Poker pros debate

[rkmsuf]

Ok, basically I'm having an arguement about how good a pro holdem player is as compared to a competant amatuer. I say the gap is not all that big and is way overrstated by many people.

Specifically, we have a monthly holdem game. 10-11 players wilt varying skill levels. Say 2 dolts, 3 competant/better than average home game types that occasional play casino games and the rest basic strategy competant but average players.

I said if you had say Phil Ivey over and set up one of the players so that Ivey could see his hand, hear the table and see the other players but remain behind the scenes, how many tourneys would the guy getting unknown help from Ivey win. My point is to take his persona out of the equation and just focus on the play itself.

One guy claims vehemently that Ivey would win at least 6 out of 12. I say that's way too high.

[Maple Leafs]

Simple law of averages might keep him from winning 50% long term, but I'm pretty sure he'd run the table over and have his chips in with the best of it almost every time.

[Subby]

Limit or no limit?

What are the stakes?

[Toddzilla]

I think if he joined the game as "PhilIvey", he'd probably win more than if he used the name "JoeDonkey", since he'd intimidate the hell out of the table.

[rkmsuf]

I think if he joined the game as "PhilIvey", he'd probably win more than if he used the name "JoeDonkey", since he'd intimidate the hell out of the table.

that's why I set it up so he's anonymous and the other players aren't shitting their pants.

I want to dispel a myth that he techincally can do stuff that is so dominant that he'd win 50% of the time. I contend even him being a good reader of players isn't enough to offset the pure nature of the game itself.

[rkmsuf]

Limit or no limit?

What are the stakes?

No limit. Stake small but irrelevant to this experiment. Nobody at the table is under an economic pressure to alter their games.

[SuperGrover]

Depends upon the blinds, starting chips. etc. For a lot of low-limit ring games (especially the online ones), the blind structure forces a lot of all-in situations. By nature, these situations require more luck than skill, so someone like Ivey probably wouldn't do that much better than an average player. Still, he's going to do better than everyone else at the table in the long run.

[Lathum]

IMO, one of the things that makes a pro a pro is that they have the correct mental attitude. They don't tilt, they have great "poker memory", correct money managment, etc...

I think from a pure "skill" aspect there may not be a huge gap but it is all the other intangibles that make them consistent winers.

[rkmsuf]

I like the point that was made that in a typical low limit game the blinds make a lot of the "intangibles" almost irrelevant. Ivey in a multi table, multi day event would dominate comparted to anyone at our game. In a typical 4 hour one table event it's highly random just by the nature of the game.

[larrymcg421]

But Phil Ivey worked his way up in the cash games before he was "Phil Ivey", so he does have quite a bit of skill aside from that. It's true that his persona probably helps quite a bit but even without that I'm pretty sure he'd win very often.

[SportsDino]

Assuming the player could be made a direct emotional copy of Mr. Ivey, he could dominate (as in, he doesn't give away any tells, and pretty much behaves just like Ivey but doesn't look like him).

For one, a pro would be able to take out the incompetent players with more certainty than average strategy competent players, assuming no string of luck forces all their stacks into the average players, Pseudo Ivey will get into situations with them, find their weak spot, and convince them to push all in when he has the edge.

Meanwhile, he'll figure out the strategies played by the average players, for instance a tendency to be too tight, overplay pocket pairs, chase draws too long, and use those weaknesses to his advantage. Remember, this is not a multi-thousand person game, but a single table action where you can get a pretty good bead on everyone you are playing against after a relatively short time of play.

I'd trust his reads and tactics over luck, and say on average he would probably win at least half the games (which taking 1st out of 10 is not that bad a performance). With a lot of luck, he could win maybe 80% of the time. There is no way it would be a sure thing of course.

[rkmsuf]

Assuming the player could be made a direct emotional copy of Mr. Ivey, he could dominate (as in, he doesn't give away any tells, and pretty much behaves just like Ivey but doesn't look like him).

For one, a pro would be able to take out the incompetent players with more certainty than average strategy competent players, assuming no string of luck forces all their stacks into the average players, Pseudo Ivey will get into situations with them, find their weak spot, and convince them to push all in when he has the edge.

