Hey now, you should write your blog from an economics' point of view. It would be fun and original as you use economics' laws and models to justify your decisions and your earnings. Would be fun to read. 
Heck, if we stretch it far enough, the IS-LM model could be applied easily to any poker session. ♦
Originally posted by MigArt
Hey now, you should write your blog from an economics' point of view. It would be fun and original as you use economics' laws and models to justify your decisions and your earnings. Would be fun to read.Heck, if we stretch it far enough, the IS-LM model could be applied easily to any poker session. ♦
I've just not been inspired so much, I don't want to have to force models onto poker- if they fit then they fit!
Btw how sick was the MPC's role on screwing the pound over huh? time to withdraw i think haha
edit: i'm lazy, oh and how would you apply the is/lm model? whats the variable that replaces interest rates? and output for that matter lol
Output would be the nominal value of your money and interest rate would be the ratio of time you spend against how much you win. 
Originally posted by MigArt
Output would be the nominal value of your money and interest rate would be the ratio of time you spend against how much you win.
Hmm i think there's more stuff to be explored than these relationships.
I was thinking about the ideas of perfect and imperfect competition, and of course collusion and their impacts! Nothing revolutionary but models that mirror what is happening to the poker 'market'.
Perhaps a topic on WHY we play poker too... need to think
Originally posted by shortfuse
Originally posted by MigArt
Output would be the nominal value of your money and interest rate would be the ratio of time you spend against how much you win.Hmm i think there's more stuff to be explored than these relationships.
I was thinking about the ideas of perfect and imperfect competition, and of course collusion and their impacts! Nothing revolutionary but models that mirror what is happening to the poker 'market'.
Perhaps a topic on WHY we play poker too... need to think
Yeap, that would be nice. Of course I'm trying to simplify as much as possible, but then again, I follow the Austrian school so who am I to speak about simplifying? 
Originally posted by MigArt
Originally posted by shortfuse
Originally posted by MigArt
Output would be the nominal value of your money and interest rate would be the ratio of time you spend against how much you win.Hmm i think there's more stuff to be explored than these relationships.
I was thinking about the ideas of perfect and imperfect competition, and of course collusion and their impacts! Nothing revolutionary but models that mirror what is happening to the poker 'market'.
Perhaps a topic on WHY we play poker too... need to think
Yeap, that would be nice. Of course I'm trying to simplify as much as possible, but then again, I follow the Austrian school so who am I to speak about simplifying?
Wow commited already?
I have so much more to explore, and really would not want to commit to an ideolody just yet- perhaps when I'm very old and wise then I may be moulded into one!
Though, I would say my interest in monetarist ideas have been sparked largely due to the financial crisis and my disliking towards keynesian has grown simultaneously.
Originally posted by shortfuse
Originally posted by MigArt
Yeap, that would be nice. Of course I'm trying to simplify as much as possible, but then again, I follow the Austrian school so who am I to speak about simplifying?Wow commited already?
I have so much more to explore, and really would not want to commit to an ideolody just yet- perhaps when I'm very old and wise then I may be moulded into one!
Though, I would say my interest in monetarist ideas have been sparked largely due to the financial crisis and my disliking towards keynesian has grown simultaneously.
From the moment the school defended the subjectivity of human nature and that all variables in a model should not be subjected to the ceteris paribus rule, I fell in love.
There was something about the Austrian School that attracted me, it somehow clicked in my mind, it made sense in a way. Though I still explore everything, I'm not chained to such school of thought, there's always lots of things to read and discover, but I tend to follow that school more often than not.
Gday Fuse, thought i'd drop by and say hi....nice graph you got going there, keep up the good work!! (congrats on the goldness too)
Originally posted by AussieIan
Gday Fuse, thought i'd drop by and say hi....nice graph you got going there, keep up the good work!! (congrats on the goldness too)
Hey man! thanks again for persuading me onto here!
my sickest hand ever today:
Hand converted with online PokerStrategy.com hand converter:
$0.1/$0.25 No-Limit Hold'em (8 handed)
Known players:
[tg]MP3$11.15:///////;CO$42.45:///////;BU$11.31:///////;SB$34.81:///////;BB$27.73:///////;MP1$28.07:///////;MP2(Hero)$26.77:///////;[/tg]
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Q:c, Q:d.
