skill v natural ability

TeddyBloat

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

Well yeh on a more basic level it's been known that HU SnGs (at least at certain stack depths) are 'solved'. This is why MTTs are generally classed as easier/more straight forward/more formulaic in the latter stages. Cash poker is far more complex and so obv harder to 'solve'. For instance with 10xBB HU there is a range of hands you can shove where there is absolutely nothing your opponent can do to exploit it. If they go one way and tighten up then they lose cos we steal blinds more than they should allow, go the other way and loosen up with their calling range and they're getting it in bad too often. The only thing they can do is call with an equally unexploitable range and then no1 wins except the rake.
Posted by Lambert180

This is a misconception I'm afraid, lambert. Playing shove or fold at 10 bbs is a losing propostion for the sb no matter how perfectly he plays.  The bb has position and will profit with an appropriate calling range. Optimal play for the sb means shoving a range such that no strategy can exploit him and he is guranteed to lose the minimum.  Around 6 bbs it becomes a winning proposition for the sb, as the bb has to commit so much more of his stack. Two opponents can play shove or fold perfectly but one will profit over the other due to stack depths and positional advantage

Cheers,

TEDDY

Slykllist

I agree, this has gone slightly off topic, the point of mentioning optimal strategy was merely to highlight the fact that as poker players we all deviate from this and because of this fact, we are all exploitable.

This allows for the skill element of the game to outweigh the theory and in response to the OP highlights that the real SKILL of the game is in working out how your opponents play and how you can best exploit them.

That is all!

Slykllist

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

Deep Blue had an optimal response too, but still couldn't beat Garry Kasparov all the time.
Posted by Slipwater

And a perfect GTO system wouldn't beat Phil Ivey all the time, in fact it wouldn't even beat me all the time, but over time I'm pretty sure I couldn't beat it!

rancid

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

It may be the most +EV in some spots, what I meant is GTO doesn't necessarily mean that it is automatically the most +EV. Tbf, I think it depends on the oppo. Take 4NL for instance, do we want to worry about being unexploitable and maybe giving up EV when most people aren't gonna exploit us anyway. Like do we really need to worry about the fact that against certain players when we overbet jam it's ALWAYS value?
Posted by Lambert180

Playing GTO ensures that the more villian moves away from GTO the money you will win

It's a game theory strategy, it's your whole strategy that will be +EV
Therefore if villian moves further away from GTO then your EV will greaten and therefore there's will lessen

We are not worried about being exploited because our overall srategy can not be expolited

Take your nl4 example, your not expoliting nl4 players- even though you probably think you are Phil Ivey
By playing optimaly your benefiting from there mistakes.
The more mistakes they make, the more money you will win by adopting a certain straegy regardless of short term results.
ie. the more they veer away from the GTO strategy the more money they will lose, which means they are making more and more mistakes.


We are talking about an overall game theory strategy, for example what is GTO for noughts and crosses

Lambert180

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability :  for example what is GTO for noughts and crosses
Posted by rancid

Always start in the centre square

rancid

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

I agree, this has gone slightly off topic, the point of mentioning optimal strategy was merely to highlight the fact that as poker players we all deviate from this and because of this fact, we are all exploitable. This allows for the skill element of the game to outweigh the theory and in response to the OP highlights that the real SKILL of the game is in working out how your opponents play and how you can best exploit them. That is all!
Posted by Slykllist

The more you try and expolit your opponent, the more you leave yourself open to be expolited

also the only reason a poker player would deviate from GTO would be because in that instance the exploitaive play would yield a greater EV - ie. GTO + explo poker player is da booooooooooooooom

Slipwater

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

I agree, this has gone slightly off topic.
Posted by Slykllist

+1

Mostly skill, with a smattering of natural ability thrown in for good measure. Sorted.

rancid

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : Always start in the centre square
Posted by Lambert180

So no matter what oppo does they can not win, best they can do is draw.

if they deviate further from the optimum response they will lose more  - hopefully money but I guess no one is dumb enough to play this for money

Slipwater

Not strictly true, rancid. They can certainly win if you don't stop them.

Phantom66

If you are interested in this question I would thoroughly recommend the book Bounce by Matthew Syed

Interesting views on this very topic applied to a variety of situations from Tennis to Chess to Music (and much more).

As most of us will not play millions of hands - then luck will play a part.

I truly believe that anyone can learn to play winning poker - and for the original poster I would say that getting feedback is the most important step to develop your game.

DANDYDON87

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

90% Educated learning 10% Natural ability I could turn anyone into a winning player at nl4 in 1 week.
Posted by rancid

One Day