solo dire esto: isildur1 es el maestro de cristianitoKK
Avisos
Vaciar todo
Discusión sobre poker en general
50
Mensajes
32
Usuarios
0
Reacciones
6,033
Visualizaciones
original de BlackHorse84
http://www.philgalfond.com/viktor-blom-the-man-the-myth-the-legend/
...
"
Isildur no usa ningún tipo de base datos ni HUD, y no ve videos de entrenamiento. De hecho, él no usa ningún tipo de recursos que la mayoría de los pros online utilizan.
...El juega por puro amor al poker, no estoy seguro si le interesa el dinero, pero si está claro que juega por diversión y le gusta la competición...
...Francamente soy un legítimo fan de Isisldur. Tengo que sencillamente respetar a quien ha hecho su dinero del poker y además juega los límites más altos y contra los más fuertes oponentes solo por diversión...
"
original de BlackHorse84
http://www.philgalfond.com/viktor-blom-the-man-the-myth-the-legend/
Wow, que buen articulo!
Aunque deprime un poco que un Pro diga que no cualquiera puede llegar a esos niveles y que de verdad se necesita tener ese "algo" para ser de los mejores.
Algunas joyitas de galfond:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astyanax
Ike, we could go back and forth but you failed to say whether Isildur is super-intelligent or not? Throughout all my nonsense, that was my only real point.
What does this mean? How would you propose to decide whether or not any person was "super-intelligent?"
Quote:
Now it would be very interesting if you pinponted the exact things wrong that previous high stakes winners used to do correctly but fail to do now. Not in general, specifically for players such as Krantz/Ansky (if they no longer beat the game) - even I could discuss what most previous winners do no longer. Again, not overall strategy - a breakdown of what a particular player used to do but does no longer. Most do not play anymore but I believe that you couldn't exactly pintpoint what they are doing wrong. We'd also see if they'd agree with you or say they are running bad. Isildur is now losing over a large sample (RECENTLY) - has he become less intelligent? Has Krantz got dumber irl or about the game? What about AE Jones. I don't know too much about him but I presume he doesn't win as much as before. Survivorship bias is tough to prove but of course the current winners (or the long term winners) will always say the game passed others by.
I'd really rather not go in to detail about why specific individual people are no longer having the success they used to have. In general terms, the issue is usually not that former big winners got worse but that everyone around them got better. I'll give a couple examples. I'm thinking of real people, not any of the ones you mentioned, but I'm not going to say who they are:
1. Ring PLO player. Was very successful for a while playing a loose passive style that involved playing too many hands preflop and bluffing too little and calling down too much postflop. His opponents used to bluff too much, not value bet thin enough, get stacked too easily with second best hands and played too many hands too passively preflop. Today he's not so successful in tighter, more aggressive games with opponents who are more willing to bet for thin value, more willing to fold to his unbalancedly strong lines in big pots, and don't try to bluff him so often in spots where he doesn't fold.
2. HUNL specialist. Played very well postflop but had glaring fundamental leaks in his preflop game. Until maybe 2009 or 2010, almost everyone was so bad preflop that he got away with being even worse than that and was considered one of the best. Eventually preflop play among successful midstakes+ players began to converge to a much sounder basic plan, he didn't adjust, and it eventually came to pass that he wasn't even a favorite against average midstakes grinders.
3. Ring NLHE player. Wildly aggressive player who was very good at finding the places his opponents were too loose and relentlessly attacking their weak ranges. Opponents who 3bet far too wide, aren't aware of it, and are exploitable to light 4bets, and similar leaks involving playing too loose and not understanding the consequences became much rarer and the player in question never adapted to the tighter, more solid play that now predominates among winning 6max NLHE players and, without this edge, glaring flaws in the rest of the player's game became exposed.
I wrote each of these thinking of specific people but as soon as I was done was able to think of several more to fit the same descriptions. It's not that people often get worse, though occasionally that does happen. It's that people stay the same and games get tougher. I say all of this only to refute the argument that "Player XYZ used to always win and now he doesn't, so results at high stakes must be mostly chance."
