Germany discards

Texas hold'em is a highly competitive poker game. In this game, each player has two cards that can only be seen by himself, and then five public cards will be dealt one after another. Each round of public card players make bets, and only the players who have tied their bets can participate in the next round of dealings, otherwise they have already bet their chips and contributed to the bottom pool. finally, the players with equal bargaining chips use their own two cards and five public cards to form the best card type ratio, and the big player wins the bottom pool.

This has something in common with stock investment. we can't know exactly what the opponent's two cards are, so we can only test each other through probability calculation and betting, so we try to make as many positive expected returns as possible under insufficient information. and in each decision is accompanied by the transfer of their own chips.

As shown in the figure above, the probability of four cards is about 1/4000, that is, four cards can only appear every four thousand hands, and this time four cards are just for you to get, so in the river circle (that is, after all the public cards are issued), what will you do when you are faced with a bet with only one hit and four bottoms?

In Texas hold'em, if a player enters the pool with a pocket in hand, in an one-on-one card game, even if it is only a small pocket comparison such as 66, the player's winning rate is more than 50% in the face of the largest two high AK.

Fortunately, if it can hit three, such as another 6 on the public card, then it can win the bottom pool with a high probability, but the probability of hitting three is less than 20%.

And if something luckier happens, there are two sixes on the public card, that is, when the probability is less than 1/1000, he almost locks the win, and if he can play in the river circle, the player is likely to win a very attractive bottom pool.

So, when the luckiest thing happened, that is, holding 66 issued two 6s but three A's on the public card face, the specific card type was "AhAd6d Ac 6c". What would you do when you faced a bet with only one stroke and four bottom pools in the river circle?

In a well-known game, a player named John Juanda was holding 66 at that time. He did not actively choose to raise the bet, but did not follow the bet, but chose to drop the card directly!

And the final fact is that the opponent is only holding the failed JdKd of listening to flowers.

This is a widely spread joke, "I abandoned four" became a stem.

Wait for less than 1/1000 probability of good luck, but choose to abandon the card, just like in the bull market in the A-share market with a long bull market but close accounts in general.

The anchor of the video website when commenting on the mainstream view that this is a very bad hand to abandon the card. Because even if it is possible for an opponent to have an A (with An and three A's on the public card face to form four A's larger than four 6s), the opponent may be bankrupt as a flush, or a pocket bigger than 6 may be of less value in the river card, while in the face of a bottom pool of 800000, the opponent bet 200000, as long as the probability that the opponent is not An is more than 20 / (20: 80), it is a cost-effective bet.

Looking at the comment areas of various video sites, they are all ridiculed or even ridiculed:

"the technology stinks so much that it's embarrassing to go up there."

"at this level, at this level, there is nothing wrong with losing all."

"if all four cards are discarded, you won't have to play Texas hold'em."

And if we go to pick the player who abandoned the four, only to find that he was the ultimate champion of the game at that time.

He has won five WSOP gold bracelets in his career, has accumulated the top 10 prize pool history, and is an excellent high-cash table player: John Juanda. And Juanda abandoned the four hands.

From the point of view of the result, John Juanda's abandonment was really bad because he made a decision that most or almost no one would make a mistake. Even people who admire Juanda will say, "No matter how good he is, he will make mistakes," instead of thinking how reasonable it is for him to give up his cards.

Here, I am not trying to deliberately go against public perception to discuss how ingenious this discarding is. But to share two points:

1. If the opponent really has an An in his hand, perhaps a large part of the voice will become a "subtle discard", although the logic of their ridicule and even mockery has not changed because of the opponent's actual hand.

2. What I would like to share here is the second point. As mentioned above, "even people who admire Juanda very much will say,'No matter how good a person is, there is a time for him to make mistakes', but he will not think that it is reasonable for him to give up his hand." But one thing that is easy to overlook is:

It is precisely because Juanda makes mistakes in these decisions that almost no one can "make mistakes" that he is able to make no mistakes in decisions that more people make mistakes, which is what we often call "the same source of profits and losses".

John Juanda is characterized by accurate card reading and careful decision-making. Juanda as a rear position in the transfer card under a very small bet, at that time his behavior played A (according to the blind circle behavior is unlikely to be a gourd composed of big pockets), the opponent will choose to follow the bet or anti-bet if he wants to catch the chicken, but if the opponent chooses to follow the bet and then bet on the river card, it is more likely to have An according to the opponent's image in Juanda's judgment, and he chooses to discard the card directly instead of betting on the opponent without A.

John Juanda's hand is indeed wrong, and the opponent holding a card that is weaker than him may do the same. But this is the mistake that Juanda is bound to face under the strategy system, and he accepts the losses caused by such mistakes and wins more games. Maybe many other well-known players, such as Phil Ivey and Tom Dwan, will not make such mistakes because they have their own strategy system. And most ordinary players don't make such mistakes here, but they are just ordinary players.

The real master lies not only in their skill, but also in their firm implementation of the strategy system.

Stock dismissal

In fact, the decision-making process of stock investment is similar to that of beating Texas hold'em.

In the past year and a half, the industry index has been running in the rising channel, and the corresponding new funds are constantly popular, and investment in medicine, consumption, and technology is likely to get very high returns. Although it is true that chasing high may be risky, and the potential risk is not that great in the eyes of many people, the potential reward can be considerable.

As of today, medical biology under the application level industry classification standard has increased by nearly 50% this year, and food and beverage has increased by more than 50% this year. But there are a few funds, in this round of rising market, there are no heavy positions in technology stocks, no heavy positions in pharmaceuticals, and even low positions in the food and beverage industry.

Judging from the results, are they wrong?

Not only has the logic of heavy stocks not changed, but share prices have become more attractive. And the industry that did not have heavy position before, the higher the ratio of performance to price is lower, it is even less attractive.

Low-risk offline has achieved a very good rate of return in the New year. "select big blue chips and actively participate in offline innovation" is the current cost-effective investment strategy.

We will also constantly reflect on whether the current strategy will lose the market and optimize the strategy over a long period of time, but if we think that the strategy is only a phased loss to the market, and can outperform the market to a greater extent in a longer dimension, we will choose to stick to it, although persistence will be controversial when we lose. But this persistence is based on a responsible attitude towards investors.

Because our goal is not to significantly increase the wealth of investors in a year or two, but to achieve a sustained steady and greater appreciation of investors' wealth than most people in a longer time dimension.