Stick with producing videos wherein you apply monker or develop graphs derived from monker results. Twitter is a publicity platform and Galfond and Poak are celebrities and businessmen; nothing they say on Twitter can be construed as legitimate advice directed at learned professionals. Similarly, you’re far from the first person to apply graphs involving asymptotes to interpret skill development over time. You do, however, overgeneralize relative to more sophisticated applications, i.e. Practical Programming for Strength Training by Mark Rippetoe. That graph is based on a deep understanding of Selye’s Law and how it has manifested across tens of thousands of hours of training by thousands of trainees. Your application is fanciful--colorful and imaginative rather than discrete. It's an odd theory video to produce since you're so skillful at applying monker.
Thanks for the feedback.
Everything I talk about in this videos are things I learned from my personal journey in poker and from what I see around me from other successful poker players. I make videos to help people get better at poker and getting better at poker isn't just theory. It's a bunch of other things, such as for example exploitative approaches to the game.
Every day I see people talk about exploit vs gto play in the most un-nuanced way imaginable. A lot of these people are being looked up to by who knows how many different poker players. I am very well aware that what these people say on twitter is not written for me. I don't take advice from there. But I know and understand who they ARE making those claims for. Beginner and novice poker players who want to make it to the top. For the reasons I talked about in my video a full adaption of the non-nuanced twitter exploit or gto takes will significantly stunt/hinder their chances at becoming a top poker player (unless if they're some sick natural talent, but in that case they would have gotten to the top anyway).
I have not seen anyone other than that one Uri Peleg podcast talk about GTO vs Exploitative play in a way that actually helps people rather than hurts them. I also believe that due to my personal journey in poker I now understand the arguments and merit for both sides of this discussion very well. For those reasons I disagree with you that this is an odd video to make and that I should 'only stick to monker videos'. In fact, I believe that for some people they can get more value out of this video than they could ever get out of one of my other random more monker theory based video.
Those graphs I showed I made once again purely based on my experiences and my feel of the situation. You're right that I don't have a theoretical framework or mass data analysis of thousands of students to back up these claims so it could very well be that Rippentoe would disagree with the shape of the graphs.
What I would ask Rippentoe however is: My point in the video is comparing progression speed of different poker players, one which would focus purely on exploitative play, one purely theoretical and one doing a combination of both. My point was about comparison, not their absolute individual progression curves. Why would your disagreement about the absolute curve change the comparison that I made?
In addition, I don't think you can compare weightlifting progression with poker progression. Getting better at poker requires very specific and unique skillsets that make it almost impossible to compare to almost any other activity in life. So I would also purely on that point be skeptical about the comparison you made here.
That said, in no way am I very attached to those curves. I could have made the point just as well without them, so I don't really want to get too hung up on their exact shape, as I don't think it is that relevant to my overall point. However, we can have a conversation about the comparison that I made, and the point I was making in the video. That I think is much more interesting, relevant, and important.
If you want to talk more about:
1. Why I believe that this video is important
2. What specific claims I made in the video you disagree with
3. Why I believe purely exploitative studying on average will result in a lower skill ceiling than a theory driven/balanced approach
I would be more than happy to discuss that but in my honest opinion focusing this much on the absolute skill development curve is just semantics in the context of the point I was trying to make and the video overall.
Yeah, your personal journey really affords you a lot of unique insights that you’re genuinely intent on sharing with upcoming players. I’m sure it has nothing to do with how much easier it is to produce some PowerPoint slides and pontificate incoherently rather than making a high quality video integrating an important tool that you’re actually adept at using.
Postwar, i dont know what your problem is, but you are extremely rude and have no idea what you’re talking about. This isn’t one on one coaching: if you don’t like a certain video - go watch another one.
postwar18 May I recommend you spend less time on writing rude and unnecessary comments and start taking time learning some social skills and how to convey informations without being a total ass? You seem to be a small angry man, may I direct you to MAGA conventions to be with your peers?
Cheers!
enjoyed it but would prefer if you could give some hand examples of spots where you think it's a good idea to deviate from GTO because they over/under bluff/value, etc
Thanks! I think thats a question that’s basically impossible to answer unfortunately. There are just too many variables there depending on who our opponents are, what game are we playing (from my limited NLHE experience it seems that there are more spots in that game where people overbluff whereas in PLO what you very often see is that people underbluff on average) and then other stuff like perhaps some timing tells or whatever.
So being able to figure out what mistakes people are making based on their showdowns is an extremely crucial skill to develop. This is where a good understanding of theory can be very useful. For example, if I see a player give up a certain hand on the river that conceptually in the solver is one of our top river bluffs then I’ll be able to say that this player in general seems to fundamentally misunderstand bluffing spots like these. If they are not finding the easy bluffs, they very likely aren’t going to be finding the unintuitive bluffs either so as a result this player is likely going to be severely underbluffing here.
But it could also happen that I see a player turn a hand that is a pretty easy check and get to showdown hand in the solver into a bluff. If that is the case I’ll be able to say the opposite of course and go for more bluffcatches vs them.
