Daily Archives: January 17, 2021

This article is the follow-up toGreat minds: 10 players who excel at both chess and poker. We are going to look at 5 key concepts in poker and chess. These concepts are not always easy to understand but become exciting when you make the effort to explore them.

Variance is the reason why Magnus Carlsen doesn't win every tournament he plays in. It can be described as the measure of the "glorious uncertainty of sport" (which competitive chess and poker both are!).

In chess, the difference between the Elo ratings of the two players gives the expected score according to this table:

For instance, a player rated 2193 playing against a 2000 will, on average, score 0.75 points (win = 1 point and draw = 0.5 points).

This table is also used to calculate a performance: if you score 7.5/10 against an average rating of 2000, your performance will be 2193.

The table doesn't give the draw percentage. You could score 75% by winning 75% and losing 25% of the games or by winning 50% and drawing 50%.

The draw percentage depends on many factors like the level (top players draw more), the style (So draws more than Nepomniachtchi), the time control (the draw percentage increases with the time control), or the color of the better player (there are more draws when the stronger player has Black).

Based on Franois Labelle's work, here is what we could expect from a 2800 player:

As we see, there is variance in chess, but its impact is limited and, soon enough, the better player will prevail.

In poker, variance plays a much more central role.

Without getting into too many details, let's say that if you play poker for $100 ($1 big blind), after 100 hands, you will be considered as

As you have probably guessed, "on average" implies your win rate is subject to variance. As in chess, variance will depend on many factors like the format (tournaments have greater variance than cash games), the variant (Omaha has greater variance than Holdem), the number of people you play against (in cash games, fewer people means greater variance), or your style of play.

The following table gives the probability of losing money after a certain number of hands.

As we see, variance has a deep impact in poker and even though the better player will eventually prevail, the long-term is much, much longer than in chess.

Unlike chess, poker has hidden information (the opponent's hole cards). Game theorists call chess a game of perfect information and poker a game of imperfect information.

This difference has a funny implication:

In chess, we usually want to have the move (except when in zugzwang). As both players have all the information, there is no giving-away when making a move.

In poker, we usually want to act last because we'll have more information than our opponents had when they acted.

A perfect chess player could always play the same move every time they encounter the same situation. It seems self-evident, but as we are about to see, it's not true in poker.

In chess there are theoretically only 3 possible evaluations of a position:

NB: The traditional evaluations like += or +/- and the computer's evaluation in centipawns like +0.22 are only useful in practice, between imperfect players.

According to game theory, playing chess perfectly simply means playing a move that doesn't change the evaluation of the position.

If several moves do not change the evaluation of the position, you could choose one of them randomly or always chose the same move every time you encounter this position. Doing the latter would be following a pure strategy, one where randomness is not involved.

To understand perfect play in poker, you should first understand perfect play in rock paper scissors. Let's say you play an AI which analyses its opponent's history, tries to detect patterns, and then guesses his or her next move. (In case you are wondering, yes, such AI does exist).

If you only play one round, it doesn't matter what you choose: playing rock, paper or scissors will in each case be a perfect move.

You play rock and so does the AI. It's a draw. Now if you keep on playing only rock, the AI will adjust by playing only paper and win every round.

In rock paper scissors, perfect play is to choose each of the 3 possibilities with the same probability of 1/3. This is what we call a mixed strategy because you have to assign a probability of being played to more than one possible action.

In poker, perfect play in a given situation is almost always a mixed strategy. It could, for instance, be to raise a certain amount 80% of the time, to raise another amount 15% of the time, and to call 5% of the time.

A perfect poker player will not always play the same move every time they encounter the same situation!

This position is drawn and every legal move leads to a draw. So, if you are playing against a perfect player (like someone using tablebases) and if you can also play perfectly, it doesn't matter what you play here, as the game will for sure end in a draw. In that sense, 1.Kb6, 1.Na3, and 1.Ra2 are all perfect moves.

