Tourney Should pot odds be very different in tournaments? (1 Viewer)

[Frogzilla]

Lol, you just don't get it. It's just a theory, and one with known issues.

I don’t get your arguments. Someone said “ICM represent the increased chance to win tourney when someone else knocked out.” I corrected “ICM is useful for dollar value of stack but you can use regular chip % math for chance to outright win”. You said “no, it’s not and it’s not proven.” I said “sure it is that’s how ICM is calculated in the first place.” You said “yes correct but not proven.” And then I linked you to the ICM white paper.

I’m just trying to be helpful for fellow forum members...information is power and if I can help further someone’s understanding in a field I know about, I will take the time to try

 

[glom]

+1 (y) :thumbsup:

And I guess I should also add to those two names you mentioned, pretty much all the top tourney players in the world today. Even some old timers are studying with solvers nowadays, Nagreanu being one example.

That's not to say "white magic" should be completely ignored. One can adjust the math strategy "slightly" based on some read. Now, weather GTO is the most profitable (although still being un-exploitable) playing a $30 tourney is a different issue. The better the players one plays against, the better the GTO strat becomes.

Berkey argues that GTO is a misnomer, since nlhe isn’t solved, true GTO does not exist, it’s just minimally exploitable play, but still both exploitative in its nature, and exploitable in its execution. Berkey’s camp is more honest in labeling their work as exploitative.

 

[ChaosRock]

Berkey argues that GTO is a misnomer, since nlhe isn’t solved, true GTO does not exist, it’s just minimally exploitable play, but still both exploitative in its nature, and exploitable in its execution. Berkey’s camp is more honest in labeling their work as exploitative.

Agreed. Using the term GTO since that's what most player use. I think it's pretty common knowledge it is just a theory that tries to get close to the optimal non-exploitable strategy. I actually made the point a few posts above about Holdem not being even close to getting solved. I just disagree with the exploitative name since that's the opposite of GTO. Any time you try to "exploit" a player, you open yourself up to being exploited, the antithesis of GTO.

 

[glom]

Agreed. Using the term GTO since that's what most player use. I think it's pretty common knowledge it is just a theory that tries to get close to the optimal non-exploitable strategy. I actually made the point a few posts above about Holdem not being even close to getting solved. I just disagree with the exploitative name since that's the opposite of GTO. Any time you try to "exploit" a player, you open yourself up to being exploited, the antithesis of GTO.

Well, among other things, Berkeley seems very much in favor of exploiting “GTO” players, as their methods are exploitable, and its hard to argue with his results. This makes me think so called GTO is very far from being optimal.

 

[BGinGA]

I don’t get your arguments. Someone said “ICM represent the increased chance to win tourney when someone else knocked out.” I corrected “ICM is useful for dollar value of stack but you can use regular chip % math for chance to outright win”. You said “no, it’s not and it’s not proven.” I said “sure it is that’s how ICM is calculated in the first place.” You said “yes correct but not proven.” And then I linked you to the ICM white paper.

I’m just trying to be helpful for fellow forum members...information is power and if I can help further someone’s understanding in a field I know about, I will take the time to try

As am I. ICM is the best tool we have available, but it's not perfect, nor has it been proven to be 100% accurate (just the opposite, in fact) -- as the white paper you linked even shows. That's all I'm saying. It's just a theory.

 

[glom]

As am I. ICM is the best tool we have available, but it's not perfect, nor has it been proven to be 100% accurate (just the opposite, in fact) -- as the white paper you linked even shows. That's all I'm saying. It's just a theory.

I would call it a model more than a theory. As a theory, it is clearly wrong. As a model it is clearly useful. There is a famous quote:

All models are wrong but some are useful.
—George Box

 

[ChaosRock]

Well, among other things, Berkeley seems very much in favor of exploiting “GTO” players, as their methods are exploitable, and its hard to argue with his results. This makes me think so called GTO is very far from being optimal.

