[atto]

Originally Posted by SwingTradinJay »

I love checking on big hands, then re-reaise slowly and put them all in suddenly

Not only will most decent players catch on quickly (or infer that you might make such a move), the move itself rarely maximizes estimated value. Let's look at three possible situations:

• What if your opponent has a weak hand? Your check then small raise made it very cheap for him to stay in and hit something that could beat you. A loose aggressive player will call those all day, and constantly give you "bad beats". When you raise all in, they will only call if they hit something. Even if they know you're bluffing, if they have air, they can't call. They're hardly committed, and can pull out easily.
• What if your opponent has a mediocre hand? Your check, small raise again makes it cheap to stay in. The mid pair can cheaply turn into trips, the double draw can cheaply draw. Then, your all in makes it easy again. If they missed or didn't improve, they likely won't call. Your absolute best case if a mediocre hand calling, thinking you're bluffing. If they did hit, however, you're usually beat.
• Finally, what if you're against a strong hand (either one that beats you or not)? By giving cheap cards and the lead, you're letting them take control of the aggression, putting you into a possible "all in call" situation (in which case: how good really is your hand?).

In poker and trading, you want to maximize EV. With the worst hand, you want a premature fold. With the best, you want as much from others as possible. Sure, sometimes playing tricky is necessary, but this move is quite well known and probably doesn't maximize the outcome you want.

[brownsfan019]

Nice post atto. The really only time I will consider a slow play is when I have the stone cold nuts and that's about it. I've been burned too many times by doing what you illustrated - make small bets and then let a guy walk right into his straight draw or some weird 2 pair or something.

I pretty much bet it if I got it now - whether that's top pair or the nuts.

The one thing I have found in poker that helps tremendously (and what I read in a few poker books) is trying to do the same thing every time - whether I have AA preflop or the nuts on the flop - put in a regular, standard raise/bet regardless of how strong the hand is. It's a great way to get paid when you do have AA or the nuts on the flop. Basically, I'll raise to XYZ w/ whatever holding I have and that way the other players don't know if I am making a move with 4,5 suited or AA. Too many only put in big raises with AA or KK and it's transparent. In the end, AA or KK is just a pair. That's it. Can't fall in love w/ 1 pair. (learned that the hard way too).

Last weekend I played in a local charity thing (cash games) and the last 2 nights there I took the philosophy of raise or fold preflop. The previous 2 nights I had gotten too soft on my preflop betting/calling and it cost me. The last 2 nights I did the bet or fold preflop option and I got paid off nicely both nights as I heard throughout the nights 'no way you have a hand again' or 'got tired of you rereasing me'...

The other thing to take from that is another idea throughout poker books - when you are the one doing the betting, you can win 2 ways: 1) they fold 2) you get called and have a better hand. If you call, the only way to win is having a better hand.

I'm a novice poker player now since casinos are not local to me, so only get to play every so often. Seems that some ideas I read in the books take a while to stick.

[SwingTradinJay]

Originally Posted by brownsfan019 »

Any observant player will pick up on that real quick. The check, min-raise is a very obvious play.

With that said, you can use that against players that are aware of that play.

You would be surprised man, a lot of people fall right into it, because they think they can buy the pot and force you to fold. Aggression/ego/chip lead plays into it. Also, when you actually have something, people may think your bets are overly strong, AKA bluffing...it becomes so distorted lol...especially if you tell them out loud you bluffed last hand, which is a total lie, then their just like wtf is going on ? lol.

It even happens to the pros...I've seen someone try to buy a pot to get re-raised all in. It leads to a nasty fold or wipe out. You chose the part you play, im always passive and folding, slow playing, then sometimes mixing it up with 100% bluffs.

sure, the opponent could turn or river something...there's risk in any poker situation. but I would much rather slow play a good hand than suddenly all in, because the opponent will just fold it most likely...it's really only for good hands, in which you don't want to set off "alerts"

ive seen perfectly good str8's on the flop, all-in...well ofcourse you fold, they gave away their cards via betting tell. id say bounce between slow and aggressive play.

believe it or not, i've checked trip aces and turned into quads...I took em to the cleaners alright

I remember listening to a pro on WSOP or something, saying you should LOOK for every reason to fold. Always assume the worst basically.

[nickgogerty]

you may be interested in using a fractional kelly formula. Quantitative Trading, By Ernest P. Chan: An Extremely Useful Book -- Seeking Alpha

[natedredd10]

Originally Posted by brownsfan019 »

Frank - I see what you are saying, guess I just see it through different glasses. I think luck is very evident in poker; whereas it's not so obvious (it at all) in trading. I mean - how do you define luck in trading?