But between humans, 1.Kb6 is clearly the only good move, with more or less winning chances, depending on the level of the players. And 1.Ra2?? is an even bigger blunder than 1.Na3??.

We just saw that a perfect move according to game theory might not be a good move according to common evaluation. That said, it seems impossible to consider good a move that changes the evaluation, like a losing move in a drawn position. To sum up: in chess, good moves are always perfect, but perfect moves are not always good.

We are about to see that in poker, while the perfect strategy is always good, the best strategy is seldom perfect!

Let's imagine your opponent doesn't try to catch your bluffs as often as they should. The best strategy would then be to bluff more. But by doing so, you expose yourself to a simple counter-strategy: your opponent could call you more often. But by doing so they expose themselves to a simple counter-strategy: never bluffing and betting only with good hands. But by doing so... you got it.

To play perfectly, you have, among other things, to bluff and to call just the right amount in every situation, what poker players refer to as having balanced ranges or playing according to the Game Theoretical Optimum.

If you play GTO, your opponent can do whatever he wants, playing many hands or just a few, bluffing often or rarely, making big or little bets, and in the long run you will never lose money. In fact, if your opponent doesn't play GTO himself, you will win money.

But if your opponent doesn't play perfectly (and no one does), you would make more money by playing an exploitive - yet exploitable - strategy like bluffing more if he doesn't call you as often as he should.

To sum up, in poker the best strategy against a non-perfect player is always to play another non-perfect strategy!

In a 2-player game like chess or heads-up poker, you are always happy to see your opponent make a mistake. As surprising as it sounds, in a multiplayer game, a mistake by one of your opponents can be detrimental to you.

The notion of perfect play in a multiplayer game is only valid if every player acts in their own best interest. But players could group together into a coalition to make seemingly bad plays, that will be detrimental to both them and you, but beneficial to one of their allies.

Let's imagine you play against 5 weaker opponents. If each of them tries to act in their own best interest, as well as they can, you will outplay them. But if they form a coalition, you will probably get crushed, because they will make intentional "mistakes" that are beneficial to their allies.

It goes without saying that coalitions are considered cheating and forbidden. Still, an opponent may make an unintentional mistake that will be detrimental to both him and you and beneficial to a third player.

We'll be organising casual poker tournaments with GM Jan Gustafsson, GM Laurent Fressinet and others in collaboration withpartypokersoon. If you'd like to receive further information, send an email tomarketing@chess24.comor leave a comment below!

Read more here:

5 key concepts in poker and chess | chess24.com - chess24

January 14, 2021Mo Nuwwarah

Wednesday's latest "High Stakes Poker" episode on PokerGO was a doozy, featuring what will undoubtedly go down as one of the biggest pots of the entire season. And it was one of the show's most familiar faces running well once again in the huge spot.

Here's a recap of the $400/$800/$800 action sometimes with a $1,600 straddle that took place at the PokerGO Studio.

The show opened with a bit of a cooler right off the bat as Tom Dwan opened with and was called by Jean-Robert Bellande, who had in the big blind, and Bryn Kenney, with in the straddle.

Dwan continued for $9,000, just over half the pot, on the flop that gave him the nuts. Bellande made it $31,000, Dwan raised it back, and JRB jammed for $167K. Dwan obviously called.

"That's a cold flop," Brandon Steven observed.

"Yeah, ya think so?" Bellande retorted.

Dwan won both runouts to drag $352K and couldn't contain his smile as Bellande groused about his poor luck.

"What a surprise that the number one cooler of the day, I'm on the shit end of it," he said.

The other side of variance showed up for Bellande in the next big pot. Dwan limped under the gun with , Bellande made it $7,000 to go in the cutoff with , and Rick Salomon called with in the small blind. Brandon Steven woke up with in the big blind and raised to $24,000. Dwan ducked out of the way but the other two called.

Steven bet $37,000 when he hit top pair on the flop and Bellande played it slow with a call. Bellande had $138K left to play on the turn. With $147,600 in the middle, Steven bet $77,000 and called the rest.

