Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blind on Blind late

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Blind on Blind late

    Seems like a pretty standard spot to me, but i did feel like bit of a fish straight after.

    About 13-14 left in tourney and we are in the money. As a slight consideration i would be somewhere between 0 and 2% caring about laddering etc. I'm not sure but i think there is 7 maybe 8 at our table.

    Blinds 10k 20k 2k ante

    me 365k bb about 340

    folded to me and i just shipped with a8. "free money thinking the bb would want a massive hand to call".
    He though for ages and called with A10 " he probably knew my form at this stage and had correctly worked out a10 would be well ahead of my range, still gutsy call"

    Of course dealer save's me with 8 high flop, but that doesn't matter really.

    AS is said it seems standard enough to me against a player who's re raising in this spot would be very frequent ( if i have just raised 2.5x or something)
    sigpic
    Longshotvalue.com

    #2
    Were you SB?

    Edit - nvm read the title stupid!


    10bbs insta shove for me - 18bbs not so sure....
    Last edited by Dice75; 15-11-16, 18:04.

    Comment


      #3
      Congrats on the win and you're welcome for the 8

      Big blind had 400k and you had 350k I think so just over 17bigs and 7 handed play.

      BB was TAG. Didn't do too much out of line.

      Awkward spot tbh
      Redbet at the Dublin Poker Invasion FTW

      Comment


        #4
        This is a ten mins maths problem, or 2 mins with something like icmizer. Shoving is definitely profitable.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
          This is a ten mins maths problem, or 2 mins with something like icmizer. Shoving is definitely profitable.
          I would agree but it doesn't make it optimal. R/F would be best imo
          Last edited by Guest; 16-11-16, 00:36.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by The Aul Switcharoo View Post
            Congrats on the win and you're welcome for the 8

            Big blind had 400k and you had 350k I think so just over 17bigs and 7 handed play.

            BB was TAG. Didn't do too much out of line.

            Awkward spot tbh
            Thanks

            Feck fair play to ya for the 8 ball on the flop.

            I was left thinking about hand a bit. Weird thing is if i just had the 56 clubs or something like that (which is what id normally have in that spot(my normal hand range of knocking people out)) i wouldn't even be thinking about it.

            My thought was raising to 46k or something here is just setting it on fire as BB will push with a huge range and i wont be calling with a8, so i said f it.
            sigpic
            Longshotvalue.com

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by brady23 View Post
              I would agree but it doesn't make it optimal. R/F would be best imo
              You could be right , but against this player there may be a bit too much folding to an all in. (he knows at this stage that i could have anything ) Id have no problem r/f against a player that will just re raise with a premium - ish hand.
              sigpic
              Longshotvalue.com

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by aidankk View Post
                You could be right , but against this player there may be a bit too much folding to an all in. (he knows at this stage that i could have anything ) Id have no problem r/f against a player that will just re raise with a premium - ish hand.
                Well if you feel his jamming range is that wide then maybe a R/C is optimal? Switch described him as TAG so R/F could be best given that description.
                Last edited by Guest; 16-11-16, 00:36.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Reads on the BB are critical here. Age/recreational/reg/on-line background/history/their perception of you...

                  This info will inform how they are likely to react to any BvB hand vs. you. There is a mathematically correct un-exploitative answer to this hand in a vacuum.

                  Live, in game, my choice between limping, 2.7x fold to re-raise, 2.7x raise to induce, limp re-raise, and jamming depends on reads of opponents tendencies.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                    This is a ten mins maths problem, or 2 mins with something like icmizer. Shoving is definitely profitable.
                    this all day. raise folding seems weak unless BB is the nittiest guy in the tourney. and raise calling if BB is aggro. other than that its a super profitable jam.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Raise folding looks pretty weak to me as well and it makes the situation pretty complicated

                      It's a profitable jam SB Vs BB long term

                      So I'd just keep it simple and jam pre

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by brady23 View Post
                        I would agree but it doesn't make it optimal. R/F would be best imo
                        The optimal option (between shove and r/f) depends on the minute details of the players, prizes, and stacks.
                        R/F may be better is some spots, but it's also exploitable. Shoving is a lot more black and white.


