The Backwards learning theory of poker

EDIT: link fixed

Hi all,

I mostly post in the short handed forum. You may know me from abstract blog posts. You may know me as the guy who I can never make any sense out of.

This concerns me. There is no reason why a new player shouldn't be able to understand the content of my writing. But many of them don't, even though my writing could be 10,000% more beneficial to your game than any single piece of advice.

The knowledge I write can easily be dismissed under the guise of "Advanced Strategy." This issue is that this isn't advanced strategy at all. It is moreso the simplest and the most encompassing concepts in poker, and by knowing them you can unlock, all by yourself, the secrets of poker profit.

Yet many still don't understand. There are a few reasons for this. One is your learning philosophy. This concept I like to call the backwards learning theory of poker. It's the idea that people think that they first need to learn the facts before the theory. In economics, this is like a teacher telling you to memorize 100 economics terms without telling you their actual meaning. But if he actually explained how economics worked, and the concepts behind these ideas, you could learn these terms without memorization. Same with poker. People think that they need to learn whether to raise AA preflop UTG before they learn how to form a range, because forming a range is an advanced concept and a decision is a simple concept. This is backwards. Decisions are built on a plethora of concepts, and without knowing these concepts, you cannot come to a correct decision. Furthermore, when you are told an incorrect decision, you have no ability to correct your error nor do you have the ability to learn about different decisions based on that decision. It is likely then, that a player would be better of leaning how to beat an 1000NL game before he learns how to beat a 2nl game.

I have wrote this same rant in my blog in different words: http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...sf-theorem-249

Below is a post that talks about one of the most fundamental concepts in poker.

http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/show...fpart=all&vc=1

Read it as long as it takes to understand it.

Now think.

-Danny Steinberg

2nd link appears not to be working. BTW, nice new avatar. I check all your posts now!

Edit: nice post.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

... even though my writing could be 10,000% more beneficial to your game than any single piece of advice.....

The knowledge I write .....

Mr Modesty. Sure you write some good/insightful stuff, that will help beginners/intermediate players, but no need to get a self inflated opinion of yourself. I'd probably read more of your posts if you didn't come across as such a douche.

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything - but can you see where I'm coming from? I'll probably get everyone jumping on my back now, but hey w/e

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

This concept I like to call the backwards learning theory of poker. It's the idea that people think that they first need to learn the facts before the theory. In economics, this is like a teacher telling you to memorize 100 economics terms without telling you their actual meaning. But if he actually explained how economics worked, and the concepts behind these ideas, you could learn these terms without memorization. Same with poker. People think that they need to learn whether to raise AA preflop UTG before they learn how to form a range, because forming a range is an advanced concept and a decision is a simple concept. This is backwards. Decisions are built on a plethora of concepts, and without knowing these concepts, you cannot come to a correct decision. Furthermore, when you are told an incorrect decision, you have no ability to correct your error nor do you have the ability to learn about different decisions based on that decision. It is likely then, that a player would be better of leaning how to beat an 1000NL game before he learns how to beat a 2nl game.

This however is all good stuff!

Originally Posted by PokerMuzz

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

... even though my writing could be 10,000% more beneficial to your game than any single piece of advice.....

The knowledge I write .....

Mr Modesty. Sure you write some good/insightful stuff, that will help beginners/intermediate players, but no need to get a self inflated opinion of yourself. I'd probably read more of your posts if you didn't come across as such a douche.

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything - but can you see where I'm coming from? I'll probably get everyone jumping on my back now, but hey w/e

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

This concept I like to call the backwards learning theory of poker. It's the idea that people think that they first need to learn the facts before the theory. In economics, this is like a teacher telling you to memorize 100 economics terms without telling you their actual meaning. But if he actually explained how economics worked, and the concepts behind these ideas, you could learn these terms without memorization. Same with poker. People think that they need to learn whether to raise AA preflop UTG before they learn how to form a range, because forming a range is an advanced concept and a decision is a simple concept. This is backwards. Decisions are built on a plethora of concepts, and without knowing these concepts, you cannot come to a correct decision. Furthermore, when you are told an incorrect decision, you have no ability to correct your error nor do you have the ability to learn about different decisions based on that decision. It is likely then, that a player would be better of leaning how to beat an 1000NL game before he learns how to beat a 2nl game.

This however is all good stuff!

ISF, I will get round to digesting your blog sometime this week.

PokerMuzz, ISF's gonna be at 25/50 by the end of the year; he's basically an HSNLer waiting for his BR to catch up.

good stuff Danny... I'll be giving it thought for sure

Nothing like helping yourself by calling someone a douche when they have no vested interest in trying to help you but do anyway. The guy has no reason to give advice except to give back to the same community that helped him and that's how you want to respond? I guess you no longer need the help, good luck with that. I for one, will accept anything ISF and other high stakes FTR'rs are willing to give.