MP1 raises to $0.50, Hero raises to $1.50, 5 folds, MP1 calls $1.00.
Flop: ($3.35) K:d, Q:h, 6:d (3 players)
MP1 checks, Hero checks.
Turn: ($3.35) 9:c (3 players)
MP1 bets $3.19, Hero calls $3.19.
River: ($9.73) K:s (3 players)
MP1 raises to $23.38(All-In), Hero calls $22.08(All-In).
Final Pot: $55.19.
Results follow:
Hero shows a full-house, queens full of kings(Q:c Q:d).
MP1 shows four of a kind, kings(K:h K:c).
MP1 wins with four of a kind, kings(K:h K:c).
happened twice with different cards aswell, so only broke even
Competition amongst sharks for fish
In the economics textbooks, markets consist of buyers and sellers (firms and customers).
Here, we shall assume the firms are the sharks and sellers are fish. However since fish also try to win (despite their failings) they can also be considered as buyers.
The product is assumed to be utility (satisfaction). Why?
For the sharks utility = cash, specifically profits.
The fish’s utility is what it is, ‘enjoyment’ from playing. We shall assume all fish unconsciously play for fun; if they were not fish they would have tried and succeeded in learning how to play well ergo all losers ultimately play for the kicks. Their utility consists of fun; profit is just a by-product of this. We have to assume the numbers of fish in the beginning far outweigh the number of sharks.
Now we have a market, the sharks supply the fish with their time so the fish can have fun whilst the fish ‘trade their money for this ‘service’. This should simplify matters, as with all models big assumptions are made and some very important factors may be neglected.
For now let’s neglect that sharks vs sharks situations occur, after all why would two firms sell to each other the same product/service at the same rate?
In a perfect market all sharks are the same (equally intelligent or stupid) and they would all have access and understanding and presumably would use all available resources e.g pokerstrategy.com! But then, all players would turn into sharks since this vast amount of knowledge is available to them. The fish have been hand-given this wealth of info, not even the noobiest fish would turn this down. What happens is that the fish evolves and turns into a shark. However, sharks are only known as sharks when they are seen to be dominating a table of players. If a full table of sharks now appear, there is no edge. With these ‘sharks’ all playing the same way against each other, in the long run there will be no gains or losses. Abnormal profits have been ‘competed’ away, just like in the textbooks, since there is ease of entry into and out of poker sites and all are of the same skill. The large numbers of original fish still get their excitement but at a lower ‘cost’. This is a zero sum game (excluding rake) and is at the expense of original sharks losing their big edge, or their abnormal profits.
However, imperfect markets are far more realistic and interesting. Not all players have equal skill.
Imagine a monopoly situation. There is one big shark and he/she is the only one at the table full of fish. This shark can maximise its producer surplus at the expense of fish. The shark has far too much power and knowledge which the fish don’t and can exploit all the fish very easily. The fish end up paying more (by losing more) to the shark. In the real world firms control on the industry may be curbed it appears to be detrimental e.g. Microsoft. However, poker is ruthless and there is no government. The poker sites don’t mind. However, a social problem that may occur is that the fish (unsurprisingly) may be addicted and have a gambling problem but sites already offer notices to at least appear to care for the welfare of everybody. But this is just a fantasy economy.
