Galfond on Blom

[Marky147]

Thought this was a pretty decent read

http://www.philgalfond.com/viktor-blom-the-man-the-myth-the-legend/

[cambridgealex]

Thanks for the link. Galfond writes superbly as ever and Blom is such a fascinating character to read about.

[SubZERO]

Really good read this, <3 Phils blog

[jgcblack]

[X] have a man crush on phil galfond.

[ ] ashamed

[X] considering trying to get his seed in me to see if they help my pokerbrain

[smashedagain]

[X] have a man crush on phil galfond.

[ ] ashamed

[X] considering trying to get his seed in me to see if they help my pokerbrain

Lol

[Ant040689]

'Viktor explained to me over dinner one night that he likes to make his decisions instantly so that he doesn’t question his first instinct.  Apparently, folding the nuts every once in a while is a price he has to pay.'


i am going to have some fun tonight.

[Tal]

I have a theory about him...

This "unexploitable" strategy. I understand the logic behind it and, over a million MTTs, a highly effective and profitable strategy.

But should you use it for the WSOP Main Event? This is another MTT so there's an argument for treating it the same as the Sunday Million, but the World Championship is something he'll play, what, 30 times in his life?

Is there an argument for a lower risk strategy in that event? Is he missing a trick?

[Doobs]

'Viktor explained to me over dinner one night that he likes to make his decisions instantly so that he doesn’t question his first instinct.  Apparently, folding the nuts every once in a while is a price he has to pay.'


i am going to have some fun tonight.

I liked this bit.  I have been thinking a bit about this recently with my own game. 

It is assumed in poker that the more tables you have, the worse you play.  I am not sure this is true for everyone.  This year, I have been playing more tables and think my game has improved.  Sure I fold kings pre and misclick raise a few times, but having more tables tops me overthinking situations.

I have heard it said that professional sportsmen don't think about situations much, and just rely on instinct.  When they get too much time to think, they go through the options, and end up doing none of them well.   

Given time to think, I start thinking that this can't possible be aces, as he has made it too obvious, hence it must be a bluff.    Or I end up assigning a possible range that he could have other than aces.  I call, and he has aces. Twenty tables up, it is "he has aces", and I fold.  20 tables up clearly stops me getting too flash with 67 suited utg in level 1 too. 

Obviously I am no Victor Blom, but think there is something in it.  I think you definitely need a solid understanding of the fundamentals first, when I was starting up, my game definitely got worse as I added tables.

Of course, given time to think, I realise this article is just a thinly disguised ploy to smooth talk Blom in to playing Galfond more often.

[Tal]

I can't accept that as being the answer. Every person has an optimal number of tables they can play on simultaneously and the suggestion that you should play as many until you take all the thinking time out and play solely on instinct is missing the point.

If you "over think" it is because you aren't thinking correctly; your reasoning is suboptimal and that is why the decision falls the same way.

Why do snooker players take an average of 20 seconds over every shot, chess masters 2-2.5 mins a move? It isn't necessarily because they don't know what to do (their instinct play is almost certainly the correct one), but because they are making sure. It's a systematic elimination process, where the result is a complete and beautiful conclusion.

I'd love to be able to do that in poker (in anything!) but I know that it's the reasoning that is at fault for every decision I get wrong.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[cambridgealex]

I think it was in Freakonomics the story about the fireman who somehow knew something was wrong in this house and ordered his men to get out asap.

A few seconds later the whole house was ablaze.

When questioned after how he knew, he couldn't answer - he had no idea what caused him to order his men out, he had no idea, just instinct.

All his years fighting fires and the built up experience and knowledge meant something in his brain or subconscious had told him that there was something wrong with this particular situation, yet he couldn't explain what it was.

[Doobs]

I can't accept that as being the answer. Every person has an optimal number of tables they can play on simultaneously and the suggestion that you should play as many until you take all the thinking time out and play solely on instinct is missing the point.

If you "over think" it is because you aren't thinking correctly; your reasoning is suboptimal and that is why the decision falls the same way.

Why do snooker players take an average of 20 seconds over every shot, chess masters 2-2.5 mins a move? It isn't necessarily because they don't know what to do (their instinct play is almost certainly the correct one), but because they are making sure. It's a systematic elimination process, where the result is a complete and beautiful conclusion.

I'd love to be able to do that in poker (in anything!) but I know that it's the reasoning that is at fault for every decision I get wrong.

That's how I see it, anyway.

FWIW At no stage have I made the suggestion that you should play as many [tables] until you take all the thinking time out and play solely on instinct.

I think it is possible that I play better on each table if I have 15 going rather than 2. 

I never have 2 minutes to make a decision (well unless I want to kill the timebank first hand).  If I have several minutes to think about a hand on PHA, I can usually think through all the options properly, check out some stats, know how big a stack each  opponent has and see the correct line.  Even then I am not going to create a probability distribution for each hand, work out how he plays each of them through 3 streets, with different cards on the turn and river, and then work out the best line from that. 

My choice is not 1 second or several hours.  It is 1 second or 20 seconds.   20 seconds can get me to a whole series of possible actions and leave me less sure about the correct action than I was in the first place.   

Theoretically I should play better with a HUD running, a wall of stats and one table going.  Just because it is theoretically correct on paper, doesn't make it so in practice. 


   

[Ant040689]

interesting.

Tal, i think the difference between poker and snooker on the length of time to take action is that because you have played so many poker hands and there really is a massively set course of action to raise, call, fold I think often whatever you have as your instinct is definitely the best course of action and normally when you have more time to think you can convince yourself out of it.

In snooker i think there are many more variables to think about and thus why more time is necessary, with poker if you have been aware the whole hand, you don't really need to dwell about anything. Well that is the case with me anyway.

I have noticed recently with me that my instinct has nearly always been spot on but i have let thinking too much about it make me confused and i don't go for it.

Need to be careful not to be hasty in calling random all ins on the assumption everyone is at it either, that is not what i am getting at, I just think the initial reaction is normally the best one to go for and is why that quote from prev post rings so true.

[cambridgealex]

Are there really more variables in snooker than poker?

[jgcblack]

I'll be honest - hard to believe....

muliple player types
multiple moods
multiple hand types
multiple hand developments
different interpretations of hands/ ideas of play
etc etc..

oh and a
flop
turn
river
ocean
pretend post hand play

[Ant040689]

will explain myself further.

There may be more or less or the same variables in either sport but i think that you have many of them figured out before you have to react to the opponents action, so in your head you know how to react instantly to his raise or call. I see one aspect that probably needs more thought and may take longer is bet sizing for a re raise or for a value bet on the river where i think you could lose money by being too hasty here.