That is a very interesting question.
I think as traders we are all biased against the concept of luck in trading, just because there is so much data out there that when something doesn't work we can fall back on lack of analysis..But we also of course know its impossible to analize so much data so maybe noise is a better term to refer to luck in trading. I soppose thats how I view luck in trading, its not the same random/coin flip/shuffled deck randomness of poker, but since all the variables in a trade are too much to quantify a portion of the equity in a trade may as well be seen as being based on luck/randomness.

I highly recommend Bill Chen(a quant modeller at a hedge fund and sick poker player) Mathematics of Poker. You don't have to bother much with the math to get the ideas. The last chapters on risk of ruin and bankroll management are absolutely superb though.

[natedredd10]

Originally Posted by brownsfan019 »

The one thing I have found in poker that helps tremendously (and what I read in a few poker books) is trying to do the same thing every time

There are actually good game theoretic underpinnings for this.
I only use two opening raises, 3X the big blind in earlier position and 3.5x BB from the highjack,cutoff and button. Limping is just senseless because you are giving the big blind a good chance to see a free flop and increasing the chance of a multiway pot.
I'm trying to get into then also only using the same % of pot bets on the remaining streets to hide any information gained from my betting. I believe this is not optimal play but should be good enough at lower limits.
The biggest thing that has helped my game lately is nailing down your range cold. I play these cards and I dont play these other cards. Then when you get a hand your either thinking play or you are thinking bluff, and not should I or should I not play this.
Tight aggressive is certainly the way to go at lower limits but can easily be exploited at higher limits by looser players but most players suck at the low limits so straight forward strategy works to profit from their mistakes.

I think these series of posts are actually vastly superiour to 99% of poker books. Poker books are just getting kind of long in tooth vs modern playing.
****Concept of the Week" Schedule and Table of Contents**** - Micro Stakes Full Ring Games - Micro Stakes Poker Strategy Forum

[Frank]

in poker, luck is really the same thing as 'variance'. but this is what the concept of 'an overlay' is --- do the odds justify a bet/raise/call, given your estimate of the final pot size and your players propensity to fold etc..? you have to factor many things in beyond just the mathematics of the cards.

in trading, people get confused and mistake 'variance' for skill. but fact is, no matter if you call it variance or luck -- it exists.

I have found that thinking about reward/risk is the way to go in trading (and poker). Will I be paid off if I get this trade right? If there isn't much profit available, then its ok to just not play -- the 'ante' in trading is opportunity cost of working at a 'real job'. But the pot sizes in trading are very large in some environments -- as is the risk.

So to me, I spend a lot of time thinking about and analyzing whether the environment supports 'entering the pot' -- or just sitting out and waiting for a better spot.

frank

[natedredd10]

Originally Posted by Frank »

in poker, luck is really the same thing as 'variance'. but this is what the concept of 'an overlay' is --- do the odds justify a bet/raise/call, given your estimate of the final pot size and your players propensity to fold etc..? you have to factor many things in beyond just the mathematics of the cards.

in trading, people get confused and mistake 'variance' for skill. but fact is, no matter if you call it variance or luck -- it exists.

Well I think it first helps in this discussion to not get confused by poker math as just being 1+1=2... pot/implied odds == x then I do y as a strategy...Poker is ripe for game theory experiments and just like the markets, with the amount of money on the line people are going to bust their ass to find optimal strategies and theory. No limit holdem is a finite game that we simply do not have the computing power currently to solve, which is why its interesting vs something like chess.
Fold equity is certainly a huge part of the game..to me part of what makes low limit poker interesting is that since the villain is not thinking about what you are thinking, optimal strategies against better players become sub optimal vs unthinking players.
Thats why the guy above who loves to slow play is correct since he is probly playing against unthinking players who are not going to fold or bother with a read on what he is thinking if they bet. Or more specific he is correct until the opponents he is playing changes and gets better.
Calling variance in poker, luck in trading to me still misses something huge. If all traders place trades actually rolling dice that would be true. 1 - short x amount, 2 - short y amount, 3 short z amount, 4 long x mount, 5 long y amount, 6 long z amount.

Keynes analogy on markets and beauty contests to me is a great model. No one votes for the most beautiful woman in the contest on what they think, they vote based on who they think the other judges will vote for as most beautiful and act accordingly.
Mis and flat out wrong information about the other judges voting habits though creates "noise".
Which to me is why you almost can't seperate the idea of "luck" and "noise" when it comes to markets.