One day, other sharks turn up at this table. There are now 3 sharks on this table of 9. There is 1 shark for every 2 fish. ‘Profits’ will be reduced for the sharks if they sit on this table, thought profits will still be made. This is in-between the spectrum of imperfect and perfect competition. It is an oligopoly, full of a few dominant firms. Thought strictly speaking all markets are oligopolies since imperfect and perfect markets are abstract ideas! A chilling idea but happens in real markets, is that these sharks decide to work together and collude. They may make a pact to not play against each other, assuming they are of equal ability, since they cannot make gains from one another and can only incur losses from variance. It poses the question to these sharks: Why flip a coin for 2:1 odds? There can be no gain in the long run from these players but they are exposed to variance. Strictly speaking if these sharks of equal ability played each other then they would lose in the long run due to rake!
So, these sharks agree to chop the blinds with one another and not play each other. But these collusions would not occur in reality. Simply, sharks are inherently greedy and would exploit at any chance. A shark on the button finds himself with AA and decides to raise the other sharks, which cover the blinds. The small blind is thinking wtf and folds anyway but the BB finds himself with AA too. He is pissed off at the other shark for defecting and decides to shove preflop to teach him a lesson. The shark on the button calls. They split the pot. However, more is lost to rake. Here is a payoff matrix for this dilemma if it were to occur.
C= cooperate D= defect
C D
C 2,2 0,3
D 3,0 1,1
You will notice this is the prisoner’s dilemma. It would be better to both cooperate than to defect but best to screw the other guy over.
In theory, each player should defect (he gains +1 whatever strategy the opponent chooses) and the Nash equilibrium is in bold, both decide to defect following the same lines. Whether this happens in real life or not is debateable, but the point is sharks are always tempted by defection since they are greedy by nature. Hence, collusion amongst sharks will not occur (for long at least) and empirical evidence favour that idea.
But in reality sharks are not all of similar ability, there may be awesome sharks and average sharks, which provides even more assurance that sharks will not collude. But what if fish decide to collude?
If the collusion of the sharks is based on their understanding of variance and profitability of a session or even a specific hand it would stand to reason that collusion is beyond the grasp of the fish since their game in principle lacks the understanding of variance and profitability otherwise they would no longer be fish?
Originally posted by shortfuse
Competition amongst sharks for fishIn the economics textbooks, markets consist of buyers and sellers (firms and customers).
Here, we shall assume the firms are the sharks and sellers are fish. However since fish also try to win (despite their failings) they can also be considered as buyers.The product is assumed to be utility (satisfaction). Why?
For the sharks utility = cash, specifically profits.
The fish’s utility is what it is, ‘enjoyment’ from playing. We shall assume all fish unconsciously play for fun; if they were not fish they would have tried and succeeded in learning how to play well ergo all losers ultimately play for the kicks. Their utility consists of fun; profit is just a by-product of this. We have to assume the numbers of fish in the beginning far outweigh the number of sharks.Now we have a market, the sharks supply the fish with their time so the fish can have fun whilst the fish ‘trade their money for this ‘service’. This should simplify matters, as with all models big assumptions are made and some very important factors may be neglected.
For now let’s neglect that sharks vs sharks situations occur, after all why would two firms sell to each other the same product/service at the same rate?In a perfect market all sharks are the same (equally intelligent or stupid) and they would all have access and understanding and presumably would use all available resources e.g pokerstrategy.com! But then, all players would turn into sharks since this vast amount of knowledge is available to them. The fish have been hand-given this wealth of info, not even the noobiest fish would turn this down. What happens is that the fish evolves and turns into a shark. However, sharks are only known as sharks when they are seen to be dominating a table of players. If a full table of sharks now appear, there is no edge. With these ‘sharks’ all playing the same way against each other, in the long run there will be no gains or losses. Abnormal profits have been ‘competed’ away, just like in the textbooks, since there is ease of entry into and out of poker sites and all are of the same skill. The large numbers of original fish still get their excitement but at a lower ‘cost’. This is a zero sum game (excluding rake) and is at the expense of original sharks losing their big edge, or their abnormal profits.
However, imperfect markets are far more realistic and interesting. Not all players have equal skill.