If a spot comes up in one of my other videos where I go over individual hands I’ll always try to mention it if I have any exploitative opinions about the specific spot vs that specific player. In a more general video like this unfortunately it just wouldn’t be possible.
Oh my peers, I see. I didn’t realize a group of anonymous losers directing tepid, unimaginative, and uncoordinated insults at some unknown enemy on a platform where they pay to participate constituted a close friend group; my apologies. I beg of you: please let me know what it is I can do to re-enter the realm of the righteous.
I appreciate the video, very much! It seems to me that this is a concept that few understand and not just in the poker world. Science and math is so dominated by specialization that few see the forest for the trees...imo.
And seriously, lmao to anyone who gets hung up on the graph you use or how it is based on zero data. I'm pretty sure you even say something along the lines of "please forgive my doodling"? I thought this was an excellent use of a simple image to illustrate an extremely complex concept. Although, I do have to agree with postwar on one thing, I would like to discourage you from making any more videos...please stop educating the ignorant:)
Fortunately, so few get that a lot of success at the tables, or anywhere, comes down to the sweat and blood given when the cameras are off!
Really inspired: seeing the forest for the trees, explaining the nature of graphs, and an allusion to the nature of hard work. In the future, I could forego criticism and just focus on making hackneyed comments and disingenuous displays of solidarity. Of course, that will deny my detractors the glorious opportunity to collectively malign their unknown enemy in defense of their apparently genius and beneficent master. Who am I to disallow such bold, thoughtful, and articulate praise?
I enjoyed this video and have watched many polk vids where he walks the line between gto and exploit. He is fond of saying "it depends" and "all options are fine". I think, to a certain extent, poker has come almost full circle and we are right back to the leveling wars of yester year haha.
Yup it happens often in poker that spots are close/mixed in the sim and in those situations how we feel about our opponent is going to be the determining factor for what option we decide to take. I think all great poker players have a good feel/understanding of which way to go exploitatively in those spots
Horseofhell,
Good advice. I agree that most if not all of the best players in the world at poker are people who at least have a good understanding of what equilibrium looks like and then they take as much information about their opponent and environment as possible and use that to deviate in a way that they believe to be more profitable (exploit). Even the most studied players will never replicate solver play so there will always be deviations that are more +EV if you are aware and take advantage.
Enjoyed the video. Thanks.
Loading 16 Comments...
Stick with producing videos wherein you apply monker or develop graphs derived from monker results. Twitter is a publicity platform and Galfond and Poak are celebrities and businessmen; nothing they say on Twitter can be construed as legitimate advice directed at learned professionals. Similarly, you’re far from the first person to apply graphs involving asymptotes to interpret skill development over time. You do, however, overgeneralize relative to more sophisticated applications, i.e. Practical Programming for Strength Training by Mark Rippetoe. That graph is based on a deep understanding of Selye’s Law and how it has manifested across tens of thousands of hours of training by thousands of trainees. Your application is fanciful--colorful and imaginative rather than discrete. It's an odd theory video to produce since you're so skillful at applying monker.
Thanks for the feedback.
Everything I talk about in this videos are things I learned from my personal journey in poker and from what I see around me from other successful poker players. I make videos to help people get better at poker and getting better at poker isn't just theory. It's a bunch of other things, such as for example exploitative approaches to the game.
Every day I see people talk about exploit vs gto play in the most un-nuanced way imaginable. A lot of these people are being looked up to by who knows how many different poker players. I am very well aware that what these people say on twitter is not written for me. I don't take advice from there. But I know and understand who they ARE making those claims for. Beginner and novice poker players who want to make it to the top. For the reasons I talked about in my video a full adaption of the non-nuanced twitter exploit or gto takes will significantly stunt/hinder their chances at becoming a top poker player (unless if they're some sick natural talent, but in that case they would have gotten to the top anyway).
I have not seen anyone other than that one Uri Peleg podcast talk about GTO vs Exploitative play in a way that actually helps people rather than hurts them. I also believe that due to my personal journey in poker I now understand the arguments and merit for both sides of this discussion very well. For those reasons I disagree with you that this is an odd video to make and that I should 'only stick to monker videos'. In fact, I believe that for some people they can get more value out of this video than they could ever get out of one of my other random more monker theory based video.
Those graphs I showed I made once again purely based on my experiences and my feel of the situation. You're right that I don't have a theoretical framework or mass data analysis of thousands of students to back up these claims so it could very well be that Rippentoe would disagree with the shape of the graphs.
What I would ask Rippentoe however is: My point in the video is comparing progression speed of different poker players, one which would focus purely on exploitative play, one purely theoretical and one doing a combination of both. My point was about comparison, not their absolute individual progression curves. Why would your disagreement about the absolute curve change the comparison that I made?
In addition, I don't think you can compare weightlifting progression with poker progression. Getting better at poker requires very specific and unique skillsets that make it almost impossible to compare to almost any other activity in life. So I would also purely on that point be skeptical about the comparison you made here.