Hmmm wow I didn't realize that what I said came off douchey at all. If I did I'm sorry. I think my advice is much worse than the advice of better players like sauce and gabe. What I meant to say was the concepts you could learn by reading about high stakes play is 1000000000000 times better than someone giving you a tip.

I'll make sure the link is fixed.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Hmmm wow I didn't realize that what I said came off douchey at all.

It didn't.

Originally Posted by swiggidy

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Hmmm wow I didn't realize that what I said came off douchey at all.

It didn't.

I'm the douche

Originally Posted by swiggidy

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Hmmm wow I didn't realize that what I said came off douchey at all.

It didn't.

lol agreed

I thought it seemed pretty douche'ee the first time I went through it. But then I re-read the part I didn't like and realized you referred to allllll of your advice being 100000000000% better than any single piece of advice.

At first I thought it said that anya dvice you give is 10000000000% better than any other piece of advice.


But even if you did say that I would just smile and nod and keep reading lol
I still have trouble following some of the theories and such, but I'm getting better.

Good post.

The problem isn´t that your advice is bad or "too advanced", but that 99% of online poker community is used to get advice spoonfed. Here´s the chance to get the spoon and feed yourself peoples, so take it.

thanks. your stuff is normally challenging, being challenged makes me think, thinking deeply about poker makes me understand it better, understanding poker better is a good thing.
at the moment i'm thinking too infrequently cos i'm spending time playing instead. that will change in may. looking forward to re-reading/studying a bunch of posts here.

also, i read the shania chain once in a while to remind me that poker is closer to abstract than starting hand charts...
oh, i also stopped min-raising so often

one more thing. when i first read isf theorem i thought 'so what?' then i started to learn. i thought 'so what does this mean?' now i'm addressing 'how do i apply what this means to improve my game?' the new and improved version looks good.

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Good post.

The problem isn´t that your advice is bad or "too advanced", but that 99% of online poker community is used to get advice spoonfed. Here´s the chance to get the spoon and feed yourself peoples, so take it.

Does getting spoonfed mean giving me a blowjob?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Back on topic now, stop being lazy fuckers.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Does getting spoonfed mean giving me a blowjob?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

lol nh

Originally Posted by daven

one more thing. when i first read isf theorem i thought 'so what?'

Well that's slightly different to my reaction when learning it which was busting a nut.

lol good to hear your coming along.

I like your posts nearly as much as your avatar.

I was thinking about this overnight. I think perhaps that for us low stakes guys, rather than thinking "That doesnt apply at my level", we should be thinking "How can I apply that at my level?". Theres a difference between playing like a high stakes player, and using the same concepts as a high stakes player but applying them to a low stakes game.

Not always as easy done as said, but just spending time thinking about these things could improve your lowstakes game as well as preparing you for higher stakes.

is there a place where i can find "the best of isf's posts and thoughts on poker"?

links please?

Originally Posted by bjsaust

I was thinking about this overnight. I think perhaps that for us low stakes guys, rather than thinking "That doesnt apply at my level", we should be thinking "How can I apply that at my level?". Theres a difference between playing like a high stakes player, and using the same concepts as a high stakes player but applying them to a low stakes game.

Not always as easy done as said, but just spending time thinking about these things could improve your lowstakes game as well as preparing you for higher stakes.

I agree. I have often sat there looking at one of ISF's terse replies about a HH thinking, WTF?? After a few minutes of thought, I'm generally able to follow the breadcrumbs to a conclusion. If he's commenting on a NL200 hand, it doesn't often directly translate into how I should play NL10. But it has never failed to help my game (and how I think about it) when I took the time to follow his logic.

Maybe it's arrogant of me, a near-noobie microstakes (winning!) donk to do this. But I have a ranking system for frequent FTR contributors that goes something like this:

1. Ignore
2. Skim
3. Read 1st paragraph thoroughly; if coherent, continue
4. Read thoroughly every time, and
5. Read thoroughly every time and think about post for a few minutes

LoL. I'm not divulging who I put in which categories. Suffice it to say ISF has been in category #5 since December, and I only got active in FTR forums in October. I would read every post from a douche (ISF's definitely not one) if he consistently gave good advice.

Check ISFs full blog out Flomo.

Robb, you will find sooner or later that FTR becomes a #1, #4 and #5. with #1 absorbing more and more posters. It gets worse when they all change avatars for the beginning of the month, because now you get sucked in to rereading the garbage.

I've now read the ISF theory posts and the Shania post. Good shit on the ISF theory.

