Jman article in Bluff - Page 13

prinsrob · #**121** 03-26-2007, 08:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Your range for raising pre-flop and betting all three streets:
Q-Q, 10-10, Q-10, 5-5, 4-4, Ah5h, 7-6, K-J, J-9, Ah2h to AhKh, Kh9h, Jh8h, 9h8h, 8h7h, 9h7h.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 55 should be excluded from this range (since that only is a pair of fives on the turn).

psyduck · #**122** 03-27-2007, 03:22 AM

My god. THIS is what the HSNL forum should be filled with.

SecretOfMana · #**123** 03-27-2007, 07:34 AM

wow, very very nice.

JacKnight21 · #**124** 03-27-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all comments, I just have to point out that this passage in the article is wrong:

"In the ultimate long run, your Sklansky Dollars earned and real dollars earned will be the same."

They will be close to the same, but saying that they will be the same is like saying that the cards dealt are dependent on the cards dealt in previous hands. If you after 100k hands are up 100k in sklansky bucks, but only up 20k in real dollars, the difference is 80k. The expected difference between your sklansky bucks and real dollars after playing another infinite number of hands will still be 80k (due to your crappy start) and not 0 as the article suggests.

[/ QUOTE ]

irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed as long as I play less than an infinite number of hands I'll get my 80K back. How many hands less I dont know but I know I will get my 80K eventually.

Jman28 · #**125** 03-28-2007, 06:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
obviously this is not ground breaking, i'm always talking about merging ranges and it's a fairly popular theme on the forum. however, merging ranges is close to but not exactly the theme of this article... although this explains mathmatically the ideas behind lots of concepts- which might help some who are more drawn towards the mechanical side of poker.

rly though, i feel like even hsnl players struggle with this concept and the application of it due to primarily bad habit. honestly, this is one of those things i'd love to have read 6 months ago, but now wish hadn't been posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that most HSNL players have some grasp of this concept. I think that it's one of those things that you have to explain different ways to different people. I think it helped some people to have it broken down in numbers.

I'm a tiny bit worried about its effect on the games, but I think you still need a lot of natural ability to excel at HSNL, no matter how much information you are handed.

ocklind · #**126** 03-28-2007, 08:28 PM

Really great stuff! I hope you can write some more articles in the same league.

Limpfold · #**127** 03-29-2007, 12:51 AM

I'm just curious how the theory is applied in play, some nifty program where you can continually adjust opponent ranges that spit out a percentage as soon it's your turn to act?

Squareview · #**128** 03-29-2007, 01:00 AM

this is retarded....

Limpfold · #**129** 03-29-2007, 01:14 AM

Well I was actually serious, obviously the article has it's merits but since the math involved takes some time to calculate a tool is needed for it to have any practical use, no?
I have checked the software forum once since it was implemented and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's rather clueless about what kinds of programs there are out there today.

Emperor · #**130** 03-30-2007, 04:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My god. THIS is what the HSNL forum should be filled with.

[/ QUOTE ]

WAY back in the day, there used to be more bayesian analysis going on, but since the poker boom it seems everyone is WAY too lazy for this kind of thing.

I have a friend who used to post bayesian analysis over on the limit forums, it was an instant thread closer, as no one posted after his post. :P

Oh and you don't do this kind of thing in the middle of a hand, you pull hands out of your database, you spend an hour or so on an interesting hand, and you get good general ideas on how to play it the next time.