                        As it stands, I don't think anyone can offer more detailed analysis of the hand other than "it's probably grand". Without having the info mentioned above.
                        The Aul Switcharoo, can you elaborate anything?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Mellor View Post
                          The optimal option (between shove and r/f) depends on the minute details of the players, prizes, and stacks.
                          R/F may be better is some spots, but it's also exploitable. Shoving is a lot more black and white.


                          As it stands, I don't think anyone can offer more detailed analysis of the hand other than "it's probably grand". Without having the info mentioned above.
                          The Aul Switcharoo, can you elaborate anything?
                          I couldn't agree more. Obviously in a vacuum and perhaps even in game, I shove but no harm discussing the alternative.
                          I suggested R/F "would be" a better option but probably more "could be" based on what we know.
                          Celtic poker ME (assume its the same Aidan) TAG bb 3-4 spots from FT. I just felt standard rec players won't be stepping out of line here too often and perhaps we have a significant enough edge that a R/F is more profitable.

                          Just got 1 outered for CL in Big 55 so I hate poker
                          Last edited by Guest; 17-11-16, 00:57.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Mellor View Post
                            The optimal option (between shove and r/f) depends on the minute details of the players, prizes, and stacks.
                            R/F may be better is some spots, but it's also exploitable. Shoving is a lot more black and white.


                            As it stands, I don't think anyone can offer more detailed analysis of the hand other than "it's probably grand". Without having the info mentioned above.
                            The Aul Switcharoo, can you elaborate anything?
                            when you say optimal ,what exactly do you mean ?

                            optimal what?

                            haven't done any math on it but raise folding seems like a terrible line to me !

                            effective stacks 15BB,we make it 3x from the SB and fold for another 12BB !!!

                            so we have to call 12bb to win 18 bb(not factoring in antes) so we are getting 1.5:1 which means we need 40% equity to break even.

                            ill be shocked if we don't have 40% at least versus his shove range,which makes raise fold a really bad line !

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I had played with villain for about 3-4 hours at the end of Day 1 in this and he seemed fairly aggro so I would definitely just have been jamming here. Seems like a slowroll with A10 tbh.

                              Grats on the score Aidan.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Gholimoli View Post
                                when you say optimal ,what exactly do you mean ?

                                optimal what?

                                haven't done any math on it but raise folding seems like a terrible line to me !

                                effective stacks 15BB,we make it 3x from the SB and fold for another 12BB !!!

                                so we have to call 12bb to win 18 bb(not factoring in antes) so we are getting 1.5:1 which means we need 40% equity to break even.

                                ill be shocked if we don't have 40% at least versus his shove range,which makes raise fold a really bad line !
                                Optimal as in more profitable long term vs certain villains.
                                There is obviously not argument with it being profitable.

                                Given what Jamie just said I wouldn't argue with shoving being the best line. I would say vs certain opponents that r/f could be a better line.

                                Effective stacks were 17bbs

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Gholimoli View Post
                                  when you say optimal ,what exactly do you mean ?

                                  optimal what?[
                                  When I say optimal I mean, exactly that. The best line some might call it. As in the line with the highest EV. I might be missing something, what else could it mean? In terms of €€€, rather than chips if that's what you are getting at.


                                  haven't done any math on it but raise folding seems like a terrible line to me !
                                  effective stacks 15BB,we make it 3x from the SB and fold for another 12BB !!!
                                  so we have to call 12bb to win 18 bb(not factoring in antes) so we are getting 1.5:1 which means we need 40% equity to break even.
                                  ill be shocked if we don't have 40% at least versus his shove range, which makes raise fold a really bad line !
                                  It's 18BBs (villain covers in the correction).
                                  The equity we need to breakeven calling a 3bet shove is probably a bit higher than 40%. It could be higher than 50% depending. We are in the money stage. Chip equity is no longer € equity.

