Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

I am actually enjoying this discussion very much. Seeing as how this is a strategy forum, locking a thread with theoretical discussion seems quite counterintuitive IMO.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think what is going on here is that a lot of players who don't understand the prob theory behind this stuff have chosen to go with scaling up variance at every perceived EV+ opportunity because it puts them in the winners circle more often. Bragging rights kick butt, especially amongst young players.

But in the long run it is not near optimal, nor maybe even a winning, strategy.

As the voice of reason in poker, 2p2 should not be fueling "gambling it up" as the preferred approach to MTTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on a minute. What's the alteranative strategy to being in the winner's circle more often? That's unquestionably the key to profiting in MTTs (which is why I don't see poker as particularly similar to stock trading). You need to win MTTs to make a profit.

I'm all for pursuing a debate on whether decreasing variance can lead to more FTs. I thought that's what was up for discussion. The old mantra was that cEV = $EV almost always in MTT play. Most people on 2+2 think this holds. Baltostar thinks this does not. I would like to agree with Baltostar, because I like being contrary, and because I've always had problems with the +cEV = +$EV equation, in the sense that I think it can blind us to the overall aim if we forget that the equation does not always hold true. However, I think MLG is correct in that my reservations are more to do with what +cEV play is these days, not with the basic equation.

However, getting to the final three and taking 'em down is unquestionably what MTT play is about. Not even the best nits consistently ITM >20% so you simply have to make outright victory your objective given payout structures.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

OK, this hand kind of illustrates what I am talking about and what I thought Baltostar was talking about. It may also my fairly sketchy understanding of the mathematics of poker - feel free to berate me. $5r FT. Payouts $250 or so to $2k.

Let's make the following assumptions based on specific reads and generic play. UTG does not have a big hand. People are more likely to fold pf if I make it 80k to go and then shove any flop.

If, as I suspect, and please correct me if I'm wrong, shoving has a greater chip expectation but also provides greater variance, should I shove or raise?

Poker Stars
No Limit Holdem Tournament
Blinds: t6000/t12000
(Ante: t1200)
7 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: t498228
UTG+1: t393075
MP1: t250460
CO: t391140
Button: t390052
SB: t80053
Hero: t187492

Pre-flop: (7 players) Hero is BB with K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
UTG calls t12000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t26400)</font>, UTG+1 calls t12000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t38400)</font>, 2 folds, Button calls t12000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t50400)</font>, SB calls t6000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t62400)</font>, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Baltostar hates variance but loves putting in 30% of his stack as a raise with a good hand with no intention of getting to showdown.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK, this hand kind of illustrates what I am talking about and what I thought Baltostar was talking about. It may also my fairly sketchy understanding of the mathematics of poker - feel free to berate me. $5r FT. Payouts $250 or so to $2k.

Let's make the following assumptions based on specific reads and generic play. UTG does not have a big hand. People are more likely to fold pf if I make it 80k to go and then shove any flop.

If, as I suspect, and please correct me if I'm wrong, shoving has a greater chip expectation but also provides greater variance, should I shove or raise?

Poker Stars
No Limit Holdem Tournament
Blinds: t6000/t12000
(Ante: t1200)
7 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: t498228
UTG+1: t393075
MP1: t250460
CO: t391140
Button: t390052
SB: t80053
Hero: t187492

Pre-flop: (7 players) Hero is BB with K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
UTG calls t12000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t26400)</font>, UTG+1 calls t12000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t38400)</font>, 2 folds, Button calls t12000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t50400)</font>, SB calls t6000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t62400)</font>, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises

[/ QUOTE ]

shoving has both greater chip expectation and lower variance imo. just raising would be higher variance because sometimes when they just call preflop you will get outflopped. 15 bbs with AK oop and a bazillion limpers.. shove.

i don't know why im in red but it's kinda cool

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

this thread hurts my head imo

I never thought T.S. Eliot would be applicable to poker theory but I think he was talking about balatazasor or w/e:

"Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous--
Almost, at times, the Fool."


