Assani's Poker Thread (1 Viewer)

[Alex P Keaton]

let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities.

man, I just disagree so much with this. My good friend Dan Smith(one of the best tournament players in the world) was a legit chess prodigy when he was younger. He has given me some good perspective on comparing the two, and from everything I've heard poker is every bit as intense strategically. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that chess doesn't take great mental abilities, yet people do so all the time with poker. And yes, for the record, Dan plays stoned all the time.

There's a heck of a lot more to analyze in a chess game IMO. In poker the mathematical analysis is basic and simple, you aren't doing calculus here.I'd say that there are few if any world class chess players that aren't highly intelligent. There's plenty of people that fit that criteria in the poker world IMO. Does intelligence help? Sure, it helps in just about any profession. But it's not nearly the prerequisite as it is in the chess world and it's far easier to make up for deficiencies here with other skills.

I have no link to share - and am too lazy to look for one - but read awhile back that there is little correlation between IQ and world-class chess ability. Basically, there is a minimum bar (IQ) that you have to be at, but once you reach that bar, it doesn't help to be super-smart. That isn't the delineator.

Maybe that has something to do with how IQ is measured, but if a computer can beat the top chess players consistently the game is obviously heavily dependent on logic.

Or perhaps it is just heavily dependent on learning thousands and thousands of different scenarios and the optimal responses in each scenario.

 

[DrJ]

let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities.

man, I just disagree so much with this. My good friend Dan Smith(one of the best tournament players in the world) was a legit chess prodigy when he was younger. He has given me some good perspective on comparing the two, and from everything I've heard poker is every bit as intense strategically. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that chess doesn't take great mental abilities, yet people do so all the time with poker. And yes, for the record, Dan plays stoned all the time.

There's a heck of a lot more to analyze in a chess game IMO. In poker the mathematical analysis is basic and simple, you aren't doing calculus here.I'd say that there are few if any world class chess players that aren't highly intelligent. There's plenty of people that fit that criteria in the poker world IMO. Does intelligence help? Sure, it helps in just about any profession. But it's not nearly the prerequisite as it is in the chess world and it's far easier to make up for deficiencies here with other skills.

I have no link to share - and am too lazy to look for one - but read awhile back that there is little correlation between IQ and world-class chess ability. Basically, there is a minimum bar (IQ) that you have to be at, but once you reach that bar, it doesn't help to be super-smart. That isn't the delineator.

Maybe that has something to do with how IQ is measured, but if a computer can beat the top chess players consistently the game is obviously heavily dependent on logic.

Or perhaps it is just heavily dependent on learning thousands and thousands of different scenarios and the optimal responses in each scenario.

True. In poker there's very few spots where the optimal response is actually known and almost none of them happen until the river card has fallen. If I get all of my chips in on a hand that ultimately ends up being a loser, the optimal response was actually to fold regardless of what my EV was when I got the chips in. Until we start talking about sample sizes and all of that.

 

[DrJ]

Another thing to consider is that the computer actually has less information than other participants in the game since I'm guessing you aren't attaching electrodes to people and giving it the ability to read their physical responses. If you supplemented the program with things like polygraph technology it could potentially become better at these tasks than a human as well. I really don't think this exercise gives any real information on which task requires more brainpower. It does illustrate some of the tasks computers excel at vs where they have some limitations as well as some of the differences in the games.

But I still contend that a random program could beat a top poker player depending on how you want to set up the competition and define winning. The same computer program would get murdered in chess in every scenario possible.

 

[andyjayhawker]

I have a good buddy, Jim Geary, who some of you poker geeks know. He's been a poker pro for about 15 years. We went to high school together and played on the chess team there. He is also the best chess player I know (rating around 2200 I think), and he is a world class Scrabble player. I just texted him and asked him: "What takes more brain power, chess or poker? And by how much?" His response was, "Chess, by lots."

Chess is a game of complete information, you know exactly what your opponent "has" at all times because you can both see the board. Poker is a game of incomplete information, you don't know what cards your oppononent is holding. Success in chess depends a lot on "hard" skills -- a player's ability to calculate. There's a lot of artistry to the game, but it's can also be very algorithmic, which is why they can build such powerful computers. For poker, the math is trivial, and the skills of the best players (at least as compared to average players) are "softer" -- reading opponents, bluffing at appropriate times, etc. I would guess that as a general rule, elite chess players have higher IQs than elite poker players, but I certainly don't think that means that chess players are smarter.

That said, I think chess is a significantly more strenuous game to play. After even a single chess match (~5 hours in bigger tournaments) I would feel physically fatigued and totally drained mentally. In poker, I doubt you'd ever reach that point.

