From: William Chen <wchen_8369(deleted the rest)>
To: Patti Beadles <pattib(deleted the rest)>, ba-poker(deleted the rest)
Subject: Re: [ba-poker] Ethical guidance needed Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:27:53 -0800 (PST)
I think the main win in collaborating is having the *option* to ask someone else what to do. If you are unsure, but your confederate has a strong opinion about what to do, you probably have gained value.
I mean hands where your confederate confirms your opinion or when he has no idea and you go with what you would have originally done are nice, but they don't really add immediate value.
The second win is when your confederate notices something on the table that you miss like a player has been very passive, or overly aggressive or limped UTG with a weird hand, etc.
The third win is discussing a hand after it's played, especially with someone else who has been observing your table.
I think there is a lot of room for possible improvement in colaboration--it's even more true in poker than in backgammon that almost everyone plays badly. That is even for a strong player, the equity you are giving up vs the best play could be substatntial.
In backgammon the "best play" is much easier to determine. That is if there is a reasonable question between two plays, their rollout result on a top program will probably be very close (with known weirnesses about backgames aside). But in either poker or backgammon if there is outright disagreement on a move, it seems hard to improve it in a discussion--the gains do seem to come when the person playing has "missed something" that the other has picked up.
Bill -- https://stubing.kerndt.com/mailman/listinfo/ba-poker