If I am reading right you are just stating over and over in different words that you want to pass up EV in order to maximize your EV, which to me seems completely backwards, but if Phil Hellmuth can do it then more power to you.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Baltostar,
I see you consistently conflating two similar, but crucially different ideas.

1. People scale up varience at every perceived +EV opportunity. Which I interpret to mean that people think that simply increasing their varience will increase their EV. You are saying, this is not the case. I agree, people can often get way too caught up and being aggro and throwing chips around, and that many times it does not increase their EV nearly as much as they expect it to.

2. A player should sacrifice his EV in order to reduce variance. This is almost always a huge mistake. And is always a huge mistake early in a tournament. That debate as has been pointed out to you has been held frequently here over the years (if you look in the archives and anthology you will see me consistently arguing my case over and over and over again). There are lots of reasons for this. While the mathematical arguments you state are true, the fact remains that the impact on strategy early in a tournament is so small as to be negligible.


I will say one other thing, and I think it may be the point you are getting at. For a long time, players in MTTS by and large were bad in a very specific way. They were weak tight, especially when faced with a decision for all their chips. Therefore playing in a manner which increased your own varience almost definitionally increased your EV. That in my opinion is no longer the case. That doesnt mean that you should turn down EV ever, it just means that increasingly the most EV strategy may not be the most aggresive one.

[/ QUOTE ]


My points are not easy to explain, not by anyone. They are not boring deja-vu. I seriously doubt that my main point has been discussed on these forums before.

(Note to PrayingMantis: 2004 might as well have been 1904. The player ecosystem of the online game has radically changed since 2004. In online poker, you can't just stuff something in a drawer and consider it a done deal.)

My main point probably does arise from the major "added LAG" in today's online opponents. (From what from what I've read this has led to a number of high-profile previously very successful online cash game players going broke).

It's not just "added LAG". It's also the growing number of tricky snipers that are out there who are very good at setting-up good players' whose bread-and-butter is scaling stakes to scare out weak-tight players.

I'm working on a math proof that cEV+ is not always $EV+. But I am not a mathematician so maybe I don't achieve the rigor required by a proof. In any case, I'm going to post it in the theory forum, not here, because it is far from the main jist of my arguments. It is not what I started arguing, it was a tangent.

My main point (on this and other threads) continues to be that there is a pervasive persistent tendency on these boards to analyze hands to pursue EV+ lines without appropriate consideration of whether the likely incurred variance is worth it.

Apparently, at lot of you seem to think I'm arguing that there's some absolute amount of variance that should be avoided as some sort of function of the amount of EV+ of a line.

Not really.

I am arguing that within an M-bracket you can expect an avg opp. And it is easy to be drawn into (as in "draw yourself into") pursuing a below-avg opp without properly considering how likely the stakes are to scale.

Once you have become committed to a line, it is usually too late to back out.

If you consistently are willing to scale the stakes for below-avg opps you are playing sub-optimally. The degree to which you are willing to add variance should probably be in linear proportion to the difference of the opp's EV and avg opp's EV (for the current M-bracket). Maybe it's a more complex function than linear, I don't know yet.

I don't think this is occurring in today's good players' play by only a small measure. I think it is a very serious leak that will only become of greater impact to bankrolls as the game continues to get tougher.

I also think that within the next year successful, well-known players will be writing about it, maybe even publishing books about it, and it will become a huge topic in today's game.

You can make fun of me all you want because I am not a proven high-stakes MTTs player. But the fact is that I have a long life/career history of observing group behavior from the periphery and being very good at spotting detrimental patterns of thought that participants have unwittingly locked themselves into.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Note to PrayingMantis: 2004 might as well have been 1904. The player ecosystem of the online game has radically changed since 2004. In online poker, you can't just stuff something in a drawer and consider it a done deal.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you understood what you were talking about, and bothered to actually go read the archives (like people are suggesting to you again and again), you'd have realized that this discussion has very little to do with "the player ecosystem". However, you are too stubborn, and think too much of yourself as for actually go and read them. The annoying thing is that you make your posts look so "deep", so some people actually think that there's something interesting to learn from them. There isn't. You are just full if it, which is something that really makes me mad, and that's why I keep posting in this thread.

