Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
If your goal is to lose money, then sure, call in the BB with 72.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much is the extra $1,600 to win on top of the $2,000, from an outdraw worth?

Say you expect to call and win 1/3 times, then it indeed would cost you $4,000 before you pick up $3,600.

Is the basket of raising hands, going to make you that much of a dog, that often though?

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your goal is to lose money, then sure, call in the BB with 72.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much is the extra $1,600 to win on top of the $2,000, from an outdraw worth?

Say you expect to call and win 1/3 times, then it indeed would cost you $4,000 before you pick up $3,600.

Is the basket of raising hands, going to make you that much of a dog, that often though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plug it into a calculator. PokerStove, specifically.

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

So the calculator will tell me the basket of raising hands?

You know this is funny, it's meant to be a game theory thread, a question gets asked, answer is plug it into a black box ie PokerStove. I read to, that actually it shouldn't change things much, but all in all, the answer's aren't really illuminating.

So the answer to my question is actually, yes you are too big a dog, on average. The tempting proposition is going to marginally loosen up play, but may unduly influence players into mistakes.

Hopefully asking the question, cleared things up for someone though. Understanding it, is fundamental for understanding starting hand guides.

But, if a player is short-stacked....

So is there a way to make more money out of 72o, by being shallow stacked and having it as a calling hand, not just a raising hand?

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

[ QUOTE ]


As mentioned, a Ueber-Dominating pair of 7's is not going to gain much value in practical terms, as a set is very unlikely when you most need to win, so 72o will be a superior hand, under non-Push conditions. Obviously, folding a pair 7's will be easier than 8's as you will face 72o far less often! :lol:

[/ QUOTE ]

You must play 77. It's going to cost you $200 if 72 wins. You must stop 72 from winning.

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

[ QUOTE ]

So the calculator will tell me the basket of raising hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

The original post tells you the basket of raising hands.

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

Justin, you and Spence have PokerStove, and it's 'obvious' to you about that normal basket of raising hands. Other ppl with less info than you, but read the thread, so actually just saying "A9 or A7s and 72o" added is not going to help everyone, as much as you may assume.

If a question is theory, not a purely practical playing one, it'd be nice to see more working and explanation. Your posts are not going to be as clear to everyone, as you might hope, even if the 'stalwarts' know exactly.

I've re-read the early posts, and I do not see, the full compliment of raising hands, only candidate additions.

Also, actually it'd be interesting to know the averaged out odds over basket of hands, as it tells you what stack size, 72o becomes a call with.

Obviously telling someone to re-read previous is simpler than answering simple questions. Perhaps knowing answers is more important than thinking? But then why would David phrase the question as "Game Theory" problem, rather than a practical adjusting to game. Apolgies in advance, if I have misunderstood the point of the forum.

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

If I had Sklansky's reputation for being a squeeze bunnel, I'd move in with 7,2. It would work.

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

[ QUOTE ]

You know this is funny, it's meant to be a game theory thread, a question gets asked, answer is plug it into a black box ie PokerStove.

[/ QUOTE ]

computer simulation is the answer precisely because it is a game theory thread.

pokerstove on its own isn't quite enough unless you do a lot of extra work by hand.

you add 72o to your pushing range. the big blind adjusts and adds A9o to his calling range. now you probably have to remove A7o from your pushing range. etc. etc. etc.

the method is pretty simple, but its a lot of work without a specialized program for it. (unless the ranges change very little, which might be the case)

justin, did you check to see if A7o should be removed from the pushing range?

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

also, the fact that sklansky said that you have $2000 more in your stack (for a total of 40.5 big blinds) suggests that he's actually done the math and A7o would have to be removed from the pushing range... theres might be some kind of chain reaction there that actually changes the ranges a lot more than one might expect. i might write a program to calculate this over the next few weeks. i'll report back if i do.

Re: How About This Game Theory Problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I had Sklansky's reputation for being a squeeze bunnel, I'd move in with 7,2. It would work.

[/ QUOTE ]

not pushing with 72 would be terrible, regardless of your reputation.