|
|
#111
05-08-2007, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A couple questions/observations
[ QUOTE ]
22 - 46% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list 33 - 47% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list 44 - 49% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list 55 - 51% Equity A4s - 49% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list A5s - 50% Equity A6s - 50% Equity A7o - 50% Equity A8o - 52% Equity K9s - 49.7% Equity KTs - 52% Equity KTo - 50% Equity KJo - 52% Equity QJo - 47% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list QJs - 50% Equity JTs - 46% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list [/ QUOTE ] Sometimes this depends...on the method of working with Stove. Did you enter a range of "40%" or did you select the hands according to the pre-flop tables (which also equals 40%)? 
|
|
#112
05-08-2007, 03:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 22 - 46% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list 33 - 47% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list 44 - 49% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list 55 - 51% Equity A4s - 49% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list A5s - 50% Equity A6s - 50% Equity A7o - 50% Equity A8o - 52% Equity K9s - 49.7% Equity KTs - 52% Equity KTo - 50% Equity KJo - 52% Equity QJo - 47% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list QJs - 50% Equity JTs - 46% Equity - Too weak to remain on the list [/ QUOTE ] Sometimes this depends...on the method of working with Stove. Did you enter a range of "40%" or did you select the hands according to the pre-flop tables (which also equals 40%)? [/ QUOTE ] The preflop table on page 76 shows the hero's hand range, vs the opponent's attempt to steal percentage. We are not given the opponent's hand range in table form, only the percentage therefore I entered the percentages into Poker Stove.
|
|
#113
05-08-2007, 08:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
As I understand it Stox is recommended reraisng with hands with slightly less than 50% equity. Due to dead money from blinds plus position less players acting after.
The chart on p76 is just an information chart giving the 50% equity hands against pre flop raiser's range rather than what he believes you should play. He recommends loosening from this. I guess p144 therefore gives a guide to how much he believes your should loosen up from the 50% equity mark. Looks around 46-47% to me.
|
|
#114
05-08-2007, 11:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
[ QUOTE ]
As I understand it Stox is recommended reraisng with hands with slightly less than 50% equity. Due to dead money from blinds plus position less players acting after. The chart on p76 is just an information chart giving the 50% equity hands against pre flop raiser's range rather than what he believes you should play. He recommends loosening from this. I guess p144 therefore gives a guide to how much he believes your should loosen up from the 50% equity mark. Looks around 46-47% to me. [/ QUOTE ] Good catch Piers, I didnt re-read the entire sections when I responded. thanks.
|
|
#115
05-08-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
I noticed there are a few EV-cutoffs given like 35% from the BB etc. without explaining why 35% and not 37% or 33% for instance. Personally I don't like this numbers from the sky approach and prefer it to be a bit more scientific. Maybe I got spoiled too much by Norman Zadeh's book old book on Poker theory.
Don't get me wrong, I do like the book a lot, but I have the feeling that there is a lot of dead weight and the book could have been at least 100 pages shorter. Overall I am still waiting for something similar to the work from Nesmith Ankeny on Hold'em. Since this would be a monumental archievement, I'll probably wait forever.
|
|
#116
05-08-2007, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
[ QUOTE ]
Overall I am still waiting for something similar to the work from Nesmith Ankeny on Hold'em. Since this would be a monumental archievement, I'll probably wait forever. [/ QUOTE ] I once bought an old book by Ankeny just for nostalgic reasons (draw poker) and the game theory aspect, but I heard some people don't value that book very high. Haven't read it yet, tho. But can you tell if Ankeny has written about holdem or omaholdem, and if you have links or something...? And is he going to write a holdem book or are you just hoping?