Again, there's nothing new in your last post, your same ideas dressed with the same high words. But, for the first time and after denying it earlier, now you at least admit to think that what you say is indeed revolutionary ("I seriously doubt that my main point has been discussed on these forums before. "). Thank you for that! Well, You have no idea how wrong you are. People on these boards were thinking about "non-linear" graphs 3 years ago too. Nothing came out from all of it, and for very good reasons. Also, Weak-tight "theoreticians" of your kind come to these boards from time to time (not only MTTS), with their "risk management" ideas. No success.

Of course, the games change, this is obvious to any thinking player, and best +CEV lines change according to different circumstances. I generally agree with MLG's point about the decreasing value of aggressive strategies. This is not a new phenomenon, and it also could be found in SNGs for long time now (wider calling ranges, for instance, etc). Smart players realize this. However, they keep in pursuing the highest +CEV lines possible for them, considering their own and their opponents play (unless if it's in very particular bubble or FT situations, where $EV and CEV diverge too much).

GL repeating yourself in other forums here, if that's what you're actually going to do now. Maybe you should also try pocketfives, I hear there are some great poker minds over there.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

PrayingMantis: I went back and read all your posts on this thread. Never once do you address my arguments in any sort of specific manner. You have all sorts of ranting irate complaints about my style, my attitude, blah. But you just don't come through with any substance to add to this thread.

Who cares what the archives say ? This isn't history, this is poker. If you can't come up with counter-arguments right here right now then what good is the archives doing you (or any other person on this thread for that matter) ?

All you have is a bad case of protectionist syndrome. And no I'm not dressing up my ideas. I write how I think. And I respect other people who write how they think and I make an effort to understand them.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

i didn't read it all but i hate this thread. like 3 pages in the middle were people arguing about whether balostar is qualified to have an opinion. The best player in the world is wrong sometimes and an idiot is right sometimes, so it doesn't matter if he is a pro, a trader or works at mcdonalds.

It would be helpful to have a read on the villain but if you don't have one you can bet/fold, bet call, check/fold, checkcall or (my least favorite option) check/raise. readless, i would bet about 1/3-1/2 of the pot, because i would do the same with a busted draw, a seven, 68 or 55.

edit: also readless i might bet the flop and i wouldnt bet the turn if i checked the flop.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
PrayingMantis: I went back and read all your posts on this thread. Never once do you address my arguments in any sort of specific manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I did address your revolutionary ideas in a specific manner a few times here. You just didn't like what you read. Second, sending you to read the archives is also very specific. Your ideas, and very similar ones, were discussed many times in the past (by many posters, including MLG and myself, in some extremely specific manners).

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares what the archives say ? This isn't history, this is poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really good point. Also: who cares what anyone ever said? And specifically, who the [censored] cares about these stupid things called "pot odds", EV, ICM, risk of ruin. Yeah, who cares. Poker is here and now.

[ QUOTE ]
All you have is a bad case of protectionist syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Protectionism of what? Of the best way for making the most money possible in MTTs? Please, go ahead and tell us again and again about your ideas, nobody stopped you from doing that, then apply empty "risk management" concepts in random MTT spots, for completely unconvincing reasons. I'll keep pushing my variance every time I perceive a spot to be good enough +CEV. And it shouldn't be much more than a little +CEV for me in order to do this. That's because (1) I've read almsost every post written in the past about this matter, here and elsewhere, I discussed it myself many times with others, and I'm 100% convinced that that's the the most +$EV strategy for MTTs, and (2) I had great success by doing so, as other players on this forum had.