I'm totally with you (ISF) that learning theory is wayyy wayyyy wayyy better than memorizing tips, guideline, charts, whatever.

However, I will say this:
I understand the Shania post (i believe). I appreciate it. It's pretty, like mommy. But also like mommy, quite elusive, distant. I've thought about it quite a bit (in the 20 minutes since reading it), and I feel I have no idea how to apply it to my game, or anyone else's game for that matter. At least in a way that's not open experimentation. Understanding that ranges affect the individual values of the hands contained within them and that adjusting ranges as a whole affects potential profits is one thing. Determining an ideal range to play for any given situation while sitting at a poker table is quite another. While I can do the latter to some extent based off of experience and what I know of the ranges of my opps, anyone who could explain more concretely how to apply this theory would have my undying gratitude. I'm sort of left wondering if I'm not good enough to apply it, if applying it is a long and hazy process involving experimentation + skill + experience and even then cannot be perfected, or if I simply don't fully understand the theory.

I do appreciate it though.

More on-topic, I don't know what problem people had with the ISF theory or any advice I've seen you post, as it's been insightful and helpful, and you haven't even been stingy with helping people apply your theory. Perhaps microstakes ranges are so big/unpredictable that it didn't even occur to some newbs that thinking in terms of ranges is helpful (I don't know -- I don't play online). Perhaps they simply didn't understand it at all. Perhaps people don't like theory, as you say.... Eh, screw em - plenty of us newbsy guys want more intelligent theory. Um, please.

Also, I aspire to someday be a #3 in Robb's hierarchy of posters. This would mean that my posts are sometimes read fully, but also that I can get drunk and rant violently about my wife to pokerhead strangers who generally put up with it because they're nice.

I dont think you determine ideal ranges sitting at the table cowboy, instead you work on your ranges away from the table and somewhat use the appropriate predetermined range to suit the situation.

well, i guess i will contribute a #1-type post here...lol.

i can see where Muzz is coming from.

but...

i, personally, believe that if Danny is arrogant, so be it. he's certainly deserved it. when i started here at FTR, i dont think ISF was much more experienced than i was. however, one has shot up with meteoric speed, compared to me. hmmmm, we are both arrogant. we can both come across as douchebags, yet one is CLEARLY a better thinker than the other. (i'll let y'all decide who is who) so, i'll take whatever bone ISF decides to toss my way. and, douche or not, i will try and absorb it the best i can.

that said, Danny, i think your frustration with some of us not being "able to absorb" your writing resides in HOW we think. i tend to memorize everything. it has been easier, in life, to do so. i just think that way...naturally. is it right? probably not. i have an autistic son (who is 6 now), and i can tell you first-hand that the "apple doesnt fall far from the tree." you can trace it right up to MY father. my son will never read "phonetically." he will always memorize letter combinations...and never understand that the words MEAN something. that "drill" where you can jumble up the letters in a word, but as long as you keep the first and last letter in the correct place, you can still read just as fast? my son is the only person i know that cant even attempt it. hasnt a clue what those words are. never will.

point is: most people simply THINK differently than you do. hmmmm, perhaps that is why you have shot up faster. perhaps work ethic. perhaps talent. i, for one, will give you all three. but, it doesnt change the way a brain thinks. take all the $$ in the world and divide it equally among every person...and in a year, or faster, the same 3% will have all the money right back in their pockets. why? they think differently. period.

the nice part is, unlike my son (unfortunately, so far), the rest of us SHOULD be able to recognize we dont think like you. and, we SHOULD work like a dog to absorb what you put on paper.

i, for one, am doing so...hard as it may be. and, will continue to do so. i can only hope that Muzz, and others thinking the same things, will do so, too.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

stop being lazy fuckers.

This is the whole problem.
It takes a lot more work to fully understand theory, than it does to memerize a list of rules.
BUT once you do, you have a huge advantage over everyone else.
Or so i would think, i dont get it at all...lol

Thanks for the info though.
The time and effort you put into it is appreciated.
Hopefully one day i will understand it.

Originally Posted by bjsaust

I dont think you determine ideal ranges sitting at the table cowboy, instead you work on your ranges away from the table and somewhat use the appropriate predetermined range to suit the situation.

I'm not sure I understand. How do you work on your ranges away from the table? Maybe I'm not thinking about this correctly?

Example of my thinking -- *Note: I play live rather than online* If I sit at a table and find that it's very loose, many players seeing the flop, i might open raise from EP/UTG with JJ+, AK and fold everything else. Likewise, if i sit and the table texture is excessively, ridiculously nitty, I might open raise any pp, AJs, KQs, AQ, AK and some lower scs and random crap for the hell of it from EP/UTG. And for all the games in between, my preflop ranges for EP play would be ideal somewhere in between. (We could even imagine a table full of legendary loose passives with deep stacks who will never ever bet but will call any bet made regardless of bet size or their holdings, in which case it would be ideal to limp ATC from any position preflop.)

