A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

I noticed a small mistake in the numbers provided from SAGE .
It says that for R=1 ; that is , after the blinds have been taken , and that you're left with 1 big blind , then you should jam with 6-2 suited or better . It should read 6-2 offsuit or better since 6-2 offsuit wins slightly over one-third of the time . This means that you should fold with only two hands ; namely , 2-3 off-suit and 4-2 off-suit .

We're in Nash equilibrium if we're satisfied with our strategy given what the other player has done . We would not be satisfied if we had folded 6-2 off-suit since we're getting 2:1 (Villain calls 100% of the time) and that 6-2 off-suit wins slightly more than 34% of the time .

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

According to the table I use we shouldn't even be jamming with 6-2 suited. 62s has 16 points, but we should have 17.

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

There have been several mistakes pointed out by others on when you should jam/fold according to their Power Index numbers . There have been many here who have jammed incorrectly according to their number when they should have folded . Your best bet is to memorize the hands superior to the cut-off point or accept the fact that the Power Index numbers can be misleading .

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

"A SAGE mistake/sng's"

[ QUOTE ]
using it

[/ QUOTE ]

Edited by daveT.

<------loc.

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

Why do people follow this when you can easily just use sng wizard quiz and play substantially better?

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

I was going to ask the same thing. Seems like ICM is a much better tool than SAGE for exactly the reason people are objecting to SAGE- ability to take reads into account. It is still a "system", perhaps, but one that will much more accurately inform real-game situations. Am I missing something?

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

There is no such thing as ICM in heads up sng's .

SAGE is nevertheless very effective towards the end of a game ; especially against a strong opponent . However , with experience , you may learn to deviate slightly from game theory strategy to exploit the mistakes made from your opponent's .

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

it's been years since my days in stt, but isn't icm just assigning chip values based on your opponents range, and seeing how much real $ that makes various actions worth? i can understand how the payout structures would make one facet of that a non-factor, but i don't get how it's not applicable at all. what am i misunderstanding?

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

On SNG Wizard:

I don't see how it applies to HUSNGs.

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

Does sngwiz/sngpt automatically assume 50/30/20 payout? If not couldn't you set a 100/0 payout, put one opponent, and have a much better tool than SAGE?

If not, how hard would it be for someone familiar w/ icm to make a program that adjusts to the 100/0 payout of a headsup sng? I feel like I must be missing something, cuz why didn't someone else notice, but can't think of what it is.

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

There's no ICM in heads up situations. Every single chip has the exact same value.

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

FWIW, "Mathematics of Poker" by Chen and Ankenman has the exact solution in an easy to use table. Basically, for each starting hand, it says the maximum stack size to shove for each hand and the maximum stack size to call a shove for each hand. For example, with 63o, you should shove from the SB with a stack of 1.7 big blinds or less, and you should call a shove from the BB with a stack of 3.0 big blinds or less. It also gives all of the weird broken cases. Like it is correct to shove 63s from the SB with 2.3 big blinds or less, but it is also correct to do it as a semibluff with between 5.1 and 7.1 big blinds (but you have to fold between 2.3 and 5.1).

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

With 6-3 off-suit , you can shove profitably if your stack is 2.591343 small blinds after the blinds have been taken or 1.2956715 big blinds . (2.591343/2 = 1.2956715)

http://www2.decf.berkeley.edu/~chubukov/rankings.html

Re: A SAGE mistake / sng\'s
 

So you guys like the tables in MOP best? I don't think it would be all that hard to know cutoff hands. Should be faster than computing the power index in my head.