                                  I haven't done the numbers on it either. To be clear I wasn't advocating RF, or any other line. I was just pointing out to make a calculation on it, we need other info.

                                  Working out precise EV's for the different lines, is not just about verses their calling range, 3bet shove range, and how A8 holds up. It's more so about how the outcomes affect our equity. To work out that, we'd need to have clearer picture of the field.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Raise folding is very bad.
                                    Just jam it in, it's a no brainer,you have 17bb. Don't see what all the fuss is about, standard shove.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by JamieCarra View Post
                                      I had played with villain for about 3-4 hours at the end of Day 1 in this and he seemed fairly aggro so I would definitely just have been jamming here. Seems like a slowroll with A10 tbh.

                                      Grats on the score Aidan.
                                      Thanks . Yeah i played with him for a lot of day 2 and he played a fair few more hands than i did ( which means way to many), and was certainly aggressive enough id imagine to make the RF line a looser against him.

                                      I only asked really as i felt somewhat of a fish ( not the first time), but really its only because i sucked out on a good call from the villain.

                                      A10 is a definate call v my ship range , and in fairness to him he knew that the minute i shoved and said as much. Still fair play to him for actually making the call.

                                      The general consensus appears to agree that shove is best, 2-3 bb's either way makes it a much simpler. 21bb's i'm not shoving 14-15 i certainly am. 17-19 looks on the line to me.

                                      Thanks for the excellent responses, it was well worth asking the question.
                                      sigpic
                                      Longshotvalue.com

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Mellor View Post
                                        When I say optimal I mean, exactly that. The best line some might call it. As in the line with the highest EV. I might be missing something, what else could it mean? In terms of €€€, rather than chips if that's what you are getting at.



                                        It's 18BBs (villain covers in the correction).
                                        The equity we need to breakeven calling a 3bet shove is probably a bit higher than 40%. It could be higher than 50% depending. We are in the money stage. Chip equity is no longer € equity.

                                        I haven't done the numbers on it either. To be clear I wasn't advocating RF, or any other line. I was just pointing out to make a calculation on it, we need other info.

                                        Working out precise EV's for the different lines, is not just about verses their calling range, 3bet shove range, and how A8 holds up. It's more so about how the outcomes affect our equity. To work out that, we'd need to have clearer picture of the field.
                                        ok so ur looking for the line with most EV.

                                        optimal is often used these days in reference to GTO which is game theory optimal which is concerned with not giving away EV as oppose to gaining EV.

                                        17 BB effective stacks and we say the antes add up to 1BB as well so:

                                        we make it 3x from SB and BB shoves for another 14BB so:
                                        6BB+ 1BB(antes)=7
                                        so we have to call 14 to win 14+7=21BB
                                        we are getting 21/14=1.5:1 odds
                                        so our breakeven point is the 40% equity mark .

                                        say BB jams with 22+,Ax,K8s+,K9o+,JTo+,QTo+ (to me this is a reasonable range for an aggro guy to jam in SB v BB situation ) .
                                        don't have stove here but i would guess the above range is top 25-30% of hands.

                                        A8o has 46% v top 25% and does slightly better versus top 30% and has 48% equity.

                                        while i agree that cEV is not the same as $EV here,i still don't think we can pass 6% to 8% edges .
                                        in a closer spot where your at best 2% edge then perhaps but not here imo.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          This is a pretty standard GTO spot. Its a shove all day AND its a call all day. Shoving is unexploitable. You can shove pretty much any Ace here and you won't be making a mistake.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by Gholimoli View Post
                                            ok so ur looking for the line with most EV.

