The 80/20 rule
Wayne Vinson doesn't think much of my blog. In a comment on a previous post he says
I'm not so sure that 80% of what I say is wrong. But, even if it is, does that actually mean anything? I don't think it does.
The old 80/20 standard says that 80% of the value comes from 20% of the information. What that means is that the stuff I'm wrong about is likely stuff where being wrong doesn't cost much, where the difference between right and wrong is small. But the stuff I'm right about is stuff where it matters, and it's also not superficially obvious.
So it could well be that even if I'm wrong 80% of the time my thoughts have more value than someone else who's only wrong 20% of the time. It just depends on which 80% and which 20%.
It would be helpful if Wayne offered more information about which 80% I'm wrong about. Maybe he'll do that.
Well, good for you to man up and admit you were wrong. Now you need to tackle about 80% of the rest of this site, because your errors are rampant, not localized.
I'm not so sure that 80% of what I say is wrong. But, even if it is, does that actually mean anything? I don't think it does.
The old 80/20 standard says that 80% of the value comes from 20% of the information. What that means is that the stuff I'm wrong about is likely stuff where being wrong doesn't cost much, where the difference between right and wrong is small. But the stuff I'm right about is stuff where it matters, and it's also not superficially obvious.
So it could well be that even if I'm wrong 80% of the time my thoughts have more value than someone else who's only wrong 20% of the time. It just depends on which 80% and which 20%.
It would be helpful if Wayne offered more information about which 80% I'm wrong about. Maybe he'll do that.
Labels: value of information
posted by Gary Carson at 8:51 PM
8 Comments:
Who the fuck is Wayne Vinson?
Just a commenter. I try to pay attention to comments.
I just read an article about building a blog audience by paying attention to individual commenters. Maybe I have an anchoring bias and I'm going overboard.
I'll give it a rest.
Ok, an interesting point. I agree that simply counting the amount of misinformation, and then dividing, is not necessarily indicative of the cost of the misinformation relative to the value of the information. I also agree that it's possible to have top notch ideas in with questionable ones.
I also agree that NL holdem is a game of good and bad plays of radically varying size in terms of big blinds, and that small mistakes are going to happen.
That said, I think calling a raise OOP with AQ is a precursor to a big mistake, not a small one. If an A or Q hits on the flop and you push it, your stack is in serious jeopardy. If you don't intend to play on unless you hit better than top pair, you're getting a horrible price but it reverts to a small mistake since your stack is much safer.
As far as other examples, here's one chosen at random: In your analysis of Professional No-Limit Hold 'em: Volume I (in July 07, I can't figure out how to link just it) you don't like their idea of "plan your hands" as a central concept. That's fine - I 'm not sure it's the key either. But your alternate suggestion "don't call" is just silly. There are numerous cases in NLH where a call is correct, in fact often moreso than in limit holdem.
For example, it's rarely if ever correct to cold call in a raised pot preflop in limit holdem. Almost any hand good enough not to fold in that situation should be reraised. In contrast, it's often correct to cold call with suited connectors and one gaps in the same situation in NL if conditions are favorable A similar comparison could be made when considering a call on the flop with a gutshot draw.
In other words, it's easy to come up with scenarios where not only is calling correct in NL, but you'd be more willing to call in NL than in the analogous limit scenario. So your central guiding concept of "don't call" is more or less crap. I'd say that's a big mistake, not a small one.
Against good players, you're probably right about AQ. Against poor ones, it's likely only small.
"Don't call" is better advice for tourneys than for cash games, don't you think? And if you moderate it to "don't call very much", it would be good advice. And I think that players call far too much with suited connectors and particularly with onegappers. Do you really stack the other guy all that often?
And Gary, I know who Wayne is. I meant who the fuck is Wayne Vinson.
The "Don't call" anchor was a suggestion for the later betting rounds and is mostly a reference to raises.
If the other guy bluffs so much you can wait for a better than marginal hand to call with becuase he'll bluff again.
I don't remember the exact context I mentioned it previously, but back long ago when I used to play nolimit draw and/or loball every day I kept a business card stuck in the cellophane of a pack of cigarettes (I was a heavy smoker back then) with Don't Call written on it in large block letters.
Just let them bluff. If you have to have an anchor to adjust from as a base then Don't Call is a better one then "He might be bluffing".
I hope you don't take to much of a rest. Having a poker author who actually talks to the nobodies is like finding buried treasure. Even more so because most players have never heard of anyone outside of Supersystem, Full Tilt, and 4.
And you certainly get my action when you give it.
I have diabetes and have a problem with an infection on a toe (that's on many toes right now).
So I'm taking massive doses of antibiotics. Right now it's just putting me to sleep. I wake up about every 6 hours, stay up for 2-3 hours then go back to sleep.
I'm up long enough to make a cup of coffee, eat something, cut some of the yard (I have a big yard), read my email, and read rgp.
Nap time again.
I think this will last another week or two.
Post a Comment
<< Home