Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Science of Winning Poker

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#11

Post by tempestn »

tedsanders wrote: post #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)…

I came here just to make this comment. I'm quite sure this concept appears in most of Sklansky's books, probably right back to the Theory of Poker (c1987). (I haven't verified that, but I know his more recent books like Small Stakes Hold'em, still more than a few years ago, covered ranges.)

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#13

Post by scoot »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #7
tedsanders wrote: post #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)…

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…

Mainstream media? I occasionally cringe at some of the discussion here on subjects I know something about, seeing how badly wrong smart people can get it. (Thankfully most of the discussion on HN is on subjects I know little about, or are that are way over my head! :-) )

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#14

Post by [deleted] »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #7
tedsanders wrote: post #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)…

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#15

Post by eshvk »

scoot wrote: post #13
Fuzzwah wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Mainstream media? I occasionally cringe at some of the discussion here on subjects I know something about, seeing how badly wrong smart people can get it. (Thankfully most of the discussion on HN is on subjects I know little about, or are that are way over my head! :-) )

What is your point? No one can be smart at everything. Just because one occasionally writes words that helps computers do things doesn't mean one's world view is not silly when it comes to other things.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#16

Post by dubfan »

tedsanders wrote: post #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.

That's not what byline means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byline

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#18

Post by foobarbazqux »

dubfan wrote: post #16
tedsanders wrote: post #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.

That's not what byline means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byline

That just makes it an even sillier byline.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#19

Post by r_s »

jackschultz wrote: post #9

There'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 nov…

Many poker players who study theory see this as incorrect. Ill try explain the other side.

I will avoid the fact that a 90% winrate in a format like you describe (heads up sit and go) is not even remotely possible vs anyone who knows the basic rules. In heads up sit and goes 2-5% roi is generally considered great at any non micro level. Poker (especially online) is more of a volume game. However, roi is very flawed which I will get to. Generally the most profitable players are ones who crank out a small winrate over large amounts of volume.

Here is the problem though, we really are not concerned with winning a single game in a format like this. Our top concern is making money. In a winner take all heads up tournament chipEV == $EV so we can just call it EV in this format and not worry about ICM. If we are playing for a living we want to make the most amount of money, so each session we want to maximize our EV (win the most amount of chips). Most internet players worry about their winrate in BB/100 or EV adjusted $/hr.

When we get into a situation which we are a 1% favorite for full stacks vs a player we have a large edge on, we should still take it, its money in our pocket long term. If we lose we pray the opponent accepts a rematch. This is especially true for heads up games which usually only last a few minutes and its possible to play 100-200 games per day. A 3% winrate at $100 stakes with this volume becomes a significant amount of money even before factoring in site bonuses (likely a bit over $1/game) etc.

Not related to your comment, but doesn't deserve another post is that poker really is a great game and its unfortunate how its perceived by so many. Ive been playing for 3 years professionally and coached on a popular training site, yet after transitioning to programming (With a cs degree) I get laughed at by recruiters and seen as a degenerate.

Post reply on HN