Information gathering
In a recent entry from Short Stacked Shamus, he made reference to a David Sklansky comment regarding the difference between writing about poker theory and actually playing the game. Within those comments some players may find a valuable branch, especially those players who feel their success is not on a par with their understanding of the game.
So what are the differences between analyzing a poker situation and actually playing it? In a nutshell, I think there are three differences:
1) time
2) resources
3) information
In a poker theory problem, we have unlimited time to think and answer, and we also have virtually unlimited resources available to us, specifically math-based poker software. At the table, of course, both time and resources are limited. We need to find ways to lessen the importance of time and resources, and ironically, this comes best from repetition of poker problems/situations away from the table so they become closer to a second nature to us.
The other very important difference between a theoretical problem and an actual table situation is information. In a poker theory problem, you are told the information. Such as, player A is normally very tight but just lost a big pot, and has raised us all-in on a draw heavy board while we hold top pair and a gutshot. In other words, we are all given the same information, and in a poker theory question we can use that and only that information. A poker theory guy would come back with an answer like “If we’re ahead 30% of the time…plus we outdraw him 25%…plus there is xxx chips in the pot…minus the times he has a draw and outdraws us…we should call because it’s +EV”. That answer can’t be then disputed by another poker theory guy who comes along saying “Well…I know player A very well, he doesn’t tilt, and he always bets strong with TPTK or better, so I don’t think we are ever ahead here.” In other words, you can’t invent information that just isn’t there. All information gathering in the theoretical problem is equal, nobody has an advantage.
However, at the actual table, information gathering becomes important. And the more information you can gather, the better you can assess the situation. Some players simply are able to gather much more information than others. At the table, you need to be able to pick up this information for yourself and decipher which is relevant. Not everyone will pick up on the fact that player A is tight or has recently lost a big pot. Also, what other subtle factors about player A do we know? Is he looking at his watch, talking about finishing up in order to catch a show in time with his wife, or acting somehow that he is more willing to gamble than normal.
This is not an excuse to ignore poker theory, it is very important. But information gathering and information interpretation are extremely important, and they are not skills that are easily learned or soaked up like a sponge just because you read a book. And that is why math and theories are helpful, but don’t necessarily win.
If you show me a guy who thinks he’s a 70% favorite when he’s actually a 45% dog, then yes, he will consistently lose until he gets a better grasp of poker theory and math. Show me a guy who knows that he is exactly 46.3% to win, and I’ll show you a guy who is probably too focused in on the minuscule math and is probably missing a part of the big picture. But show me a guy who knows he is a little less than a coinflip and has good information gathering and interpretation, and I’ll show you a consistent winner.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Hypno…I am a huge believer in what you said about +EV situations. My way to play which is not always mathematically correct is to exploit large edges and leave the slightly +EV situations alone in a cash game setting in order to decrease variance. I will probably will lose 1-2 bb/100 in the long run but I can sleep at night knowing the huge downswings just won’t happen to me at the levels I am playing .5/1 - 1/2 NL. There are more than one way to approach a poker hand and as murf says sometimes you need more than just the math to make a correct decision.
well there is math that will support this style of play, if you can apply the sharpe ratio to a poker situation it becomes apparent that you can quantify EV on a risk adjusted basis.
good post. When you say that a play is “+EV so it is correct to call” I think that there are mathematical models that would dispute that. EV does not properly asses risk. Many really great players have said exactly the same thing but you have to read between the lines to pick it up, even if your read is correct and you have +EV that does not mean that it is the right play.
-HypnoBlaz