|
|
豆子妹妹如果找不到那篇的电子版你就一字一句敲进去吧
伟大的墙 发表于 2010-9-5 02:11 ![]()
敲，敲你个头啊~~~~~
现在上线了，你有什么谬论赶快发吧。
========================
Math Brats’ PsychologyFearless and hyperaggressive
by Alan Schoonmaker | Published: Sep 03, 2010
TIME magazine rarely discusses poker, but the June 28, 2010, issue contained “Attack of the Math Brats.” It praised Phil Hellmuth’s past accomplishments, but said, “Last year it all began to fall apart. Hellmuth, 45, lost money and failed to make the final table of even one tournament for the first time in more than a decade …
“He blames the new breed of math nerd. … ‘The reason I won 11 bracelets is my ability to read opponents. … These new guys are focused on the math. And they are changing everything.’”
The article continued: “In the past few years, hold’em has evolved … into a hyperaggressive contest for betting bullies who risk all their chips at bizarre moments.”
When David Sklansky and I discussed this article, he said that it missed an important psychological point. Mathematical players tend to be nerds, but the math brats don’t play that way. Most nerds are conservative. They wait for good cards before putting in their money.
Aggressive players are usually different kinds of people. They love action or rely on great people-reading skills. The toughest aggressive players have both qualities. They can sense weakness, have confidence in their reads, and get a kick out of bluffing. Stu Ungar, three-time winner of the World Series of Poker main event, was the best example.
Math still attracts the same kinds of nerds. You remember the high-school kids who loved math. They were usually studious, introverted, insecure, and socially inept. Most were boys, but a few were girls.
Today’s math brats are more aggressive than Stu Ungar! They drive tournament players nuts by raising, three-betting, and shoving in their stacks with hands that most people never used to consider playing. Some of them do it not because they love to gamble, not because they have great people-reading skills, but because the math proves that a hyperaggressive style pays off in tournaments, especially no-limit hold’em tournaments.
Of course, if they didn’t have some gamble in them, they wouldn’t play poker, but their mastery of the math has made them choose a hyperaggressive style. If you play 50 tournaments a year, you’ll win more money with one first-place finish than with 15 or 20 small cashes.
The math brats’ style creates an illusion about their personality. Most opponents don’t see them as nerds. Because their aggressive style doesn’t fit the stereotype, many opponents see them as crazy risk-takers. And because they don’t understand how the brats think, they don’t adjust well.
This hyperaggressive style was never popular before, but its foundations were laid many years ago in David Sklansky’s The Theory of Poker. Although he didn’t invent the tactic, he coined the term “semi-bluff,” and he analyzed it mathematically. “A semi-bluff is a bet [or raise or check-raise] with a hand which, if called, does not figure to be the best hand at the moment, but has a reasonable chance of outdrawing those hands that initially called it.” (Page 91)
When he wrote that book, hardly anyone played no-limit hold’em. In limit games, bets are called much more often than they are in no-limit games. In no-limit hold’em tournaments, even fewer bets are called, and not many hands go to showdown. As the probability that everyone will fold goes up, the fold equity of raising increases.
In addition, even when you are called, you will win more often than most people believe. Unless you’re facing an overpair, your opponent is not that big a favorite. For example, A-K suited is the best no-pair hand, while 7-2 offsuit is the worst, but A-K suited is only a 69-31 favorite.
Most people would regard shoving all in with 7-2 offsuit a pure bluff, because you don’t seem to have a reasonable chance of drawing out. But if you get called by A-K suited, you have about the same odds of winning as if you semibluffed on the flop with an open-end straight draw against a big pocket pair.
And your chances of being called by some overpairs are small. David Sklansky called it “The Gap Concept” in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players: “In a tournament, it is often right to open-raise with hands which are far inferior to those with which you would need to call someone else who has open-raised.” (Page 28)
For example, many people would not risk their tournament lives with a pair of eights. They would be a large favorite only if the raiser had two smaller cards, which rarely happens. If the opponent has two overcards, it’s a coin flip. If the opponent has an overpair, they’re a huge dog. So, they fold.
If you add the fold equity and your equity when called, shoving all in is often the mathematically correct play. In fact, if your opponents will fold often enough, you should shove with any two cards. Of course, the exact definition of “often enough” depends on your opponents, the blinds, the size of the pot, and your stack size.
Because better qualified people have analyzed the mathematics of making and calling all-in bets, I won’t discuss that subject. I’ll just say that the math clearly favors a hyperaggressive strategy, and some of the math brats who play that way are not doing it because they have Stu Ungar’s love for action or his gifts of spotting and exploiting weakness.
They don’t need to be able to read tells, and so on (although some have those skills). All they need is mastery of tournament math, which gives them an immense edge over opponents who either can’t do the math or are afraid to risk their stack. So, we have some nerds playing like confident, wild gamblers, winning big, and driving opponents crazy.
What are the implications for you? In Your Worst Poker Enemy, I wrote that poker has a Darwinian evolution. Because our game changes, “If you play the same way tomorrow that you do today, your results will slowly deteriorate.” (Page 216) You may resent the math brats’ youth, success, and hyperaggression, but they are facts, and you had better accept that reality.
One option is to try to adjust to them. It won’t be easy, and it may be impossible. Adjusting may take you so far out of your comfort zone that you become ineffective.
Another option is to avoid them. For example, some of my friends used to play several WSOP events, but now play only the seniors tournament. Some people have completely stopped playing tournaments. They stick to cash games, preferably limit games.
You may hate admitting that you can’t cope with those fearless, hyperaggressive kids, but it’s better to face the truth. If you don’t, you can become severely frustrated, and lose heavily.
Dr. Schoonmaker (alan_schoonmaker@yahoo.com) is David Sklansky’s co-author of DUCY? He is the sole author of The Psychology of Poker, Your Worst Poker Enemy, Your Best Poker Friend, and Poker Winners Are Different. |
|
QQ好友和群
QQ空间
腾讯微博
腾讯朋友
微信
收藏
楼主