-------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astyanax
Then you say he is a good player but not a good bankroll manager? And yet, we are talking about intelligence. How is being a good player evidence of being 'super-intelligent' as many have said, but being a terrible bankroll manager/making poor life choice isn't linked with intellect.
Playing poker well is an intellectual exercise. Succeeding at it demonstrates intelligence.
Bankroll management is not, primarily, an intellectual exercise. To the extent that Viktor practices poor bankroll management, it's not an intellectual failure. FWIW, I think his poor BRM is greatly exaggerated. No one really knows how much he has saved up or what backing arrangements (if any) he has played under at various points in his career. What we do know is that he's still around, playing the highest stakes, after several years. But that's all beside the point anyhow.
You might as well be arguing that James Joyce wasn't very bright because he was an alcoholic or Alan Turing wasn't a genius because he killed himself.
Quote:
Some of the previous huge high stakes winners simply cannot beat the game. Some will not beat it from this point though nothing has changed. Did the game pass them by? Unlikely. They will certainly not see it that way. Were they lucky (over a large sample) in the first place? Are they getting unlucky now?
WTF, are you talking about nothing has changed? Of course the game has passed them by. You play mid-high stakes poker, right? The games are MUCH tougher than they used to be.
Quote:
But could you quantify your edge over anyone using anything other than previous stats? At some level, previous does not predict future.
Yes, absolutely. For a number of relatively straightforward mistakes I can tell you exactly how much they cost a player. For more complicated ones it would be an estimate but I could still give you a quantified range.
To be clear, I'm not talking about trivial, hypothetical mistakes like folding a flush draw getting proper odds to call. I'm talking about mistakes I see people make every day in high stakes games: playing too loose from the button or too tight from the big blind or 4betting a range that contains too many bluffs or not calling enough rivers. These are quantifiable mistakes.
Quote:
This is very interesting. You are essentially agreeing that one form of poker, tournament poker is riddled with randomness. Moderate (unskilled) winners and excellent (theorists?) who are losing year after year. That data on the top 100 tournament players having a WSOP ROI of 25% says it all. Surely then it is possible that someone could believe all of poker is subject to randomness (at the levels already pointed out - a fish will not beat you over 50k hands). Not much else to say but I'm pushing this point hard. I would also like to hear a well-established mtter speak on this. How does a winning MTTer know he is not the product of randomness? Certainly not because someone on a forum (maybe a winning player) says so.
No, he's saying that you don't get a big enough sample playing live MTTs to draw conclusions based on results (especially given the lower edge and higher variance, but the small sample is by far the predominant factor). In contrast, you get a sufficiently large sample playing online cash games to know with a significant degree of confidence who is winning and by how much.
Y otro crack también estuvo comentando acerca del artículo... sauce123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjjudas
FACT 1: Sauce needlessly names and belittles Nanonoko in argument with NVGer.
FACT 2: Nanonoko replies with a touch of class.
FACT 3: Sauce uses the fact NVger says nanonoko is best player in the world to tell Nanonoko he is not. Again needlessly
Nanonoko > Sauce
Look, this is poker, not American politics. We all know Nano isn't the best player in the world, otherwise he would be beating Phil Ivey and making tens of millions. Me saying so in NVG isn't any more or less classless than the hierarchy of regs sitting alone in the PokerStars lobby. I'm not the best player in the world either, that's Ok, we can't all be the best at the same time, and it's not kindness to make pretend that we are, it's childishness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CocteauTwin
Best 24 tabler in the world but not the best straight up player? Lol wat does that even mean? Straight up = heads up? Hmmmmm o_O
Most poker players can't 24 table; it's extremely difficult to make that many decisions well and fast. Nano is excellent at 24 tabling 6max nlhe. But there are other forms of poker than 6max nlhe, each of which count towards being the best all around poker player. Nano is not excellent at all of these, because he is an incredibly skilled specialist, much like I am somewhat of a specialist at NLHE and PLO and can't credibly claim to be the best poker player even if I were the best at these two games. This isn't complicated, or designed for rhetorical affect, it's just the truth.