"Still complaining now, John?" Steven asked.

"I do feel a lot better," he allowed.

Kenney opened to $2,500 under the gun with . Steven three-bet a couple of seats over with to $8,500 and Kenney called.

Steven found his three-outer and more on the flop. Kenney double-checked his cards then fired in a check-raise to $35,000. Steven peeled, bringing the . Kenney continued for $69,000 and Steven called again. On the river, Kenney put in a third barrel of $147,000 into the $227,000 pot.

Steven sighed and stretched back in his seat, muttering that Kenney had the in his hand. He said he didn't think he was going to call and he did toss in his cards.

Kenney asked if he had worse than an overpair and Steven said better than an overpair.

"I had you?" he asked.

Kenney smiled and nodded.

With the straddle back on, Salomon opened to $4,000 second to act with . Steven called with and Dwan came along with on the button. Lynne Ji called as well with in the big blind and Bellande woke up with in the straddle. He made it $11,000, the next two players called, and Dwan put in $54,000.

Ji went all in for $163,000, JRB instantly followed suit for $399,000, and Salomon and Stevens finally mucked.

Dwan covered both players and thought awhile before chucking in a stack of chips.

The players agreed to run it three times for both the main and side pots. Dwan had already dodged a few cards because of Steven and Kenney throwing aces away, along with the king that Petrangelo had mucked. Here's how the boards rolled off:

Everything worked out perfectly right Dwan, right down to the last five being dead to take away an out on the final run.

Busted, Ji and Bellande headed for the doors and left two seats open. Jason Koon filled one immediately.

Kenney opened early to $2,500 with and got action from Steven and his in the cutoff before Dwan made it $12,000 with on the button.

They went three ways for that price to . Dwan continued for $22,000 and Kenney called, bringing a . Kenney checked again, this time calling a barrel worth $55,000. On the , Kenney checked again. Dwan bet $95,000.

This time, Kenney cut out a raise to $285,000. Dwan rubbed his face as he thought for awhile before he finally mustered up a fold. Kenney smiled and showed the as Dwan muttered about his "stupid f****** river bet."

"Three of diamonds," Dwan accurately guessed.

Remember, High Stakes Poker will air every Wednesday but is only available to PokerGO subscribers. If youre not currently subscribed, you can get a monthly subscription for $14.99, a three-month plan for $29.99, and an annual subscription for $99.99.

*Images courtesy of PokerGO.

Read more:

High Stakes Poker S8, E5: You Won't Believe the Pot Tom Dwan Won - PokerNews.com

January 13, 2021Mo Nuwwarah

The political career of poker icon Antanas "Tony G" Guoga has ended for the time being.

Tony G announced his resignation from Lithuanian Parliament via Twitter, with The Baltic Times providing a brief report. He said he plans to focus on business and potentially play more poker going forward, music to the ears of his many fans who recall his days as one of the leading attractions in the game.

After a successful career in poker, Tony G made a huge transition to politics in Lithuania, where he was born before spending some of his youth in Australia.

I think that Lithuanian politics needs new people and new blood and I want to change policy, Guoga said while campaigning. I have been fortunate enough myself to be reasonably successful in my life and I have new ideas and hope to inspire others to come into politics, too. I think I can bring a lot to the table with my experience in life and business.

His move in 2014 made headlines, and initial returns looked positive. For instance, in 2015, POLITICO named him one of its 28 politicians "shaping, shaking and stirring Europe."

However, he lost a re-election bid to European Parliament in 2019.

He remained a member of the Lithuanian Parliament, though, just securing a seat late in 2020. It seems a clash with a fellow member of the Labor Party was the final straw, according to The Baltic Times:

"I'm leaving, first of all, because I don't want to mislead these people. I feel a great responsibility toward them, but at the same time, I see that with the Labor Party it is impossible to deliver what they were promised before the election," he said.