I guess I don't get it. I've seen Berky speaks briefly about it but haven't really delved deep into what his thinking is. However, by definition GTO aims towards a non-exploitable strategy. So how is he exploiting it? Does he have a better GTO model? And if he does, that would be incorporated into a GTO strategy, thus becoming even more non-exploitable. GTO is an ever evolving model due to many things being discovered and fine tuned, it is not static, until the game gets solved.

Berkey is a good player. Personaly, and it's just me, not upper echelon of the top players around today. So yeah, his results are good but not as good as some wizards out there today.

And if I may be honest, until he decided to launch his training site, he never talked of discussed anything poker. That fact alone, and his approach to describing his product, sounded to me like a marketing ploy to get subscribers. What he is saying is "Yeah, GTO is very good but have some flaws. I have a way to exploit some flaws. Pay $1K to know how." But again, just my impression since I don't know his content. Maybe he indeed is at the absolute tipping point of poker technology. Until I see it though, I'm skeptical.

 

[power13]

I guess I don't get it. I've seen Berky speaks briefly about it but haven't really delved deep into what his thinking is. However, by definition GTO aims towards a non-exploitable strategy. So how is he exploiting it? Does he have a better GTO model? And if he does, that would be incorporated into a GTO strategy, thus becoming even more non-exploitable. GTO is an ever evolving model due to many things being discovered and fine tuned, it is not static, until the game gets solved.

Berkey is a good player. Personaly, and it's just me, not upper echelon of the top players around today. So yeah, his results are good but not as good as some wizards out there today.

And if I may be honest, until he decided to launch his training site, he never talked of discussed anything poker. That fact alone, and his approach to describing his product, sounded to me like a marketing ploy to get subscribers. What he is saying is "Yeah, GTO is very good but have some flaws. I have a way to exploit some flaws. Pay $1K to know how." But again, just my impression since I don't know his content. Maybe he indeed is at the absolute tipping point of poker technology. Until I see it though, I'm skeptical.

I heard him say something to the effect that he tries to develop lines that would trip up GTO players as it would present them with situations they are unlikely to have studied in solvers. So it's not really an exploit of GTO but rather moving play into areas where players have trouble approximating the GTO solution leading them to make mistakes.

 

[bivey]

Well, I can't listen to Doug Polk all day. He's insufferable at times and half naked all of the time.

 

[ChaosRock]

I heard him say something to the effect that he tries to develop lines that would trip up GTO players as it would present them with situations they are unlikely to have studied in solvers. So it's not really an exploit of GTO but rather moving play into areas where players have trouble approximating the GTO solution leading them to make mistakes.

That makes more sense, although assuming players are "unlikely" to have studied some situations sounds a bit iffy to me as a strategy basis. But I get it, I guess. Also, the "areas in which players have trouble approximating GTO" might be limited to just a few cases. So does he have a non-exploitative solution to those spots or he is also exploitable there? LOL!!!

Or maybe he wants to exploit the "solvers" softwares! Those might certainly have some flaws and standardize some of the strategies.

 

[glom]

I guess I don't get it. I've seen Berky speaks briefly about it but haven't really delved deep into what his thinking is. However, by definition GTO aims towards a non-exploitable strategy. So how is he exploiting it? Does he have a better GTO model? And if he does, that would be incorporated into a GTO strategy, thus becoming even more non-exploitable. GTO is an ever evolving model due to many things being discovered and fine tuned, it is not static, until the game gets solved.

Berkey is a good player. Personaly, and it's just me, not upper echelon of the top players around today. So yeah, his results are good but not as good as some wizards out there today.

And if I may be honest, until he decided to launch his training site, he never talked of discussed anything poker. That fact alone, and his approach to describing his product, sounded to me like a marketing ploy to get subscribers. What he is saying is "Yeah, GTO is very good but have some flaws. I have a way to exploit some flaws. Pay $1K to know how." But again, just my impression since I don't know his content. Maybe he indeed is at the absolute tipping point of poker technology. Until I see it though, I'm skeptical.