                                            optimal is often used these days in reference to GTO which is game theory optimal which is concerned with not giving away EV as oppose to gaining EV.
                                            Isn't the GTO line is also the highest EV line long term? Any line other than the highest EV is essentially giving up equity. And the true EV of any line takes into account how exploitable it is. That was a point I covered above, that shoving benefits from being unexploitable.

                                            Regardless, my point stands from a purely GTO viewpoint also.

                                            GTO is a relatively new phrase, but the concept has existed years. When I was playing a lot of SnGs we'd have called it Nash's Equilibrium.
                                            A Nash's Equilibrium calc would give use the precise unexploitable shoving range with the highest EV. But we don't have enough info to do that calc. Which is again, all my point ever was.

                                            17 BB effective stacks and we say the antes add up to 1BB as well so:

                                            we make it 3x from SB and BB shoves for another 14BB so:
                                            6BB+ 1BB(antes)=7
                                            so we have to call 14 to win 14+7=21BB
                                            we are getting 21/14=1.5:1 odds
                                            so our breakeven point is the 40% equity mark .
                                            That's all true, even if we made in less than 3BBs, and used a precise chip count. It might only rise to 42%.
                                            But that's not equity, its chips.

                                            say BB jams with 22+,Ax,K8s+,K9o+,JTo+,QTo+ (to me this is a reasonable range for an aggro guy to jam in SB v BB situation ) .
                                            don't have stove here but i would guess the above range is top 25-30% of hands.

                                            A8o has 46% v top 25% and does slightly better versus top 30% and has 48% equity.
                                            25% sounds about right for an agro. Which means its a profitable line itself.
                                            We risk 2 to 2.5BBs, to pick up 2.5BBs, they have to be shoving over 50% for it to be -cEV. Having a 0% risk of ruin benefits the $Equity significantly.

                                            When we shove, what do you think their calling range is? How does A8 do verses that range?
                                            while i agree that cEV is not the same as $EV here,i still don't think we can pass 6% to 8% edges .
                                            in a closer spot where your at best 2% edge then perhaps but not here imo.
                                            You might be right. Maybe we can't pass it here. But we can't know that unless we have the relevant info. That's all my point was.
                                            That said, I'd guess the equity between the two lines is close.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by Mellor View Post
                                              Isn't the GTO line is also the highest EV line long term? Any line other than the highest EV is essentially giving up equity. And the true EV of any line takes into account how exploitable it is. That was a point I covered above, that shoving benefits from being unexploitable.

                                              Regardless, my point stands from a purely GTO viewpoint also.

                                              GTO is a relatively new phrase, but the concept has existed years. When I was playing a lot of SnGs we'd have called it Nash's Equilibrium.
                                              A Nash's Equilibrium calc would give use the precise unexploitable shoving range with the highest EV. But we don't have enough info to do that calc. Which is again, all my point ever was.


                                              That's all true, even if we made in less than 3BBs, and used a precise chip count. It might only rise to 42%.
                                              But that's not equity, its chips.


                                              25% sounds about right for an agro. Which means its a profitable line itself.
                                              We risk 2 to 2.5BBs, to pick up 2.5BBs, they have to be shoving over 50% for it to be -cEV. Having a 0% risk of ruin benefits the $Equity significantly.

                                              When we shove, what do you think their calling range is? How does A8 do verses that range?

                                              You might be right. Maybe we can't pass it here. But we can't know that unless we have the relevant info. That's all my point was.
                                              That said, I'd guess the equity between the two lines is close.
                                              the bold part above is completely false.

                                              GTO(Game theory optimal) or any unexploitable strategy does not ensure the highest EV line at all !
                                              it ensures an EV of 0 or very close to it.

                                              basically a GTO or any unexploitable strategy assumes that we are in an environment that there is no EV to be gianed ,ie your opponents are at least as good as you or better...so the next best option is to not give away any EV .

