Jump to content


Would Love For Daniel To Discuss This Hand Of His


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 Andy Beal

Andy Beal

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 23 March 2006 - 02:32 PM

View PostVerdimme, on Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 9:51 AM, said:

Andy Beal is right. But can't anyone read the sticky about not posting your hands here? :club:
This is not a hand of mine. It is a hand of Daniel's.
Just call me THE BANKER.

#22 Phlatline

Phlatline

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 23 March 2006 - 06:56 PM

View PostAndy Beal, on Tuesday, March 21st, 2006, 6:08 PM, said:

I would ALWAYS run it twice as a 2:1 fav! :club: I don't see why (other than pure gambling reasons) someone would choose to run it more than once as a 2:1 dog.
First off, glad to see you posting here Andy!I have to agree with Andy, and Theory A looks correct.However, whether you are the fav or dog, variance is variance, and less of it is usually beneficial to both parties. In the long run, the EV will catch up anyway, so why not make the ride less bumpy?Phlat_________ :D

#23 Andy Beal

Andy Beal

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 23 March 2006 - 10:13 PM

View PostPhlatline, on Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 8:56 PM, said:

However, whether you are the fav or dog, variance is variance, and less of it is usually beneficial to both parties. In the long run, the EV will catch up anyway, so why not make the ride less bumpy?Phlat_________ :club:
Well one might turn around and argue that variance is the friend of the fav since reducing variance just makes higher probability events more "likely" to occur on this small set of trials.On the other hand, one might very well argue that if you are the dog, then you NEED variance to help your low probability event "occur" and therefore should want to just run it once.However, I think human nature takes over whether you are the dog or the fav: both want a better chance of losing less even if it means sacrificing some of their chance to win more. I talked more about this here (see the 3/22, 9:06 pm post of mine).
Just call me THE BANKER.

#24 hank213

hank213

    inventor of the tactical turtleneck..the tactilneck

  • Members
  • 9,498 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Danger Zone

Posted 24 March 2006 - 08:15 AM

View Postdavezz5, on Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006, 12:31 PM, said:

No you are making a mistake. Run three times winner takes all. Your not reading what i say, plus your making assumptions. I surrender..good luck
Winner takes all if he wins all three, so you are correct if I assume you left something out of your post. If I don't assume that you left something out of your post, then I know you're wrong.Just re-read what Andy wrote and grasp why he is correct.Good day.
Bloody Mary, full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen.

#25 Phlatline

Phlatline

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 24 March 2006 - 09:35 AM

View PostAndy Beal, on Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 10:13 PM, said:

Well one might turn around and argue that variance is the friend of the fav since reducing variance just makes higher probability events more "likely" to occur on this small set of trials.On the other hand, one might very well argue that if you are the dog, then you NEED variance to help your low probability event "occur" and therefore should want to just run it once.However, I think human nature takes over whether you are the dog or the fav: both want a better chance of losing less even if it means sacrificing some of their chance to win more. I talked more about this here (see the 3/22, 9:06 pm post of mine).
True, and I see your point. By the way, very nice theory post.I still maintain my original position. Variance is a two way street that really only comes into play in the short term. Bank roll determines the "ride" you may want to take.I agree with your first paragraph, with "small set of trials" being key here. However, in the second paragraph, I don't see how variance will help your low probibility event occur. Again, variance is a two way street. The positive swing will equal the negative swing and -EV will emerge in the end. Win less/lose less, or win more/lose more. Are you saying that when you are +EV you are willing to gamble less, and when you are -EV you are willing to gamble more? I think this is the true "human nature" of a poker player.I think the whole running it X times is probably more for pro's entertainment and bankroll security. Personally, whether I am + or - EV, I will take reduced variance any day of the week.Phlat_________ :club:

#26 Garn

Garn

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 24 March 2006 - 09:50 PM

i would run it twice as a 2:1 dog. I get to see 4 cards and only one of those has to be a face card for a split. if you get a face card on both runs then you take it down
Annoy a liberal - work hard and enjoy life

I can provide a woman with pretty much anything she needs... Sausage included

PS name: ATLien050

#27 bigesmalls

bigesmalls

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 01:10 PM

Alright, my first post might as well be a stupid question. I don't feel like doing the math so I'll ask one of you. If the deck is not reshuffled and it's a situation where someone is drawing to a one-outer doesn't that effect the EV since their is no possible way to scoop the pot?