The point is that in my understanding, your opponents (as well as your image established thus far) determines the range you should be playing. I recognize that this is problematic in that determining an ideal range for a situation is difficult and inexact. Also fairly unscientific if it's done in after sitting down.

But how do you work on your ranges ahead of time? Does it involve the HUD you online guys have on your opps (you determine roughly an opp's range from his vpip, pfr, aggro factor and thus determine what range beats him, playing to exploit the ranges of individual players situationally, sorta combining data on multiple opps to optimize your range in situations in which you have little information-- in other words when you're oop)? Am i still off base?

Not trying to argue, just don't understand quite how your bring your ranges to the table with you.

I would imagine he means to sit down and determine optimal ranges for different situations that are likely to occur, and that way you don't have to try and work out what range you should be playing once you have recognized the situation because you have determined that ahead of time.

Ok, that does make sense. Thanks.

Any tips on how to move from Shania theory to figuring out an ideal range for a probable situation in advance?

Originally Posted by flomo

is there a place where i can find "the best of isf's posts and thoughts on poker"?

links please?

search function and his blog

Originally Posted by robb

Maybe it's arrogant of me, a near-noobie microstakes (winning!) donk to do this. But I have a ranking system for frequent FTR contributors

why arrogant? wonder how it will evolve over time as a) you learn b) we learn....

Originally Posted by Chopper

well, i guess i will contribute a #1-type post here...lol.

i can see where Muzz is coming from.

but...

i, personally, believe that if Danny is arrogant, so be it. he's certainly deserved it. when i started here at FTR, i dont think ISF was much more experienced than i was. however, one has shot up with meteoric speed, compared to me. hmmmm, we are both arrogant. we can both come across as douchebags, yet one is CLEARLY a better thinker than the other. (i'll let y'all decide who is who) so, i'll take whatever bone ISF decides to toss my way. and, douche or not, i will try and absorb it the best i can.

that said, Danny, i think your frustration with some of us not being "able to absorb" your writing resides in HOW we think. i tend to memorize everything. it has been easier, in life, to do so. i just think that way...naturally. is it right? probably not. i have an autistic son (who is 6 now), and i can tell you first-hand that the "apple doesnt fall far from the tree." you can trace it right up to MY father. my son will never read "phonetically." he will always memorize letter combinations...and never understand that the words MEAN something. that "drill" where you can jumble up the letters in a word, but as long as you keep the first and last letter in the correct place, you can still read just as fast? my son is the only person i know that cant even attempt it. hasnt a clue what those words are. never will.

point is: most people simply THINK differently than you do. hmmmm, perhaps that is why you have shot up faster. perhaps work ethic. perhaps talent. i, for one, will give you all three. but, it doesnt change the way a brain thinks. take all the $$ in the world and divide it equally among every person...and in a year, or faster, the same 3% will have all the money right back in their pockets. why? they think differently. period.

the nice part is, unlike my son (unfortunately, so far), the rest of us SHOULD be able to recognize we dont think like you. and, we SHOULD work like a dog to absorb what you put on paper.

i, for one, am doing so...hard as it may be. and, will continue to do so. i can only hope that Muzz, and others thinking the same things, will do so, too.

The logic that understanding concepts is better than memorization isn't my personal idea. I divulged that idea from great people before me, but there is no doubt in my mind its true. I struggle to see that some people have no ability to understand concepts, but it may be true, but I doubt it. If people have some sort of mental disability, than what can I do?

Memorization is the most inefficient process possible in learning. Think about it. Let's say you come to my school cafeteria and I tell you that you shouldn't eat the pizza, because it will make you sick. However, you can divulge no information from this fact. I well know there are other foods that will make you sick, but you cannot possibly know them by just knowing that the pizza will. Lets say I go a step further and tell you that the stir friend rice, chicken, tater tots, fries, turkey burgers, and hash browns will all make you sick. This is learning by memorization. Still, there is no further information you can extract from this knowledge.

But what if I told you that all the greasy foods at the cafeteria will make you sick? Well you can extract tons of knowledge from that. Not only will you know that the pizza, the stir friend rice, chicken, tater tots, fries, turkey burgers, and hash browns will all make you sick, you also know that whenever you see any other greasy food that it will also make you sick. This is learning through concepts. Yes, you may have realized that the concept thread through all the foods mentioned were that they were greasy. I don't have a problem with that, but in poker it's not as obvious.