"There are decent, smart and energetic people in the Labor Party. However, they are all held hostage by one individual today," Guoga said, in an apparent reference to MEP Viktor Uspaskich, the party's chairman.

While Tony G's poker accomplishments tapered off in a big and expected fashion after he began his political career, he didn't disappear from the game entirely.

He began making some appearances, mostly in the high roller scene, cashing for the first time in several years in 2017. He was able to pile up more than $2 million in cashes between 2017 and 2019, according to The Hendon Mob.

He also played in several huge cash games, mostly at King's Casino in Europe. He appeared on livestream playing Omaha and hold'em, and he attended several super high roller tournaments there, too.

One of his cash game hands at a Triton Poker event in 2019 reminded everyone Tony G still had it, as he showed off his old flair for the dramatic and signature braggadocio.

With big-time live poker still seeming a ways off in Europe due to the increased international travel required, it could be some time before Tony G well and truly returns to his old celebrity, if that's indeed the path he chooses. However, the possibility is at least there for one of televised poker's greatest performers to resume taking the stage on a regular basis.

Read this article:

Tony G Resigns from Parliament; Will He Head Back to Poker? - PokerNews.com

In the final days of 2020, former World Series of Poker Main Event champion Huckleberry Seed became the 60th person inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame. Seed, a four-time WSOP bracelet winner including the 1996 WSOP Main Event, is undoubtedly a worthy recipient of what should be considered pokers highest honor.

The mission of the Poker of Fame should be to celebrate the game itself while recognizing the players and people who have shined brightest and helped elevate the game during their careers. That being said, the current system responsible for nominating and enshrining people into the Poker Hall of Fame is broken and needs an overhaul to mitigate some issues which are already making themselves known and are only bound to get worse.

A quick explainer on the current system: Following a public nomination process, the WSOP releases a list of 10 nominees based on the public input. Living PHOF members are given those 10 names to consider. Each voter has 10 points to distribute amongst the 10 nominees however they choose. All votes are tallied and the nominee receiving the most points is inducted. This is a change from the previous 10 years where a select panel of media (equal to the number of voting PHOF members) were also given a vote and the top two point earners were inducted.

The criticisms of the current system are aplenty but there are two which stand out. The heavy bias towards American players has long been a frustration for players, fans and media from outside of the country. The second issue is a growing backlog of worthy candidates that has no hope of being cleared anytime soon as more and more worthy candidates become eligible each year.

The one thing that doesnt need any real change is the nomination process. The WSOP makes it so that anybody, a poker fan, a poker player, a family member, can nominate somebody for the PHOF so long as the person theyre nominating is at least 40 years old. It gives everybody an opportunity to be involved and gives WSOP executives a number of names to choose from when putting the final list of 10 nominees together each year.

Seed was the only member of the 2020 class by design. From 2010-2019, the PHOF enshrined two nominees each year. That became a single inductee in 2020 with WSOP executives citing a return to tradition as the reason behind the change.

We like tradition. One per year is the way it was for the majority of the Poker Hall of Fames history. A single inductee seems to promote the prestige of the honor, said Ty Stewart, Executive Director of the WSOP, who oversees the administration of the PHOF.

In fact, the PHOF has had a single inductee in 18 years, two inductees in 16 years, seven inductees in the inaugural class of 1979, and another five years with no inductees at all. Keeping one inductee, or even two, per year certainly keeps the PHOF exclusive, but there is already a backlog of candidates waiting to get in and the coming onslaught from the online poker generation is going to make the nominees list awfully crowded.

Five years from now five of the most recent nominees will still be on the nomination list and the following players will be eligible for the first time in either 2025 or 2026: Justin Bonomo, Shaun Deeb, Phil Galfond, Isaac Haxton, Jason Koon, Chris Moorman, Nick Schulman, Scott Seiver, Vanessa Selbst.