#28 BuffDan

BuffDan

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 502 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 27 March 2006 - 02:44 PM

View Postbigesmalls, on Monday, March 27th, 2006, 1:10 PM, said:

Alright, my first post might as well be a stupid question. I don't feel like doing the math so I'll ask one of you. If the deck is not reshuffled and it's a situation where someone is drawing to a one-outer doesn't that effect the EV since their is no possible way to scoop the pot?
Inuitively it would seem so, but what was proven in the thread:http://www.fullconta...showtopic=54819that in all situations, even without shuffling, the EV is always the same whether it is run once, twice or even n times. Ah, the power of proof.
"A triangle with four points is what Euclid rides into hell"

#29 Andy Beal

Andy Beal

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 02:48 PM

View Postbigesmalls, on Monday, March 27th, 2006, 3:10 PM, said:

Alright, my first post might as well be a stupid question. I don't feel like doing the math so I'll ask one of you. If the deck is not reshuffled and it's a situation where someone is drawing to a one-outer doesn't that effect the EV since their is no possible way to scoop the pot?
But, if you actually do the calculations, you will find the EVs are the same even with only 1 out. Might be counterintuitive, but true nonetheless.My calculations showEV(once)=.089W-1.91LEV(twice)=.089W-1.91LHere I have assumed 45 unknown cards and 1 out. W is the amount won per run, L the amount lost per run. (Treat running it once as running it twice but act like the same cards that fell the first time fell the second time.)
Just call me THE BANKER.

#30 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 12:23 AM

Quote

However, I think human nature takes over whether you are the dog or the fav: both want a better chance of losing less even if it means sacrificing some of their chance to win more. I talked more about this here (see the 3/22, 9:06 pm post of mine).
Not necessarily.I think what you're getting at is the notion of convex preferences. Thing is - they're addicted gamblers (they arent 'problem' gamblers until they start losing :club:) - they enjoy gambling for the sake of gambling. While each dollar is of diminishing marginal value in and of itself (implying they ought to prefer averages to extremes), the bet itself isnt significant relative to their overall wealth (at least int he case of daniel). There is some marginal net loss, but when you're operating so far along your marginal utility curve, it's pretty inconsequential. If it's not entirely clear, i can draw out a pretty diagram in paint. If joe blow sat at the table with his life savings, he would clearly prefer the hand be run more than once. In fact, he'd probably want it run an infinite times - or in other words, that he be paid precisely his expected value. Why? Because he prefers averages to extremes, because the marginal value of each dollar declines. The first $10,000 is more valuable than the next, which is more valuable than the next. And so on - but this fall off comes at a declining rate. Even if he LOVES gambling, he's not willing to screw up his life that much to get some action. But if he was a billionaire, he'd be so close to indifferent to the risk involved that, if he enjoyed gambling at all, he wouldnt care about running it multiple times.More significant for "the pro's" is the joy they get from gambling. For whatever reason, they get off on having their money arbitrarily redistributed between each other. Mmmm... arbitrary redistribution.

#31 NoSup4U

NoSup4U

    Making Poppinfresh look like a nit

  • Members
  • 10,674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Favorite Poker Game:Shorthanded NLHE

Posted 28 March 2006 - 08:49 AM

Hate to say it Davezz5, but Andy is correct. I understand that it seems a bit illogical because you are looking at it from the perspective of having more 'chances' to hit your outs. But trust us, the math works out even.And if you don't believe that, think of it from the favorites standpoint. Why would any player give you more chances to catch your outs if it was going to cost him money in the long run? Winning over time is why we play poker in the first place.Mark

#32 Andy Beal

Andy Beal

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 12:28 PM

View PostAbbaddabba, on Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 2:23 AM, said:

Not necessarily.I think what you're getting at is the notion of convex preferences. Thing is - they're addicted gamblers (they arent 'problem' gamblers until they start losing :club:) - they enjoy gambling for the sake of gambling. While each dollar is of diminishing marginal value in and of itself (implying they ought to prefer averages to extremes), the bet itself isnt significant relative to their overall wealth (at least int he case of daniel). There is some marginal net loss, but when you're operating so far along your marginal utility curve, it's pretty inconsequential. If it's not entirely clear, i can draw out a pretty diagram in paint. If joe blow sat at the table with his life savings, he would clearly prefer the hand be run more than once. In fact, he'd probably want it run an infinite times - or in other words, that he be paid precisely his expected value. Why? Because he prefers averages to extremes, because the marginal value of each dollar declines. The first $10,000 is more valuable than the next, which is more valuable than the next. And so on - but this fall off comes at a declining rate. Even if he LOVES gambling, he's not willing to screw up his life that much to get some action. But if he was a billionaire, he'd be so close to indifferent to the risk involved that, if he enjoyed gambling at all, he wouldnt care about running it multiple times.More significant for "the pro's" is the joy they get from gambling. For whatever reason, they get off on having their money arbitrarily redistributed between each other. Mmmm... arbitrary redistribution.
I'm not sure what your point was, but the math says running once, twice, 3 times, or thru the deck all have the same EV. Period. It is a mathematical fact that whether one understands it or not or believes it or not is just as true as the Laws of Thermodynamics or gravitation. Similarly, the math indisputably says that the variance is lowered each run. There can be speculation on whether a certain player would want fixed EV with higher or lower variance when he is the dog/fav, but those are probably personal preferences based on many factors.In a nutshell, the amounts of money these guys are playing for ARE meaningful (even to them). If they were not, they would increase the stakes until they were because the game wouldn't be much fun otherwise.

View PostNoSup4U, on Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

Hate to say it Davezz5, but Andy is correct. I understand that it seems a bit illogical because you are looking at it from the perspective of having more 'chances' to hit your outs. But trust us, the math works out even.And if you don't believe that, think of it from the favorites standpoint. Why would any player give you more chances to catch your outs if it was going to cost him money in the long run? Winning over time is why we play poker in the first place.Mark
Exactly.
Just call me THE BANKER.

#33 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 08:18 PM

View PostAndy Beal, on Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 12:28 PM, said:

I'm not sure what your point was, but the math says running once, twice, 3 times, or thru the deck all have the same EV. Period. It is a mathematical fact that whether one understands it or not or believes it or not is just as true as the Laws of Thermodynamics or gravitation. Similarly, the math indisputably says that the variance is lowered each run. There can be speculation on whether a certain player would want fixed EV with higher or lower variance when he is the dog/fav, but those are probably personal preferences based on many factors.In a nutshell, the amounts of money these guys are playing for ARE meaningful (even to them). If they were not, they would increase the stakes until they were because the game wouldn't be much fun otherwise.Exactly.
Huh?What did you mean by,"However, I think human nature takes over whether you are the dog or the fav: both want a better chance of losing less even if it means sacrificing some of their chance to win more. I talked more about this here (see the 3/22, 9:06 pm post of mine).?That's what i was responding to.

#34 Andy Beal

Andy Beal

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 10:13 PM

View PostAbbaddabba, on Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 10:18 PM, said:

Huh?What did you mean by,"However, I think human nature takes over whether you are the dog or the fav: both want a better chance of losing less even if it means sacrificing some of their chance to win more. I talked more about this here (see the 3/22, 9:06 pm post of mine).?That's what i was responding to.
After a lot of words in your post (convex preferences, etc.) you say that the pros run it twice "because of their love of gambling". Running it twice reduces variance and builds a hedge against losing the most. That doesn't sound like someone "gambling for the fun of it"---quite the opposite. It sounds to me like someone who is trying to minimize his loses. And that's all I was saying in the first place.
Just call me THE BANKER.

#35 canadianyanke

canadianyanke

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 82 posts
  • Location:Nipigon, Ontario Canada

Posted 29 March 2006 - 01:41 AM

I didnt read all of the posts but when they ask to run it twice it means if they win 1 out of 2 they split the pot, if they win both they get the full pot.

#36 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 29 March 2006 - 01:57 AM

Quote

After a lot of words in your post (convex preferences, etc.) you say that the pros run it twice "because of their love of gambling". Running it twice reduces variance and builds a hedge against losing the most. That doesn't sound like someone "gambling for the fun of it"---quite the opposite. It sounds to me like someone who is trying to minimize his loses. And that's all I was saying in the first place.
I said the exact opposite.I said joe blow would prefer it be run an infinite number of times. Joe blow is no pro. He's an example of a poor shlub who, for whatever reason, got involved in a high stakes game of poker and was faced with the decision being discussed.Pro's (or at least a good portion of them) probably wouldnt care, and would just wnat to run it once if it was for a negligable amount relative to what they have. Either to save time, to save face and not be seen as 'scared', or because they genuinely enjoy gambling.... a hobby that, for many, is what drew them to playing cards in the first place.