Meanwhile, he'll figure out the strategies played by the average players, for instance a tendency to be too tight, overplay pocket pairs, chase draws too long, and use those weaknesses to his advantage. Remember, this is not a multi-thousand person game, but a single table action where you can get a pretty good bead on everyone you are playing against after a relatively short time of play.

I'd trust his reads and tactics over luck, and say on average he would probably win at least half the games (which taking 1st out of 10 is not that bad a performance). With a lot of luck, he could win maybe 80% of the time. There is no way it would be a sure thing of course.

I have a hard time believing much of that is a factor in a 4 hour game with doubling blinds every 30 minutes or so. To me his edge is long term. Not in a 12 game sample. Anyone can bust a hand from behind.

To me the mistake is somehow comparing pros in other sports and saying someone like Ivey is the equivalent in poker compared to Joe Average. Nobody could beat Michael Jordan one on one. Any fool can bust AA and it happens.

[Huckleberry]

Using your player descriptions, I figure the 2 dolts to win one out of every 24 tournaments each, the 5 average players to win one out of every 12, and the 3 good players to win one out of every 6.

I figure an Ivey-helped player would win one out of every three.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I have a hard time believing much of that is a factor in a 4 hour game with doubling blinds every 30 minutes or so. To me his edge is long term. Not in a 12 game sample. Anyone can bust a hand from behind.

To me the mistake is somehow comparing pros in other sports and saying someone like Ivey is the equivalent in poker compared to Joe Average. Nobody could beat Michael Jordan one on one. Any fool can bust AA and it happens.
If you're going to try to judge the gap between a world-class professional and an amateur based on a 12-game sample, your logic is flawed from the start.

[rkmsuf]

If you're going to try to judge the gap between a world-class professional and an amateur based on a 12-game sample, your logic is flawed from the start.

Which was kind of my point saying I thought it was cooky to assume pseudo ivey would win 6 times.

[Huckleberry]

Part of the reason I only see one out of three for Ivey is the previously mentioned structure.

Another is personal experience in placing better in live tournaments where the opponents were better players than when the donkey percentage was higher. Not a huge sample, again, but just personal anecdotal evidence.

[Samdari]

Which was kind of my point saying I thought it was cooky to assume pseudo ivey would win 6 times.

Yes it is.

I think he'd win 50/100, but perhaps not 6 of 12.

[rkmsuf]

Using your player descriptions, I figure the 2 dolts to win one out of every 24 tournaments each, the 5 average players to win one out of every 12, and the 3 good players to win one out of every 6.

I figure an Ivey-helped player would win one out of every three.

that's a good way to look at it

[SportsDino]

I am assuming the pro could avoid the busted hand once in a while, you do not always put all your chips in with rockets. Assuming they are getting their fair shot of coin flips they will not be on the bottom side of the all in.

Granted I'm not a pro, but I've dominated a series of tournaments with about one every other day for a streak of about a month, I won about 60%, 19 out of 31. These ranged from 10-30 people, college aged, some dumb, but the majority low skill level to some very competent players. I of course had the advantage of familiarity with the players, and non-doubling blinds (we played a structure similar but simpler than Pokerstars). The key was trusting my instincts and learning how to fold, even the very competent players could be beat if you do not feel the need to push every hand you have an advantage (smaller controlled bets, versus the player who pushes every 65/35 split and gets caught).

Pros that get by on big bets and bluffs will fall to luck heavilly, those with a more patient game based on reads I think can get far.

Against casino players my tourney record is about the same, my notable losses are not the ones where I got busted with AA, but when I make a power play based on guts, have the person literally sit confused for three minutes, and call with a weak hand that happens to be beating me, or can catch to beat me.

Of course, my proudest tournament is where i was near elimination from a triple series of bad beats (80/20, 70/30, and 80/20, all flop or turn, not preflop).... built up to 2nd place with weak cards and guts, only to lose to a guy who couldn't fold overpair multiway (he was 1st place, a bold move went wrong on my part, he only made the decision after an incredibly long chip count that showed if he called and lost he would go from 1st place by a mile to last).