------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astyanax
It's annoying that two high stakes, intelligent winners are 'winning' the debate. Maybe all high stakes winners are super intelligent (sample size two; three including Phil G's original post).
Ike, we could go back and forth but you failed to say whether Isildur is super-intelligent or not? Throughout all my nonsense, that was my only real point. He does well - he is intelligent. You didn't address all my points - maybe you agree with at least some.
Just quickly - Mtts in general were being referred to, not just live. SO Shaun Deeb is super-intelligent? Or maybe even his sample size in mtts doesn't count (one could argue it is a massive sample size).
Now it would be very interesting if you pinponted the exact things wrong that previous high stakes winners used to do correctly but fail to do now. Not in general, specifically for players such as Krantz/Ansky (if they no longer beat the game) - even I could discuss what most previous winners do no longer. Again, not overall strategy - a breakdown of what a particular player used to do but does no longer. Most do not play anymore but I believe that you couldn't exactly pintpoint what they are doing wrong. We'd also see if they'd agree with you or say they are running bad. Isildur is now losing over a large sample (RECENTLY) - has he become less intelligent? Has Krantz got dumber irl or about the game? What about AE Jones. I don't know too much about him but I presume he doesn't win as much as before. Survivorship bias is tough to prove but of course the current winners (or the long term winners) will always say the game passed others by. I don't play online and I have no idea if I can beat 10/20. I have a decent full-time job and have all the respect for high stakes winners. I play £5 £5 plo/dc live and have done OK. People who I play against would probably say I'm a good theorist and play tough.
I admit I have been wrong on many counts. I have also raised some points some agree with. I have ignored some points I can't disprove but that I don't agree with or believe I have been proved wrong about. Others have ignored some of my points.
@Chinz,
I respectfully withdraw, bloodied but not beaten.
Well look, me and ike don't want to touch the intelligence question because even though we both know being sick at poker usually means you're a pretty smart cookie, there definitely isn't any way to prove it which you will possibly be satisfied with. I mean I 'spose if we were correlation thirsty we could go abduct the top 500 poker winners of all time and subject them to a battery of intelligence tests and see if they scored a couple standard deviations above the mean, but of that wouldn't prove anything either; it'd just show some degree of correlation between poker playing and some other supposed measures of intelligence which we could continue to argue over, and Phil Ivey would probably get really pissed off.
We can also play ring around the rosy forever on this as I boldly proclaim intelligence is Blah, and poker players clearly have Blah in spades! and then you can go back and say ehhm no, intelligence is Blee, and while Blah and Blee undeniably share some phonetic similarities, you haven't shown me poker players have that ineffable Blee-ness of intelligence etc.
Also, (and I feel stupid even having to say this) no one is saying winning at poker causes intelligence, or losing at poker causes stupidity. As much as Shaun might wish it, binking Scoops does not cause him to get any brighter
Just to reiterate for the poor people reading this exchange. Sample sizes in cash game poker are significant enough to know who the best players are with near certainty when combined with some fairly rudimentary analysis of their strategy. In fact, being able to figure out who's good and who's not is one of the key skills high stakes winners like me and Ike need to use every day at the table in order to figure out how good we are relative to the opposition and therefore which games to sit into. We generally think that when millions of people spend thousands of hours perfecting their poker game, and a few of them become much better than others, that those few might have some chance at being good at other things too. They also tend to make superior dinner conversation. I call that intelligence.