[ QUOTE ]
I write how I think. And I respect other people who write how they think and I make an effort to understand them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly doesn't seem to be the case, judging from the way you post.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

My god this thread is retardo.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll keep pushing my variance every time I perceive a spot to be good enough +CEV. And it shouldn't be much more than a little +CEV for me in order to do this. That's because (1) I've read almsost every post written in the past about this matter, here and elsewhere, I discussed it myself many times with others, and I'm 100% convinced that that's the the most +$EV strategy for MTTs, and (2) I had great success by doing so, as other players on this forum had.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until it doesn't work anymore because too many players like are you are doing it and too many other players know that players like you are doing it and are looking to pick you off.

This is why USPC is so pre-flop pushbot oriented. Everyone's anticipating the other guy will put the variance move on first.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll keep pushing my variance every time I perceive a spot to be good enough +CEV. And it shouldn't be much more than a little +CEV for me in order to do this. That's because (1) I've read almsost every post written in the past about this matter, here and elsewhere, I discussed it myself many times with others, and I'm 100% convinced that that's the the most +$EV strategy for MTTs, and (2) I had great success by doing so, as other players on this forum had.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until it doesn't work anymore because too many players like are you are doing it and too many other players know that players like you are doing it and are looking to pick you off.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have some misunderstanding of the concept of EV. As long as my ability to recognize, maximize and push the variance at any +CEV spot at early-mid stages (regardless if it's by playing passively or aggressively) is superior to my opponents, I have an advantage, period. In other words, as long as I'm better than them as a poker player (i.e, adjust faster then them, read them or others at the field better than they do it, win more chips than others would win in identical spots, etc etc etc), I'll make more money them them.

And in essence, it's exactly the same as in cash games. You mentioned earlier in this thread those overaggressive players who went busto. Well, surely players who don't adjust well, will lose eventually if they use only one style against changing fields and particularly vs. smart players. This still has nothing to do with the notion that playing to maximizing EV is the most profitable approach to the game (logically speaking! i.e, by definition), whether if it's by checking, betting, reraising or calling, in any particular spot in any street during any hand that takes place..

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
One thing is clear: if it's a hotly debated theory, and neither side can gain a decisive edge, or provide an ironclad proof, then these boards certainly should not adopt it like a puppy and apply it ad infinitum letting it pee all over the house. This is madness.

[/ QUOTE ]

MADNESS?!?

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.ya...rd_butler6.jpg

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that with the gobbo image betting 5-6K is superior to c/c. But c/c can be better sometimes if you have history vs. BB and know his tendencies.

As to other parts of the hand, if villain is weak tight I'd raise a lot of hands pf and also this (not always tho). Otherwise limping is fine. Flop I'd check or bet, checking is fine IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure limping may be fine , but it's certainly not better than raising . Why give your opponent a free look at the flop when your hand definitely rates to be better ?

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have some misunderstanding of the concept of EV. As long as my ability to recognize, maximize and push the variance at any +CEV spot at early-mid stages (regardless if it's by playing passively or aggressively) is superior to my opponents, I have an advantage, period. In other words, as long as I'm better than them as a poker player (i.e, adjust faster then them, read them or others at the field better than they do it, win more chips than others would win in identical spots, etc etc etc), I'll make more money them them.

And in essence, it's exactly the same as in cash games. You mentioned earlier in this thread those overaggressive players who went busto. Well, surely players who don't adjust well, will lose eventually if they use only one style against changing fields and particularly vs. smart players. This still has nothing to do with the notion that playing to maximizing EV is the most profitable approach to the game (logically speaking! i.e, by definition), whether if it's by checking, betting, reraising or calling, in any particular spot in any street during any hand that takes place..

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really amazing to me that you, my biggest critic on this thread (apparently), have made the least effort to understand what I am saying. Others have. They don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying, but they understand my arguments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's really amazing to me that you, my biggest critic on this thread (apparently), have made the least effort to understand what I am saying. Others have. They don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying, but they understand my arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not your "biggest critic". Others simply got tired with you. This will be my last post here. And, seriously, sir, it's the 100th time I'm saying this, but your arguments are not as deep as you think they are, or hard to understand. Very far from it. No special effort is needed.