I found his claims while being interviewed on thinking poker podcast to be compelling, and I have enough money to enroll without concern about the cash. So far I’m 2 lessons into the primer and already using the information to make better plays at the table. In fact just las night I took a line through a hand that got me a $400 pot in a 2/5 game that would have been a $100 pot for me last month.

No one is giving away poker info like they did on 2+2 in the early 2000s any more.

And if 4 million in tourney winnings and winning 1.6M pots in the big game is not upper eschelon, I’d hate to play in your home game.

He’s not just teaching how to beat GTO. He’s teaching how he thinks about poker, and part of that is understanding common GTO play and some of the counter plays. In the end, I expect to come out better than I started, and that will be good ROI for sure. I’ve never regretted digging into my bankroll for coaching.

 

[glom]

That makes more sense, although assuming players are "unlikely" to have studied some situations sounds a bit iffy to me as a strategy basis. But I get it, I guess. Also, the "areas in which players have trouble approximating GTO" might be limited to just a few cases. So does he have a non-exploitative solution to those spots or he is also exploitable there? LOL!!!

Or maybe he wants to exploit the "solvers" softwares! Those might certainly have some flaws and standardize some of the strategies.

Both current “GTO” and berkey’s strategy are exploitable. NLHE isn’t solved. There is no equilibrium state in the game. And even when the GTO guys are being as minimally exploitable as can be, most of the theory is based on heads up equilibrium and range assumptions. Most people are not fitting their model. There is plenty of error to capitalize on.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I may need to check up on Polk and Berkley.

More tools in the toolbox is always a good thing.

 

[ChaosRock]

I found his claims while being interviewed on thinking poker podcast to be compelling, and I have enough money to enroll without concern about the cash. So far I’m 2 lessons into the primer and already using the information to make better plays at the table. In fact just las night I took a line through a hand that got me a $400 pot in a 2/5 game that would have been a $100 pot for me last month.

No one is giving away poker info like they did on 2+2 in the early 2000s any more.

And if 4 million in tourney winnings and winning 1.6M pots in the big game is not upper eschelon, I’d hate to play in your home game.

He’s not just teaching how to beat GTO. He’s teaching how he thinks about poker, and part of that is understanding common GTO play and some of the counter plays. In the end, I expect to come out better than I started, and that will be good ROI for sure. I’ve never regretted digging into my bankroll for coaching.

Don't disagree with anything, man. And definitely not saying one should not purchase his product, since I don't know what it is.

There's just one thing I disagree with and find it out of place there, and an unnecessary shot at me . Your comments about my players. I never made any claim I'm better, or even close to being a fly in Berky's shit, as I player. I know I'm not. Your response makes me feel you think I was making that claim.

 

[ChaosRock]

Both current “GTO” and berkey’s strategy are exploitable. NLHE isn’t solved. There is no equilibrium state in the game. And even when the GTO guys are being as minimally exploitable as can be, most of the theory is based on heads up equilibrium and range assumptions. Most people are not fitting their model. There is plenty of error to capitalize on.

Once again, I was making the same case a few posts above. I know all that.

Have you studied Game Theory or GTO poker books before? Just trying to gage if Berky's product is your first exposure to GTO...

 

[ChaosRock]

And one more point @glom and maybe said in a different way might help, or maybe it won't:

GTO is using Game Theory to arrive at a non-exploitative strategy, or as close to it as possible. It is not a black box "thing", it's an ever evolving strategy and will continue to be until one reaches the point of solving the game. The GTO players are using today won't be the same as the one they'll be using tomorrow. Also, each player will have a multitude of different assumptions when putting together their own GTO strategy. Opening ranges for Villains, for one.

So when someone claims to have a strategy to exploit GTO I get a little weary, Why? Because by definition GTO is the best we know today as an non-exploitable strategy. So if someone knows something that can exploit GTO, the following day GTO will be modified to deal with that exploit, becoming better. Not sure if I'm being clear here. And maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. If there is something that is more non-exploitable than GTO, that thing will become GTO.