Imagine a monopoly situation. There is one big shark and he/she is the only one at the table full of fish. This shark can maximise its producer surplus at the expense of fish. The shark has far too much power and knowledge which the fish don’t and can exploit all the fish very easily. The fish end up paying more (by losing more) to the shark. In the real world firms control on the industry may be curbed it appears to be detrimental e.g. Microsoft. However, poker is ruthless and there is no government. The poker sites don’t mind. However, a social problem that may occur is that the fish (unsurprisingly) may be addicted and have a gambling problem but sites already offer notices to at least appear to care for the welfare of everybody. But this is just a fantasy economy.
One day, other sharks turn up at this table. There are now 3 sharks on this table of 9. There is 1 shark for every 2 fish. ‘Profits’ will be reduced for the sharks if they sit on this table, thought profits will still be made. This is in-between the spectrum of imperfect and perfect competition. It is an oligopoly, full of a few dominant firms. Thought strictly speaking all markets are oligopolies since imperfect and perfect markets are abstract ideas! A chilling idea but happens in real markets, is that these sharks decide to work together and collude. They may make a pact to not play against each other, assuming they are of equal ability, since they cannot make gains from one another and can only incur losses from variance. It poses the question to these sharks: Why flip a coin for 2:1 odds? There can be no gain in the long run from these players but they are exposed to variance. Strictly speaking if these sharks of equal ability played each other then they would lose in the long run due to rake!
So, these sharks agree to chop the blinds with one another and not play each other. But these collusions would not occur in reality. Simply, sharks are inherently greedy and would exploit at any chance. A shark on the button finds himself with AA and decides to raise the other sharks, which cover the blinds. The small blind is thinking wtf and folds anyway but the BB finds himself with AA too. He is pissed off at the other shark for defecting and decides to shove preflop to teach him a lesson. The shark on the button calls. They split the pot. However, more is lost to rake. Here is a payoff matrix for this dilemma if it were to occur.
C= cooperate D= defectC D
C 2,2 0,3
D 3,0 1,1You will notice this is the prisoner’s dilemma. It would be better to both cooperate than to defect but best to screw the other guy over.
In theory, each player should defect (he gains +1 whatever strategy the opponent chooses) and the Nash equilibrium is in bold, both decide to defect following the same lines. Whether this happens in real life or not is debateable, but the point is sharks are always tempted by defection since they are greedy by nature. Hence, collusion amongst sharks will not occur (for long at least) and empirical evidence favour that idea.
But in reality sharks are not all of similar ability, there may be awesome sharks and average sharks, which provides even more assurance that sharks will not collude. But what if fish decide to collude?
interesting idea.
but poker has way more than these 2 personalities.
you get the bonus whores and the rocks for example.
and since I usually have discovery channel on while im playing, you should read up the difference between a coral reef shark and the great white.
enjoyable read though. 
oh! as for the currency exhange.. the dollar is so down that I was reading today that soon its nutritional value will be higher than its monetary. 
@ phpps
We must have met situations where you hear someone has phoned their friend and told each other their hands to try and gain an edge. This is collusion in a simple form.
But this still contradicts my assumption: fish have no brains.
So, you are very right in saying that fish by definition (my definition) cannot collude. But evolution is present and the markets are dynamic. I guess what happens is whilst fish aim to have fun, they also like to win aswell as having fun. We reach the point where groups form and poker is no longer a game of individuals and further on, there will be no hands played as all the fish decide to form as one team. But then this begs dilemma that they are no longer obtaining funtime- which is what they innately favour. Now, throw in a shark and the table becomes an outnumbered but not outgunned game. Just like a purely perfect market and monopoly only exists in textbooks, so does these ideas.
This is why I left it as an afterthought, the market is too complex to dissect every minute bit, yet we can try.
@ excelgeo
Including more characters into the mix would be far more interesting, but this is just a model and for models to be 'useful' or insightful then simplification is a must. This is why I also stressed that I have left other factors out.
I'm glad you enjoyed that, I understand there are many holes in the article though. If anyone would like to pose their own questions and thoughts then that would be great for discussion!