Luck is a factor, but assuming its a small tournament and you are controlled, I think you can beat the odds consistently. Its only when you start getting over 50 people where you have to participate in so many all-ins that that advantage becomes highly diminished.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Which was kind of my point saying I thought it was cooky to assume pseudo ivey would win 6 times.
Well, I can see that point, but the following quote from your original post loses me:

Ok, basically I'm having an arguement about how good a pro holdem player is as compared to a competant amatuer. I say the gap is not all that big and is way overrstated by many people.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the bolded part, but there is a gap, and it's a huge one. It's just a gap that can't be measured over 12 tournaments.

To use the Michael Jordan example, no, I doubt any of us could hang with MJ in a one-on-one game, but if during Jordan's prime, you put a top college player against him, I doubt Jordan would win every game against him. My point is that there would clearly be a huge talent gap, but the underdog would have a strong enough skill set to be able to win if Jordan is just having a bad game. Just because the underdog wins once or twice doesn't take away the fact that the overall talent gap is massive.

If the other person in your debate really wants to think that Phil Ivey can win half of those tournaments against the non-professional players, like I said, the logic is flawed. That argument is so unsound, though, that there's really no debate here. Their point can't prove a large talent gap, and your counterpoint can't argue against it. The fact that it's 12 tournaments means that you're both literally arguing about absolutely nothing.

[MJ4H]

Yes it is.

I think he'd win 50/100, but perhaps not 6 of 12.
Yikes. 20-25, 30 at best is what I'd guess (remember 10/100 is what he'd win if it were pure chance). Of course you cant guarantee he's win 6 out of 12 if he'd win 50% of the time, but I think the heart of the question is how much edge ivey has over average joe-tournament-player. Id guess it is significant, and a 2-3 to 1 advantage is that. Above that is pretty out of bounds for a single table tournament with escalating blinds. There is just a huge amount of luck in those things. The number goes down as the blind increase rate gets faster, also.

EDIT: note im assuming 10 player tournament for simplicity's sake.

[rkmsuf]

Well, I can see that point, but the following quote from your original post loses me:


Maybe I'm reading too much into the bolded part, but there is a gap, and it's a huge one. It's just a gap that can't be measured over 12 tournaments.

To use the Michael Jordan example, no, I doubt any of us could hang with MJ in a one-on-one game, but if during Jordan's prime, you put a top college player against him, I doubt Jordan would win every game against him. My point is that there would clearly be a huge talent gap, but the underdog would have a strong enough skill set to be able to win if Jordan is just having a bad game. Just because the underdog wins once or twice doesn't take away the fact that the overall talent gap is massive.

If the other person in your debate really wants to think that Phil Ivey can win half of those tournaments against the non-professional players, like I said, the logic is flawed. That argument is so unsound, though, that there's really no debate here. Their point can't prove a large talent gap, and your counterpoint can't argue against it. The fact that it's 12 tournaments means that you're both literally arguing about absolutely nothing.

I guess that was my point that in a small sample that the gap was fairly small and was amazed at some assumptions he could come in and win AT LEAST half the games.

No question over time Ivey would crush any of us but to me that is a function of resources, patience, money management, ect.

[Maple Leafs]

I don't understand the distinction between a 50% win ratio, and winning 6/12 tourneys.

Of course 12 tournies is too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but we already know that. For the sake of the question, don't we need to assume that the "how many wins in 12 tries" question implies a representative win ratio?

[rkmsuf]

I don't understand the distinction between a 50% win ratio, and winning 6/12 tourneys.

Of course 12 tournies is too small a sample size to draw conclusions from, but we already know that. For the sake of the question, don't we need to assume that the "how many wins in 12 tries" question implies a representative win ratio?

you could and I would suggest 50% is way too high. i'm comfortable with 1/3. 4 in 12 or 33 of 100. Something like that.

No idea the number, my overriding point to begin is that most estimates are too high unless Ivey himself is at the table. Then the numbers go way up due to the shit your pants factor.