The Science of Winning Poker
online.wsj.com
The Science of Winning Poker
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#2>A few years ago, a young pro named Phil Galfond published a crucial refinement to Mr. Sklansky's point. He showed that the right way to analyze a poker decision is to consider your opponent's "range"—that is, the full set of different hands that he could plausibly have, given all the actions that he has thus far taken.
I find it impossible to believe that concept of a "range" was (a) invented a few years ago and (b) invented by Phil Galfond. This article is disappointing.
Edit: In fairness, the article's sentence is literally correct. But I cringe at its implication.
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#3>Bluffing still matters, but the best players now depend on math theory
This is a silly byline. If anything, the best and most mathematical players bluff more than the older generation of typically more conservative players. Bluffing and math are NOT opposed principles.
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#4>Bluffing still matters, but the best players now depend on math theory This is a silly byline. If anything, the best and most mathematical players bluff more than the older generation of typically more conservative players. Bluffing and math are NOT opposed principles.
Bluffing is one facet (often romantasised and therefore sometimes over emphasised) of a good mathematical strategy. Like you say they are not mutually exclusive of one a other.
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#5>A few years ago, a young pro named Phil Galfond published a crucial refinement to Mr. Sklansky's point. He showed that the right way to analyze a poker decision is to consider your opponent's "range"—that is, the full set of different hands that he could plausibly have, given all the actions that he has thus far taken. I find it impossible to believe that concept of a "range" was (a) invented a few years ago and (b)…
I believe that Phil Galfond was one of the first "new-generation" players to explain the strategy with modern media (youtube, podcasts) in a way that it could be taken and applied in your own game without too much hassle.
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#6>A few years ago, a young pro named Phil Galfond published a crucial refinement to Mr. Sklansky's point. He showed that the right way to analyze a poker decision is to consider your opponent's "range"—that is, the full set of different hands that he could plausibly have, given all the actions that he has thus far taken. I find it impossible to believe that concept of a "range" was (a) invented a few years ago and (b)…
I believe that Phil Galfond was one of the first "new-generation" players to explain the strategy with modern media (youtube, podcasts) in a way that it could be taken and applied in your own game without too much hassle.
Harrington had explained the concept of evaluating tournament situations based on a range (although he didn't necessarily call it a range) in his Harrington on Hold 'Em books.
Galfond's gbucks article, maybe not the first mention of it, brought the concept of equity against a range into the mainstream.
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#7>A few years ago, a young pro named Phil Galfond published a crucial refinement to Mr. Sklansky's point. He showed that the right way to analyze a poker decision is to consider your opponent's "range"—that is, the full set of different hands that he could plausibly have, given all the actions that he has thus far taken. I find it impossible to believe that concept of a "range" was (a) invented a few years ago and (b)…
I have a theorem which I refer to as the Fuzzwah theory, it goes like this:
"The more you know about a topic, the more it will annoy you when it is covered by the main stream media."
Once you realize this with regards to topics you're knowledgeable about you start taking coverage of ALL topics with a grain of salt, knowing that someone who knows all about it is probably cringing and / or yelling at how poorly it is being reported.
PS: I was obsessed with online poker a few years back and was an avid 2plus2 forum reader. The 1st person which I recall giving excellent advice about putting people on a range was Cole "CTS" South. He even sold an ebook called Let There Be Range for (initially, from memory) something like $5,000 a pop (it still sells for $1400 on amazon http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982402252 )
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#8>A few years ago, a young pro named Phil Galfond published a crucial refinement to Mr. Sklansky's point. He showed that the right way to analyze a poker decision is to consider your opponent's "range"—that is, the full set of different hands that he could plausibly have, given all the actions that he has thus far taken. I find it impossible to believe that concept of a "range" was (a) invented a few years ago and (b)…
I have a theorem which I refer to as the Fuzzwah theory, it goes like this: "The more you know about a topic, the more it will annoy you when it is covered by the main stream media." Once you realize this with regards to topics you're knowledgeable about you start taking coverage of ALL topics with a grain of salt, knowing that someone who knows all about it is probably cringing and / or yelling at how poorly it is b…
Maybe we should organize a hacker news charity poker tournament. Nothing big, ins are $100, winner gets $200, 2nd place gets money back, and everything left goes to Watsi.
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#9There's another element in there. The one about relative skill. Let's say that you're a much better player than the other person, and that you would win 90% of the time heads up (one on one, which we are going to assume at this point for simplicity). If this were the case, you would need to have a greater than 90% chance to win the hand all in for it to be a correct move.
This is also easy to understand if you, a novice, are heads up against one of the pros. It's a much better move for you to go all in on any decent hand and just try to get lucky to win, since if you try to play their game, you're going to lose.
Re: The Science of Winning Poker
#10For those interested in more poker discussions http://www.reddit.com/r/poker