That said, in no way am I very attached to those curves. I could have made the point just as well without them, so I don't really want to get too hung up on their exact shape, as I don't think it is that relevant to my overall point. However, we can have a conversation about the comparison that I made, and the point I was making in the video. That I think is much more interesting, relevant, and important.
If you want to talk more about:
1. Why I believe that this video is important
2. What specific claims I made in the video you disagree with
3. Why I believe purely exploitative studying on average will result in a lower skill ceiling than a theory driven/balanced approach
I would be more than happy to discuss that but in my honest opinion focusing this much on the absolute skill development curve is just semantics in the context of the point I was trying to make and the video overall.
Yeah, your personal journey really affords you a lot of unique insights that you’re genuinely intent on sharing with upcoming players. I’m sure it has nothing to do with how much easier it is to produce some PowerPoint slides and pontificate incoherently rather than making a high quality video integrating an important tool that you’re actually adept at using.
Postwar, i dont know what your problem is, but you are extremely rude and have no idea what you’re talking about. This isn’t one on one coaching: if you don’t like a certain video - go watch another one.
Horse: enjoyed the video, thanks!
postwar18 May I recommend you spend less time on writing rude and unnecessary comments and start taking time learning some social skills and how to convey informations without being a total ass? You seem to be a small angry man, may I direct you to MAGA conventions to be with your peers?
Cheers!
enjoyed it but would prefer if you could give some hand examples of spots where you think it's a good idea to deviate from GTO because they over/under bluff/value, etc
Thanks! I think thats a question that’s basically impossible to answer unfortunately. There are just too many variables there depending on who our opponents are, what game are we playing (from my limited NLHE experience it seems that there are more spots in that game where people overbluff whereas in PLO what you very often see is that people underbluff on average) and then other stuff like perhaps some timing tells or whatever.
So being able to figure out what mistakes people are making based on their showdowns is an extremely crucial skill to develop. This is where a good understanding of theory can be very useful. For example, if I see a player give up a certain hand on the river that conceptually in the solver is one of our top river bluffs then I’ll be able to say that this player in general seems to fundamentally misunderstand bluffing spots like these. If they are not finding the easy bluffs, they very likely aren’t going to be finding the unintuitive bluffs either so as a result this player is likely going to be severely underbluffing here.
But it could also happen that I see a player turn a hand that is a pretty easy check and get to showdown hand in the solver into a bluff. If that is the case I’ll be able to say the opposite of course and go for more bluffcatches vs them.
If a spot comes up in one of my other videos where I go over individual hands I’ll always try to mention it if I have any exploitative opinions about the specific spot vs that specific player. In a more general video like this unfortunately it just wouldn’t be possible.
Oh my peers, I see. I didn’t realize a group of anonymous losers directing tepid, unimaginative, and uncoordinated insults at some unknown enemy on a platform where they pay to participate constituted a close friend group; my apologies. I beg of you: please let me know what it is I can do to re-enter the realm of the righteous.
LMAO
You gotta go back to Reddit.
Great video. Couple this with Ben sulskys two exploitative frameworks series and you gonna learn today :)
I appreciate the video, very much! It seems to me that this is a concept that few understand and not just in the poker world. Science and math is so dominated by specialization that few see the forest for the trees...imo.
And seriously, lmao to anyone who gets hung up on the graph you use or how it is based on zero data. I'm pretty sure you even say something along the lines of "please forgive my doodling"? I thought this was an excellent use of a simple image to illustrate an extremely complex concept. Although, I do have to agree with postwar on one thing, I would like to discourage you from making any more videos...please stop educating the ignorant:)
Fortunately, so few get that a lot of success at the tables, or anywhere, comes down to the sweat and blood given when the cameras are off!
Really inspired: seeing the forest for the trees, explaining the nature of graphs, and an allusion to the nature of hard work. In the future, I could forego criticism and just focus on making hackneyed comments and disingenuous displays of solidarity. Of course, that will deny my detractors the glorious opportunity to collectively malign their unknown enemy in defense of their apparently genius and beneficent master. Who am I to disallow such bold, thoughtful, and articulate praise?
I enjoyed this video and have watched many polk vids where he walks the line between gto and exploit. He is fond of saying "it depends" and "all options are fine". I think, to a certain extent, poker has come almost full circle and we are right back to the leveling wars of yester year haha.
Yup it happens often in poker that spots are close/mixed in the sim and in those situations how we feel about our opponent is going to be the determining factor for what option we decide to take. I think all great poker players have a good feel/understanding of which way to go exploitatively in those spots
Horseofhell,
Good advice. I agree that most if not all of the best players in the world at poker are people who at least have a good understanding of what equilibrium looks like and then they take as much information about their opponent and environment as possible and use that to deviate in a way that they believe to be more profitable (exploit). Even the most studied players will never replicate solver play so there will always be deviations that are more +EV if you are aware and take advantage.
Enjoyed the video. Thanks.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.