                                              GTO or Nash ,is a strategy that ensures you give away 0 EV (almost zero cuz as far as i know true GTO dont exist in poker) regardless of your opponent's strategy !
                                              it ensures that your opponent can not adjust to your strategy and exploit your line and gain EV from you...it does so by making him indifferent to calling or folding .

                                              EV of folding is always zero so it ensures that the EV of him calling is also 0 .

                                              so we are indifferent to what he does, and out strategy is independent of his !!!

                                              but obv this is not good for gaining EV at all !

                                              suppose you are playing HU game with an opponent who is better than you in adjusting .
                                              say he has your shove ranges and fold ranges spot on .

                                              based on the above ,he can devise ranges for shoving on you and calling your shoves that would yield the highest EV in the long run...this way he is exploiting you !!!

                                              to counter that,you will have to adjust your ranges such that he cant exploit you no more, but seen as he adjusts better than you,then he can then adjust to your adjustments and so on and so forth...eventually you will reach an equilibrium where its not possible for either of you do adjust any further in order to gain EV.
                                              that is what a Nash equilibrium is .

                                              so even though he is aware of your range ,he cant adjust in order to exploit it.
                                              the EV here will be very close to 0 though for both of you .

                                              now suppose your playing HU versus a guy who folds too much .
                                              in this case you have to adjust your range such that your exploiting him ,so you shove with a wider range so you can gain from him folding too often...so you deviate from a GTO strategy in order to exploit his weakness ,but that in turn leaves you exploitable ...he can now adjust to you and call wider !

                                              not sure if i'm explaining it well but basically if you think you are the better player at the table then fuck GTO and if you think your the mark and the fish on the table then GTO is your friend !!!
                                              Last edited by Gholimoli; 21-11-16, 12:35.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by Gholimoli View Post
                                                the bold part above is completely false.
                                                I probably wasn't clear. I'm talking about the in a vacuum vrs a complete unknown.
                                                Obviously against a total fish (or some other extra info) you could milk them quicker with a different line to GTO.

                                                GTO(Game theory optimal) or any unexploitable strategy does not ensure the highest EV line at all !
                                                it ensures an EV of 0 or very close to it.
                                                That's not true. If it were always 0ev strategy, then its not profitable, which isnt the case.

                                                What you are describing is GTO vrs GTO, which is obviously 0EV in the long run. But any specific hand can still be +EV.

                                                An obvious example to prove the above.
                                                Short handed, short stacked, GTO says to push AA under the gun. This is a +EV play, not 0ev

                                                basically a GTO or any unexploitable strategy assumes that we are in an environment that there is no EV to be gianed ,ie your opponents are at least as good as you or better...so the next best option then is to not give away any EV .
                                                More importantly, The obvious reason to play an unexploitable strategy, is that you are 0ev at worst. But we are hoping that our opponents play sub-optimal (aka worse), and every deviation from them, makes makes it +EV for us.

                                                GTO or Nash ,is a strategy that ensures you give away 0 EV (almost zero cuz as far as i know true GTO dont exist ) regardless of your opponent's strategy !
                                                it ensures that your opponent can not adjust to your strategy an exploit your line and gain EV from you...it does so by making him indifferent to calling or folding .

                                                EV of folding is always zero so it ensures that the EV of him calling is also 0 .

                                                so we are indifferent to what he does and out strategy is independent of his !!!
                                                Unexploited means the opponent can't outplay us. It doesn't mean every hand is 0EV.
                                                Again, shoving AA shorthanded, is unexploitable. It's also +EV


                                                suppose you are playing HU game with an opponent who is better than you in adjusting .
                                                say he has your shove ranges and fold ranges spot on .

                                                based on the above ,he can devise ranges for shoving on you and calling your shoves that would yield the highest EV in the long run...this way he is exploiting you !!!

