AP interest in Poker

[Syph]

Aslan,

You may wish to read this paper, it initially got me interested in poker:

"Risk Formulas for Proportional Betting"

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/proport/riskpaper1.pdf (Archive copy)

(section 3.5 touches on poker)

It's a fine article. For those who aren't mathematically inclined, section 4.1 lays out what will happen to your bankroll depending on what fraction of Kelly you play. I've referred others to it frequently over the years.

Best,
Syph

 

[KimLee]

2p2 community

A member of the TwoPlusTwo community should know that Mason Malmuth gave Kill Phil his highest rating. The strategy is for no-limit hold'em tournaments, not cash games. But tourneys are an ideal place to learn, and offer soft competition.

This discussion about win rates is confused. Hold'em has betting preflop, flop, turn, and river. Seven card stud has one more betting round (third through seven streets). So limit stud will tend to have higher variance per round, but less rounds per hour.

Obviously no-limit structures will have higher variance relative to the blinds. But the risk and return of games varies. Loose no-limit games with straddles can be very risky. Usually loose games are more profitable, but profitability also depends on the skill of participants. Generally you want to play recreational participants, e.g., loose, drunk, tourists after midnight or in weekend tournaments. Currently no-limit hold'em is popular, so that offers the best advantage.

 

[aslan]

No, I believe holdem tends to have better EV, especially when it is played NL.

Does anyone have their pokertracker stats for various games? Posting them would help this thread a lot...

So, are you [not just you, everyone] saying that a 20/40 7-stud game has a greater "luck" factor than NL Holdem? I really find that hard to believe. But I am not doubting your word, just find it hard to believe having played both.

 

[Canceler]

Just a couple random comments:

If the variance for limit hold’em is greater than for no-limit hold’em, would that be because there are more playable hands in limit? (I don’t know, I don’t play NL.)

There’s an interesting (to me, anyway ) discussion of SD in BB/hr for limit hold’em in posts 49-68 of this thread.

 

[moo321]

So, are you [not just you, everyone] saying that a 20/40 7-stud game has a greater "luck" factor than NL Holdem? I really find that hard to believe. But I am not doubting your word, just find it hard to believe having played both.

Yeah. It probably has a higher variance per hour than a comparable NL holdem game, which would be either a 2-5 or 5-10 NL game.

 

[fubster]

A member of the TwoPlusTwo community should know that Mason Malmuth gave Kill Phil his highest rating. The strategy is for no-limit hold'em tournaments, not cash games. But tourneys are an ideal place to learn, and offer soft competition.

This discussion about win rates is confused. Hold'em has betting preflop, flop, turn, and river. Seven card stud has one more betting round (third through seven streets). So limit stud will tend to have higher variance per round, but less rounds per hour.

Obviously no-limit structures will have higher variance relative to the blinds. But the risk and return of games varies. Loose no-limit games with straddles can be very risky. Usually loose games are more profitable, but profitability also depends on the skill of participants. Generally you want to play recreational participants, e.g., loose, drunk, tourists after midnight or in weekend tournaments. Currently no-limit hold'em is popular, so that offers the best advantage.

Mason Malmuth isn't really qualified to comment on the state of modern poker games, so take his advice with a grain of salt.

The amount of betting rounds doesn't matter nearly as much as the variance in hand equities on every street. Limit holdem, where hand equities change radically on every street, is far more high variance that 7cs, where hand equities remain relatively static after 5th st.

No limit is popular, but certainly doesn't offer the best advantage. Due to its popularity, so many people are at least halfway competent at nlhe that the game is not nearly as profitable as it used to be. The most profitable games are new games or niche games that nobody is particularly skilled at. Badugi, 2-7 tripledraw, games like that.

 

[fubster]

Just a couple random comments:

If the variance for limit hold’em is greater than for no-limit hold’em, would that be because there are more playable hands in limit? (I don’t know, I don’t play NL.)

There’s an interesting (to me, anyway ) discussion of SD in BB/hr for limit hold’em in posts 49-68 of this thread.

No, limit and no limit are still the same game, and there aren't more playable hands in limit than no limit.

Hand equities in community card games can vary widely street by street, and since in limit holdem, you're often only required to call a fraction of the pot to see the next street, it's frequently correct to play a style in which you don't fold very often. As you could imagine, when people play like that, variance is going to increase since, after all, a player's equity can change so quickly.

No limit is different because people are allowed to wager an amount that would make it incorrect for someone to continue with a hand that doesn't have much equity in the pot.

 

[CoolMike]

I might be mistaken here, but from what I recently learned about the mathematics of poker limit has a higher variance for any given EV (comparing variance at similar win rates) than no limit simply and entirely becuase you wind up in more situations where there are more than two players in the pot at showdown in the limit game. In no limit you isolate your opponent and play heads up much more often.

Variance here can be simply thought of as the differences between the possible outcomes in any given hand. In limit the options are frequently { "-Your Bets*(Loss)", "+3x Your Bets*(win)" }

In no limit the options are more typically {"- Your Bets*(loss)" , "+2x your bets*(win)" }

Of course this is a pretty drastic simplification.

