Poker Video: Omaha/Omaha 8 by danzasmack (Micro/Small Stakes)

Cool, I think I was watching him play these tables live, if it's the same ones I saw him playing last week, it'll be good to see his hole cards and get the commentary now.

Time Link to 00:42:09

"I can find better spots to get his stack in."

One of my many peeves is people talking about finding better spots in cash games. I won't belabor the point but as everyone's probably aware: in cash games you should be exploiting all edges, small ones and big ones.

I agree with the fold, by the way, just hate to hear an invalid rationale for it.

(OK, OK, you discuss this later around 51:00. I agree with passing up small edges if they'll risk tilting. They're like what Tommy Angelo says about stop-losses. But it's better still to learn to avoid tilt so you don't need the training wheels, and can take the small edges too.)

I don't see anything wrong with passing up small edges. It all depends on what your goals are and what you want to achieve. EV seems to be the predominant way of looking at poker decision currently, but it is actually a very simplistic view. Sure, if you really want to play EV-optimally then that's the way to go, but there are a couple problems with it:
* Yes, expected value is good approximation of our own utility function, but it is only an approximation and it sometimes fails miserably.
* You really need to take variance and it's relation to bankroll size into account. If an insanely soft game is running but it's at really high stakes, way over your head, you might still want to take a shot at it, but it would be crazy to exploit a superthin edge in this case.
* More formally, if your goal is for example to get as fast as possible from, say 1k to, say 10k, while keeping bust probability at a certain level, what matters really in your decision making is the relation between EV and variance for each decision and you want to optimize that.

There's a whole theory in economics that deals with balancing EV and variance called portfolio theory, I believe poker players could profit from taking a look at it and thinking about what their goals are and what they want to achieve.

CD

cantdance:

Really good points. I'm vaguely aware of portfolio theory but hadn't really thought much about its application to poker. I do have some thoughts on "psychological bankroll" -- it's the sort of thing the 2+2 crowd pretends doesn't exist out of bravado, but the first time you drop 20 buy-ins in a NL game, it's going to have an impact on you.

So we all agree that we shouldn't push thin edges that are going to wreck our bankroll when we take shots, or that are going to send us into monkey tilt, or that are going to so hurt our outlook on life that they're not worth the EV gain. (Isn't there research that shows that people react more strongly to money lost than the same amount of money gained?)

But in most cases, where assumptions of adequate bankroll pretty much hold, I still think my peeve is valid.

cantdance:
Really good points. I'm vaguely aware of portfolio theory but hadn't really thought much about its application to poker.

Well, not so much direct applications since porfolio theory is mainly about abusing correlation. What I meant was more about acknowledging that variance IS a part of equation, not only EV.

I do have some thoughts on "psychological bankroll" -- it's the sort of thing the 2+2 crowd pretends doesn't exist out of bravado, but the first time you drop 20 buy-ins in a NL game, it's going to have an impact on you.

Totally agree, this is a serious issue. One thing you can do is play on a bigger bankroll than the one that would seem neccessary based on standard numbers.

So we all agree that we shouldn't push thin edges that are going to wreck our bankroll when we take shots, or that are going to send us into monkey tilt, or that are going to so hurt our outlook on life that they're not worth the EV gain. (Isn't there research that shows that people react more strongly to money lost than the same amount of money gained?)

Yes, there is. This is in part psychological, but I think it also reflects the nonlinearity of our utility function for money...

But in most cases, where assumptions of adequate bankroll pretty much hold, I still think my peeve is valid.

Sure, with big enough bankroll.

CD

I'd say a better way of wording it would have been to remove "his" and just leave it as stacks in, as my equity in this spot vs any sort of range is awful.

I did clarify it to a degree and it is something I don't say often at all, however it is sometimes applicable in a game like NLO8 where you can avoid many marginal or neutral EV situations, focus on >60% equity spots and often be patient.

I didn't bother posting before this as I enjoyed the banter between you two. Good posts.

Time Link to 00:59:38

This hand totally caught me off guard...I really thought you were going to dump on the flop...flush draw to the jack only, a back door low that is severely devalued with the deuce on the flop. You end up peeling, and then betting pot after it's checked around to you. Are you possibly trying to represent aces that didn't want to get too out of line 4 handed on a draw heavy board? The river shove really surprised me. I didn't think there's any way he calls here with a worse hand than yours, but he does. I think I viewed it a lot like Chuck did, that you would be happy to check and showdown. I think you make a valid point that once the ace hits if he's got the flush he'd have probably shipped at that point. Just a very interesting hand.

Having a problem w/my sound, I'll get back to this when I get it figured out. Or I'll email you about it.

This hand totally caught me off guard...I really thought you were going to dump on the flop...flush draw to the jack only, a back door low that is severely devalued with the deuce on the flop. You end up peeling, and then betting pot after it's checked around to you. Are you possibly trying to represent aces that didn't want to get too out of line 4 handed on a draw heavy board? The river shove really surprised me. I didn't think there's any way he calls here with a worse hand than yours, but he does. I think I viewed it a lot like Chuck did, that you would be happy to check and showdown. I think you make a valid point that once the ace hits if he's got the flush he'd have probably shipped at that point. Just a very interesting hand.

Peeling on that flop isn't too unusual. I have some backdoor equity and my J high FD isn't awful. There are enough turns IP that a PSB will take down. When the A hits, I'm betting for value as the club draws are often calling, but also planning to bet/fold as a c/r is almost always NFD A or K, which I'm way behind(if it's the K high w/an A). Also, the A kills a lot of backdoor low draws that will fold to pressure OOP. OTR, there are enough worse flushes and bare trips, in that villains range, that will stack off. His range is so wide that higher flushes are less of a concern, really only a couple of FH combos.