                                                to counter that,you will have to adjust your ranges such that he cant exploit you no more, but seen as he adjusts better than you,then he can then adjust to your adjustments and so on and so forth...eventually you will reach an equilibrium where its not possible for either of you do adjust any further in order to gain EV.
                                                that is what a Nash equilibrium is.
                                                You are describing a hypothetical opponent playing perfectly. In that case, anything other than GTO can be exploited, which means it will be a losing play, or -EV.
                                                Therefore the best we can hope for is to play perfectly (GTO) in return, in which it reaches 0ev at the limit, also the highest EV.

                                                But as I said, we hopefully aren't playing GTO vrs GTO. We play GTO knowing we can't be exploited, and we want our opponent to call wider, or narrower. Both of which are profitable for us.

                                                now suppose your playing HU versus a guy who folds too much .
                                                in this case you have to adjust your range such that your exploiting him ,so you shove with a wider range so you can gain from him folding too often...so you deviate from a GTO strategy in order to exploit his weakness ,but that in turn leaves you exploitable ...he can now adjust to you and call wider !

                                                not sure if i'm explaining it well but basically if you think you are the better player at the table then fuck GTO and if you think your the mark and the fish on the table then GTO is your friend !!!
                                                I do understand what you are saying. I just think that its a mistake to assume that unexploitable means they won't give up equity to us.

                                                And most importantly, in order to work out a Nash push/fold range (GTO). We need to have more info in order to work out the equity. Which was exactly the point I was making at the start. We've come full circle.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  i prob should have said in the first post that I'm no game theory expert, and by that i mean i know fuck all about it !

                                                  having said that ,based on what i do know,I'm not saying GTO always produces an EV of 0 ,or that you don't gain if opponent deviates from GTO ...im saying that its goal and design is to not give away EV long term ,and not with gaining max EV long term !

                                                  also when i said GTO is for when your opponents can adjust better than you then that will naturally push you both towards GTO after adjustments and counter adjustments ,so its not a hypotetycal scenario at all,just a scenario where you are playing better players !

                                                  and yes that does presume that any other strategy other then GTO will be exploited,but if you are not in such environment, and you can choose other strategies with out being exploited,then why not choose an exploitive strategy instead ?

                                                  yes you can benefit to certain extent from opponents deviation from GTO but its limited how much .

                                                  i don't think un-exploitable means its not possible for them to give up equity to us,i think un-exploitable has a stop-loss of 0 and to ensure that ,i think its limited to how much it can gain the other way .

                                                  its not a strategy where worse case scenario is 0 and best case scenario is the highest possible EV of any strategy .

                                                  at least i really don't think so or else i haven't a clue what I'm talking about here.
                                                  Last edited by Gholimoli; 22-11-16, 19:11.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    GTO

                                                    Seems to be some confusion about what GTO means, so here's my attempt to explain it.

                                                    Let's imagine both blinds have 9 bbs and it gets folded around to the small blind. For simplicity sake let's assume ICM is not a factor. The small blind (let's call him A) knows that the big blind (let's call him B) calls too tight. Say he only calls 10% of the time. This means it's profitable for A to shove 100% of hands. Even 32o is a plus Ev shove because
                                                    90% of time it gets through for a gain of 1.5 bbs (so it's (.9*1.5) = +1.35 bbs
                                                    10% of time he gets called. 32o will suck out against top 10% roughly 25% of time, so 2.5% of time A gains 9.5 bbs with the shove for an Ev of 0.025*9.5= +0.2375 bbs
                                                    7.5% of time A loses the 8.5 bbs he shoves -Ev is 0.075*8.5 = -0.6375 bbs
                                                    Summing these three possible outcomes, we find the play is +Ev to the tune of 0.95 bbs

                                                    Now let's imagine that after several iterations of this, B realises that A is shoving much wider than he thought (any two in fact) so he adjusts by starting to call wider. Let's say he starts calling any average or better hand, so 50%.
                                                    When A shoves 32o now, he's getting called 50% of time, and when called he gets there roughly 30% of time, so his Ev is
                                                    (1) 0.5*1.5 = +.75 bbs (when it gets thru)
                                                    (2) 0.15*9.5 = +1.425 bbs (when called and he gets there)
                                                    (3) 0.35*8.5 = -2.975 bb (when called and we lose)
                                                    Now all of a sudden, shoving 32o loses us 0.775 bbs on average in the long run

                                                    Imagine again that after getting called light a few times A realises his assumption that B is calling only top 10% is way off, and he realises B is actually calling 50% of time, so he stops shoving all the hands that are no longer profitable shoves.