 

[DrJ]

I have a good buddy, Jim Geary, who some of you poker geeks know. He's been a poker pro for about 15 years. We went to high school together and played on the chess team there. He is also the best chess player I know (rating around 2200 I think), and he is a world class Scrabble player. I just texted him and asked him: "What takes more brain power, chess or poker? And by how much?" His response was, "Chess, by lots."

Chess is a game of complete information, you know exactly what your opponent "has" at all times because you can both see the board. Poker is a game of incomplete information, you don't know what cards your oppononent is holding. Success in chess depends a lot on "hard" skills -- a player's ability to calculate. There's a lot of artistry to the game, but it's can also be very algorithmic, which is why they can build such powerful computers. For poker, the math is trivial, and the skills of the best players (at least as compared to average players) are "softer" -- reading opponents, bluffing at appropriate times, etc. I would guess that as a general rule, elite chess players have higher IQs than elite poker players, but I certainly don't think that means that chess players are smarter.

That said, I think chess is a significantly more strenuous game to play. After even a single chess match (~5 hours in bigger tournaments) I would feel physically fatigued and totally drained mentally. In poker, I doubt you'd ever reach that point.

Agreed - back to the topic that originally spawned this off, I don't doubt marijuana could enhance many of the soft skills that are required. And it certainly doesn't impair the ability to do the basic math that's required of the game, you don't need a genius IQ to calculate simple probabilities. I worded it poorly though, so it spawned this off.

 

[LittleLarry]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

 

[DrJ]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

 

[Otis]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I know next to nothing about marijuana, but aren't there different strains and such that have different effects?

I realize there's a common perception that holds true in a lot of cases, but AF has no reason to bull#### on this.

 

[DrJ]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

Poker is a bit different though, as part of the game is personality. If it makes him slightly more aggressive or makes him bluff slightly more frequently there could actually be positive results. If it makes him more difficult to read, there's positive results. If it makes him more patient, etc. I'm a pothead, and for the most part I agree with you. But poker isn't like most professions. Altering your personality could be very beneficial in this profession.

 

[DrJ]

I know next to nothing about marijuana, but aren't there different strains and such that have different effects?

I realize there's a common perception that holds true in a lot of cases, but AF has no reason to bull#### on this.

Yes, supposedly the concentrations of the various active ingredients (THC isn't the only one) alter the effect that it has to some degree. Personally I've never noticed all that appreciable of a difference other than taste, but this is supposedly the case. I'm going to guess AF isn't hunting down specific strains though, more like "give me a lb of your finest cheeba" and whatever's available that day is what he rolls with.

He's close enough to Cali that I may be wrong though. My wife has a condition that will qualify her for MM in Illinois when it rolls out in January so maybe I'll have a better chance to experiment more.

 

[Otis]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

Poker is a bit different though, as part of the game is personality.

Oh ok then.

 

[DrJ]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

Poker is a bit different though, as part of the game is personality.

Oh ok then.

If I had to guess, I'd say it might actually prevent someone from blowing 60K in 2 days on blackjack. Then again, it might not.

 

[Otis]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

Poker is a bit different though, as part of the game is personality.

Oh ok then.

If I had to guess, I'd say it might actually prevent someone from blowing 60K in 2 days on blackjack. Then again, it might not.

I was loaded, and never claimed being loaded made me a better gambler. Killer analogy though.

 

[DrJ]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

Poker is a bit different though, as part of the game is personality.

Oh ok then.

If I had to guess, I'd say it might actually prevent someone from blowing 60K in 2 days on blackjack. Then again, it might not.

I was loaded, and never claimed being loaded made me a better gambler. Killer analogy though.

Were you high? Case closed.

 

[DrJ]

Not to mention, it's actually made him skinny. That makes two stoners that have run circles around your fat ###. So there's that.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Wow, I almost missed this. Assani stated that he smoked too much weed to remember hands from a week ago and now weed helps his play? Okay, interesting.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

Poker is a bit different though, as part of the game is personality.

Oh ok then.

If I had to guess, I'd say it might actually prevent someone from blowing 60K in 2 days on blackjack. Then again, it might not.

That only happens when the toker neglects to shower while playing. The odor eminated by the toker has a known negative effect on the player's paranoia level causing them to fold more hands in online poker. If they shower while playing online poker for example they gain the personality benefits associated with being "high" which improves their table image without the paranoia that comes with stank weed body odor.

 

[Otis]

Wow, I almost missed this. Assani stated that he smoked too much weed to remember hands from a week ago and now weed helps his play? Okay, interesting.

 

[John Bender]

Hi Assani. In the middle of a 18 HR marathon poker session at the Bellagio. Come take some money from me.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Sorry, just have to disagree. I'm too lazy to find it, but someone who cares more could I'm sure dig up study after study that says marijuana use generally impedes performance in mental tasks.