Neither the Baseball Hall of Fame, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, or the Basketball Hall of Fame restrict the number of inductees on an annual basis. The PHOF needs to follow suit and this could be accomplished by eliminating the points system currently being used and replacing it with the system used by those other halls of fame. In all three instances, voters are given the name of all of those eligible for induction and simply vote yes or no. For basketball and baseball, a nominee becomes an enshrinee with 75% of the vote, for football, its 80%.

Seed was the 60th inductee into the Poker Hall of Fame and one of the major criticisms of the current system is that it places an emphasis on American players. Of the 31 living Hall of Famers, who are eligible to vote, only four are not American. Carlos Mortensen, Daniel Negreanu, John Juanda, and Henry Orenstein are the only four voters born outside of the United States and most of them, if not all of them, spent a considerable amount of their poker career living and working in the United States.

This fails to recognize the incredible worldwide growth that the game of poker has enjoyed over the last 50 years. Eliminating the maximum number of inductees rule as mentioned above could lead to an increase in the number of international members, which in turn leads to more international voters.

Allowing select industry leaders, including members of the media, wouldalso increase the number of international voters. Starting in 2010, a select media panel, intentionally equal in size to the number of HOF members voting, were afforded the opportunity to vote. That privilege was eliminated this year. Modifying this concept to include those who have worked long term in the poker industry puts in place a much needed system of checks and balances and ensures the international players get a fair shake.

While the number American poker media outlets may be declining, the growth in international coverage of the game and the industry has grown immensely. Markets such as Brazil, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Japan, Korea, Canada, Hong Kong, Russia, Germany, and India all have talented, knowledgeable media covering the game not only in their own country, but around the world. Vetting and filling a panel of 32 media members wouldnt be difficult and would provide a much-needed sense of balance to the final vote.

The current criteria that voters are asked to consider when voting is the following:

While that last line certainly allows for a voter to recognize non-players in their voting, it also forces them to evaluate two completely different categories of nominee against each other. It also doesnt tell voters how to apply the criteria to the nominees. For example, Chris Moneymaker was part of the PHOF Class of 2019 and a number of those who voted for him were doing so based on the non-player criteria because of his role in helping ignite the poker boom following his 2003 WSOP Main Event win. Moneymaker clearly doesnt fit the criteria as a player and he would most likely be the first one to tell you that.

Creating and properly defining a category specific for builders gives voters the opportunity to properly assess the entire body of work of that nominee. A yes or no voting system also removes the requirement that a five-time WSOP bracelet winners credential be considered against that of a longtime member of the industry whose impact was responsible for measurable growth. To ensure that the Hall continues to shine on light on the games best players, removing the minimum vote threshold and simply inducting the leading vote getter each year ensures no more than a single builder is recognized each year.

Over the years there have been varying types of ceremonies for the annual HOF induction. From a dinner at Binions with friends, family, fellow HOFers and industry leaders invited to a simple ceremony during November Nine festivities, the WSOP has, in the past, made an effort to afford the inductees a chance to be recognized in front of an audience.

Budgetary restrictions and timing issues have made a ceremony of any magnitude a challenge the past few years, but adding a Hall of Fame Enshrinement Ceremony to the calendar not only gives the newest members of the PHOF a night to shine, but it gives the WSOP a chance to thump its chest and strut.

The WSOP already has a strong relationship with PokerGO and including a night of pomp and circumstance where the inductees, Hall of Famers, top players, and celebrities all gather to celebrate the game to the broadcast schedule seems like a win-win. Footing the bill for something like this comes down to finding a sponsor. WSOP executives have had success bringing non-endemic advertisers into the fold as sponsors and this seems like a great opportunity to bring one of those companies to the table.

Small steps like the ones listed here arent necessarily new, but re-vamping the entire process with an eye towards ramping up the intensity of the spotlight shined on pokers best and brightest is a win-win for everybody.

FIVE THINGS is written by PocketFives President and Editor in Chief, Lance Bradley and covers pressing topics and current events in the poker world today. It appears periodically at PocketFives.com.

Read the original here:

FIVE THINGS: The Poker Hall of Fame Deserves a Next Level Upgrade - PocketFives