Can Berkey be on the forefront of those experiences and advance GTO? Maybe... And I hope so.

Now, if his argument is he can exploit Polk's strategy, or The German's strategy, or XYZ solver strategy, than I would have no way of saying yay or nay, but I would have no reason to doubt him. My only issue, and again it might be semantics, is to say he can exploit GTO.

 

[glom]

Don't disagree with anything, man. And definitely not saying one should not purchase his product, since I don't know what it is.

There's just one thing I disagree with and find it out of place there, and an unnecessary shot at me . Your comments about my players. I never made any claim I'm better, or even close to being a fly in Berky's shit, as I player. I know I'm not. Your response makes me feel you think I was making that claim.

I will admit I was being a little toy fur in cheek. It was meant to be good natured. I just can’t imagine how Berkeley is not in the upper eschelon. He’s a cash game player, primarily, with about $4m in Tournament play, and plays in huge cash games as a winning player. Not sure where the upper eschelon begins for you, but he’s in it from my perspective.

 

[glom]

And one more point @glom and maybe said in a different way might help, or maybe it won't:

GTO is using Game Theory to arrive at a non-exploitative strategy, or as close to it as possible. It is not a black box "thing", it's an ever evolving strategy and will continue to be until one reaches the point of solving the game. The GTO players are using today won't be the same as the one they'll be using tomorrow. Also, each player will have a multitude of different assumptions when putting together their own GTO strategy. Opening ranges for Villains, for one.

So when someone claims to have a strategy to exploit GTO I get a little weary, Why? Because by definition GTO is the best we know today as an non-exploitable strategy. So if someone knows something that can exploit GTO, the following day GTO will be modified to deal with that exploit, becoming better. Not sure if I'm being clear here. And maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. If there is something that is more non-exploitable than GTO, that thing will become GTO.

Can Berkey be on the forefront of those experiences and advance GTO? Maybe... And I hope so.

Now, if his argument is he can exploit Polk's strategy, or The German's strategy, or XYZ solver strategy, than I would have no way of saying yay or nay, but I would have no reason to doubt him. My only issue, and again it might be semantics, is to say he can exploit GTO.

I’m moderately conversant in Game theory. I have a math degree and a PhD in an applied math field that has given me some exposure. I have not studied the direct application of game theory in NLHE yet. I do know that GTO is a long ways from being realized, and calling the strategies that now is premature. If Polk and his camp were truely close to a gto solution to NLHE that would be one thing, but I don’t believe they are. Partly because I understand that that problem is computationally intractable currently. While Polk pushes towards a GTO solution on one path, Berkey seems to be pushing at the chinks of the armor along his path. The 2 camps will together push towards GTO, but saying that the Polk camp just finds a solution to a Berkey exploit may be possible, there is still a lot of lag between the typical 5/10 or 10/25 players and the state of the art. My goal is to move from 2/5 to 5/10 next year, and this is my first step.

I’m not saying Berkey can exploit GTO play. I’m saying the thing Polk calls GTO is far enough from optimal as to still be exploited. I think we’re on the same page here.

 

[BGinGA]

So..... should pot odds be calculated differently for tournament play, and if so, does that change over the course of the event?

 

[glom]

So..... should pot odds be calculated differently for tournament play, and if so, does that change over the course of the event?

I think yes. The value of the chips you’re winning are not full value. I think you need to calculate pot odds based on ICM value or some other chip utility model value, as each chip you win has lower value than the ones you already have, and as the tourney progresses this becomes more true not less.

 

[Poker Zombie]

So..... should pot odds be calculated differently for tournament play, and if so, does that change over the course of the event?

Absolutely. In a satellite where all payouts are the same, the pot odds are clearly different. If we can agree on that, then the steps in the pay structure must also be considered. To what level, I'll leave that to the mathematicians.