As for exchange rate, I think you mean the POUND is DOWN.
The dollar has gone up in strength relative to the pound. This is because the MPC recently injected more money into the economy to improve liquidity and the pound has fallen due to this stimulus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8187360.stm
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/currency/11/12/intraday.stm
We can see that we can buy less dollars with pounds compared to a fortnight ago. ie. it would be a good time to withdraw your bankroll dollars into pounds now (if you think the pound will not go any lower, ie if you think the pound will go up in near future).
Sometimes it can be confusing reading the conversion and assume that the numbers drop means it has fallen e.g I think you must have thought that since £1 can buy less dollars, then the dollar has fallen. It is actually the inverse!
damn, for the first time ever tilt has affected me 
would be $50 up but instead only broke even due to tilt. god, alwful feeling- didn't even realise i was on tilt.
never again
nah i meant what i said about the dollar being crap recently, every time i withdraw im amazed at how poor it does, but i havent withdrawn in 20 days and i am not going to do so again for a while, so i guess it is bad timing for me
Originally posted by excelgeo
nah i meant what i said about the dollar being crap recently, every time i withdraw im amazed at how poor it does, but i havent withdrawn in 20 days and i am not going to do so again for a while, so i guess it is bad timing for me
oh well it all depends on how long we mean by recent. i was talking about a couple of weeks period, if you are talking about months then you are correct!
tilt sucks thank god i don't play cash games. I would go on tilt more often there.
Update
only played 3 sessions in past week as I have just not been motivated and it shows...
any tips or fighting boredom?
I have the BR to play 25NL on all 12 tables but I can't find decent tables to play on! (partypoker)
what happends is i play mostly SH and FR NL10 and its wild as hell!
I want to move to fulltilt really bad bad i haven't even deposited on party yet to take advantage of bonus lol.
OK,
so today i was playing bad and the cards did not help either so lost $60
decided to play $2 mtt (sick rake on partypoker)
and...
fucking won it didnt i!!!!
wel...
in last 3, i was short stacked and so kept pressuring then knock one of the two equal big stacks out after two double ups.
so, im in chip lead
12:7
winner gets $250, second gets $140
i thought, gap is too big so we both negotiated and i selected $230 for myself and he was happy to agree!
BOOM!
last 10k hands has been soul destroying. today was one of the bad days
Known players:
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/RaisePreflop/AF/WTS/ORL/BBvsSteal/W$SD;Hero$28.51:///////;UTG1$30.30:103/16 /5 /1.3/44 /13 /67 /75 ;[/tg]
0.1/0.25 No-Limit Hold'em (9 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: PokerStrategy Elephant 0.67 by www.pokerstrategy.com.
Preflop: Hero is SB with 6♣, 6♥
UTG1 raises to $1, 6 folds, Hero calls $0.90, BB folds.
Flop: ($2) 2♠, 6♠, J♣ (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG1 bets $1.25, Hero raises to $4, UTG1 calls $2.25.
Turn: ($9) 4♥ (2 players)
Hero bets $5.84, UTG1 raises to $12, Hero raises to $24 (All-In), UTG1 calls $12.33.
River: ($57) 5♦ (2 players)
Final Pot: $57
Results follow (highlight to see):
Hero shows three of a kind, sixes (6c 6h)
UTG1 shows three of a kind, jacks (Js Jh)
UTG1 wins with three of a kind, jacks (Js Jh)
Known players:
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/RaisePreflop/AF/WTS/ORL/BBvsSteal/W$SD;Hero$25.49:///////;MP3$25.35:89/24 /20 /3.0/27 /29 /-/75 ;[/tg]
0.1/0.25 No-Limit Hold'em (8 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: PokerStrategy Elephant 0.67 by www.pokerstrategy.com.
Preflop: Hero is MP1 with 9♦, 9♥
UTG2 folds, Hero raises to $1, MP2 folds, MP3 raises to $3, 4 folds, Hero calls $1.75.