#37 Andy Beal

Andy Beal

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 29 March 2006 - 10:34 AM

View PostAbbaddabba, on Wednesday, March 29th, 2006, 3:57 AM, said:

Pro's (or at least a good portion of them) probably wouldnt care, and would just wnat to run it once if it was for a negligable amount relative to what they have.
Hard to follow your logic or point here since the very first post in this whole thread is about two pros that chose to run it twice.
Just call me THE BANKER.

#38 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 29 March 2006 - 11:10 AM

Clearly it wasnt negligable to them.I was responding to the statement i quoted, not the original post.Nevermind.

#39 Phlatline

Phlatline

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 67 posts
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 30 March 2006 - 01:22 PM

View PostPhlatline, on Friday, March 24th, 2006, 9:35 AM, said:

True, and I see your point. By the way, very nice theory post.I still maintain my original position. Variance is a two way street that really only comes into play in the short term. Bank roll determines the "ride" you may want to take.I agree with your first paragraph, with "small set of trials" being key here. However, in the second paragraph, I don't see how variance will help your low probibility event occur. Again, variance is a two way street. The positive swing will equal the negative swing and -EV will emerge in the end. Win less/lose less, or win more/lose more. Are you saying that when you are +EV you are willing to gamble less, and when you are -EV you are willing to gamble more? I think this is the true "human nature" of a poker player.I think the whole running it X times is probably more for pro's entertainment and bankroll security. Personally, whether I am + or - EV, I will take reduced variance any day of the week.Phlat_________ :club:
Sorry to be redundant and quote myself but I would really like to hear Andy's thoughts on this.Andy, it sounds like you are saying it is more advantageous for a player with a -EV hand to run it multiple times. I still fail to see how this is true. Advantage is measured in terms of EV. Variance is measured in terms of trials. As you know, running it many times decreases variance, and running it fewer times increases variance. In no way does the Variance/Trials outcome have any effect on the Advantage/EV. Bankroll management and entertainment value are the only considerations when it comes to running it N times.I think Abbaddabba was only stating why some people would choose less/more variance by running it once/multiple time(s). ie. someone with life savings on the line wants less variance, whereas a seasoned pro could live with more variance. A dollar means more to some than others. But this does not change our EV/Variance debate.Andy, I think you have fallen into the gamble more to catch up when -EV and preserve bankroll mode when +EV mindset. I honestly don't think there is any tactical advantage there.Phlat___________ :DPS. LOL, this is too funny. "Joe blow is no pro."

#40 Andy Beal

Andy Beal

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 30 March 2006 - 04:45 PM

View PostPhlatline, on Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 3:22 PM, said:

Andy, it sounds like you are saying it is more advantageous for a player with a -EV hand to run it multiple times. I still fail to see how this is true.
I can see how you might infer that but let's be careful here: I offered a conjecture on why I thought a dog might want to run it twice, not a statement that running it twice is advantageous for the dog. The reason I belabor this last statement especially is because the math clearly says that it is really neither advantageous or disadvantageous---the EV's are equal whether you run it once or more. If you are an 11:1 dog, your opponent is most likely gonna scoop the whole thing if you run it once or twice or N times. On the other hand if the pot is $250K+ like on High Stakes Poker on GSN and Esfandiari turns over AA while Elezra turns over JJ, Elezra may very well choose to run it twice to give him a better chance at losing less. It just depends on the risk/reward characteristics of the individual players involved I think. Similarly if you and I are playing for a ton of money and you turn over AK to my QQ we might (implicitly) decide to "call it a tie" for all that money by running it twice since the chances are very good that we will split.

View PostPhlatline, on Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 3:22 PM, said:

Andy, I think you have fallen into the gamble more to catch up when -EV and preserve bankroll mode when +EV mindset. I honestly don't think there is any tactical advantage there.
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I made any assertions in this direction. Because if I did, I would have implored the dog never to run it twice since it is much more difficult to strike the big payday a gambler would seek!
Just call me THE BANKER.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users