HU NL vs Limit: Which is the best test of skill?

[Erik W]

[ QUOTE ]
I master none so I won't say either limit or NL is more skillful.



Interesting, considering how much time you spent refuting my claim that NL was mor skilful

Cheers,
Jules

[/ QUOTE ]

Realise I did not say either Limit or NL is more skillful.
That is why I added the last part.
Though I claim you are 100% wrong when you say NL definately takes more skill the way you reason.

I just provided some info about why you are wong(to you and others) and if you don't wanna listen so fine. I won't waste my time in some pissing contest where people isn't listening to each other.

This is what I call mastering a game(top 100 in the world and it is unlikely you will become a better player).
If you are a top 100 player in both Limit AND No Limit you might make a good judgement but a NL player won't even understand many of the pratices in Limit and vice versa therefore a player playing NL might fawltfully beleive that it is more skilful etc.

[thechainsaw]

[ QUOTE ]
you'll win 60 % of the time .

Just ask Ferguson if you don't believe me :P

I can also show you if you wish .

[/ QUOTE ]

I am doubtful that this 40% figure can be accurate.

I have a simple counter example. Suppose blinds are negligable compared with stack. Strategy S: wait for AA and then match the allin gives you an 80%+ chance of winning. I guess that's pretty conclusive, unless i've missed something.

[omgwtfnoway]

key point is that blinds are not negligible to stacks, you'll wait for 220 hands on average before catching AA and you'll probably be toast by then. i agree with you that 40% is too high an estimate for this strategy but your calling range needs to be significantly wider to have any chance.

it doesn't matter whether the "push any two" strategy wins more or less often than 40%, games are going to last less than 20 hands making this the worst strategy ever in terms of $/hour.

[thechainsaw]

[ QUOTE ]
key point is that blinds are not negligible to stacks, you'll wait for 220 hands on average before catching AA and you'll probably be toast by then. i agree with you that 40% is too high an estimate for this strategy but your calling range needs to be significantly wider to have any chance.

it doesn't matter whether the "push any two" strategy wins more or less often than 40%, games are going to last less than 20 hands making this the worst strategy ever in terms of $/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

In practice you would play other hands than AA. The counter example was for illustration purposes.

But I wonder what the theoretical and practial lower bounds for a jam always strategy are? I'm guessing they can be no lower than 15% and no higher than 50% against an optimal opponent.

Perhaps jam always wins about 25% of the time, in a normal blinds structure?

[jay_shark]

Hey Chainsaw , if you're interested , I'll start another thread and prove this result . That is , you should win slightly more than 60 % of the time . However , your ROI doesn't even matter as much , like omg said , your $/h is much higher .

Pushing all in or folding is a game theory problem .

[green_tea]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Chainsaw , if you're interested , I'll start another thread and prove this result . That is , you should win slightly more than 60 % of the time . However , your ROI doesn't even matter as much , like omg said , your $/h is much higher .

Pushing all in or folding is a game theory problem .

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that 60% is the right answer to some version of this problem, I'd just like to know what blind structure you're assuming to get it. If the players anted $1 and start with $1000 stacks for example, I'd win a little more than 82% of the time with correct play (this was proved in another thread some time ago).

green_tea

[jay_shark]

Yup your stack size has a lot to do with it , but i'll assume your traditional sng blind structure .

[thechainsaw]

would love to see it on another thread

[BobAllinSki]

This is given in sklanskys tounament poker book, I think its with blinds of 25-50 and stacks of 1000 the player pushing all in every hand will win 40% if his opponent plays perfectly, it does take a while to get to these levels in a sng though. As for pushing in as a strategy google sklansky-chubokev listings (spelling is probably wrong), these show how deep the money has to be with a hand, before you can push all in & show your opponent your hole cards without showing a loss. This is a dull way to play and might not be the best way, but against certain opponents it can work very well when shortstacked, and is a handy fallback when against a stronger opponent.

[green_tea]

[ QUOTE ]
This is given in sklanskys tounament poker book, I think its with blinds of 25-50 and stacks of 1000 the player pushing all in every hand will win 40% if his opponent plays perfectly, it does take a while to get to these levels in a sng though. As for pushing in as a strategy google sklansky-chubokev listings (spelling is probably wrong), these show how deep the money has to be with a hand, before you can push all in & show your opponent your hole cards without showing a loss. This is a dull way to play and might not be the best way, but against certain opponents it can work very well when shortstacked, and is a handy fallback when against a stronger opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've run the numbers for an sng with fixed blinds of 1 and 2 and starting stacks of 40 (equivalent to the game described above), and with perfect play we only defeat the "always push" opponent 57.8% of the time. So oppo winning 40% is about right.

With fixed blinds of 1 and 2 and more reasonable starting stacks of 150, we still only win 66% of the time, which isn't that much more.

green_tea