Lee Jone\'s Sage HU system
 

quick question- if you know your opponent is NOT using this push/fold critera (or a close one), shouldn't you tighten you push calling standards from the big blind?

Because if they are not pushing bad hands you have less equity against their range, plus you will have more fold equity in your pushes.

correct?

Re: Lee Jone\'s Sage HU system
 

The opposite may be true as well . That is , if your opponent is pushing with more hands than is optimal according to SAGE , then you should widen your calling requirements . Otherwise , you may need to tighten them .

Re: Lee Jone\'s Sage HU system
 

[ QUOTE ]
The opposite may be true as well . That is , if your opponent is pushing with more hands than is optimal according to SAGE , then you should widen your calling requirements . Otherwise , you may need to tighten them .

[/ QUOTE ]

true, but this would be trickier to figure out without a long history of SNGs with villian. The pushing ranges are so wide that you would need to see some big pushes with like 32o to adjust correctly.

whereas with overfolding you can tell from an incorrect fold or two.

Re: Lee Jone\'s Sage HU system
 

I've got a lot of discussion about this in Kill Everyone. I discuss equilibrium plays as well as the right way to play against an opponent who is not making the equilibrium plays. Most players are not pushing as often as equilibrium, but some will push more so either way could be correct. Adjusting your play is critical.

Tysen

Re: Lee Jone\'s Sage HU system
 

[ QUOTE ]
quick question- if you know your opponent is NOT using this push/fold critera (or a close one), shouldn't you tighten you push calling standards from the big blind?

Because if they are not pushing bad hands you have less equity against their range, plus you will have more fold equity in your pushes.

correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

SAGE is about optimal play, the equilibrium. If the guy you play against does not play equilibrium strategy, you have a better play (than SAGE).

To be precise, SAGE is not the exact equilibrium, it's just some approximation of it. If you would like to know the exact equilibrium play, or other properties (like how much such play deviates from the EQ etc) PM me (but it will cost you money [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] as there aren't many people around being able to calculate such things :P

Re: Lee Jone\'s Sage HU system
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quick question- if you know your opponent is NOT using this push/fold critera (or a close one), shouldn't you tighten you push calling standards from the big blind?

Because if they are not pushing bad hands you have less equity against their range, plus you will have more fold equity in your pushes.

correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

SAGE is about optimal play, the equilibrium. If the guy you play against does not play equilibrium strategy, you have a better play (than SAGE).

To be precise, SAGE is not the exact equilibrium, it's just some approximation of it. If you would like to know the exact equilibrium play, or other properties (like how much such play deviates from the EQ etc) PM me (but it will cost you money [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] as there aren't many people around being able to calculate such things :P

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to ask you an honest, serious question that maybe doesn't look like one. Would it be worth much to me to be able to understand this post? What I mean is, I think being able to understand what you're talking about would possibly be the first step to being able to use it in some limited way, but would I truly benefit from it? I have a reasonable understanding of the mechanics of push/fold heads up, but by no means am I mathematically sound. I only play low limits, but of course I aspire to climb a bit.

Edit: Oh, and I don't mean that I don't know what SAGE is. I do.

Re: Lee Jone\'s Sage HU system
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quick question - if you know your opponent is NOT using this push/fold critera (or a close one), shouldn't you tighten you push calling standards from the big blind?

Because if they are not pushing bad hands you have less equity against their range, plus you will have more fold equity in your pushes.

correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

SAGE is about optimal play, the equilibrium. If the guy you play against does not play equilibrium strategy, you have a better play (than SAGE).

To be precise, SAGE is not the exact equilibrium, it's just some approximation of it. If you would like to know the exact equilibrium play, or other properties (like how much such play deviates from the EQ etc) PM me (but it will cost you money [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] as there aren't many people around being able to calculate such things :P

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to ask you an honest, serious question that maybe doesn't look like one. Would it be worth much to me to be able to understand this post? What I mean is, I think being able to understand what you're talking about would possibly be the first step to being able to use it in some limited way, but would I truly benefit from it? I have a reasonable understanding of the mechanics of push/fold heads up, but by no means am I mathematically sound. I only play low limits, but of course I aspire to climb a bit.

Edit: Oh, and I don't mean that I don't know what SAGE is. I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you (and I suppose you do) already invested a lot of time and effort in other means to study and play winning poker then understanding this post won't worth so much to you in terms if EV. But it helps to understand more about the theory behind the game.

The theory is very powerful, but poker is also very complex game. That's why to derive practical value out of theretical stuff is slow process, and if you do it just for this purpose the reward is not so high (that's why most people that do it, they rather do it for research purposes).

But being literate on these topics I beleive is cool, as this is knowledge that is universaly applicable, to every form of poker, and to every game.

Re: Lee Jone\'s Sage HU system
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quick question - if you know your opponent is NOT using this push/fold critera (or a close one), shouldn't you tighten you push calling standards from the big blind?

Because if they are not pushing bad hands you have less equity against their range, plus you will have more fold equity in your pushes.

correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

SAGE is about optimal play, the equilibrium. If the guy you play against does not play equilibrium strategy, you have a better play (than SAGE).

To be precise, SAGE is not the exact equilibrium, it's just some approximation of it. If you would like to know the exact equilibrium play, or other properties (like how much such play deviates from the EQ etc) PM me (but it will cost you money [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] as there aren't many people around being able to calculate such things :P

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to ask you an honest, serious question that maybe doesn't look like one. Would it be worth much to me to be able to understand this post? What I mean is, I think being able to understand what you're talking about would possibly be the first step to being able to use it in some limited way, but would I truly benefit from it? I have a reasonable understanding of the mechanics of push/fold heads up, but by no means am I mathematically sound. I only play low limits, but of course I aspire to climb a bit.

Edit: Oh, and I don't mean that I don't know what SAGE is. I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you (and I suppose you do) already invested a lot of time and effort in other means to study and play winning poker then understanding this post won't worth so much to you in terms if EV. But it helps to understand more about the theory behind the game.

The theory is very powerful, but poker is also very complex game. That's why to derive practical value out of theretical stuff is slow process, and if you do it just for this purpose the reward is not so high (that's why most people that do it, they rather do it for research purposes).

But being literate on these topics I beleive is cool, as this is knowledge that is universaly applicable, to every form of poker, and to every game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the response. I find that understanding the theory behind the game is mostly valuable, because, obviously, you can generalise from theory to particular spots.

I play sngs mostly, and having some (small, in my case) idea of, for instance, tournament equity helps you think about why some sorts of plays are good and others bad, which is much better than trying to learn a catalogue of plays, and I think is helping me become a better player. What I mean to say is, if I tell someone "play very tight early, much tighter than you do in other tourneys", that's good advice and they won't go wrong following it, but you can go a lot further with the idea of equity, which explains *why* you play tight, and if you do the legwork, explains more precisely why you play that tightly. (Or why I do. I suppose a very good LAG would have a different risk/reward calculation to make.)