The Science of Winning Poker • Hacker News Board

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#21

Post by dolphenstein » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 1:47 AM UTC

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)…

Yeah, this is akin to saying that Al Gore invented the internet. A simple trawling of two plus two forums will reveal range discussions from years back.

On a shameless self promotional note: If there's any online casual players out there and they want to know their opponents range, check out a lil web app I built: http://www.pokerstoker.com. Keeps track of opponents pre-flop play, which is essentially their range.

I actually want to add a little feature that displays how your (previous) hand stacks up against various ranges across the streets. I'll add it when the poker bug bites me again. :-)

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#22

Post by llamataboot » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 2:17 AM UTC

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…

When I play ring game (non-tournament) poker, I'm attempting to maximize my hourly rate, not minimize my variance. Therefore I am pushing every edge I have, even when small.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#23

Post by obstacle1 » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 2:18 AM UTC

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)…

Yes, this article is shockingly reductionist -- even downright incorrect -- to anyone who knows something about poker. Run back through the 2+2 archives, people were analyzing plays based on hand distributions since the beginning.

Sklansky's seminal text The Theory of Poker revolves around discussing distributions of hands -- how to guess at an opponent's distribution, how to mix up your own distribution to be harder to read, how to determine optimal (in the game theoretical sense) distributions. TOP was published in 1987. Galfond was 2 years old at that time.

Galfond simply took a concept that already existed and popularized it. He was successful at popularizing because of his idol status in online poker circles, circles in which Sklansky is something of a pariah.

An entire industry has popped up around taking already-existing technical concepts in poker strategy, dumbing them down, and relabelling them. See the rise of video coaching (cardrunners, deucescracked, et al) and more recently poker coaching (wherein people pay 3-figure hourly fees to have pros analyze their play) for examples.

None of these strategy services offers anything new because the math and theory behind poker has not changed. The structure of the game is the same now as it was in the 80s, and the 50s, and 20s, and so on.

The vast majority of modern strategy content is a restatement or application of the content from two canonical texts: the aforementioned Theory of Poker, and Chen's Mathematics of Poker. Even most coaches who charge the three-figure fees admit this. It's just that most people don't want to put in the gritty analysis work, hence the coaches stay in business.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#24

Post by obstacle1 » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 2:32 AM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #11

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.)

Confirmed. TOP is one big discussion of ranges. Sklansky didn't call them ranges, but the concept is the same: your opponent holds a distribution of possible hands, and you're making decisions based on what you think the makeup of that distribution is (and also based on what you think your opponent thinks your distribution is).

Also, in 2006 Chen and Ankenman published The Mathematics of Poker which quite explicitly deals with the analysis of hand distributions (e.g. chapter 8: Playing Accurately Part II: Hand vs. Distribution, chapter 9: Adaptive Play: Distribution vs. Distribution).

So even if we pretend Sklansky's TOP doesn't deal with ranges, Chen clearly does, and came before Galfond's 2007 Bluff article [1].

[1] - http://www.bluff.com/magazine/g-bucks-conceptualizing-money-...

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#25

Post by mitchi » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 3:04 AM UTC

r_s wrote: post #19

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 w…

why tell them you play in the interview?

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#26

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 3:54 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#27

Post by llamataboot » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 3:59 AM UTC

mitchi wrote: post #25

r_s wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

why tell them you play in the interview?

why not? It demonstrates the ability to hold a huge amount of information in your head at once, make rapid decisions in a high pressure environment, and do what are essentially Bayesian probability calculations in your head. I may be biased as someone that played poker to put myself through grad school and had a nice hourly rate by the end of it, but I think that it requires a high intelligence, the ability to emotionally disconnect from decisions, and the ability to retain and act on such large amounts of information that it's a definite positive. (It's also really boring and psychologically brutal at times and I wouldn't recommend it to many folks.)

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#28

Post by mitchi » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 6:08 AM UTC

llamataboot wrote: post #27

mitchi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why tell them you play in the interview?

why not? It demonstrates the ability to hold a huge amount of information in your head at once, make rapid decisions in a high pressure environment, and do what are essentially Bayesian probability calculations in your head. I may be biased as someone that played poker to put myself through grad school and had a nice hourly rate by the end of it, but I think that it requires a high intelligence, the ability to emotio…

Are you still a winning player? Were you playing before Black Friday? I heard it was easier. I studied the game a lot these past few months and I barely break even. I'm only winning in live poker.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#29

Post by tedsanders » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 6:22 AM UTC

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

Thanks, I'll correct it.

Edit: Oops, too late to edit. Anyway, I should have said subtitle. I think.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#30

Post by tsotha » Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 7:10 AM UTC

TomGullen wrote: post #4

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.

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.

Indeed. There are many situations in which it's mathematically correct to bluff in hold 'em and omaha. Or at least semi-bluff.

I remember playing at the toughest game in my area about ten years ago. Two of the best players (both professionals) were heads up. It was kind of a dull hand after the flop - bet, call; bet, call; check, bet, fold.

As the cards were being collected the winner said "Let's try something different next time. How about the guy with the hand bets and the guy who's on the draw calls."