Flop: ($5) 7♣, 7♠, 2♥ (2 players)
Hero checks, MP3 bets $3.25, Hero calls $3.25.
Turn: ($12) 9♠ (2 players)
Hero bets $6.63, MP3 calls $6.63.
River: ($25) J♣ (2 players)
Hero raises $13.11 (All-In), MP3 calls $12.97 (All-In).
Final Pot: $51
Results follow (highlight to see):
Hero shows a full-house, nines full of sevens (9d 9h)
MP3 shows a full-house, jacks full of sevens (Jd Js)
MP3 wins with a full-house, jacks full of sevens (Jd Js)
Known players:
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/RaisePreflop/AF/WTS/ORL/BBvsSteal/W$SD;UTG1$24.00:393/17 /7 /4.0/13 /18 /78 /50 ;Hero$25.00:///////;MP3$36.96:37/38 /16 /1.9/36 /33 /-/60 ;[/tg]
0.1/0.25 No-Limit Hold'em (9 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: PokerStrategy Elephant 0.67 by www.pokerstrategy.com.
Preflop: Hero is MP1 with Q♦, Q♠
UTG1 calls $0.25, UTG2 folds, Hero raises to $1, MP2 folds, MP3 raises to $2, 5 folds, Hero raises to $7, MP3 raises to $11, Hero raises to $25 (All-In), MP3 calls $14.25.
Flop: ($51) 6♠, J♣, A♥
Turn: ($51) T♣
River: ($51) 9♠ (2 players)
Final Pot: $51
Results follow (highlight to see):
Hero shows a pair of queens (Qd Qs)
MP3 shows a pair of kings (Kc Kd)
MP3 wins with a pair of kings (Kc Kd)
Known players:
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/RaisePreflop/AF/WTS/ORL/BBvsSteal/W$SD;Hero$25.00:///////;CO$33.46:850/15 /12 /1.6/21 /36 /73 /17 ;[/tg]
0.1/0.25 No-Limit Hold'em (8 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: PokerStrategy Elephant 0.67 by www.pokerstrategy.com.
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Q♦, Q♥
2 folds, Hero raises to $1, MP3 folds, CO calls $1.00, 3 folds.
Flop: ($2) J♠, 3♠, 4♦ (2 players)
Hero bets $1.68, CO calls $1.68.
Turn: ($6) T♥ (2 players)
Hero bets $3.82, CO raises to $8, Hero raises to $22 (All-In), CO calls $13.88.
River: ($50) J♥ (2 players)
Final Pot: $50
Results follow (highlight to see):
Hero shows two pairs, queens and jacks (Qd Qh)
CO shows a full-house, tens full of jacks (Ts Td)
CO wins with a full-house, tens full of jacks (Ts Td)
Known players:
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/RaisePreflop/AF/WTS/ORL/BBvsSteal/W$SD;Hero$29.35:///////;MP2$23.54:179/12 /1 /11.0/25 /0 /83 /50 ;BU$25.42:376/16 /6 /4.6/30 /17 /67 /53 ;[/tg]
0.1/0.25 No-Limit Hold'em (8 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: PokerStrategy Elephant 0.67 by www.pokerstrategy.com.
Preflop: Hero is MP1 with A♣, K♠
UTG2 folds, Hero raises to $1, MP2 calls $1.00, 2 folds, BU calls $1.00, 2 folds.
Flop: ($3) K♦, Q♥, 5♥ (3 players)
Hero bets $2.39, MP2 raises to $5, BU folds, Hero calls $2.39.
Turn: ($13) 4♠ (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $12.27, Hero raises to $24 (All-In), MP2 calls $5.49 (All-In).
River: ($54) 7♦ (2 players)
Final Pot: $54
Results follow (highlight to see):
Hero shows a pair of kings (Ac Ks)
MP2 shows three of a kind, queens (Qs Qc)
MP2 wins with three of a kind, queens (Qs Qc)
and more
thank god i quit before i tilted
heres my overall graph:
