before calling (bet sizing and what position they're in) which informs their ability to stack off if we hit our set.

    Third, we must review our image for this play to work. For example: there are some players in my game that would never check/raise or donk bet big on a dry board without a set. So although they are employing a set-mining strategy (or tactic?) to stack players, their lack of balance (bluffs or semi-bluffs) make their plan fruitless against watchful regs.

    Next, set-mining implies any pocket pair. But is that really true?
    Would we set mine with AA? KK?
    Obviously no. But how low do we go with the set-mining attitude? (I've been toying with this myself.) I've seen some tougher opponents play 77 as strong as QQ. (i.e., 3-bets and c-bets). So we're probably not set-mining with ALL pocket pairs...

    Which is why set-mining nits seem too generic AND specific at the same time.
    As well as a strategy AND a tactic... no?

    Let's take another look at tactic vs strategy notion (which inspired this thread):
    Diana wrote: »
    @Doug Hull, I totally agree with your statement about women being bluffed at a higher frequency then men. With that being said I almost feel like I should widen my calling range?

    If women are bluffed at a higher frequency then men - should @Diana create a strategy where she widens her calling range?

    Chin says "no" and I concur.
    Mostly because the majority of women I typically encounter have nutted hands when they bet. And weak hands when they check. So they're usually playing their hands face up with their actions. Which means I'm folding or calling when they bet and betting my stronger hands when they check. So if Diana were playing in my room against players like me, she'd be losing more hands then she'd be winning by using this strategy/tactic.

    As they say: It's player dependent. Maybe in Vegas or at the Bike, machismo overrides profit. But where I play - it's not unusual to see 10% of the player pool to be women. And they typically play tight... and well.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Everyone has a frequency, even by mistake.

    True, but the effort to not do it by mistake, but by plan and reason, founded in the basic structure of the game, gives one's approach a shape and overall plan. This sounds like a strategy to me. Frequencies themselves are not the point, in other words.

    Whether it is the best strategy is another question.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    For sure and I think the act of trying to perfect and plan the correct frequencies is the strategy we call GTO.

    But the issue is that GTO unachievable.

    In other words. players who aim to play this way have to admit that they will knowingly make frequency mistakes in a strategy built off defensive frequencies.

    GTO will never force errors but simply always play defense.

    And I agree that whether this is good or not is another topic.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think GTO is unachievable, too... but the effort toward it composes a strategy, and someone wanted to see a document that comprises a strategy, doable, good, bad, or not.

    For instance, The Course will probably net a lot of 1/2 players wins and money... but it is not a strategy the way 1% is. That's important, I think, conceptually, for this conversation.

    We're starting by trying to get our terms right, and maybe from there, we can get where we need to go.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Yeah I agree. I think GTO is a strategy.

    I don't think however 1% presents a coherent strategy as you claim.

    Defending a 70% frequency as a rule of thumb is simply not correct.

    I think it presents a primer to the mindset of GTO approach. But to say it presents a GTO strategy is reaching in my opinion.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    I think that there is another question here underlying what both @persuadeo and @Christian Soto are discussing:

    How do we learn?

    It is curious to me because I think the two basically agree on the process of learning.... Experience, deep thought, mentoring, discussion..... I think @Christian Soto is a little more skeptical of books and videos than @persuadeo but they both look at books and videos as minor supplements to experience, deep thought, and mentoring.

    I might be wrong in the above statement but this is my observation from things I have read and heard from both of them.

    I'm 56. I've only been playing this game for ~18 months. I studied,with books and play chips for ~12 months before I started playing for money. It wasn't until I joined this site that I could even get poker players to talk to me live.

    Books are what I have, so the conceptual and strategic landscape that I gathered from Professional NLHE: V1 & NLHE: Theory and Practice, is what I had. The first book that I read that presented a coherent strategy, good or bad, was Poker's 1%. Books by Miller and Little provided me with a larger view of the game that I didn't have simply by going to the NYC underground or "home" games in backrooms of bars.

    I read critically. I think for myself. Try again. Fail again. Fail better! is the only path I can follow. So I go on to read Chen and Janda, and Sweeney's workbooks and I play on computers. I learn, I adjust and try to integrate all. too slowly for my taste. I write and write and write because that is part of the learning process for me and has been forever.

    I don't overestimate the applicability of my knowledge. I don't over estimate the applicability of Poker's 1%. I do think it is a great book but it is not a road map. Even it it was it is necessary to realize that the map is not the territory.

    What Poker's 1% is, is what @colldav has it made into for himself and for me in his fantastic study group thread. It is something to think about and question, use and develop.

    If you don't have a coach or mentor you use books and videos.

    My high school did not have a calculus class. I learned calculus by reading books and seeking help from a teacher I admired. I was mistaken in a lot of what I taught myself but if I didn't do it that way I would still be in my small town and would have never gotten to the university that changed my life.

    So I'm just trying to learn poker in exactly the same way I learned calculus. I only wished I had started 10 years ago instead of 2.

    If I could completely internalize and apply Poker's 1% or Janda's Applications I don't think that I would be subservient to their conceptions, but I do think that it would help me develop a decent strategy and help me to learn to think for myself. Sklansky, Miller, Flynn, Mehta, Janda, have helped to see how much I have to learn. So have @berkey11 , @persuadeo , and @Christian Soto . I could also mention @ChipXtractor and @dirty moose in our limited interactions.

    It is not unreasonable to ask for direction and to take direction.

    I think Soto is a great fighter. And he has fought hard to validate his independence of mind. But sometimes I think, in his rejection of OPWS ("other people's written strategies") he bends the stick too far the other way.

    I know I might be wrong here. If I am wrong it is because chess is a game of history, theory, recorded games and books to study. I try to learn poker the way I taught and learned chess. And in the way I learned calculus.

    In this I might be mistaken. I'm sure I'll find out.

Leave a Comment

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