Jerrod Ankenman ([info]hgfalling) wrote,
@ 2005-10-03 23:11:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
FARGO highlights
--I won the no-limit tournament and BAAP. That's the fifth ARG tournament I've won. I wonder who has the most?
--I finished second in FIHUPT also, losing to a GIRL (Jodi -sp?) who seemed to play sufficiently well that I switched to my "difficult opponent" strategy. Headsup no-limit is lame btw. I have played a lot of it, too. I tried to get her to play headsup triple draw, or the 17-card Chinese game, but no dice.
--So Sabyl has been studying hard for the LSAT, and she took it on Saturday morning. A few weeks ago, some discussion erupted on the conference call about how Bill (and actually all of us) would do taking the LSAT cold, with no preparation. In any event, this developed into a bet, and Sabyl and Bill both took a practice LSAT test for three hours on Saturday night. Sabyl had been scoring in the 168-174 range (180 is the highest score). My line was Bill -1.5. Sabyl scored a 173. Bill, taking the test for the first time, without even really knowing what the format would be or what to expect, scored 176.
--Hung out a bunch with Matt Matros and Russell Rosenblum, with whom I enjoy talking a great deal.
--Busted out in less than an hour in the MET. 15 ante, 25 bringin, 50-100 stud is not a reasonable structure for the third limit of a tournament where you start with 1000 in chips.
--Came home on Sunday afternoon and had a great day, even though Matt didn't play. Bill and I and the mystery fourth man (if he doesn't mind being revealed, he can post so) all cashed in various tournaments for $2k plus, and the whole day was a success.

Now I'm off to California for my little brother's wedding.

(19 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]savemyskin
2005-10-04 03:55 am UTC (link)
Careful, she plays a mean game of triple draw too after watching me play a million hours on UB.

Nice to finally meet ya.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Triple Draw
(Anonymous)
2005-10-05 04:26 pm UTC (link)
Triple Draw was one of these things that was very profitable for a while and then quickly burnt out. I think a lot of the money you are going to make in your lifetime at poker is taking advantage of these times. You could make several bets per hour playing 30-60 triple draw with people who didn't really have a clue, but then the games dry up because the bad players bust quickly or learn.

A similar phenomenon were the 10-20 blind PLO games on a recent site. PLaying multiple games at once and putting in the hours, your expectation was probably 100K+ over a month or two. Now the games are still profitable but it wasn't like before where you could count on buying in for 2K and getting to put your chips in as a favorite most of the time.

Sure the games are still profitable afterward but the number of players has diminished and the players mostly have a clue. The problem is that I am too slow to realize the games are great, I don't put in too may hours during the run, and I keep playing them after the run is over.

I imiagine one could make a lot of money just waiting for those opportunities (looking around at various games) and putting in the hours when the games are hot.

Bill

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Triple Draw
[info]savemyskin
2005-10-05 04:47 pm UTC (link)
I definitely agree with you about these "runs," Bill, but the triple draw games are still quite profitable most nights up to the 80-160 level and sometimes higher. I wish I knew PLO well enough to play in those games. Something to work on.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Triple Draw
(Anonymous)
2005-10-05 07:24 pm UTC (link)
There's perhaps one 30-60 or 80-160 game going, and it's often 3-way or heads up with someone with a clue. In the old days there were multiple games going, with players who would raise on the turn and then draw 2...

Bill

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Triple Draw
[info]savemyskin
2005-10-05 09:53 pm UTC (link)
I guess I missed the triple draw run then. I've never witnessed the things you're talking about. Must have been great if it was that much better than the current situation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hotcookie42
2005-10-04 04:04 am UTC (link)
Very enjoyable match, even if I did have to play against a BOY. Thanks for spelling my name right and for giving me a modicum of credit as a "difficult opponent" in a "lame" game that no one should even bother playing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hgfalling
2005-10-04 04:08 am UTC (link)
The biggest difficulty in these things is that we'd have to play hundreds of matches before we could confidently assess how likely one or the other of us was to win within, say, 5%. And by that time, we'd probably both a) play better, b) be absolutely bored out of our minds.

Limit games just make for better headsup matches in my opinion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ftoc
2005-10-04 01:39 pm UTC (link)
Headsup no-limit is lame btw. I have played a lot of it, too

One thing that can make it more interesting is to deal out an even number of boards. This reduces the randomness and brevity of a properly played match. If you keep your stacks in front of you (rather than centering them) it's very quick and easy to deal two boards, and it is probably quite feasible to deal four boards. Heh, a match can still end quickly if you get your opponent all in on the river.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Effect
[info]walterzuey
2005-10-04 06:27 pm UTC (link)
Probably zero on correct strategy. All the chips not transferring instantly may make it less boring from the spectation angle. But the decisions would be exactly the same unless there is some subtle multi-board interplay that I've failed to grasp, but which I doubt exists. If we define a non-lame game as one where strategic complexity offers chance for interesting play, then chess, scrabble and go would qualify, but heads-up NLHE wouldn't, multiboards or no. In the heads-up poker domain, I'd offer that limit triple-draw and pot-limit 13-card triple draw make for interesting games. And, of course, multi-player games are infinitely more interesting, tho NLHE towards the end of the tournament with short stacks approaches headsupness. PL is much harder poker.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Effect
[info]ftoc
2005-10-04 09:54 pm UTC (link)
All the chips not transferring instantly may make it less boring from the spectation angle.

That's all I was aiming at.

FWIW, the EV of each individual play will not change; there is no subtle multi-board interplay. However, the variance changes (as intended), and this could result in motivation to adjust play depending on your assessment of your opponent's playing strength.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Effect
[info]prock
2005-10-05 05:37 pm UTC (link)
You are talking about a freezout right? In freezouts, the strategy is a fucntion of
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<ev,sd>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

You are talking about a freezout right? In freezouts, the strategy is a fucntion of <ev,sd> as opposed to ring games where the strategy is a fucntion of <ev>. So reduced variance should, in theory, affect your strategy. It may be that the variance change isn't enough to significantly affect your strategy though.

And, I'm often wrong about these sorts of things.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Effect
[info]ftoc
2005-10-05 06:34 pm UTC (link)
in freezouts, the strategy is a fucntion of (ev,sd) as opposed to ring games where the strategy is a fucntion of (ev).

Good point, worth expanding.

Let S2(blind schedule,time,stack) be your opponent's poker strategy for the current hand (as a function of the blind schedule, the current position in the blind schedule, and her stack). Let S2' be your inference about S2. Your maximally exploitive poker strategy for the current hand is then S1(blind schedule, time, stack, S2').

Now if your opponent's poker strategy on each hand is always optimal and you (correctly infer) this, then your strategy should also be to always play optimally, and the variance does not have any impact on your play (or hers).

However, if you infer (correctly or not) that your opponent's strategy is (sometimes, possibly) not optimal, then S1 will (strictly) depend on the variance (for example, as a function of the number of boards dealt), provided that the stacks are sufficiently deep.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Effect
(Anonymous)
2005-10-05 07:18 pm UTC (link)
This is hard, as it might not be probability of winning the freezeout you are maximizing either.

Suppose you are just going to play a series of freezeouts with the same or similarly skilled opponents, at the same limits. Then you can approximately treat the whole thing as a long ring game where you simply try to maximize your expectation on each hand, with the stipulation that you can only "settle" at various multiples of the buy-in.

Bill

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Effect
[info]awesomescampi
2005-10-08 01:52 am UTC (link)
I think the proper model for the strategy should include (ev,sd,n) where n is the number of expected of tournaments to be played. Intuitively it seems as n->inf, f(ev,sd) -> f(ev).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Effect
[info]hgfalling
2005-10-08 06:26 am UTC (link)
No, the reason that sd is included isn't because of the repeated play issue, but because of skill. If you want to model the repeated play game properly, you'll need to know whether and how the opponent will adapt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Effect
[info]awesomescampi
2005-10-08 09:32 pm UTC (link)
Lets say that your opponent does not adapt to repeated play. Should not the strategy change depend on whether you play one freezeout or a million? Or are you saying it does not matter but is only dependent on how adaptive the opponent is?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Effect
[info]hgfalling
2005-10-09 06:09 pm UTC (link)
If your opponent doesn't adapt to repeated play, you should play each match identically - maximally exploitively. If your opponent will adapt to repeated play in a perfect and instantaneous way, you should likely* play optimally. If your opponent will adapt to repeated play imperfectly, then you have to find some exploitive algorithm such that you maximize total exploitive value over the series of matches. Only in the last case do you need to know how many matches are to be played.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]allknight
2005-10-04 04:54 pm UTC (link)
Congrats on your strong Fargo finish you certainly have one of the best RGP overall records!!! I hope you enjoy your brother's wedding in CA too.

(Reply to this)

The Book
(Anonymous)
2005-10-10 12:56 pm UTC (link)
Any more news as to when we can expect the book to come out?

(Reply to this)

(19 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…