A Question on Study Topics

I'm confused. Is this a thread about how to pick up the basics or is this a thread about analyzing DoubleJ's stats?

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'm confused. Is this a thread about how to pick up the basics or is this a thread about analyzing DoubleJ's stats?

OP is a request for guidance w/ focusing my poker studies.

Stats included so The Great Ones can immediately detect problem areas.

But we can talk about basics too, if u wanna

Originally Posted by DoubleJ

.

But we can talk about basics too, if u wanna

I haven't studied stats before so my thoughts on them would be pretty worthless, what basics do you think you struggle with the most?

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'm confused. Is this a thread about how to pick up the basics or is this a thread about analyzing DoubleJ's stats?

The shit being pointed out are basics.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

The shit being pointed out are basics.

That's one shit, so it's good, right... but the verb indicates plural, so it's bad... now I'm even more confused.

Meh... I typed a bunch of stuff that I consider basics, but I can't fathom it helping anyone in the BC every time I re-read it. Delete, delete, delete.

Anything that qualifies as truly basic (like learn what a deck of cards is) is just absurdly obvious and no one here needs it. Stepping in to things like, "learn to play pre-flop" is still stupid, since there's just no perfect way to play with so many different circumstances involved in every hand.

Things that are truly helpful to the BC are things like "learn how to use and identify ranges to your advantage" and "learn what a balanced strategy is and when to favor balance vs exploitation."

Sure, it's not "advanced" and not in the upper level of truly understanding NLHE, but I observe it takes a bit of background to talk about these topics meaningfully.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Anything that qualifies as truly basic (like learn what a deck of cards is) is just absurdly obvious and no one here needs it. Stepping in to things like, "learn to play pre-flop" is still stupid, since there's just no perfect way to play with so many different circumstances involved in every hand.

Things that are truly helpful to the BC are things like "learn how to use and identify ranges to your advantage" and "learn what a balanced strategy is and when to favor balance vs exploitation."

Sure, it's not "advanced" and not in the upper level of truly understanding NLHE, but I observe it takes a bit of background to talk about these topics meaningfully.

Moj'

this is very insightful/relevant - i've been thinking about it all day.

i wanna respond properly, but i'm in the middle of cooking a garlic chicken balti right now, so laterz...

Originally Posted by DoubleJ

Moj'

this is very insightful/relevant - i've been thinking about it all day.

i wanna respond properly, but i'm in the middle of cooking a garlic chicken balti right now, so laterz...

You still cooking? You either have a lot of chicken, or burned chicken.

I'm happy to hear that you got something from that, as I ended up thinking it was a waste of a post. Also happy 'cause I'd like to hear what you have to add.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You still cooking? You either have a lot of chicken, or burned chicken.

You forget that after The Cooking of the Chicken comes The Eating of the Chicken.

For those of you not schooled in The Way of the Balti, much ceremony and ritual is involved.

Also Lager.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'm happy to hear that you got something from that, as I ended up thinking it was a waste of a post. Also happy 'cause I'd like to hear what you have to add.

So, your post got me thinking about "Basics" vs. "Fundamentals", and how this relates to my learning curve.

Someone once said: "I’ve realized [..] that everything in poker boils down to just a few simple things like ranges, betting and adjustments [...], and everything else that we’ve learned about poker at one point or another are just other applications of those things. So now instead of thinking about the principles we all learn along the way, I’m thinking more in terms of what seem to be the real fundamentals."

which seems emminently sensible.

Someone else wrote about: "..the backwards learning theory of poker. It's the idea that people think that they first need to learn the facts before the theory"

which i either don't understand, or understand but don't fully agree with, because - as you say - "it takes a bit of background to talk about these topics meaningfully".

i'm trying to dig out a vid i got from Nick Wealthall (yeh, the creepy English guy w/ the teeth) where he takes his copy of The Theory of Poker and chucks it off his balcony. His point being that it has the same amount of value to the poker noob as a technical manual on carburettor maintenance has to a noob driver. When you're a novice, your focus is almost 100% "inside the car" - turning the wheel, working the pedals, trying not to crash, etc. It's only as you gain experience that your focus shifts outwards.

(LDO he edited out the bit where he runs downstairs to retrieve his book from the bushes.)

So i'm now pondering the tipping point where a moranic BC hand-chart jockey might have amassed enough experience to make the jump to poker light-speed.

Originally Posted by DoubleJ

You forget that after The Cooking of the Chicken comes The Eating of the Chicken.

For those of you not schooled in The Way of the Balti, much ceremony and ritual is involved.

Also Lager.

Balti? pfft. Vindaloo/Phal is where it's at +1 to lager though

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Things that are truly helpful to the BC are things like "learn what a balanced strategy is and when to favor balance vs exploitation."

The following rant is in no way aimed at you Mr Monkey, you just reminded me of it....

When did balanced vs exploitative become an important BC topic? If people took all the time they spent worrying about what % of their range they should do X with in Y spot so that they're strategically solid and directed it to how to actually put their opponent on a range, and just play really well in a vacuum, they'd do a hell of a lot better imo. Noone is exploiting you or understand what it is to have a strategy that exploits your exploitability so go and exploit them by doing lots of stuff that's just simply +EV. Save the galfonding it up for stakes where it's actually necessary/relevant.

Here's what I think: if you play really 'exploitably' in every situation you guys find yourselves in at micros and try to do what you think is most +EV in that situation, then your win rate will be way better than if you try to factor in your attempt at being unexploitable/balanced. If you do the latter, 97 times/100 you'll be making plays that are less +EV for no long term gain and confusing yourself to the point that you really suck at making the play that will earn you the most money.

@spoonitnow, I find this increasing obsession with exploitability/balance worrying because it's analogous to a beginner trying to play chess like Karpov or Capablanca etc. He could crush his fishy opponents just by getting better at tactics and defeating them tactically (cos they suck at tactics), but instead he plays the catalan and 1. Nf3 and all sorts of stuff he doesn't understand and isn't anything close to the best way to beat his opponents. He could just skewer the rook and be up the exchange, but he'd rather make sure his opponent gets a backward pawn instead.

Back to poker: just make shitloads of +EV plays and win. /rant