[ 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-.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there's a margin of error, and even the best players make mistakes occasionally. However, the better the player you are, the least errors in "perceving" +CEV spots you'll be doing. This is so clear I don't see any reason to even mention it.



[ 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 ]

Sure, baltostar. You are more worried about your survival in a particular spot (for whatever "avg scenario" and "m-bracket" reasons) than about making the most chips possible out of it. Do you not understand that with a certain hand in certain same conditions (position, stacks, etc), you'll make more against player A than against player B? And maybe much more against player C? Better player will tend to make max against each particular player, and by saying that I mean that they will make more than other players in same conditions, while risking more, naturally. Thinking about hands in terms of "avg-scenario" is possibly one of the most unhelpful ways to look at poker situations.

[ 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 ]

"Committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par"? are you nuts? Do you perceive "committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par" as a bad thing? I don't believe I actually read this. Baltostar, here are some news to you: that's usually how good players double up! by commiting their stack to opponents that are sub-par in certain way or other! Usually your +CEV spots, certainly in early-mid stages, will be vs. those players. Not willing to "commit" when you find those spots is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
But as the player ecosystem continues to transform it will no longer work nearly as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

What will not work as nearly as well? Playing to maximize CEV? Please read my last few posts for the theoretical reasons for the absurdity of this statement of yours, and for the practical ones: well, it works amazingly well for me, for a few years now and up to about last week. I'm 100% certain it will keep working.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

"Committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par"? are you nuts? Do you perceive "committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par" as a bad thing? I don't believe I actually read this. Baltostar, here are some news to you: that's usually how good players double up! by commiting their stack to opponents that are sub-par in certain way or other! Usually your +CEV spots, certainly in early-mid stages, will be vs. those players. Not willing to "commit" when you find those spots is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

opps = opportunities. The paragraph says "opportunity" 8 words prior and so the 2nd time I use it I abbreviate it.

I've already said numerous times that I am advocating using avg opp for M-bracket as a warning system to help one avoid becoming drawn into pursuing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that tend to scale risk inappropriately.

Obviously, if you get in a spot against a known bad player that might give you good reason to ignore the warning.

Your attempts to stylize me as a nit are so pathetic I can't believe anyone else on this thread will fall for them.

I've been playing an aggressive style for almost a year now (after studying the game for almost a year) and my advices are based on the large and rapidly growing number of aggressive players in the game.

In all forms of gambling, everything changes. There may be long-term cycles, but in the medium-term everything changes.

Haphazardly pursuing marginal cEV+ without thought to the impact of variance in a relative context is a relatively easy tactic to learn. And thousands of young players are learning it.

The success of a strategy of scaling stakes at every perceived marginal cEV+ opportunity depends on a large component of FE. As more and more similar players enter the game, the value of this FE component diminishes. More and more often, you are up against another player who is just as willing to scale.

To beat tomorrow's over-populated aggressive game your game must change today, and my advice is to do this by tending to avoid scaling the significantly sub-par opportunities. In this manner, in the long run, your tournament $EV will be better than non-evolved aggressive players (all else equal).

They, as a group, may win more tournaments, but over the long-term you will have better bankroll growth than their avg.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]

opps = opportunities. The paragraph says "opportunity" 8 words prior and so the 2nd time I use it I abbreviate it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You need to write clearly. This is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]

I've already said numerous times that I am advocating using avg opp for M-bracket as a warning system to help one avoid becoming drawn into pursuing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that tend to scale risk inappropriately.

Obviously, if you get in a spot against a known bad player that might give you good reason to ignore the warning.


[/ QUOTE ]
Big pot, big hand. Got it.

[ QUOTE ]

Haphazardly pursuing marginal cEV+ without thought to the impact of variance in a relative context is a relatively easy tactic to learn. And thousands of young players are learning it.