I don't think you're trying to "lie" to anyone. You may have even convinced yourself it makes you better. If I were a twenty-something kid making a living gambling and hanging out with my buddies and smoking pot, I'd probably convince myself it makes me "play better." It sounds like a fun lifestyle, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with smoking pot. I do think it's at a minimum intellectually dishonest to argue that it makes you play better, and I question the notion of a bunch of kids going out to the parking lot to blaze during breaks in a $10,000 poker game (largely funded by others, who may or may not know you're doing that) and claiming that they're doing it to improve their poker playing.

Like I said, if you've got some research that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it. You of all people should understand that a sample size of one -- particularly when it's the guy we are talking about in this instance, who claims or believes that pot makes him a better player -- is pretty meaningless.

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I know anything about how anyone else's brain/emotions work whether it be when sober or under the influence of various substances. I am not citing any studies done on other people in order to try to convince you of anything. I'm not trying to argue with you or win an argument. All I'm doing in this thread is trying to provide some insight into the lifestyle/mindset of me, Assani Fisher the professional poker player. And for that, all I need is a sample size of one.

And the story of Assani Fisher is one of a kid who struggled with ADD, terrets, and an inability to see certain things objectively for ~25 years of his life. He started using marijuana and noticed instant improvements in all these areas. He also noticed some negative side effects such as fatigue, loss of desire to be social, and some relatively minor addiction issues.

The "Assani" you describe in your post doesn't exist...

1. I'm 31 years old and don't at all feel like a young kid anymore. I think I handle myself as an adult and should get the respect of one when it comes to intellectual honesty and childlike tendencies to lie to ourselves in order to justify things we know are wrong.

2. I wake up between 6:30-8:00 almost every single day

3. I've drank alcohol maybe 2 or 3 times in the past 6 months

4. I eat healthy, exercise, do yoga, and meditate every single day which I plan to play poker. I focus as much on the mental side of things as physical these days.

5. I take poker very seriously, and I work very hard at it. Game are tough these days, and hard work is very necessary.

6. A key component to being good at my profession is being able to objectively analyze yourself. Therefore, on an issue such as the effects of marijuana on poker play, I could think of nobody better than successful poker pros to provide their insight for study.

7. I experiment with different dosages and during different times of the day(I always monitor dosage!), and I've specifically looked at my winrate and the way in which I've played hands sober vs stoned. The results showed the following: My winrate was the same either way, my play in the hand histories looked identical either way, but I consistently played longer sessions/put in more hands when I smoked. However, this(the ability to play longer) isn't the main advantage of weed. The main advantage has come away from the poker tables when just thinking about various strategies....using marijuana at these times(or when analyzing hands when with friends while smoking in the car at Rio) can definitely make you more open minded to different ideas.

8. I regularly talk with elite level poker players about this very issue, and quite a few of them have had similar results to me(while others report differently, it just depends on the individual).

Anyway, if you think pot won't help you or won't help others then thats fine. Like I said, this thread is just for me to give insight into what makes me able to succeed as a poker pro. In return I get an awesome community who gives me advice, asks questions, and cheers me on. I love it and appreciate it. And because of that, I promise I will never intentionally lie to guys. Everything I say here is what I truly believe- I'm not trying to convince anyone that weed is right for them, I'm just saying that I think its right for me and many of my co-workers express similar sentiments.

 

[Abraham]

Serious question: what is your total net earnings from game play in the last year?

 

[Assani Fisher]

I play my fair share of poker, and I've won a couple tournaments (Venetian twice, Casino AZ) and overall I am a winning poker player. But there is no way I could waltz into a chess tournament and come in the money without studying full-time for at least a year. Not a chance in hell.

This speaks of the levels of variance in each game and has little, if anything, to do with which takes more brain power.

To give an analogy, consider sports betting. Like most amateurs, I pick the correct side of a sports bet around 50% of the time. The best pro sports bettors in the world hit around 56 or 57%. So if me and a pro sports bettor both picked today's games, theres a reasonable chance that I would outperform him. That doesn't mean anything whatsoever with regards to the amount of brain power necessary to be successful at sports betting.

I have a good buddy, Jim Geary, who some of you poker geeks know. He's been a poker pro for about 15 years. We went to high school together and played on the chess team there. He is also the best chess player I know (rating around 2200 I think), and he is a world class Scrabble player. I just texted him and asked him: "What takes more brain power, chess or poker? And by how much?" His response was, "Chess, by lots."

Ask him this please: What takes more brain power- to write a computer program that could beat the world's best chess player or to write a computer program that could beat the world's best poker player? If he picks the latter then please ask him what he thinks the difference is between the question you asked him and the question I asked him.

It seems to me like you guys are approaching this argument from a perspective of "how much brain power is necessary to become better than average at poker/chess?" whereas I'm approaching it from a perspective of "how much brain power is necessary to become one of the best in the world at poker/chess." Do you think thats a fair statement?