                                                    After a while of this, B realises A has tightened up his shoving range, so he tightens up his calling range a bit.

                                                    A then re-adjusts, and they eventually converge on a Nash equilibrium GTO solution where A shoves roughly top 60% of hands and B calls roughly 40% of the time. If either of them diverges from this strategy, they will lose money. For example, if A shoves more than 60% he loses more because the hands he adds lose money long term against B's calls (similar to the situation above where A keeps shoving 32o after B adjusts his calls to 50%). If he shoves less than 60% he loses by folding some hands that are profitable shoves.

                                                    If both players stick to the GTO strategy of shove 60% call 40% they will break even in the long run. This is where the common misconception that the goal of GTO is not to make EV (money) but to not lose it. The more correct wording of this concept is something like "the aim of GTO is to at least break even no matter what strategy the opponent adopts. If the opponent also adopts a GTO strategy we break even, but if he adopts any other strategy we make money and he loses".

                                                    Does this mean we should always stick to GTO? No. Consider the very first example I gave where we are up against an opponent who is calling too tight. If we stick to GTO and shove 60%, we will still make money against him long term, but not as much as if we shove any two cards. In calling too tight (10% versus GTO 40%) B is adopting what game theory refers to as an exploitable strategy, meaning we can diverge from GTO when playing against it to make even more Ev by adopting what game theory calls an exploitative strategy. So if we are certain that our assumption about A calling too tight is correct, we should diverge.

                                                    But here's the rub. Exploitative strategies are by very definition exploitable. If our opponent figures out what we are doing (diverging from GTO), he can switch to an exploitative strategy of our strategy, and now we are the ones being exploited and losing Ev.
                                                    Last edited by doke; 22-11-16, 14:42.
                                                    My poker blog - Doking around in cyberspace

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      ^^^^^ That's some Rain man shit right there ^^^^^

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        My head hurts ..

                                                        Most of the above way above my pay grade.

                                                        My level of thinking goes like this.

                                                        1 a8 "shite i hate that hand".
                                                        2 F*** it this guy will re raise a load of hands judging by our earlier play
                                                        3 Ship sherbert "he cant call"
                                                        4 F**k he called with a10, fair play to him I'm some donkey
                                                        5 Dealer trows an 8 on the flop. Phew luckbox.

                                                        Some stellar responses above in fairness.
                                                        sigpic
                                                        Longshotvalue.com

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by doke View Post
                                                          For simplicity sake let's assume ICM is not a factor.
                                                          A then re-adjusts, and they eventually converge on a Nash equilibrium GTO solution where A shoves roughly top 60% of hands and B calls roughly 40% of the time. If either of them diverges from this strategy, they will lose money.[/QUOTE]
                                                          What's the point I was trying to make, to didn't explain it nearly as well.

                                                          But here's the rub. Exploitative strategies are by very definition exploitable. If our opponent figures out what we are doing (diverging from GTO), he can switch to an exploitative strategy of our strategy, and now we are the ones being exploited and losing Ev.
                                                          How long before we see "playing steady GTO + balancing of range with LAG exploitation"

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            1 interesting factor here that people forget to mention is what is the avg. stack in the tournament? I think u should be adjusting accordingly too.. just my 2cents
                                                            Last edited by luckymo32; 24-11-16, 14:02.

                                                            Comment

                                                            Working...
                                                            X