And think of it this way, In the food concept example we simply went one level up. We went from an item to a category, and look how much knowledge we extracted? Now imagine going 8 or 10 levels up, imagine the plethora of knowledge waiting for you there! Shania may be the most fundamental poker concept, and ISF theorem may not be as far up, but probably just a few levels below that. There is so much you can learn from both, but there is absolutely nothing you can learn by me telling you the exact decision you need to make on any given hand.

dont get me wrong, i was not saying that memorizing was better. i was saying that some people, naturally being the operative word, learn that way.

and, retraining the brain, no matter how necessary, is difficult to impossible...depending on the person.

i understand you are trying to lead a horse to water, but sometimes you are dealing with jackasses. thats all i meant.

isf
please tell me bacon is OK and will not make me sick

i was .. ...... never mind the rest won't get it

Originally Posted by cowboyardee

Ok, that does make sense. Thanks.

Any tips on how to move from Shania theory to figuring out an ideal range for a probable situation in advance?

Shania really doesn't tell you how to form ideal ranges, ISF theorem does. One thing Shania tells you that every hand can make a profit in two ways.

1. On its own.
2. How it affects other hands you play similarly or the same.

I don't want to ruin the integrity of the post. Shania means much more than this, but I want you to understand at least a facet of it.

So how do we use this knowledge to our advantage?

Here are two applications:

1. Well Shania tells us that when we bluff, most every other hand we play will now be slightly more profitable. As the way we play a certain hand comes closer to the way we play a bluff, the profitability of that certain hand tends to increase more and more. I remember back when I sucked in my 100nl days, I'd bluff nearly every hand. BUT somehow, I maintained a 2ptBB/100 winrate. How is this possible? I'm not lying, I did bluff nearly every hand I played. Shania gives us the answer.

2. This is an odd one. Playing strong hands actually makes most every other hand we play slightly less profitable. As the way we play a certain hand comes closer to the way we play a strong hand, the profitability of that certain hand tends to decrease more and more. This same process likely increases the profitability of our bluffs, but that independent of the value of the hand.

Originally Posted by Chopper

dont get me wrong, i was not saying that memorizing was better. i was saying that some people, naturally being the operative word, learn that way.

and, retraining the brain, no matter how necessary, is difficult to impossible...depending on the person.

i understand you are trying to lead a horse to water, but sometimes you are dealing with jackasses. thats all i meant.

I have the ignorant hope that everyone has the potential.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Chopper

dont get me wrong, i was not saying that memorizing was better. i was saying that some people, naturally being the operative word, learn that way.

and, retraining the brain, no matter how necessary, is difficult to impossible...depending on the person.

i understand you are trying to lead a horse to water, but sometimes you are dealing with jackasses. thats all i meant.

I have the ignorant hope that everyone has the potential.

i hope you have alot of ignorant hope because i'm coming to school

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I remember back when I sucked in my 100nl days, I'd bluff nearly every hand. BUT somehow, I maintained a 2ptBB/100 winrate. How is this possible? I'm not lying, I did bluff nearly every hand I played. Shania gives us the answer.

"But max i played well you just go on 15 buyin downswings sometimes!"

I struggle to see that some people have no ability to understand concepts, but it may be true, but I doubt it. If people have some sort of mental disability, than what can I do?

Not everybody is a genius like you.

In all seriousness though, one type of genius is one that IS able to conceive and understand abstract concepts much more easily than the average human being. Einstein and Mozart, for example. Clearly, the opposite of genius is possible in this regard.

Originally Posted by eugmac

I struggle to see that some people have no ability to understand concepts, but it may be true, but I doubt it. If people have some sort of mental disability, than what can I do?

Not everybody is a genius like you.

In all seriousness though, one type of genius is one that IS able to conceive and understand abstract concepts much more easily than the average human being. Einstein and Mozart, for example. Clearly, the opposite of genius is possible in this regard.

All concepts for all things are abstract in some degree, and unless you seriously have some sort of disability, you are more than capable of working through most of them. (Note this is the collective you, not you personally.)

I think your own reply was a function of fear and/or laziness. I say fear because one reaction the ego has when it approaches something that might be difficult is to come up with reasons why you will fail before you even attempt whatever it is so that you don't feel so much pain if you fail (procrastination works similarly). I say laziness for obvious reasons, although you certainly might not be.

So I finally got around to reading that Shania post/thread and think about it a little bit and like holy shit wtf did you just do to my brain? That post/thread made soooooo much stuff I know/feel about poker just *click* or whatever. Tyvm for exposing me to this.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by eugmac

I struggle to see that some people have no ability to understand concepts, but it may be true, but I doubt it. If people have some sort of mental disability, than what can I do?