Thinking about this more and I'd say it'd be far easier to write a computer program that could beat the top poker players - the program could actually play entirely randomly and have some chance of beating the top poker player, especially if the sample size were small. A program that plays chess randomly couldn't beat even a beginner chess player in any sample size. This is the reason you see people putting up high stakes in a poker game when they're entirely unwilling to do so for chess matches.You could take a beginner poker/chess player and he'd be able to beat the top poker player a certain percentage of the time. He'd win 0% of the time against a top chess player. The fact that the humans can beat a computer in isolated games which involve large amounts of chance isn't all that relevant, especially considering the mantra you guys follow is basically "over the long run....with a large enough sample size..." No matter how many lines of code you produce, how advanced your algorithms are, you can't remove the element of chance from the game. The 2007 competition you referenced is largely irrelevant because it only involved 4 sessions of 500 hands each. What happens over 5 million hands? 50 million hands?

This is also why you see guys like Moneymaker and other amateurs make names for themselves in the poker world when they'd stand a 0% chance of winning a similar tournament in the chess world. A large part of what happens over a small sample size is simply luck in the poker world.

I wasn't clear- as they have increased the sample size it has only beared out the notion that nobody has created a bot that can beat a great human poker player. This is not up for debate, as anyone with knowledge of the past attempts will agree.

Contrast that to chess where a bot can indeed beat the best humans.

Heres a really good 2p2 thread for anyone who is interested in some of the current advances in poker theory(in particular read any post from Ike or Sauce): http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/hoss_tbf-all-top-players-use-game-theory-distributions-bluff-ratios-etc-1270184/index11.html

 

[Assani Fisher]

But I still contend that a random program could beat a top poker player depending on how you want to set up the competition and define winning. The same computer program would get murdered in chess in every scenario possible.

You are "contending" something that is factually wrong.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I have a good buddy, Jim Geary, who some of you poker geeks know. He's been a poker pro for about 15 years. We went to high school together and played on the chess team there. He is also the best chess player I know (rating around 2200 I think), and he is a world class Scrabble player. I just texted him and asked him: "What takes more brain power, chess or poker? And by how much?" His response was, "Chess, by lots."

Chess is a game of complete information, you know exactly what your opponent "has" at all times because you can both see the board. Poker is a game of incomplete information, you don't know what cards your oppononent is holding. Success in chess depends a lot on "hard" skills -- a player's ability to calculate. There's a lot of artistry to the game, but it's can also be very algorithmic, which is why they can build such powerful computers. For poker, the math is trivial, and the skills of the best players (at least as compared to average players) are "softer" -- reading opponents, bluffing at appropriate times, etc. I would guess that as a general rule, elite chess players have higher IQs than elite poker players, but I certainly don't think that means that chess players are smarter.

That said, I think chess is a significantly more strenuous game to play. After even a single chess match (~5 hours in bigger tournaments) I would feel physically fatigued and totally drained mentally. In poker, I doubt you'd ever reach that point.

The bolded is a common misunderstanding of poker. I may or may not have linked this earlier, but here is a blog entry from Sauce that may be interesting to you:

http://www.leggopoker.com/blogs/sauce123/my-foreword-matthew-jandas-upcoming-poker-book-11431.html

Hey guys,About a year and a half ago, Matthew Janda invited me to contribute a foreword to his upcoming poker book, Applications of No-Limit Hold em' which focuses on GTO 6max no limit play (to be published this spring by 2p2 publishing, seehttp://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33.../#post37793214). As a GTO player myself, I was both excited to read the content of the book and to contribute a foreword. Since then, I've read multiple drafts of Applications and talked extensively with Matt about poker theory and I'm very impressed both with Matt's knowledge of theory and with the quality of his book.

Unfortunately, the foreword I submitted was rejected by 2p2 publishing and they decided to publish Applications without it. I've decided to publish the foreword here, and I hope it gets some of you guys excited for Matthew's book.

I've attached the foreword since the graphics show up poorly in blog format. I also had to zip the file due to the forum's restrictions on file size, sorry for the inconvenience. It's in .doc and .odt.

This was meant to be a (relatively) finished draft of the foreword, but there are still a couple of typos and the graphics are inconsistent, etc. I hope you guys enjoy it, I was trying to give a relatively digestible introduction to the value of game theory in poker for advanced (but not expert) players. There's some information in there which should be new for most of you, and even if you're familiar with some basic GTO concepts, the foreword (hopefully) will show GTO is more useful than it might appear at first. Let me know what you guys think, and especially let me know if you're pumped to readApplications!

