Understanding Mendelson -- Finally Some Light

[redietz]

The poker discussion thread finally gave me some insight into Alan's mind and skewered view of statistics and probabilities. Eureka!!

Alan sees things through the prism of live poker play. Hands with 80% chances of winning routinely get beaten at the most grotesque moments in tournaments, leading to a perspective that values something called "luck" way too much.

Live poker and video poker are two completely different things. In tournament poker, hands attain increasing significance as the tourneys continue, leading to moments when winning significant amounts of money ride on single turns of cards. Playing no-limit non-tournament poker leads to those same "moments of terror in a sea of boredom." As someone who has played a fair amount of tournament poker, yeah, it makes you roll your eyes.

But video poker is completely, utterly different with a huge statistical landscape. One hand really is the same as the next. You don't risk significantly more on one hand than any others -- unless you're using Rob's systems. Rob's systems make vp more like tournament poker, with stakes rising as one progresses.

The problem in the poker debate thread isn't that Arci is trying to apply vp principles to live poker. The problem is that Alan is applying live poker perspectives to vp.

The best player in the world of live poker has only a 3-1 or 4-1 edge over an amateur schmuck in terms of profit likelihood in a large tournament. So of course one's perception of the effects of "luck" would be that it's a gigantic factor. Video poker is more like tic tac toe -- it's a solved game. It's different.

[Vegas Vic]

1. How is one VP hand the same as the next?
2. When did luck cease to be a factor in VP?

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, I read your comment with interest. So... what the heck are you talking about?

I think my argument with Arci all along has been that live poker and video poker are two different games and the principles of video poker do not apply to live poker and vice versa.

Video poker is played one hand at a time and you risk the same amount of money in each hand of video poker and the loss or payoff on that hand varies with the paytable. For example, two pair in video poker returns double your bet in Jacks or Better. The most you could lose is the number of coins you bet -- one thru five, or whatever.

But in live poker, while you play one hand at a time the amount of money at risk in each hand will vary as will the potential win or loss. Take for example our discussion about pocket nines. That hand could have cost me as little as $3 or it could have cost me $300 if me and the other players "with chips" kept betting. And I could have won just the big blinds (less rake) for as little as $11 if the betting had stopped with just the blinds in the pot.

And you are correct that big hands can lose in live poker because it's the best hand that wins. In video poker your hand does not compete so a pair of jacks in video poker can win, while in live poker a pair of queens beats a pair of jacks.

I can't understand your analogy between Rob Singer's play in video poker with live poker tournaments and I really don't understand what your point is there anyway?

And as far as pros not having much of an edge in live poker tournaments -- you are absolutely right. Live poker tournaments are pretty much a lottery which is why I don't play as many tournaments as I used to. Live poker tournaments really are a matter of luck. As the tournament blinds and antes grow who gets the good cards in the deal becomes more of a factor than skill. This is why in big tournaments you often see "no name final tables." And that's not a bad thing, because a few times I was the winner at a "no name final table" because I was the one getting lucky.

And to respond to Vegas Vic's comments:

1. One VP hand has the same liability as another because you can only lose a certain number of dollars (or coins) with each hand you play. (In live poker a hand could cost all of your chips or dollars)

2. Yes, luck is a factor in both games. There is that RNG in video poker, and there is that shuffler and dealer in live poker. Plus in live poker its not just your luck, but you are also playing against other player's luck. Hence, live poker is a much more complicated game -- you have to figure not only the value of your own hand but based on the community cards what the value of your opponents' hands might be.

And getting back to redietz: Again, what are you talking about and what's your point?

[Vegas Vic]

Alan, I agree with your response to #1. However, one hand in VP is not the same as another in that some hands are instant winners. Therefore, as written, it's incorrect to say that "one hand is really the same as the next". "One bet is really the same as the next" would have been correct in context when being compared to Rob's system.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, I agree with your response to #1. However, one hand in VP is not the same as another in that some hands are instant winners. Therefore, as written, it's incorrect to say that "one hand is really the same as the next". "One bet is really the same as the next" would have been correct in context when being compared to Rob's system.

I agree with you, and I worded it poorly. In VP each hand can carry the same bet (assuming you play five coins each bet) but the payouts can and probably will differ greatly. But I still don't understand the connection to, or reference to, Rob's system. What is that all about? Unless you are referring to his strategy of increasing denomination? And even so, at a higher denomination you are still betting five coins, and the payouts reflect the higher denomination at five coins, so what's the difference?

By the way, when increasing denominations don't you either win money faster or lose money faster? Otherwise, it's the same long term result?

[Rob.Singer]

I think he may have meant that my vp strategy puts a high value on the lucky winning hands, while live poker requires being lucky to win. Or something like that?

[Alan Mendelson]

I think he may have meant that my vp strategy puts a high value on the lucky winning hands, while live poker requires being lucky to win. Or something like that?

Even in live poker, most of your session wins will be concentrated in a few hands. The other night when I came home with a $700 profit, that money was won on a total of four hands over about five hours. Most of the time you sit there losing your blinds or winning and losing small amounts. So I really would like redietz to explain what his meaning is here because I don't follow it.