Not everybody is a genius like you.

In all seriousness though, one type of genius is one that IS able to conceive and understand abstract concepts much more easily than the average human being. Einstein and Mozart, for example. Clearly, the opposite of genius is possible in this regard.

All concepts for all things are abstract in some degree, and unless you seriously have some sort of disability, you are more than capable of working through most of them. (Note this is the collective you, not you personally.)

I think your own reply was a function of fear and/or laziness. I say fear because one reaction the ego has when it approaches something that might be difficult is to come up with reasons why you will fail before you even attempt whatever it is so that you don't feel so much pain if you fail (procrastination works similarly). I say laziness for obvious reasons, although you certainly might not be.

No, I totally agree with the spirit of the OP. I personally am the type that needs to understand the basic underlying concepts before I can feel comfortable actually DOING something (like making poker decisions). I.e. I see myself as a thinker more than a doer. This at the same time makes me the type that is very slow to make decisions ('cause I'm thinking about it for too damn long, duh).

Many people can drive a car, and can drive it pretty well, but can also be happily oblivious to how an automobile engine works, etc. You can bet though, that any Formula-1 racer knows and understands all the bits and pieces of his car like the back of his hand.

Wow I have to say the Shania post opened my eyes. Thanks for posting it

Originally Posted by eugmac

Many people can drive a car, and can drive it pretty well, but can also be happily oblivious to how an automobile engine works, etc. You can bet though, that any Formula-1 racer knows and understands all the bits and pieces of his car like the back of his hand.

You may have a point but this example is very poor. Understanding how an automobile engine works does very little for your ability to drive a car. Also, your assuming that someone who drives a car wants to become better at it, which most could care less. Most every poker player does.

Touche. Indeed the engine example wasn't so great, but my point is exactly that not many people who drive cars want to become really great at it, but a professional race car driver does. Similarly, most people play poker for fun and don't even realize that there IS theory and strategy behind the game. Serious poker players are fortunately a small minority.

I think you mean that every poker player HERE wants to get better.

*goes back to re-reading Shania*

eugmac

Originally Posted by eugmac

Touche. Indeed the engine example wasn't so great, but my point is exactly that not many people who drive cars want to become really great at it, but a professional race car driver does. Similarly, most people play poker for fun and don't even realize that there IS theory and strategy behind the game. Serious poker players are fortunately a small minority.

I think you mean that every poker player HERE wants to get better.

*goes back to re-reading Shania*

Ahhhh you got me there

Previous discussion thread re: Shania (Fnord's)

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...08.html#100882

Quite a bit of what ISF is talking about is shown in the "KK on A high flop"thread by gabe. I am sure you have all read it by now. There is this light bulb that goes on when you realize what he is talking about and then the concept no longer applies to just KK on A high flops. You can memorise what to do with KK there, but what about QQ on a k high flop or KK on an A turn? What about JTs when you flop the nuts? They alls tart to become more obvious when you understand the concept behind checking the flop. You start to know what to do when your WB/WA. There is 169 hands in poker and a million flops and turn cards that can come after. You can't memorize moves based on the cards, the board and the 1000's of opponents stats you will encounter, you need to learn the concepts that allow you to dissolve the information and situations into obvious lines to take because of the opponents range, how it is effected by the board, previous actions and the money behind. It's a jigsaw puzzle, and you need to solve it, but once you do, the light bulb goes on, and you will know you have figured it out.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Previous discussion thread re: Shania (Fnord's)

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...08.html#100882

Wow, to the responses in that thread. I remember that post, I don't remember the responses being so bad.

one thing i think should be considered is not only how us noobs ask to be taught (i.e. "show me how to play xx in this situation") but also how we are taught. I see alot of responses to hh in which people say, bet x amount, fold, raise.......and not alot of "why did you take the action you took?" or "what kind of player is he?" After all, if we are to grow as poker players, we need to learn how to play people in situations as well as the cards, correct? Imho, i would think there should be a standard guideline for posting hh's, for example including more than just x/x/x. If you are playing against a tagg that never folds to c-bets, and in fact rr's alot, you would play the hand differently than a tagg that folds to c-bets 80% of the time. Telling someone that posts a hh to bet x amount could lessen EV and, in fact, teach him wrong. Asking for more info, i would think, would teach people to look for more info, and advance the learning exponentially, as well as help to understand why they are supposed to play a hand in a certain way

99% of what you learn will not come from a HH post. Sure, at the beginning they will really help solve some major, obvious leaks. And sure as you get more involved in theory and gain experience they will help with figuring out thought processes within the hand. But your right, having someone tell you to fold to the turn bet because someone is a Tagg by stats alone is not going to take you much farther than $50NL.