The success of a strategy of scaling stakes at every perceived marginal cEV+ opportunity depends on a large component of FE. As more and more similar players enter the game, the value of this FE component diminishes. More and more often, you are up against another player who is just as willing to scale.

To beat tomorrow's over-populated aggressive game your game must change today, and my advice is to do this by tending to avoid scaling the significantly sub-par opportunities. In this manner, in the long run, your tournament $EV will be better than non-evolved aggressive players (all else equal).

They, as a group, may win more tournaments, but over the long-term you will have better bankroll growth than their avg.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is to win. If you'd read any of the archived arguments about it, you would understand that.

A: A common beginner idea in the SNG forum is that crazy aggro low limit sngs have higher variance. Beginners who propose that are quickly corrected. Variance is entirely dependent on your distribution of finishes, and not at all dependent on chipstack variance (or lagtard opponents with swingy chipstack styles).

B: Your sacrificing cEV for lower variance is more suited to cash games on a tiny bankroll.

C: In SNGs, an equal number of 1sts and 3rds &gt; all 2nds. If you run any sims you'll find the same is true for MTTs, though even more dramatically.

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 ]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

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 ]

You're uneducated on 'how to play poker' and you're lecturing people on a poker forum.

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?

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]

(note: not sure if your last post was a joke, it might very well be, so I'm replying seriously)

Soulman, Just for the record, I happened to take all the "basic courses" in those areas. And more (edit: but surely I'm very very far from being an expert on these). Not that I care to defend my understanding of any these subjects. I really don't need to, on those boards. The fact that I don't tend to post in an overly "mathematical" manner, should not confuse you, and I have good reasons for not doing so, I believe.

It's nice that you find baltostar's ideas worthy of your thinking seriously about what he actually means, and in what ways it might relate to actual poker, but sadly, he fails, miserably and repeatedly, to make any coherent sense, even if some of his points are true in the most basic and uninteresting way. See my little dialog posted on the QQ thread.

Also, and as an example, a few times during those "baltostar's threads", he used the term "game theory" in completely irrelevant and flat-out wrong contexts, and few people have made comments about that. This is a symptom found in a lot of his "arguments".

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not advocating risk-reduction, per se. I'm advocating altering the shape of an aggressive player's avg hand risk distribution so that the mean moves to the right (always a good thing).

I really should have some pictures of player avg hand risk distributions, but I don't, so here's a try:

Imagine a normal distribution. The x axis is your risk (in the mathematical 2-sided sense of the word, so loss/gain). The x axis is bounded on the left at 0. On the right, it is effectively unbounded (because at the end of the tournament your are playing for huge stacks relative to the avg stack you play for). The y axis is the relative likelihood of that risk occurring. The total risk slices add up to 1. The mean and the median are at zero.

In the following, always start with a normal distribution:

Now, imagine you're a donk. Your distribution skews significantly to the left. (NOTE: skewing is not the same as shifting).

Now, imagine you're a weak tight player. Your distribution fattens up (squishes towards the center and upwards). Maybe it skews to the right, if you play against a high % of donks. Maybe it skews to the left, if you play against a high % of aggressive players.

Now imagine you're a skilled aggressive player. Your distribution significantly flattens (squashes downwards and towards the outsides). It has long fat tails because you scale risk.

Your distribution also is significantly skewed to the right because you only scale risk when you perceive you are cEV+. The primary component responsible for skewing your curve to the right is your fold equity. FE is the single most powerful weapon in the aggressive player's arsenal and is the single most common reason why a line may be perceived to be cEV+.

Now imagine a flood of similar-styled players enter your game. You still scale risk whenever you perceive cEV+. But, much more frequently than before, when you scale risk your opponents scale up too. Your FE is no longer nearly as powerful.

The result is that your distribution has even longer fatter tails, but it skews back towards the center -- not all the way, but part of the way. Your mean is not as high as it was before the flood of similar-styled opponents entered the game.

Your curve continues to suffer from flattenning and leftwards skewing as the % of similar-styled players in your game increases over time.