-Ben

Today’s poker is not your grandfather’s game. Games have become unimaginably aggressive, and the level of play by both amateurs and pros has risen dramatically. Today, aggressive betting and bluffing have become the norm, and plays that were once considered state of the art are common knowledge. It's argued that the cause of this remarkable transition in both approach and skill level has been the influx of thousands of online pros competing in tough games over the internet. Increasingly though, the online/live distinction doesn't hold up— today, pros are grouped more usefully by their poker methodology than by their preferred field of play. The old guard are exploitative players, always trying to gather enough information on their opponents to stay one step ahead. Increasingly, the highest limits of online play have been dominated by game theory optimal (GTO, or optimal, for short) players who don’t much care what their opponent does and seek to play a strategy designed in the long run to beat any other strategy in the long run.

I started my serious poker career in the spring of 2008 firmly on the exploitative side of the fence. Since then, I’ve traversed to the other side and become a champion of GTO play both as player and teacher, all while competing in the highest-stakes games. In 2012 I was lucky enough to be the biggest winner in online poker cash games, taking home about $4 million. (I try not to delude myself: being a winner is primarily skill, being the biggest winner requires a lot of luck.) While I was a winning pro before 2012, I attribute much of my extraordinary success in the past year to my work on optimal poker.
For our purposes, an optimal player seeks to find the optimal strategy, which is the strategy such that any deviation from it breaks even or loses against our opponent’s best counterstrategy. For any game, there exists at least one optimal strategy. As a GTO poker pro, my time and effort go to getting as close to the optimal strategy as possible. Each step along this journeyis called a near-optimal strategy.
As a poker player I have to prioritize the practical over the theoretical at all times. In other words, no matter how interesting this game theory stuff may be, I have to ask, “How is this going to make me money?” A frequent criticism of GTO play in the poker community is that it isn’t particularly profitable, more specifically that GTO play may be useful in minimizing losses against excellent players,and it fails to win significantly against weaker players. A version of this argument is made by David Sklansky in his classic Theory of Poker:

Game theory cannot replace sound judgment. It should only be used when you think your opponent's judgment is as good as or better than yours or when you simply don’t know your opponent. Furthermore, game theory can be used accurately to bluff or call a possible bluff only in a situation where the bettor obviously either has the best hand or is bluffing. (189)

The argument will become clearer through example—using a simple game we’re all familiar with: Rock, Paper, Scissors (RPS). A simple thought experiment should allow you to find the optimal strategy for RPS in just a few minutes. Imagine that before each throw, you had to write down on a slip of paper the frequency with which you would throw out rock, paper, or scissors—and then hand this slip of paper to your opponent. For example, rock half the time, paper half the time, and scissors never. Since your opponent now knows your strategy is to never play scissors, he’ll never play rock, and of his remaining choices paper is superior since it always breaks even or wins, while rock breaks even or loses. More generally, anytime our opponent knows that our frequencies are out of balance, we make it easy for him to pick a specific throw that will beat us in the long run.
Consequently, the optimal strategy for RPS must make all of our frequencies equal in order to defend against an opponent who knows our strategy—therefore, playing rock, paper and scissors one third each is the optimal strategy. A funny feature of RPS’s optimal strategy is that any strategy played against it will have an expected value (EV) of 0. Even the most exploitable strategies— for example, always rock—break even against the optimal strategy. If the optimal strategy in poker is like the optimal strategy in RPS and breaks even against all, or many, of our opponent’s counterstrategies, then, it can be argued, game theory should never replace our judgment. We play poker to win, and any sound poker strategy should aim to give us an expectation in excess of the rake.
Let’s think about one more simple game: tic-tac-toe (TTT). TTT is a game of complete information, which means we can see all of our opponent’s past moves. Any competent TTT player knows that games between two good players will always end in a draw. But let’s say we open with an X in the center and our opponent responds mistakenly with an O in the middle:

We’ve already won the game, and our opponent can only avoid a loss if we make a mistake. In the language of optimal strategies, our opponent has played an exploitable strategy, and if we respond with:

X O
X
X O
then we’re playing the optimal strategy. Had both TTT players played the optimal strategy, the game would end in a draw, which is similar to how we saw the optimal strategy always break even in the long run in RPS. But unlike RPS, when one player deviates from the optimal strategy in TTT, his opponent will be able to secure a win. The technical term for a suboptimal strategy that always breaks even or loses against the optimal strategy is a dominated strategy. My main project as an optimal poker pro is to eliminate from my game as many dominated strategies as possible.
Chess is an example of a much more complicated game of complete information. Chess is complicated enough that it has still not been perfectly solved but simple enough that top computers almost always win against the best humans, and against average human players, the computer always wins. For the computer, chess is a lot like tic-tac-toe when played against a novice who doesn’t see that his strategy is dominated. In a game as complicated as chess, the optimal strategy will always secure a victory against even advanced suboptimal strategies.
In my experience poker is a lot like chess, and not very much at all like RPS. Optimal (or near-optimal) poker will absolutely crush even relatively strong strategies played by intelligent humans, because even professional players (myself included) employ many dominated strategies.
It turns out that some forms of poker are becoming much like chess. The simplest form of poker, from a programming perspective, is heads-up limit hold ’em, and today’s best bots routinely beat world-class human players by a significant margin. More specifically, world-class heads-up limit hold ’em pros typically win 1to 5 big blinds per hundred hands (bb/100) against somewhat weaker players, and the best bots now beat the pros by about the same amount as the pros beat the games for. It’s even possible to calculate how much a bot would lose to an opponent’s best counterstrategy (although it’s impossible to calculate the optimal strategy itself), and the best bots lose to that strategy by about twice as much as they beat the pros!*
But even if we play poker with the intention of exploiting our opponents, it’s often extremely helpful to know near-optimal play in order to pick an approptiate exploitative strategy, especially if our opponent is also a strong player . For example, say we’re playing someone who calls 40 percent of the time after opening on the button and being 3bet by the big blind. If we have an idea of what the optimal 3-bet calling percentage is, then this information can be used to encourage us to 3-bet more aggressively for value (if she’s calling too much) or bluff more aggressively (if she’s folding too much). In other words, we can use our best guess of what optimal play is to make adjustments to exploit our opponents.
In addition,a near-optimal strategy in poker wins against just about any strategy an opponent is likely to play. This means we can ignore our opponent’s strategy most of the time and still expect to have a healthy winrate. If you’re an online player who multi-tables, ignoring your opponent’s strategy frees up a massive amount of attention.

At least for much of the poker-playing audience, GTO poker burst onto the scene via Chen and Ankenmann’s The Mathematics of Poker. But this text differs significantly in its approach from Applications, not least because upon opening Mathematics, you’ll be confronted by equations on nearly every page. More specifically, Mathematics uses toy games (usually simpler poker games that can be solved) to illustrate theoretical concepts. The advantage of this is that it allows precise solutions for simple games to be found; but it also leaves the interpretive process to the reader since the games do not reflect full-scale poker in many respects.
For anyone but the extremely dedicated and mathematically inclined, formulating a strategy for full-scale poker on the basis of toy games is going to be next to impossible. Until now, the few specialists familiar with these concepts have not made them publicly available. And to my knowledge, Matthew Janda is one of the first to apply these difficult but important concepts consistently to a full-scale poker game.
The analysis of preflop play in Applications highlights the breadth of Matthew’s approach. Were we to search for a hard solution to six-handed preflop play, the problem would be intractable—there are just too many possibilities. So instead of going for certainty, this text makes a few assumptions that seem reasonable and then consistently applies them around the six-handed poker table. The result is a set of preflop guidelines strikingly similar to my own strategy which I’ve arrived at through playing hundreds of thousands of hands (over many years) at the highest stakes. For most positions, the differences in my opening ranges and those argued for in Applications are not significant. Where the differences are significant, I’ve found I’m either playing exploitatively, or in some cases I’m just making bad plays.
Matthew certainly has not solved the game; in fact, he won’t even try to, because he’s wise enough to know that the attempt is currently impossible. Instead, Matt has taken various principles that must necessarily apply to the full game and added to those principles some very smart assumptions that allow him to erect a unified GTO framework for six-max no-limit hold ’em from preflop to river. Armed with this framework and some software to aid him with the combinatorics, Matthew has been able to construct a robust set of strategic guidelines for six-max no limit hold ’em which, if followed thoughtfully, should yield a substantial winrate even against stiff opposition. My game has improved substantially due to my reading of Applications, and I’m confident a close reading of it will help keep you ahead of the curve in today’s increasingly tough poker games.

—Ben “Sauce123” Sulsky

 

[Assani Fisher]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

Feeling great is a very important aspect to minimizing all outside influences on your concentration. When I think back to quite a few of my worst played hands, they occured on days where I was feeling ####ty and/or lacking in concentration.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I know next to nothing about marijuana, but aren't there different strains and such that have different effects?

I realize there's a common perception that holds true in a lot of cases, but AF has no reason to bull#### on this.

Yes, supposedly the concentrations of the various active ingredients (THC isn't the only one) alter the effect that it has to some degree. Personally I've never noticed all that appreciable of a difference other than taste, but this is supposedly the case. I'm going to guess AF isn't hunting down specific strains though, more like "give me a lb of your finest cheeba" and whatever's available that day is what he rolls with.

He's close enough to Cali that I may be wrong though. My wife has a condition that will qualify her for MM in Illinois when it rolls out in January so maybe I'll have a better chance to experiment more.

No, I specifically seek out sativa's often and am well aware of how different strains impact me. Seriously you guys aren't giving me anywhere near enough benefit of the doubt here- I take my job very seriously and don't make these decisions lightly. I legit want to be one of the best in the world, and I'm trying my best to get there. This notion that I'm some kid enjoying the party life is nonsense these days- the games are way too tough to get by doing that, you need to be dedicated to have stuck around the past few years.

