A Technical Question Regarding Blind Stealing

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
In reviewing an upcoming two plus two book, I have come across a statement that I believe to be incorrect (and if so will change). It has to do with how many hands are profitable raises on the button or small blind, given the tightness of the big blind. Playing Limit Holdem

Obviously, as a general rule, the tighter the big blind, the more hands you can profitably raise with. And vice versa. But what about if the blind is extremely loose? Is there some point where you can add back in some hands as profitable raising hands (assume you can't just call) that you would fold if he was a tad tighter? We can make this question a litter more explicit later on if need be.

[/ QUOTE ]

When taking into account his post flop play someone who defends 100% with a call but c/f when he doesn't hit a pair or a decent draw (say gutshot+) will simply fold the flop for one bet. You would certainly want to have the pot as large aspossible when he folds for that bet so iowuld imagine that any2 from the sb would do there.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is virtually impossible because of the nemesis restriction on the postflop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jerrod's solution implies that an opponent with suboptimal pre-flop selection plays in an optimal way from the flop to the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered this problem because I thought it was the theoretical problem David was asking. If we're supposed to guess at how well our opponent plays postflop, then I will guess "badly" because that's how most opponents play.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that this combination of pre-flop idiot and post-flop genius is that common in limit practice (NL is a different story). Actually the other way around is much closer to reality. People usually have a pretty good idea of what to play pre-flop and struggle on the later streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that people have a pretty good idea of what to play preflop and also characterize calling with all hands in the big blind as pre-flop idiocy? They aren't that far apart.

jerrod

[Gobgogbog]

I also took the question to want to know just how variations in BB's preflop strategy affect our strategy, not how variations in BB's postflop strategy affect our strategy. And I think Jerrod's analysis is spot-on.

[KenProspero]

David:

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you looking for empirical information or apocryphical(our best guess)?

I assume that in your base case analysis, the Button's decision to raise or not raise is based on the following factors:

1. % that SB/BB will fold * amount of blinds (always a 0 or +ev)

Plus/minus

2. EV if you have to play the hand (either a +ev or a -ev).

The obvious point being that it is still profitable to raise with certain hands even if there is a -ev in step 2.

It seems that the entire analysis really revolves around these two points.

Your basic premise boils down to the following: as SB/BB get will defend with fewer hands, the +ev in step 1 declines, and the mix of hands in step 2 must be adjusted so that the -ev in this step is doesn't exceed the +ev from folding.

As SB/BB plays fewer hands, we have two variables that work in the opposite direction: First, the ev in step 1 decreases because there is a lower chance of successfully stealing. Second, for at least some subset of hands, the ev in step 2 increases because on average SB/BB will have progressively weaker hands.

So, for any given hand, the question comes down to whether it's worth raising with that hand given the lower +ev in step 1.

You start out by saying that as SB/BB play fewer hands, Button should raise with fewer hands. In essence this says that the Marginal Negative EV change for step 1 exceeds the Marginal Positive EV change for step 2.

As SB/BB plays more and more hands, it's possible that the difference in the marginal changes may narrow, or even cross over, so that at some point the range of hands increases. But this is largely a modelling exercise.

So, I come to my original point are you looking for something empirical or apocryphical.

If empirical -- I'm going to punt this one, you have far better tools than I.

If apocryphical -- except in extreme cases, where you can seriously outplay the blinds post flop, I suspect that the lines don't cross and you won't add back hands.

[David Sklansky]

That's good enough for me. It was my opinion too. And I'm deleting the comment from what I think so far is an otherwise great book.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you say that people have a pretty good idea of what to play preflop and also characterize calling with all hands in the big blind as pre-flop idiocy? They aren't that far apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am characterizing the player described by your model. Your player plays 100% perfect post-flop, but for some reason cannot get his pre-flop play right, because he plays "too many" hands by definition. For me this describes a mixture of pre-flop idiot and post-flop genius. It's of course a totally unrealistic assumption/model, but that should be obvious.

[BluffTHIS!]

Jerrod,

Out of curiosity, is your use of the term "nemesis" a standard one in game theory discussions in general or poker in particular? Or are you just using it as a more colorful connotative term for someone whose play would be described as "maximally exploitive" (and with "limited nemesis" thus being used to put a limitation on the exploitation as to the stages of a multi-street play hand)?

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
Jerrod,

Out of curiosity, is your use of the term "nemesis" a standard one in game theory discussions in general or poker in particular? Or are you just using it as a more colorful connotative term for someone whose play would be described as "maximally exploitive" (and with "limited nemesis" thus being used to put a limitation on the exploitation as to the stages of a multi-street play hand)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nemesis is a technical term from game theory. A nemesis against a strategy X is any member of the set of all strategies that maximize value against X.

I personally like to use the term in poker discussions as well to mean the devious super-opponent who will automatically exploit your strategy and adapt to any strategy changes you make. This is a very useful idea in making people understand what playing optimally means.

But strictly speaking, a nemesis is a strategy that exploits maximally.

jerrod

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
That's good enough for me. It was my opinion too. And I'm deleting the comment from what I think so far is an otherwise great book.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't delete it, you should add an editor's footnote that you disagree.

[Matt Williams]

If a player is loose and a calling station, I would just value bet every street if I thought I had the best of it and fold otherwise. But this is w/ low stakes w/ weak players. High stakes wouldn't work because other players would see what you are doing and plan accordingly.