Re: Which Is Better
[ QUOTE ]
Since you are being precise please define "plenty of situations". I ask mainly because I do not buy the "plenty of situations". If, in fact, there were plenty of situations that you descrbe, then it would follow that there would be a general concept for them. I also do not buy that the individual needs to do tons of analysis in lieu of using a proven general concept to accomplish close to if not the same results.
leaponthis
[/ QUOTE ]
leap,
without too much work, one could generate nearly arbitrarilly many such situations. the point of my post, which i thought was quite explicit, is that because they are so mathematically precise "concept" loses out to "reality." while the concept of "first in vigorish" is great, there's often a cutoff on what hands you can profitably move all in with.
take a look at this term (not perfectly quoted i'm sure since i'm not quoting it) from my last post:
When you move in one thing that is very important to you is this:
(probability that you get called)(probability that you win when you are called)(number of chips that you will have if you get called and win)
not only are some of the hands one should move all in with counter-intuitive to the normal person (moving all in with T9s is frequently better than moving in with A2o), but when you grind through the actual mathematics, say you know perfectly what your probability of getting called is, and what hands they are going to do it with, then what you need is to construct a set of hands which wins the proper percentage of the time against those hands, and fold the rest.
while this produces "quite a few" move all in with any two cards" situations, obviously (since K9o is just a better hand than K8o, and K9s is just a better hand than K9o, by many different metrics, but here explicitly by the Chubukov-Sklansky numbers) there are going to be times where the better hand is above the cutoff and the worse hand is below it. one can construct such situatoins ad nauseum.
just because something happens a lot doesn't mean you can make a generalization. in particular, it would be a pretty pointless generalization to make to say for each pair of hands next to each other in the chubukov-sklansky rankings when the probability works out like yadda yadda, we play the top hand and don't play the next one.
instead, the more genral rule is effectively the rule of first in vigorish, which was mentioned by a poster above, somewhat explained by harrington, and in pretty thorough detail i believe explained by me above.
the rule, or generalization, one more time, for you: (note, there will be exceptions to this generalization, as there are for all good ones, and honestly, this too is simplified)
when in a late game sit and go tournament situation where your decision is binarily moving all in or folding, the relevant consideration is:
(1) If you choose to fold:
What will be the value of your stack if you fold, where value is calculated by a model such as the independent chip model, which assigns prize pool equity based on stack size?
and
(2) If you choose to move all in:
What is the expected value of your stack if you move all in, where the value is calculated using the same models.
The expected size of your stack will be:
(Probability that everyone else folds)x(Your starting stack + blinds + antes) + (Probability that you get called)(Probability that you win when called)(Stack size if you get called and win)
If you look at the expected value of each, and figure out which one gives you the better expected value, you do that one.
In general, it is correct to move in far, far more than most people think, because the probability that you get called is frequently quite low, and in holdem the odds that you are a huge dog are low.
This is my last long post in this thread. Vince, I wish you could understand why I'm flustered here. Some things are just not "generalizable." You can write up nice statements like the one in the preceding paragraph, but really when you're playing at a real poker game against people who have not only done that, but sat down and played with the simulators enough to actually know which hands perform well in which situations, and which situations are actually "push any two" spots, the theorist will get taken apart, and quickly. The more familiar and precise with their knowledge of this material your opponents are, the worse you will fare.
citanul
|