4 ms·

Today exploits like this are impossible against even average players

Lutzb 7y ago
Can you explain what would be impossible? Ungars call or Matloubis bluff? Novice poker player here, trying to understand.
- rishabhd 7y ago
  He was so good with counting cards that he had full situational awareness of the game.
- bionsystem 7y ago
  We would need the transcript of the game to analyse it properly. Here it is : ---------------- Stacks: Ungar: ~60,000; Matloubi: ~40,000 Blinds: 200/400 Hands: Matloubi holds 5-4 offsuit in the BB; Ungar has 10-9 offsuit in the small blind (the button). Preflop: Ungar raises to 1,600 in the small blind, Matloubi calls. Flop (pot 3,200): 3-3-7 rainbow Action: Matloubi checks, Ungar bets 6,000, Matloubi calls. Turn (pot 15,200): K, board still rainbow Action: Matloubi checks, Ungar checks. River (Pot 15,200): Q Action: Matloubi moves all in for about 32,000 and Ungar calls within a few seconds, declaring, "You've either got 4-5 or 5-6, I call." Ungar then flips up his 10-high to drag the $80,000 pot. ---------------- Not sure what your parent has in mind, but just from the choice of sizings from both sides, I doubt that many people would play either side of the hand this way nowadays. Which kind of make any analysis a bit pointless. But I'll check tonight with a solver if it has anything to say about it.
  - estomagordo 7y ago
    It's always hard to comment on a live hand, what with reads and all, but these bet sizes sure look funny by today's standards.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Then I guess it is also impossible to say how he would have adapted to other players of this time? What is a good strategy now maybe not have been as great then?
    - bionsystem 7y ago
      Just to answer this, a good strategy today would wreck everything back then. Basically game theory shows us that it is possible to be very aggressive while still being unexploitable, and the more you deviate from this strategy (by being too aggressive like Stu, or not enough like everybody else pretty much), the more you lose.
  - chumali 7y ago
    Can't see how Ungar could have acted any differently here given the betting by Matloubi?
    - mattmaroon 7y ago
      He had ten high. That loses to most bluffs. It's an underdog to a random hand. Normally you'd fold and laugh quietly to yourself because your opponent thought they bluffed you when really they had the best hand.
  - mattmaroon 7y ago
    I don't think many people would have played it that way back then.
- tempestn 7y ago
  This article referenced on the wikipedia page gives a great breakdown of the hand: https://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/02/he-said-she-said-vol-07-stuey-ungar.htm https://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/02/he-said-she-said-vol-...
yellowstuff 7y ago
It depends what you mean. As people have noted, the bet sizes before the river are much larger than what would happen in a well-played game today. I believe every action by both players before the river is a huge mistake relative to theoretically correct poker. So something like this exact hand would never play out between two competent players today. However, the core problem is that one player has shoved the river and the other player beats all missed draws and no value, which is still a common situation. Since the prizes are $100k or $0, and the stacks will be roughly even if Ungar folds on the river, he needs to win more than 50% of the time to profitably call. Do top players ever bluff too much in this situation, and have their opponents profitably call them off? Sure, that happens a lot even at high stakes. Doug Polk recently had a video where he described how he lost a high stakes heads up pot to Jungleman in a similar situation.
- confidantlake 7y ago
  I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you saying Ungar needs to to win more than 50% to profitably call? That seems incorrect. There is no situation between 2 players where you need to be right more than 50% of the time. Even if there was only 1 chip in the middle and your opponent bet 100 chips, you would still only need to win slightly less than 50% of the time. If there are 100 chips in the middle and your opponent bets 100 chips, you only need to be right 33% of the time.
  - yellowstuff 7y ago
    You're correct that I made a dumb mistake. In a tournament we want to calculate our EV in dollars of expected payout, not in chips. Here's the math I should have done: 1) Ungar folds, he is left with about half the chips in play, so about 50% odds of winning the tournament, and EV of ~$50K. 2) Ungar calls and is right, winning $100k. 3) Ungar calls and is wrong. I forgot that he'd still have chips left and assumed that this scenario was worth $0. In fact he'll have ~20% of the chips in play left, which is worth $20K intuitively but can be confirmed here: https://www.icmpoker.com/icmcalculator/ https://www.icmpoker.com/icmcalculator/ So if Ungar calls he needs to be right X% such that $50K = $100K * X% + $20K * (1-X%) X ~= 38%