 

[IC FBGCav]

How much you need, just cut to the chase.

 

[Abraham]

How much you need, just cut to the chase.

I already asked what his net winnings were from game play (not stakes).

 

[Assani Fisher]

For some reason I don't think Otis will be investing again next year.

Who would have ever expected Otis to be so judgmental and so anti-weed?

Not sure I get the joke here. I'm not anti weed. I'm a fan actually--nothing wrong with some drinking and some smoking. But I'm not about to argue that going a six pack deep or smoking a bowl is going to make me any better at much of anything, other than better at feeling great.

Poker is a bit different though, as part of the game is personality.

Oh ok then.

If I had to guess, I'd say it might actually prevent someone from blowing 60K in 2 days on blackjack. Then again, it might not.

I was loaded, and never claimed being loaded made me a better gambler. Killer analogy though.

Otis, I don't think his analogy was exact, nor do I think it was an attack on you.

However, I do think he pointed out something very interesting: You are a person with a clear history of some cognitive biases and/or emotional disconnects that makes you prone to some very poor habits as it relates to gambling. On the other hand, I'm a person who has made his living in the professional gambling industry and I'm telling you that a major reason why is because I'm good at recognizing stuff like that in myself and avoiding it. In other words, looking at our credentials, it seems like you should be less eager to tell me how things are and more eager to listen to what I'm saying.....I'm good at this #####, I'm not saying it to be arrogant- I'm saying it because its what I do for a living and I regularly see myself succeeding at it. I'm not making similar mistakes that you are when it comes to being unable to objectively evaluate myself in the contest of a gambling game.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Wow, I almost missed this. Assani stated that he smoked too much weed to remember hands from a week ago and now weed helps his play? Okay, interesting.

for the record, that was more of a joke than anything(anytime I forget anything- just blame it on the weed, that way its never my fault!). My memory seems average, definitely not OMG Bad.

I do sometimes forget hands from "just a week ago", but when you're massively grinding(like during the WSOP) thats normal.

 

[Otis]

Dude. It's weed. This isn't about "credentials" or "emotional disconnects." It's about you fooling yourself.

If it's working for you and you're having fun in life, good on you.

 

[IC FBGCav]

HOW MUCH

 

[Abraham]

HOW MUCH

 

[Assani Fisher]

Dude. It's weed. This isn't about "credentials" or "emotional disconnects." It's about you fooling yourself.

If it's working for you and you're having fun in life, good on you.

I spent a long time putting forth a reasonable defense of my position. If I'm wrong then tell me what you disagree with. Just shrugging and not addressing any point I raised is a very immature way to have a discussion.

" It's about you fooling yourself."

You have a history of fooling yourself(massive swings in gambling due to some sorts of cognitive biases or emotional disconnects). I have a history of succeeding at a job which requires the employee to be very good at not fooling him/herself. So why are you lecturing me on how I am fooling myself(while failing to even respond to my points)?

"If it's working for you and you're having fun in life, good on you."

Thats the point- it is working for me! And it works better for me than days I don't smoke. So what exactly do you disagree with?

 

[Assani Fisher]

Serious question: what is your total net earnings from game play in the last year?

I will never answer a question like this for a number of reasons.

If you want to ask generic questions that hint at your real question such as "What stakes do you play?", "What type of bankroll do you need for such stakes?", "Are you backed or playing on your own bankroll?", etc., etc. then go for it(although I've kinda answer them already all throughout the thread). But I'm not interested one bit in publicly giving out exact income numbers.

 

[Assani Fisher]

How much you need, just cut to the chase.

If you're hinting at me asking for a stake, then no thats not why I came by. Only tournament I might play in soon is the Wynn Classic Main Event and thats only $1500. Otherwise, not sure what you're talking about.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Serious question: what is your total net earnings from game play in the last year?

I will never answer a question like this for a number of reasons.

If you want to ask generic questions that hint at your real question such as "What stakes do you play?", "What type of bankroll do you need for such stakes?", "Are you backed or playing on your own bankroll?", etc., etc. then go for it(although I've kinda answer them already all throughout the thread). But I'm not interested one bit in publicly giving out exact income numbers.

Just look at sharkscope

 

[IC FBGCav]

How much you need, just cut to the chase.

If you're hinting at me asking for a stake, then no thats not why I came by. Only tournament I might play in soon is the Wynn Classic Main Event and thats only $1500. Otherwise, not sure what you're talking about.

You need money......only reason you come here :touchdown:

 

[IC FBGCav]

Serious question: what is your total net earnings from game play in the last year?

I will never answer a question like this for a number of reasons.

