durrrr vs elezra hand question

[sauce123]

Originally Posted by luckychewy

ben, when you say you think people play exploitatively too often i don't see why it's such a stretch to assume tom thought eli was playing such a style in this spot. i understand tom can be playing 'bad' and his opponents worse, yielding him profit. good and bad are only relative terms assigned by us based on our interpretations of them and his opponents are playing worse(he wins from them long term) than him it seems like he's playing 'good' to me. i think your argument is mostly, in terms of optimal play neither of these are acceptable, which i totally understand. i just think it's difficult to apply that high a level of what's right/wrong/good/bad to a situation where we can be relatively certain neither player is even attempting to play in such a way. i suppose i may just be biased by results though and as much as i try to be objective i'm not certain i can be.

maybe i'm in the minority but i don't think you've come off in any way 'poorly' in this thread(as i think the word pompous would indicate). i think it's an awesome trait to be knowledgeable and opinionated and i don't think sharing those opinions should ever make the one sharing them feel any negativity because it's only the interpretation of the opinion by each individual exposed to it which causes an emotional reaction.

Ok, let's take another step back then. Name a reasonable set of conditions such that isolating with T3cc and calling a 3bet and calling two bets and jamming river is maximally exploitative of the table. How will Tom be able to know whether or not a sufficient set of conditions holds at every marginal decision point in the hand (ie the preflop isolation, the call of the 3bet, the turn float and the river bluff)? What is the approximate EV of the marginal decisions if Tom's reads are correct? What is the approximate EV of the decisions if one or more of Tom's reads are incorrect?

[grogheadflow]

To be honest I think Durrrr purposely plays less than optimal in these TV games for some reason. Sponsorship deals, advertising for when he's not on TV and playing higher, yada yada. When Galfond first played on HSP he played 'well' and nitty and didn't get asked back for ages.

[luckychewy]

well i mean he can't 'know' can he? seem like no one(human) ever can, but his assumptions are what makes him successful. any quantification of a poker hand is based on assumptions about a range which is never going to be perfectly figured out because as you mentioned people play erratically and often do things without good reason. i'd guess the isolation is very profitable given what limper had but after that i just don't know how to answer.

it seems to me like many spots come up where i'm not 100% sure i'm playing profitably but am trusting my intuition and ability to reason to do my best to decide. i think what i'm insinuating is that tom is doing this as well, highlighted by his ability to get eli to fold a better hand in a spot where its relatively face up. and as grog pointed out the sponsorship side of things must effect the decisions somewhat for him, though less and less as he continues to establish his fame across the poker world.

[Rolling chances]

if im wrong on this correct me but the higher the level of play the less relevant the decision making process is given that players hand ranges can be a lot wider and "typical play" varies a great deal more...

it seems like a paradox

[petenilson]

Originally Posted by luckychewy

well i mean he can't 'know' can he? seem like no one(human) ever can, but his assumptions are what makes him successful. any quantification of a poker hand is based on assumptions about a range which is never going to be perfectly figured out because as you mentioned people play erratically and often do things without good reason. i'd guess the isolation is very profitable given what limper had but after that i just don't know how to answer.
.

Assumptions can have varying amount of risk attached to them; some will be more sensitive to deviations than others. The more we rely on those being correct and the less pot equity we have to cushion any errors of induction, then the more we could say we are in danger of engaging in that "epistemological gamb0l".