Gigabet Match 5 of the $22s - Analyze his heads up play

[tigerite]

I just have to say, this thread is great. If we had a 'gold' section it should go in it. Of course, I would push all the unexploitable and over 45% range for him to call as well, but that's just me, I love the maths and I strictly adhere to it. It's worked well for me so far, so I see no reason to change.

[curtains]

DCJ is a friend of mine, hes just messing around.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Curtains you're a nice guy and all, but Gigabet has made more final tables in poker than you ever have, bud. Maybe he actually knows what he's doing lol? Your analysis is nice and all but I think Gigabet is more of the proven commodity here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard Gigabet doesn't believe in the concept of gravity.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
I just have to say, this thread is great. If we had a 'gold' section it should go in it. Of course, I would push all the unexploitable and over 45% range for him to call as well, but that's just me, I love the maths and I strictly adhere to it. It's worked well for me so far, so I see no reason to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is why you will never have 70% ROI, rationalist freak!

[tigerite]

Damn [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Oh well. Best not to be greedy eh? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Jack Fate]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, any time a situation is determined +EV by the decision maker, it is, BY DEFINITION based on the object of the game, a poor decision to pass; and, if this decision is continually made, it is PROVEABLY INCORRECT. It IS a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Writing it in capital letters doesn't prove it to be true. In fact based on the quote above it makes it even more clear that you may not understand the depth of the problem. According to you BY DEFINITION, if I can simplify the game to a level that it will be easy to compute that my decision is +EV (even just marginally), then I should ignore the fact that a more complex strategy might end up being a much larger EV. And to mock and say things like "seeing into your soul" or "imaginary edge" is exactly what I'm talking about in you guys dismissing this without proof.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, any time a situation is determined +EV by the decision maker, it is, BY DEFINITION based on the object of the game, a poor decision to pass; and, if this decision is continually made, it is PROVEABLY INCORRECT. It IS a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Writing it in capital letters doesn't prove it to be true. In fact based on the quote above it makes it even more clear that you may not understand the depth of the problem. According to you BY DEFINITION, if I can simplify the game to a level that it will be easy to compute that my decision is +EV (even just marginally), then I should ignore the fact that a more complex strategy might end up being a much larger EV. And to mock and say things like "seeing into your soul" or "imaginary edge" is exactly what I'm talking about in you guys dismissing this without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the major factor that topedoes the "wait and exploit" strategy in this case is the size of the blinds.

I think everyone here agree that if you sit down and play a HU SnG you will be most successful when you identify weaknesses and exploit them.

[The once and future king]

Just an observation.

If there was/is a theoretical debate about quantifiable EV via ICM etc and play that has a more ambiguous and unquantifiable EV and even if the latter led to more $$$ in the long run (for the sake of arguement, not saying they do) one would still expect the theories about quantifiable EV to be more popular and hold the high ground of sentiment just by the nature of the object itself, e.g. it is quantifiable.

To be more specific to this case, I dont see how a AEV (Ambiguous EV) approach can be correct because of the size of the blinds. To get AEV one has to play some poker, in this case there isnt time for that.

[Lori]

A reply to nobody in particular:

I just want to clear up that I would be pushing many more hands if our opponent knew how to go all-in.

I also want to clear up that of course pushing in EV situations is a winning strategy. I personally do not believe it is the best in this very specific case

Finally I want to comment that the onus of proof lies with myself, but it's not easy. Fighting against a "guaranteed winner" with a "better winner" is a somewhat lengthy task. I've looked at various pieces before, but pulling it all together into a proof is something I do not have the time, and possibly not the ability to do at the moment.
I will just point out that we are the small blind, and first to act in every hand here (barring a tiny percentage) and for people to think that there is no way to exploit that and to believe it with such passion, is surprising to me.

I hope to provide at least some particles of proof at a later date, maybe someone more skilled at such things than myself would be able to pull them together more quickly.

Lori

[fifield]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, any time a situation is determined +EV by the decision maker, it is, BY DEFINITION based on the object of the game, a poor decision to pass; and, if this decision is continually made, it is PROVEABLY INCORRECT. It IS a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Writing it in capital letters doesn't prove it to be true. In fact based on the quote above it makes it even more clear that you may not understand the depth of the problem. According to you BY DEFINITION, if I can simplify the game to a level that it will be easy to compute that my decision is +EV (even just marginally), then I should ignore the fact that a more complex strategy might end up being a much larger EV. And to mock and say things like "seeing into your soul" or "imaginary edge" is exactly what I'm talking about in you guys dismissing this without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then perhaps you did not understand the GREATEST point of my post: that there were several situations where HE WOULD HAD TO HAVE BEEN PSYCHIC to NOT have analyzed the situation to be +EV.

And, furthermore, you entirely misunderstand when you say "if I can simplify the game to a level that it will be easy to compute that my decision is +EV (even just marginally), then I should ignore the fact that a more complex strategy might end up being a much larger EV," because that is EXACTLY what I AM NOT saying. I AM saying that EV assessment IS VERY MUCH up to the decision maker, and that the decision maker will OBVIOUSLY want for himself what he assesses to be the highest possible EV move at any given point. I say exactly, that "with a 'Gigabet-quality player' who has a supposed advantage over an opponent based on read/whatever, the specific information the read on the opponent is supplying the superior player is the information through which +/- EV will be assessed." This DOES account for the possibility of differences of EV assessment between players IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION. I stand by all my comments as correct.

AND LESS IMPORTANTLY, THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS IS *NOT* ME YELLING OR ANNOYED (all the time, at least) OR ANGRY; it is simply emphasis and easier, usually, than using bold or italics. I AIM NOT TO OFFEND.

fifield