SAGE in cash games?

[Sheetah]

Yes, SAGE debate is not over yet! lol

Alright, I'm obviously talking of common situation we've all seen - you sit to play with 'normal' 100BB stack and someone sits in with min buy-in 10BB. I personally hate this. And I know that lots of players will refuse to play unless shortie buys-in full, or at least >50BB. But aren't we missing some value here?

First of all, almost all of these opponents do this because they are either (both) inexperienced or improperly bankrolled. That is, they'll play scared, back off to aggression and that's where SAGE comes in handy. Since this is 10BB or lower scenario, by playing 'the system' you should be, in theory, unbeatable. And it's not much of a risk, 10BB meh. The only risk I could think of is your opponent getting lucky, doubling up and running away. But then again, as I've seen they usually choose to stay and win more. From that point on, you of course play normal game - remember: you are skilled and experienced, he is scared and inexperienced.

Thoughts?

[Erdricks Sword]

I believe your rational is correct, but the situation is flawed. SAGE only applies when it is a heads up situation with two random hands. Therefore, the only way it could work is if it is folded to you and him in the blinds.

My bad, you are probably talking about NL cash hu. I believe it would work just as well.

[Goldmund]

On Pokerstars, which is virtually the only site I play, the min buy-in is 20 big blinds...however...SAGE sucks IMO, as it only factors in cards and not opponents. It basically ensures no one has an edge AGAINST you, it by no means makes your play the best possible against a bad opponent.

[Sheetah]

On Everest (clearing bonus there) there are plenty of these 10BB shorties. Or, he starts with 20BB and drops to <10BB, whatever. It's just that I was interested in opinion from someone that actually gave it a try. SAGE is so confusing. So many different opinions.

[cwar]

SAGE optimizes the pushing range although you can often times push more hands than SAGE says is appropriate given your opponents are often not calling optimally. Also if calling vs. a tighter opponent SAGE will gurantee EV but you may want to sacrifice the minor EV of this call because of your tight opponents flawed calling range (more future EV).

[cwar]

There is nothing wrong with SAGE and I think its very important to be aware of. Its just important to recognize that maximizing your winrate will of course need adjustments to "perfect game theory."

A good example would be if you were playing LHE against a super LAG villain who will cap every street regardless of his hand. You flop the absolute nuts he bets: Perfect game theory strategy would dictate you raise 90% and call 10% of the time (just an example) but of course you should raise 100% to maximize your EV against this terrible villain.

[Goldmund]

[ QUOTE ]
SAGE optimizes the pushing range

[/ QUOTE ] That's incorrect. Lee Jones, the main 'author' of tyhe system puts it thus: The SAGE System is based on what mathematicians call an "equilibrium strategy," which is a strategy that cannot be "beaten" in the following sense: If either player deviates from the equilibrium, his expectation will go down (and thus, in a two-player game, his opponent's expectation must go up). Studies have shown that for short-stacked, heads-up no-limit hold'em, using an equilibrium strategy makes the outcome of the tournament nearly a coin toss (weighted by the players' relative stack sizes, of course). To put it another way, if you find yourself facing Chris Ferguson heads up, this system will prevent him from using his (presumably) greater poker expertise to get an advantage over you.

Ergo: SAGE is a DEFENSE against a perfectly or near perfectly playing opponent. Would you apply SAGE against an opponent who will call 100%, or vs an opponent who will only call all-ins with AA and KK HU?
No, of course you wouldnt. In the first case you wait for hands that have a bigger edge than SAGE dictates, in the second case you will go all-in every hand. Goldmund

[cwar]

Optimize was a bad word but I think we are on the same page here.

[Sheetah]

'Optimize' is not bad at all.

Goldmund, I really appreciate what you're saying, but have to disagree about it being only 'defensive strategy'. Don't forget that even 23o has some chances of busting AA. And that's IMO what Lee J. tried to evaluate: ranges of hands, running into ranges of hands, odds of one VS other - compared to pot size. For ex. if your OPP (4BB stack) will fold J6 when you shove w/ T8 this is clear value and most hands will be that marginal.

That's the reason why I asked this. I'm thinking of using it as an OFFENSIVE weapon.

[cwar]

No Goldmund is very correct. Optimize is a bad word because SAGE is a static strategy and you must alter your pushing and calling ranges (optimize them) outside of SAGE's basic strategy. That being said I think SAGE is essential to know.