If you want to ask generic questions that hint at your real question such as "What stakes do you play?", "What type of bankroll do you need for such stakes?", "Are you backed or playing on your own bankroll?", etc., etc. then go for it(although I've kinda answer them already all throughout the thread). But I'm not interested one bit in publicly giving out exact income numbers.

On stars he has another name JWDVB D or something like that. Down 50K mostly others money

 

[Abraham]

Serious question: what is your total net earnings from game play in the last year?

I will never answer a question like this for a number of reasons.

If you want to ask generic questions that hint at your real question such as "What stakes do you play?", "What type of bankroll do you need for such stakes?", "Are you backed or playing on your own bankroll?", etc., etc. then go for it(although I've kinda answer them already all throughout the thread). But I'm not interested one bit in publicly giving out exact income numbers.

My bad. Let me rephrase: in the last twelve months, have you won enough playing cards to pay your bills and have at least $1 left over(I.e. Profitable)Eta - I do not really care what stakes you play or the size of your roll or of you have backers. I am asking if over 12 months (which is a large sample size) you are ahead or behind as a professional poker player.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Here are the best odds you can get. I will pay heads up in Otis rooms on PS. I will pay you 400, if you beat me and you only have to pay me 300. NL heads up. We both paypal Otis before we play. You game?

 

[IC FBGCav]

If you say yes feel free to tell my your friends name that Paypaled you the money to play and the name of the person I am playing under your name.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Fasteddie is here.........quick question.

 

[IC FBGCav]

When I was in Vegas, I met assani and you didn't show, I gave him 100 and told him to give it to and tell your were a #####. You ever get the 100?

 

[Assani Fisher]

Serious question: what is your total net earnings from game play in the last year?

I will never answer a question like this for a number of reasons.

If you want to ask generic questions that hint at your real question such as "What stakes do you play?", "What type of bankroll do you need for such stakes?", "Are you backed or playing on your own bankroll?", etc., etc. then go for it(although I've kinda answer them already all throughout the thread). But I'm not interested one bit in publicly giving out exact income numbers.

My bad. Let me rephrase: in the last twelve months, have you won enough playing cards to pay your bills and have at least $1 left over(I.e. Profitable)Eta - I do not really care what stakes you play or the size of your roll or of you have backers. I am asking if over 12 months (which is a large sample size) you are ahead or behind as a professional poker player.

Its actually close on whether or not the answer to your question is yes or no. If you change it to "15 months" then most definitely no, as I lost a ton at the 2012 WSOP playing in a bunch of events all on my own bankroll. But I think my play these past few months might make the answer "yes" for just the past 12 months. I made a ton of money in January/February 2012- significantly more than enough to live off of ever since.

Regardless to give you more insight on what you want to know(is it reasonable to think you I be a professional poker player in 2013 with my current skillset?):

I've lost a lot at tournaments in the past ~2 years. Not sure exactly, but I'd imagine its 6 figures +. Thats kinda just the nature of tournaments though....there was the WPT where I got 33rd(27 spots paid, 1st was over $1 mil), there was my deepish Main Event run where I got all in with 60+% equity to be a huge stack, and there were quite a few deep online runs that came up just short of big money. This doesn't worry me whatsoever...these tournaments are still clearly +EV due to so many fish, but the variance roller coaster is just insane(variance in high leverage tournament spots will NOT even out lifetime)

Online the games are TOUGH on PokerStars. I should have every reason to doubt my ability to make a living playing in these games, as I've often found myself questioning if anyone at the table is beating the rake because everyone is playing so well. The good life of being able to easily crush online games is just a pipe dream now.

Live the games are still very soft if you're willing to game select. While there are quite a few more grinders than 2+ years ago, the live grinders still are able to get by making clear errors(because the live fish are so bad they can still succeed with those errors) and its just not that difficult for someone like me with a ton of experience in online games. I have little doubt that I could live off these games, and they'll probably be my primary focus going forward(although I do plan to go to Toronto to play online sometime in early 2014).

 

[Assani Fisher]

while I'm in here I will give one pretty cool update on poker: I'm currently on a 23 session winning streak at live poker...although after about 10 I definitely started going way out of my way to keep it going(if I'm down not leaving until I get up a tiny bit). Playing well, running well....overall things are pretty good.

 

[IC FBGCav]

while I'm in here I will give one pretty cool update on poker: I'm currently on a 23 session winning streak at live poker...although after about 10 I definitely started going way out of my way to keep it going(if I'm down not leaving until I get up a tiny bit). Playing well, running well....overall things are pretty good.

Good times

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

while I'm in here I will give one pretty cool update on poker: I'm currently on a 23 session winning streak at live poker...although after about 10 I definitely started going way out of my way to keep it going(if I'm down not leaving until I get up a tiny bit). Playing well, running well....overall things are pretty good.

How much was your 12th highest session win over that span? (mean win)