|
|
#117
05-08-2007, 07:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
[ QUOTE ]
I noticed there are a few EV-cutoffs given like 35% from the BB etc. without explaining why 35% and not 37% or 33% for instance. Personally I don't like this numbers from the sky approach and prefer it to be a bit more scientific. Maybe I got spoiled too much by Norman Zadeh's book old book on Poker theory. Don't get me wrong, I do like the book a lot, but I have the feeling that there is a lot of dead weight and the book could have been at least 100 pages shorter. Overall I am still waiting for something similar to the work from Nesmith Ankeny on Hold'em. Since this would be a monumental archievement, I'll probably wait forever. [/ QUOTE ] I also think the book could have been reworked, although I wouldn't make it shorter as such. I've had a chance to look through it properly now - here are my thoughts for what they're worth: I think the charts at the front of the book would have been more appropriately included as appendices rather than as part of the main text. I'm not really sure though if they needed to be included in the book at all, I would almost certainly have got more out of the equivalent number of pages of text/concepts than I am likely to get out of the charts. Other than that there are some areas/concepts that could have been expanded on - e.g. I would have liked more stuff about playing multiway pots - when people raise behind you or cold call a raise, or playing against limpers. Particularly as I'm too lazy to do some of the equity calculations for those situations. I also don't entirely understand why river play was never really addressed - e.g the connection between the various flop-turn lines and what should happen on the river in various situations isn't really discussed. I know a lot of the river situations are fairly obvious depending on your opponent etc and have been covered in other books, but it seemed strange to hardly mention the river at all. I thought in general the post-flop and semi-bluffing sections would have benefited from more beefing up and more examples. The Quiz Hands section (not the Hands with Stox section, which was interesting) at the back was largely redundant - the hands included are all pretty straightforward and don't illustrate the book's more important concepts well. All that said, I don't mean to sound too critical - this is still a useful book and I appreciate the work that has been put into it. To answer an earlier question, I'm not sure some of the pre-flop stuff is very useful at lower limits as most people at those levels steal less often and probably defend more in my experience than the book suggests - which would affect the range of hands you should play in blind steal/defense situations. The post flop stuff is more useful, especially vs the occasional very aggressive lower level player. The focus throughout on your equity vs opponents' hand ranges is good.
|
|
#118
05-09-2007, 02:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
[ QUOTE ]
I noticed there are a few EV-cutoffs given like 35% from the BB etc. without explaining why 35% and not 37% or 33% for instance. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, I just realized that this is wrong, because the explanation was given in the quiz section, although it was quite vague (35% is more or less based on empirical evidence). In any case, I think this sort of information belongs into the theoretical section. Btw, I think there is a concept worth talking about and that is if you defend the blinds with a tighter range, you create a bigger gap which enables you to play the hand with more confidence (you have less second best hands, you can play more aggressively and see more showdowns). This may create an overlay and actually (over)compensate for giving up some pre-flop EV. In any case, since I am doing this, my performance from the blinds improved a lot.
|
|
#119
05-09-2007, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
This touches off some thoughts with me which may have been covered in the book. I'm still skipping around in it.
By defending less I would think the added respect you get when you actually do defend would make a difference too. This would be from a thinking opponents's standpoint who is going to observe that you don't defend very often, therefore the thinking-opponent could be more easily pushed out of the battle with marginal stuff. I wonder how much EV you would gain on your better hands if you were 'under-defending' against thinking players by just ditching the super-marginal stuff. Would AK or AQ unimproved possibly do better because you're getting more respect now and an opponent will be less likely to call-down with marginal hands? When you over-defend does that usually provoke your opponent to 'look you up' more often? I tend to think it could. This is the aspect that has always concerned me about the idea of "you need to defend with such-and-such hand, because in the long-run you will net 0.001 more BB's by playing it instead of folding." Well, that's just the EV that I'm gaining on THAT particular hand. I just don't know if "should I defend or steal with this or not?" should be looked at in a vacuum based on how it alone performs.
|
|
#120
05-09-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A couple questions/observations
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't know if "should I defend or steal with this or not?" should be looked at in a vacuum based on how it alone performs [/ QUOTE ] Good question. That plus the sample size issues, plus the fact that the mid-stakes player is basically not beating the game, makes some of the empirical analysis a little suspect. It is for this reason that I am glad the charts are in the book: you can see for yourself the kind of data being used to come up with the recommendations, and decide for yourself where you want to make changes and why. That mid-stakes guy has results just like mine. Sucks. Guy.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