It's not the answers that are the problem in most of these situations though. Some of these threads by ISF and Spoon have sparked some much more in depth questions than any HH post has ever done.

Originally Posted by frosst

Imho, i would think there should be a standard guideline for posting hh's, for example including more than just x/x/x. If you are playing against a tagg that never folds to c-bets, and in fact rr's alot, you would play the hand differently than a tagg that folds to c-bets 80% of the time. Telling someone that posts a hh to bet x amount could lessen EV and, in fact, teach him wrong. Asking for more info, i would think, would teach people to look for more info, and advance the learning exponentially, as well as help to understand why they are supposed to play a hand in a certain way

There are guidelines. Unfortunately, you need to know where they're posted:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...-em-t2566.html

damnit. Now I am going to have to read this thread and all of the other links on it. So much for getting any work done this afternoon.

Looking forward to some good stuff.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

2. This is an odd one. Playing strong hands actually makes most every other hand we play slightly less profitable. As the way we play a certain hand comes closer to the way we play a strong hand, the profitability of that certain hand tends to decrease more and more. This same process likely increases the profitability of our bluffs, but that independent of the value of the hand.

This is a while back, so sorry bout that. But has anyone else read this little aside slipped into this thread, thought about it a while, and had a complete revelation?

Perhaps I'm blowing things out of proportion/misunderstanding/stating the obvious, but this read into shania theory and it's implications may quite literally change my mentality when playing any non-premium hand ever again.

It took me a while to realize that it is even true (and this is because the converse is surely true -- that playing weak hands in a way similar to how we play strong ones increases the profitability of our strong hands). But once i did see the truth in said statement, the implication that the theoretical basis for playing weaker hands in a similar manner to strong hands is not primarily to increase the likelihood of a fold and a takedown but to increase the value of our strong hands played in the same manner was revelatory. The implication that my expectation when playing these weaker hands in a manner similar to stronger hands should be to actively decrease the profitability of these hands further in a trade-off for overall value at a game (at least against thinking opps who are paying attention) was even more revelatory, and I am left hoping for some sort of confirmation that I am in fact reading into the above quote correctly before I go and adjust my play and expectations during a hand or a game based on this reading.

So, please, poker geniuses out there... is my thinking/read of this correct?

Those two particular applications of the Shania idea that ISF noted seem to really just note how balancing ranges works, imo.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Those two particular applications of the Shania idea that ISF noted seem to really just note how balancing ranges works, imo.

Likely true, but remember that many of us donks don't think about weak hands in these terms while playing them.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Those two particular applications of the Shania idea that ISF noted seem to really just note how balancing ranges works, imo.

agreed. in its simplest form, the comparison to only playing AA UTG and, then, adding 23s (to up the EV of AA), makes perfect sense.

however, applying it to YOUR ranges, and YOUR betting patterns on the flop, turn, and river, is a bit harder to do. therefore, the perplexity we call poker.

why, again, do i like this game? could it be the challange?

Originally Posted by cowboyardee

Originally Posted by bjsaust

I dont think you determine ideal ranges sitting at the table cowboy, instead you work on your ranges away from the table and somewhat use the appropriate predetermined range to suit the situation.

I'm not sure I understand. How do you work on your ranges away from the table? Maybe I'm not thinking about this correctly?

As pgil said, all I mean is come up with ranges v's common situations. So you start with coming up with a 'default' range, which is how you play without any reads. Then maybe you give consideration to what range you'd play at a table full of TAGs, then what range you'd play v's a a table full of calling stations, and so on. These are what I call predetermined ranges. When I say somewhat use those ranges, that would be the finetuning to the actual situation, since your opps rarely fall exactly into one category, but they give you a good basis to start with rather than trying to come up with them on the fly.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Quite a bit of what ISF is talking about is shown in the "KK on A high flop"thread by gabe. I am sure you have all read it by now. There is this light bulb that goes on when you realize what he is talking about and then the concept no longer applies to just KK on A high flops. You can memorise what to do with KK there, but what about QQ on a k high flop or KK on an A turn? What about JTs when you flop the nuts? They alls tart to become more obvious when you understand the concept behind checking the flop. You start to know what to do when your WB/WA. There is 169 hands in poker and a million flops and turn cards that can come after. You can't memorize moves based on the cards, the board and the 1000's of opponents stats you will encounter, you need to learn the concepts that allow you to dissolve the information and situations into obvious lines to take because of the opponents range, how it is effected by the board, previous actions and the money behind. It's a jigsaw puzzle, and you need to solve it, but once you do, the light bulb goes on, and you will know you have figured it out.