By the way, if interested in this stuff read "The Mathematics of Poker" Its a great read!

 

[1357111317]

Variance here can be simply thought of as the differences between the possible outcomes in any given hand. In limit the options are frequently { "-Your Bets*(Loss)", "+15x Your Bets*(win)" }

In no limit the options are more typically {"- Your Bets*(loss)" , "+2x your bets*(win)" }

Of course this is a pretty drastic simplification.

By the way, if interested in this stuff read "The Mathematics of Poker" Its a great read!

I think that 15x your bet is more approppriate for limit than 3x.

 

[KimLee]

See http://www.twoplustwo.com and http://www.killphilpoker.com (Archive copy).

Mason Malmuth isn't really qualified to comment on the state of modern poker games

He is unquestionably the premiere poker publisher and personally edits the books. He lives and plays in Vegas.

I might be mistaken here

Everyone agrees that no limit has more risk for the blinds. The only issue is the return/risk ratio across different structures. A loose aggressive limit game with high rake might be risky and unprofitable. But against big-bet opponents who don't adapt, it might be quite profitable.

The return/risk depends on the quality of your opponents. Bad amateurs can survive limit games but get busted quickly in no-limit. NL structures reward skill and will have a better ratio against bad opponents.

 

[Young Man]

You probably werent that good then if that is yoru sentiment. Yes they will get lucky and suckout on you but more often than not you will win with the better hand.

Not much consolation when they raise you your entire bankroll and win the hand with what was clearly a much weaker position. Just how many times do you have to experience ruin before giving it up? The player with the highest BR has an distinct advantage. Perhaps if I played now it might be a different story as have a lot more money these days. I just don't have the patience anymore though.

And yes, I really was that good.

 

[Young Man]

Whereas in blackjack you just automatically win gobs of money each time ...

In BJ you control the size of your bet. In NL you should call a large bet if you believe you will win it. Therefore considerably higher risk of ruin. And if you don't call these high bets (when you should) you will be walked over by everyone.

 

[zengrifter]

It's been my experience that when you find an AP at one thing, he's liable to be an AP at another, maybe several other, things. Many on this Forum are poker players. Many also are craps players, sports bettors, VP players, and advantage slot players, and the list goes on.

One night at the old Binion's circa '99 the WSOP broke for the evening and several poker players hit the BJ tables where I was, and I realized that some of the best poker players were actually some of the worst BJ players. Go figure. zg

 

[aslan]

One night at the old Binion's circa '99 the WSOP broke for the evening and several poker players hit the BJ tables where I was, and I realized that some of the best poker players were actually some of the worst BJ players. Go figure. zg

I buy that, as well. An AP can be an AP at more than one thing, and at the same time, he may be a sucker at something else. I've seen it repeatedly.

 

[1357111317]

Not much consolation when they raise you your entire bankroll and win the hand with what was clearly a much weaker position. Just how many times do you have to experience ruin before giving it up? The player with the highest BR has an distinct advantage. Perhaps if I played now it might be a different story as have a lot more money these days. I just don't have the patience anymore though.

And yes, I really was that good.

So if i played a 1/2 heads up game vs a fish with 5k and he had 50k (100 bb buy ins ) you're saying he has a distinct advantage on me? I think not. I would end up 50k richer if we played enough. The player with the most skill has the distinct advantage.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Master of One?

Why is there not more of an interest in poker among AP's?

Possibly because if one is doing well in one game then why take the time and risk to bank to learn another game?

Josh Axelrad? Comes to mind.

:joker::whip:

 

[moo321]

I buy that, as well. An AP can be an AP at more than one thing, and at the same time, he may be a sucker at something else. I've seen it repeatedly.

Absolutely. Half of the guys you see on TV aren't even winning poker players. They just get lucky in a few tournaments, and then they get bought into whatever they want. I could be a "pro" if full tilt bought me into every event I wanted to enter.

And many of these guys are degenerate gamblers on table games. I've heard Phil Ivy has lost millions in craps.

 

[aslan]

Absolutely. Half of the guys you see on TV aren't even winning poker players. They just get lucky in a few tournaments, and then they get bought into whatever they want. I could be a "pro" if full tilt bought me into every event I wanted to enter.

And many of these guys are degenerate gamblers on table games. I've heard Phil Ivy has lost millions in craps.

At craps I suppose it must be legitimate, but I have known excellent card players who seemingly lost tens or hundreds of thousands in private card games. S-e-e-m-i-n-g-l-y. :cool2:

 

[Young Man]

So if i played a 1/2 heads up game vs a fish with 5k and he had 50k (100 bb buy ins ) you're saying he has a distinct advantage on me? I think not. I would end up 50k richer if we played enough. The player with the most skill has the distinct advantage.

So presumably you would call their all-in when you had the best hand? Case closed!

 

[London Colin]

So presumably you would call their all-in when you had the best hand? Case closed!

I'm not a poker player, but I presume the point here is that you do not buy in with your entire bankroll, or anything like it, but rather with the maximum amount you are prepared to commit to any one hand. That way you do not have to shy away from playing the odds correctly, just because someone is forcing you to go all-in if you want to stay in the hand.