Two Plus Two Newer Archives - A5s in blind battle.

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- High Stakes MTT (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=89)

- - A5s in blind battle. (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=523052)

Re: A5s in blind battle.

OK,Baltostar I'm going to engage your arguments. Please do me the courtesy of reading what I say and responding to it, not just assuming that I've misunderstood and just repeating yourself.

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody *knows* marginal cEV+ scenarios. They perceive them. There's always a margin of error. The problem with marginal cEV+ scenarios is the margin of error can push you into cEV-.

But that's just one problem, the 1st order problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, sometimes you make mistakes. This isnt an argument for avoiding risk. Sometimes you make mistakes the other way and are actually further ahead than you think.

Good players acknowledge the fact they may have made a mistake. They will often make a marginal read, and then not act on it, because of the risk they have got it wrong.

Good players will weight the chance they are wrong and use it in their cEV calculations, whether implicitly or explicitly.

The marginal +EV situations that people are talking about are once they have adjusted for the margin of error.

[ QUOTE ]

The 2nd order problem is analyzing marginal cEV+ scenarios as if hand-isolated cash game situations, rather than understanding them relative to the avg scenario you can expect to receive during the remainder of your M-bracket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, you arent making yourself particularly clear on this. What I think you are saying is that at any particular stack size (M-Bracket) you will have an average expected value per hand (average oppurtunity). This is correct.

Firstly however, your average expected value per hand is not a theoretical future event, indepenent of how you play your hands, and how you play this hand in particular. It is a sum of all the hands you play. The way to maximise your average oppurtunity (EV per hand) is to play them all optimally, which is to maximise EV on each and every hand.

On a slight tangent, I think people do have an average EV per stack size, and this is dependent on a lot of things, including the players at your table.

Consider if you ahve an M of 2, and you are UTG. Your EV for the next 2 hands is going to be very negative. In this case it might be +EV overall to make a -EV play on this hand, simply because this is your least worse option.

Secondly consider that you have a big stack, on the bubble, at a table ful of medium stacks, who have all shown that they realy want tomake the money. This big stack is incredible +EV per hand.

Now consider that at the above table, you are a just above average stack, someone offers you a 50/50 chance to double up. You would take this every time, because doubling your chips much more that double syour $EV because your EV per hand will be so much higher. In fact, at the above situation I would even take a 55/45 bet, or worse.

Finally, you are the same table, with a nice re-stealing stack of 16BBs, there's one big-stack who's bitchslapping the weak tight nits arounds, but you know that he's raising with alot of crap. However, he plays very good post flop, and you dont think you could outplay him.

Here, your short stack has a high +EV per hand, because you can push over the big stack raised. If someone was to offer me a 50/50 EV neutral bet here, I wouldnt take it, if I thought that my EV per hand would go down if I doubled up.

Baltostar, the point is that the value of stack, is really complex and changes all the time and slanksy's "proof" you refer to really does not shut down the debate. For you to try to say this without reading what a lot of other people have said shows some real arragance.

[ QUOTE ]

The 3rd order problem is purusing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that *tend* to scale stakes until the risk is inappropriate for the relative opportunity during your M-bracket, committing your stack to opps that are significantly sub-par.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the crux of the argument, if an oppurtunity is +cEV on this hand, and also in relation to the size of the stack you could get, then you should make it.

Your ideas on risk avoidance are really wrong. There is nothing wrong with taking increased variance if it increases your overall EV.

Comparisons with banking are really wrong. In my poker career, I've played 1000s of tournaments, and plan on playing 10s of thousands more. I can play for the long run, I can play to maximise my EV over all this tournaments.

In banking, I doubt anyone avoids profitable risk, if they are only gambling with 0.01% of the funds capital.

There are people out there, who can't play the long run, and might want to avoid variance. They are however definitely playing sub-optimally.

[ QUOTE ]

The three add-up to sub-optimal play. Right now this sub-optimal play works. But as the player ecosystem continues to transform it will no longer work nearly as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to completely misunderstand what we are talking about here. +EV is not dependent on the "player ecosytsem" and who you are playing against. It is a theorteical concept which all good players will adjust to the particulars of any situation.