uhoh........sounds like you just might be getting it

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Quite a bit of what ISF is talking about is shown in the "KK on A high flop"thread by gabe. I am sure you have all read it by now. There is this light bulb that goes on when you realize what he is talking about and then the concept no longer applies to just KK on A high flops. You can memorise what to do with KK there, but what about QQ on a k high flop or KK on an A turn? What about JTs when you flop the nuts? They alls tart to become more obvious when you understand the concept behind checking the flop. You start to know what to do when your WB/WA. There is 169 hands in poker and a million flops and turn cards that can come after. You can't memorize moves based on the cards, the board and the 1000's of opponents stats you will encounter, you need to learn the concepts that allow you to dissolve the information and situations into obvious lines to take because of the opponents range, how it is effected by the board, previous actions and the money behind. It's a jigsaw puzzle, and you need to solve it, but once you do, the light bulb goes on, and you will know you have figured it out.

uhoh........sounds like you just might be getting it in the ass from 2nl fish

Sorry Jyms, I had to.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Quite a bit of what ISF is talking about is shown in the "KK on A high flop"thread by gabe. I am sure you have all read it by now. There is this light bulb that goes on when you realize what he is talking about and then the concept no longer applies to just KK on A high flops. You can memorise what to do with KK there, but what about QQ on a k high flop or KK on an A turn? What about JTs when you flop the nuts? They alls tart to become more obvious when you understand the concept behind checking the flop. You start to know what to do when your WB/WA. There is 169 hands in poker and a million flops and turn cards that can come after. You can't memorize moves based on the cards, the board and the 1000's of opponents stats you will encounter, you need to learn the concepts that allow you to dissolve the information and situations into obvious lines to take because of the opponents range, how it is effected by the board, previous actions and the money behind. It's a jigsaw puzzle, and you need to solve it, but once you do, the light bulb goes on, and you will know you have figured it out.

uhoh........sounds like you just might be getting it in the ass from 2nl fish

Sorry Jyms, I had to.

and why did you have to do this? This just isn't funny nor is very appropriate especially in the beginners forum

Originally Posted by Massimo

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Quite a bit of what ISF is talking about is shown in the "KK on A high flop"thread by gabe. I am sure you have all read it by now. There is this light bulb that goes on when you realize what he is talking about and then the concept no longer applies to just KK on A high flops. You can memorise what to do with KK there, but what about QQ on a k high flop or KK on an A turn? What about JTs when you flop the nuts? They alls tart to become more obvious when you understand the concept behind checking the flop. You start to know what to do when your WB/WA. There is 169 hands in poker and a million flops and turn cards that can come after. You can't memorize moves based on the cards, the board and the 1000's of opponents stats you will encounter, you need to learn the concepts that allow you to dissolve the information and situations into obvious lines to take because of the opponents range, how it is effected by the board, previous actions and the money behind. It's a jigsaw puzzle, and you need to solve it, but once you do, the light bulb goes on, and you will know you have figured it out.

uhoh........sounds like you just might be getting it in the ass from 2nl fish

Sorry Jyms, I had to.

and why did you have to do this? This just isn't funny nor is very appropriate especially in the beginners forum

It's one of those inside-type jokes.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Quite a bit of what ISF is talking about is shown in the "KK on A high flop"thread by gabe. I am sure you have all read it by now. There is this light bulb that goes on when you realize what he is talking about and then the concept no longer applies to just KK on A high flops. You can memorise what to do with KK there, but what about QQ on a k high flop or KK on an A turn? What about JTs when you flop the nuts? They alls tart to become more obvious when you understand the concept behind checking the flop. You start to know what to do when your WB/WA. There is 169 hands in poker and a million flops and turn cards that can come after. You can't memorize moves based on the cards, the board and the 1000's of opponents stats you will encounter, you need to learn the concepts that allow you to dissolve the information and situations into obvious lines to take because of the opponents range, how it is effected by the board, previous actions and the money behind. It's a jigsaw puzzle, and you need to solve it, but once you do, the light bulb goes on, and you will know you have figured it out.

I have hope for the world!

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Chopper

dont get me wrong, i was not saying that memorizing was better. i was saying that some people, naturally being the operative word, learn that way.

and, retraining the brain, no matter how necessary, is difficult to impossible...depending on the person.

i understand you are trying to lead a horse to water, but sometimes you are dealing with jackasses. thats all i meant.

I have the ignorant hope that everyone has the potential.

i don't think people are naturally geared towards memorization either. i think some people are lazy. playing poker at a level comparable to ISF and other successful posters at FTR is just an amazing way to make a lot of money. even if you don't need the money now, you probably will later so get motivated to acquire wealth! ANYONE CAN DO IT!

(i'm feeling motivated from writing this)

just wanted to say

ISF, thanks