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

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#31

Post by mattmaroon »

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)…

It's certainly older than a few years. I understood it over a decade ago, and I certainly didn't invent it.

To be technical though, the article doesn't claim that Phil Galfond invented it either. Just that he "published a refinement". He probably posted something on 2+2 that was the earliest example the WSJ's writer found, though he must not have looked very hard if so.

Also computer analysis became a factor before the boom (Chris Ferguson won the WSOP main event largely due to it) but the article is pretty accurate about its impact. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that nobody was good at poker before the year 2000, or maybe even a bit later. The people who won a lot of tournaments back then would fail miserably if they played the same way today. Some of them do in fact.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#32

Post by mattmaroon »

obstacle1 wrote: post #23
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…

Sklansky is a pariah because of every book he's written other than Theory of Poker. Many of them contain advice ranging from mediocre to atrocious. Also he's the kind of tool who says things like "Ken Jennings must be an idiot because he believes in God."

Excepting some of the timeline issues though, the article is reasonable. Computer analysis radically changed how poker is played, largely by making it more aggressive. Read some books from guys like T.J. Cloutier written before everyone had Pokerstove. They brag about laying down QQ in spots where anyone with a Monte Carlo sim would know it was idiotic to do so.

Most people (even among top professional poker players) can't understand all of Chen's book. Most good poker books go much lower level than ToP, which is useful too, as evidenced by the fact that every time Sklansky himself tries to he says something dumb. If the man who wrote ToP can't apply its concepts correctly, then there's value in other people trying to do so.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#33

Post by logn »

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…

Yes, but then the pros determine that you have a very wide range for going all in. If needed, they will pick a spot where they have a very strong hand to beat what you have, at best an average hand. Additionally, if you're a novice going all in a lot, the whole table will eventually recognize this and all of them will adapt their playing to take your chips. Certainly, you'll get lucky perhaps on a few all ins and win against a pro. And you might actually be right, that this playing style is better than just trying your best as a novice, but it's analogous on a true/false test to just filling in true for every answer. That's only recommended if you know you'll do poorly on the test even if you try. And it's also analogous that playing a pro would be like trying to answer true every time of a professor known to have false be every answer on some tests--i.e., it's a really dumb poker strategy, especially versus pros who are expecting your strategy and thinking one level deeper.

Also, the real reason you're wrong is that if you're heads up against a pro and you go all in, the pro can fold and live to see the next hand.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#35

Post by sejje »

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?

I agree. I also played professionally for 3 years, and I found that when applying for devloper positions, my poker experience has been lauded as related.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#36

Post by sejje »

mitchi wrote: post #28
llamataboot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As the field narrows to just the devoted players, it will get harder.

Also, as the article suggests, poker strategies are advancing quickly. I started in 2004, and by 2012 I was still ahead of the curve, but the game had clearly gone light-years forward in terms of general strategy--in particular I'm speaking to HUSNGs, my game of choice.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#37

Post by sejje »

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…

He was greatly mistaken in his 90% estimate, but the players with the best winrates when I quit (2011) were still winning ~60% of games.

My ROI was ~14% at 100s when I played professionally, totaling 1000s of games. I agree that at 1ks+ the best players were making ~5% ROI, but there were much better winrates up thru the 500s, which I don't consider "micros."

Also, ROI is generally less at micros, because rake is a bigger issue.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#38

Post by ryguytilidie »

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 started playing in 2003 and posted on twoplustwo since 2004. I can certainly confirm that the concept of range was being discussed in that period and I'm actually fairly confident that the Theory of Poker (Sklansky) itself discusses range. The article just seems blatantly wrong in that sense.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#39

Post by ryguytilidie »

tempestn wrote: post #12
MichaelApproved wrote: post #10

For those interested in more poker discussions http://www.reddit.com/r/poker

Also http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/

Been reading 2p2 for 10 years and was a mod at one point. I would say its about 500000x more valuable than reddit poker.

Re: The Science of Winning Poker

#40

Post by obstacle1 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #32
obstacle1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sklansky is a pariah because of every book he's written other than Theory of Poker. Many of them contain advice ranging from mediocre to atrocious. Also he's the kind of tool who says things like "Ken Jennings must be an idiot because he believes in God." Excepting some of the timeline issues though, the article is reasonable. Computer analysis radically changed how poker is played, largely by making it more aggressi…

>Sklansky is a pariah because of every book he's written other than Theory of Poker

I was thinking specifically of his personal life and how it bled into the strategy forums. For example the whole Brandi debacle, and before that the Sue revelations (remember the pictures with the little girl and the birds?). Many people who read that stuff were so creeped out by it that they discounted Sklansky's strategy talents entirely. So forum people -- who were a sizeable portion, probably a majority, of strategy-conscious online players at the time -- became unlikely to find out that Sklansky wrote at length about 'ranges', creating a gap for someone like Galfond to fill.

Post reply on HN