Can you explain what would be impossible? Ungars call or Matloubis bluff? Novice poker player here, trying to understand.

rishabhd 7y ago
He was so good with counting cards that he had full situational awareness of the game.
bionsystem 7y ago
We would need the transcript of the game to analyse it properly. Here it is : ---------------- Stacks: Ungar: ~60,000; Matloubi: ~40,000 Blinds: 200/400 Hands: Matloubi holds 5-4 offsuit in the BB; Ungar has 10-9 offsuit in the small blind (the button). Preflop: Ungar raises to 1,600 in the small blind, Matloubi calls. Flop (pot 3,200): 3-3-7 rainbow Action: Matloubi checks, Ungar bets 6,000, Matloubi calls. Turn (pot 15,200): K, board still rainbow Action: Matloubi checks, Ungar checks. River (Pot 15,200): Q Action: Matloubi moves all in for about 32,000 and Ungar calls within a few seconds, declaring, "You've either got 4-5 or 5-6, I call." Ungar then flips up his 10-high to drag the $80,000 pot. ---------------- Not sure what your parent has in mind, but just from the choice of sizings from both sides, I doubt that many people would play either side of the hand this way nowadays. Which kind of make any analysis a bit pointless. But I'll check tonight with a solver if it has anything to say about it.
- estomagordo 7y ago
  It's always hard to comment on a live hand, what with reads and all, but these bet sizes sure look funny by today's standards.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Then I guess it is also impossible to say how he would have adapted to other players of this time? What is a good strategy now maybe not have been as great then?
  - bionsystem 7y ago
    Just to answer this, a good strategy today would wreck everything back then. Basically game theory shows us that it is possible to be very aggressive while still being unexploitable, and the more you deviate from this strategy (by being too aggressive like Stu, or not enough like everybody else pretty much), the more you lose.
- chumali 7y ago
  Can't see how Ungar could have acted any differently here given the betting by Matloubi?
  - mattmaroon 7y ago
    He had ten high. That loses to most bluffs. It's an underdog to a random hand. Normally you'd fold and laugh quietly to yourself because your opponent thought they bluffed you when really they had the best hand.
- mattmaroon 7y ago
  I don't think many people would have played it that way back then.
tempestn 7y ago
This article referenced on the wikipedia page gives a great breakdown of the hand: https://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/02/he-said-she-said-vol-07-stuey-ungar.htm https://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/02/he-said-she-said-vol-...

yellowstuff 7y ago

It depends what you mean. As people have noted, the bet sizes before the river are much larger than what would happen in a well-played game today. I believe every action by both players before the river is a huge mistake relative to theoretically correct poker. So something like this exact hand would never play out between two competent players today. However, the core problem is that one player has shoved the river and the other player beats all missed draws and no value, which is still a common situation. Since the prizes are $100k or $0, and the stacks will be roughly even if Ungar folds on the river, he needs to win more than 50% of the time to profitably call. Do top players ever bluff too much in this situation, and have their opponents profitably call them off? Sure, that happens a lot even at high stakes. Doug Polk recently had a video where he described how he lost a high stakes heads up pot to Jungleman in a similar situation.

confidantlake 7y ago
I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you saying Ungar needs to to win more than 50% to profitably call? That seems incorrect. There is no situation between 2 players where you need to be right more than 50% of the time. Even if there was only 1 chip in the middle and your opponent bet 100 chips, you would still only need to win slightly less than 50% of the time. If there are 100 chips in the middle and your opponent bets 100 chips, you only need to be right 33% of the time.
- yellowstuff 7y ago
  You're correct that I made a dumb mistake. In a tournament we want to calculate our EV in dollars of expected payout, not in chips. Here's the math I should have done: 1) Ungar folds, he is left with about half the chips in play, so about 50% odds of winning the tournament, and EV of ~$50K. 2) Ungar calls and is right, winning $100k. 3) Ungar calls and is wrong. I forgot that he'd still have chips left and assumed that this scenario was worth $0. In fact he'll have ~20% of the chips in play left, which is worth $20K intuitively but can be confirmed here: https://www.icmpoker.com/icmcalculator/ https://www.icmpoker.com/icmcalculator/ So if Ungar calls he needs to be right X% such that $50K = $100K * X% + $20K * (1-X%) X ~= 38%