If I'm thinking about pushing, and I think it is marginally +cEV, this is based on the table. If the "player ecosystem" evolves, then what plays are marginally +EV will change. But it will still be correct to make those plays, once I have adjusted for the circumstances.

Finally you make a point about players escalating stakes to punish risk averse players, and that this will stop being profitable as people adjust. This is correct, but the reason it will stop certain plays being correct is that it will make the plays -EV, a +EV play will alyways be a +EV play.

Re: A5s in blind battle.

Hmm, I killed a thread. I'm proud.

Re: A5s in blind battle.

JammyDodga IM'd me and asked me to respond to his post:

I'm well aware of the standard thought mechanisms of aggressive play, and your arguments are standard. Believe me, I've carefully considered the concerns I raise in the context of how today's aggressive player's approach the game. I'm not starting from a blank piece of paper.

Why is it surprising that standard is exploitable or subject to overuse and thus loses strength over time? It's always been this way in poker and it always will be this way. The player ecosystem does matter, it matters a lot, moreso in poker than probably any other competitive activity.

The more skilled players entering the game who are willing to scale risk on significantly sub-par marginal cEV+ opportunities, the more aggressive players will tend to play for big pots on those opportunities: Hero perceives that hero has marginal cEV+, villain perceives that villain has marginal cEV+. Both are aggressive players, both are willing to pursue lines that tend to scale up.

Even if we assume hero is the better player and on avg wins more of these hands than loses, hero still tends to scale risk more frequently as more and more similar players enter the ecosystem.

What is the problem ? The problem is that standard aggressive play becomes sub-optimal play.

How do we know it's sub-optimal play ? Because a lot of aggressive play is dependent on healthy fold equity. An uptrend in the player ecosystem of similar players tends to reduce avg FE enjoyed by an aggressive style.

How does hero play more optimally ?

If hero learns to avoid lines that tend to significantly scale risk in significantly sub-par opportunities, he accomplishes two things of great benefit to his game:

1. Hero's avg hand payoff distribution curve, already skewed to the right, becomes skewed to the right a little bit more. It also has flatter tails and a juicier center. Effectively, you have relocated some of the fat in the tails into the slightly skewed center.

2. Hero's avg stack utility in mid-game M-brackets increases, allowing him to play even more aggressively (in those opportunities that truly deserve it).

Is adjusting play in this manner easy to accomplish ? No, it's an art, not a craft, but there are guidelines and rules-of-thumb which can be established to help hero move his play in the right direction.

Does this mean that hero is no longer an aggressive player. No, it does not. Hero still falls squarely in the aggressive category, he is just more prudent about scaling risk than his aggressive opponents. Hero has taken the game to the next level. His opponents have not.

Re: A5s in blind battle.

OK, one last try. I PMed you because I'd responded in depth to your points, but I really dont think you even bothered to read my post.

The theory we are talking about is already adjusted for the amount of FE we have. Saying that playing from marginal EV spots is dependent on the "ecosystem" just makes no sense.

OK, simple model. Very simplified, the EV in a certain hand is a function of a specific play (X) and the "Player Ecosystem" (E)

EV = f(X,E)

I'm saying that any play where EV is positive is a good play. If I change E, which plays are profitable will change. Some plays will become more profitable, some will become less. I'm not denying this. But those plays which now become, or are still marginally porfitable should still be made.

The ecosystem has no bearing on this.

If E includes FE, which you seem to focus on, then sure the amount of FE we have will effect which plays are nor profitable. But profitable plays will still be profitable, and they should always be made...

OK, now I'm done.

Re: A5s in blind battle.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, simple model. Very simplified, the EV in a certain hand is a function of a specific play (X) and the "Player Ecosystem" (E)

EV = f(X,E)

I'm saying that any play where EV is positive is a good play. If I change E, which plays are profitable will change. Some plays will become more profitable, some will become less. I'm not denying this. But those plays which now become, or are still marginally porfitable should still be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we disagree. My argument is that if hero learns to avoid scaling risk on the significantly sub-par cEV+ opportunities (while most other similar players do not learn to do this), hero creates a juicer avg payoff distribution curve for his allin hands (while hero's opponents continue on with their flatter, getting-less-juicier-every-day curves).