--------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astyanax
Great article but I disagree with this
I see this term bandied about constantly within the poker world. Success in poker has nothing to do with intelligence. There are thousands of successful poker players who are thick as pig ****. Survivorship bias dictates that those winning believe it is to do with intelligence and whilst they often have little education (not that education is the only measure/far from it), they say they have 'street/smarts or natural intelligence'. Consider this: Alan Sugar was days from going broke due to a bad deal. 30 years later a muilti-millionaire he believes he is incredibly intelligent and often refers to his 'street smarts'. The same situation faced someone who is now homeless on the streets. He probably hasn't uttered the word 'intelligent' for twenty years.
Similarly, there are thousands of intelligent people who are total failures at poker. Of course, there are no stats to back this up, but if we take generally accepted barometers of intelligence, poker players don't fit the bill. As for Isildur, intelligent is certainly not something I would use to describe him. 'It’s hard to explain what specifically I mean' because you have no idea if he is intelligent. Reason would dictate that he is the opposite for jizzing his bankroll away, being unable to quit/invest and playing three of the best players in the world all at the same time. This is not 'smart' play. And if you believe that he cares little for money; and is in it for the conquering of the game, he hasn't done this either.
I'm not even a hater. I think Isildur is a product of extreme randomness, who goes on random swings.
No, this is total nonsense. There is much less than a one in a million chance that Isildur isn't a top .01% poker player, at least in terms of being a good player, not a good bankroll manager.
First, poker players don't play random strategies. What would a random strategy look like? Well, for example, at every betting decision, the random strat player just bets a random amount 1/3 of the time, checks 1/3 of the time, and calls 1/3 of the time regardless of his cards. It's important to note that a random strategy is incredibly likely to be absolutely slaughtered by any human who half knows the rules (picture playing a guy like the one described above- the vast majority of random strats are hopelessly dominated by someone playing level0 and just betting what their hand is worth absolutely).
Second, betting decisions effect the expected value of poker strategies a lot. I can win 10bb/100 off of other excellent NLHE players.
Third, poker doesn't have a particularly high standard deviation compared to the magnitude of winrates and the sample sizes capable of being played online. Players routinely get samples of >300k hands a year, and standard deviations range from about 60bb/100 for FR NLHE to about 350bb/100 for deepstacked aggro PLO. The point being, the chances of Isildur playing 1m+ hands of highstakes poker against excellent opposition, being a weak player, and posting his results is approximately zero.
Contrast this with something like live tournaments, where the range of winrates is narrower, the variance is much much greater, and samples are usually much smaller. What you get is a lot of moderate winners who end up hitting it big and becoming celebrities, the occasional straight up bad player who hits it big once or twice, and lots of really excellent players who go months or years losing and losing.
Or to put the point differently: Taleb's point is that if you take a sufficiently large population, in our case say 100m poker players world wide, assume they all have a winrate of zero and some fairly high standard deviation (say 100 bb/100), and set them loose over a reasonable sample, say 1 million hands, you are going to get a standardly distributed curve with some outliers on each side. If you then look at the winners without taking into account the population size you might come to a disastrously wrong conclusion and think that the large winners show strong evidence of greater skill, being 3+ standard deviations above the mean relative to some deceptively small population (for example, the population of non-broke runners in this hypothetical). I suppose given these parameters it wouldn't be crazy to have an Isildur or two.
But poker populations don't all cluster around an expected winrate of 0. All you have to do is look at the magnitude of winners over large sample sizes relative to the population for this to be apparent. And it happens to be the case that a player playing a fairly average strategy (for the worldwide population of poker players) would get absolutely slaughtered at high stakes to the tune of 25+ bb/100. So it's pretty much impossible anyone ever runs good enough to be an average player and last 1 million hands at the highest stakes, even in a population of 100 million+ players.
Aside from statistics, I can just tell you Isildur plays like a boss, and would shred Nanonoko without breaking a sweat, at least hu.
en las últimas noticias, Andreas "Skjervøy" Torbergsen retó a Isildur ayer a unos HU, sin embargo Bloom contestó:
"too broke" (demasiado quedrado)
8o