Posts
A quick hand in which I was recently involved:
1/2 Cash game, with a definitive end time. Ten minutes prior to the end of the game I have KQ and open to $11 from position. I get called from one of the blinds, who has me covered. We are the two biggest stacks at the table. Flop comes Q,8,x and he checks to me and I continue for $15, fully expecting to take the pot right then and there. He surprisingly calls. Turn is a jack (2nd heart on board) and he again checks and I again bet, now $25. This time he raises me to $75 and I instantly call. River is another J. His action and he looks down at his stack and shoves out three stacks of red, $300.
I tank and mull my position.
Some additional tidbits about my opponent:
-He is quite drunk.
-He has, not five hands previously, felted a player when he made a river call of an all-in with top pair, 3 kicker on a paired board that had both straight and flush possibilities.
-He is a pretty well-off guy.
If I call and am wrong, I take a $110 loss on the night. If I call and win, I take a $700 win from the game. If I fold, I take a $200 win from the game.
What do I do? What would you do?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Grinding?
From Malcolm Gladwell, who retells an experiment documented in a book by Kahneman and Tversky:
"...a group of people were told to imagine that they had $300. They were then given a choice between (a) receiving another $100 or (b) tossing a coin, where if they won they got $200 and if they lost they got nothing." (Note: by nothing, he means nothing additional. They don't lose any money by losing the coin flip, they just don't get any more than their $300.)
He continues:
"Most of us, it turns out, prefer (a) to (b). But then Kahneman and Tversky did a second experiment. They told people to imagine that they had $500 and then asked them if the would rather (c) give up $100 or (d) toss a coin and pay $200 if they lost and nothing at all if they won. Most of us now prefer (d) to (c)."
Why this example? I think it relates pretty well with a lot of the poker play I've witnessed in the past year or so. How many times have you seen people willing to gamble their entire stack from behind on some ugly draw and chalk a loss up to the cards but those same players missing a value bet when playing from in front. The rationale is that they are always just happy to take down a pot and win one, never minding that the win was modest.
It's a vital flaw in thinking, in my opinion, and one that can ultimately separate winning from losing long-term.
Get back to the choices above (a-d). Which side of each choice did you fall on? Think about why.
As Gladwell (and I assume Kahneman and Tversky) points out, "What is interesting about those four choices is that, from a probabilistic standpoint, they are identical. Nonetheless, we have strong preferences among them. Why? Because we're more willing to gamble when it comes to losses, but are risk averse when it comes to our gains."
It sounds familiar, no?
"...a group of people were told to imagine that they had $300. They were then given a choice between (a) receiving another $100 or (b) tossing a coin, where if they won they got $200 and if they lost they got nothing." (Note: by nothing, he means nothing additional. They don't lose any money by losing the coin flip, they just don't get any more than their $300.)
He continues:
"Most of us, it turns out, prefer (a) to (b). But then Kahneman and Tversky did a second experiment. They told people to imagine that they had $500 and then asked them if the would rather (c) give up $100 or (d) toss a coin and pay $200 if they lost and nothing at all if they won. Most of us now prefer (d) to (c)."
Why this example? I think it relates pretty well with a lot of the poker play I've witnessed in the past year or so. How many times have you seen people willing to gamble their entire stack from behind on some ugly draw and chalk a loss up to the cards but those same players missing a value bet when playing from in front. The rationale is that they are always just happy to take down a pot and win one, never minding that the win was modest.
It's a vital flaw in thinking, in my opinion, and one that can ultimately separate winning from losing long-term.
Get back to the choices above (a-d). Which side of each choice did you fall on? Think about why.
As Gladwell (and I assume Kahneman and Tversky) points out, "What is interesting about those four choices is that, from a probabilistic standpoint, they are identical. Nonetheless, we have strong preferences among them. Why? Because we're more willing to gamble when it comes to losses, but are risk averse when it comes to our gains."
It sounds familiar, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)