Another way to look at this is "going where they ain't" (in a certain sense and to a certain degree).

If hero is able to pass-up the most marginal spots to scale risk while the ecosystem uptrend is that hero's avg similar-style opponent looks to scale risk on every perceived cEV+, hero shifts his risk to a juicier shaped avg payoff distribution curve -- one which hero's skilled opponents are not pursuing.

Hero's skilled opponents are pursuing a flatter curve -- one which worked well to skew the mean to the right for a long time because of all the unchallenged fold equity.

Now that FE is significantly blunted as a weapon (because of the ever-increasing likelihood that in a marginal situation you will get it all in against another skilled agressive player), you need to play for a different curve.

And you will have success in doing so, because, on avg, your style will ensure that you have greater stack utility when you do choose to pursue a scaling line against a similar-style opponent.

What I'm recommending is a tweak to the successful aggressive player's game so that they can continue to be successful.

And I did read all of your post.

Re: A5s in blind battle.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, simple model. Very simplified, the EV in a certain hand is a function of a specific play (X) and the "Player Ecosystem" (E)

EV = f(X,E)

I'm saying that any play where EV is positive is a good play. If I change E, which plays are profitable will change. Some plays will become more profitable, some will become less. I'm not denying this. But those plays which now become, or are still marginally porfitable should still be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we disagree. My argument is that if hero learns to avoid scaling risk on the significantly sub-par opportunities (while most other similar players do not learn to do this), hero creates a juicer avg payoff distribution curve for his allin hands (while hero's opponents continue on with their flatter, getting-less-juicier-every-day curves).

Another way to look at this is "going where they ain't" (in a certain sense and to a certain degree).

If hero is able to pass-up the most marginal spots to scale risk while the ecosystem uptrend is that hero's avg similar-style opponent looks to scale risk on every perceived cEV+, hero shifts his risk to a juicier shaped avg payoff distribution curve -- one which hero's skilled opponents are not pursuing.

Hero's skilled opponents are pursuing a flatter curve -- one which worked well to skew the mean to the right for a long time because of all the unchallenged fold equity.

Now that FE is significantly blunted as a weapon (because of the ever-increasing likelihood that in a marginal situation you will get it all in against another skilled agressive player), you need to play for a different curve.

And you will have success in doing so, because, on avg, your style will ensure that you have greater stack utility when you do choose to pursue a scaling line against a similar-style opponent.

And I did read all of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

This must be the most absurd collection of words I've ever read on 2+2, in one post.

Which is an achievement.

Very well done, balto!

Had to make this quick last visit into this thread, even though I left it permanently.

Re: A5s in blind battle.

[ QUOTE ]
This must be the most absurd collection of words I've ever read on 2+2, in one post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're just not educated regarding concepts like avg hand risk distribution curve (using risk in the 2-sided mathematical sense). You need to take a basic course in probability.

You're also uneducated regarding how a flood of similar-style players into the ecosystem necessarily implies that your profitability will suffer unless you move away from their over-reliance on similar patterns. You need to take a basic course in game theory.

Re: A5s in blind battle.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This must be the most absurd collection of words I've ever read on 2+2, in one post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're just not educated regarding concepts like avg hand risk distribution curve (using risk in the 2-sided mathematical sense). You need to take a basic course in probability.

You're also uneducated regarding how a flood of similar-style players into the ecosystem necessarily implies that your profitability will suffer unless you move away from their over-reliance on similar patterns. You need to take a basic course in game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is necessarily true; however, I fail to understand why a tendency of aggressiveness in many players would automatically lead to risk reduction as a more profitable strategy. Wouldn't merely being tighter, opening less aggressively (in order not to get restolen, i.e. closing the gap between open raise range and calling range) lead to a more profitable strategy? Risk reduction almost seems counter-productive, since the aggressive players will continue to abuse you. Can you reduce risk without being weak-tight?