How do you combat this ?

One method is to start avoiding scaling risk in the significantly sub-par cEV+ situations.

You still scale risk in most cEV+ situations. But in those situations that are marginal cEV+ and where you can expect better during your current M-bracket, you avoid lines that scale risk. The avg scenario in which you scale risk is more cEV+ than your avg opponent's avg scenario.

In doing so you change the shape of your distribution: Your tails are still long and fat, but not quite so fat near the ends. However, the mid-sections of your tails are fattenned up.

Your skew moves back to the right a bit. Not all the way to where it was before the flood of similar-styled aggressive players, but enough to be very significant to your results.

True, you have somewhat reduced your overall variance, but you also have improved the shape of your avg hand risk distribution curve so that your mean is more positive.

You are still an aggressive player, you still have high variance, but your avg hand risk distribution has a better shape than your similar-styled opponents. On avg, you will accumulate chips faster because you are better utilizing your stack utility.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Actually we should use lognormal distributions as the base distribution. (I was thinking of a logarithmic x axis, but it's better to keep a linear x axis.)

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Balto,
You make rambling incoherent posts that nobody understands, mainly because the explain fairly simple ideas in an extremely complex manner. When people respond with confusion you blame it on them being unintelligent, not because you write like 8 paragraphs explaining what can be summed up in one sentence.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

You're uneducated on 'how to play poker' and you're lecturing people on a poker forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

This thread is still retardo

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is necessarily true; however...

[/ QUOTE ]

(note: not sure if your last post was a joke, it might very well be, so I'm replying seriously)

[/ QUOTE ]

Bleh, I wasn't being specific enough with that statement. What I meant to be "necessarily true" was the fact that if everyone plays in a certain way, it's usually correct to play in a different way. Or in other words, adjust to a always changing metagame, so nothing new obviously. "Necessarily true" was wrongly worded.


[ QUOTE ]
It's nice that you find baltostar's ideas worthy of your thinking seriously about what he actually means, and in what ways it might relate to actual poker, but sadly, he fails, miserably and repeatedly, to make any coherent sense, even if some of his points are true in the most basic and uninteresting way. See my little dialog posted on the QQ thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, like a few others have said, I think some of his ideas have merit, although I think he misapplies them (like advocating risk reduction instead of adapting your play to a changing metagame, but still having +EV at the core).

Also, although I think HSMTT is less guilty of this than most forums, herd mentality and group think is always worthy of being aware of. I've been guilty of summarily dismissing new posters' ideas too much earlier, being open to new ideas is always nice.

That being said, I agree with most of what you say on balto...and he did not give any examples/relate his theories to specific plays this time either.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

It would be absolutely hilarious to watch baltostar play a limit holdem tournament.

He'd limp the button with JTo, the bb would raise and he'd fold because he's risking TWICE AS MUCH OF HIS STACK AS BEFORE.

Re: A5s in blind battle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
It would be absolutely hilarious to watch baltostar play a limit holdem tournament.

He'd limp the button with JTo, the bb would raise and he'd fold because he's risking TWICE AS MUCH OF HIS STACK AS BEFORE.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this shows is that you have made absolutely no effort to understand my arguments and recommended tweaks for the aggressive player's game. You continue to insult me with simplistic nonsense based on totally incorrect interpretations of my arguments, and that's wrong of you because you are quite capable of understanding me.

I am arguing that a flood of similar-style aggressive opponents into today's NLHE game has blunted the aggressive player's most dangerous weapon, fold equity, because scaling-up marginal perceived cEV+ situations has become significantly more likely to result in an allin.

Therefore, I am researching methods to avoid lines that tend to result in allins in the most marginal perceived cEV+ opportunities (because on avg a better cEV+ opportunity will become available in the current M-bracket). In this manner, the aggressive player can pursue better quality variance.

FE is a valuable weapon in LHE to a far far far lesser extent than it is in NLHE. My strategy recommendations are not targetted at LHE.