|
|
#11
05-24-2006, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
What is all this?
As far as your situation, just use ICM or SNGPT to convert cEV to $EV with vig for whatever edge threshhold you want. As far as the rest of the players, it's +EV for those not involved virtually any time two players go at it, again an easy conclusion to draw from ICM. 
|
|
#12
05-24-2006, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the rest of the players, it's +EV for those not involved virtually any time two players go at it, again an easy conclusion to draw from ICM. [/ QUOTE ] I was all excited because nobody else had said this. Then you just showed why poker (even forums) is rigged.
|
|
#13
05-24-2006, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The next choices are just arbitrary +cEV decisions not related to the hand in question. As you see, in each one we end up with more chips, thus each is +cEV. So if you were comparing them to giving an opponent odds on a draw, we would be getting the best of it in each case. [/ QUOTE ] The conclusion that you reach that making the +cEV play is bad, though, is based on those later plays. (EDIT: And the assumption that we lose our stack whenever they improve, which I still think is a bad assumption for this particular hand. There are certainly cases where it's relevant.) You haven't really done anything to show that this play that you started out describing is bad by itself. And I think you're going to be somewhat hard pressed to do so. In reality, the situation is closer to what you describe, because you aren't going to be able to get that precise a read, and so there are many cards that are potentially scary - straight cards, etc. But I think you're giving up a pretty considerable amount of value if you're pushing in every situation where there's a remote chance that somebody could catch up. [/ QUOTE ] It's true, I didn't make the numbers exact enough to prove that this decision is bad. But I think they are close enough to assume it. The point is clear though: several +cEV descisions compounded one upon another can easily = -$EV. This is not a new concept, but I illustrated it this way to make it more tangible.
|
|
#14
05-24-2006, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
On this drawless board, value betting is the play. You need to put scenarios in where your opponent has as little as Ace high or a little pair and pushes over the top of you or calls because he can't get away from his weak hand, like 32. However, if you push you prevent your opponent from making a mistake by trying to push you off your hand. Pushing is only correct against an opponent who will call even a push with most of his holdings that you beat. However, most villains will lay down second pair and lower, little pairs, and ace high.
You need to get value from your hand in a spot like this. Pushing here is wrong. A proper analysis has to include times when your opponent gets it All In on the turn or river when he is beat because you raised, but will fold the flop if you push.
|
|
#15
05-24-2006, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
[ QUOTE ]
What is all this? [/ QUOTE ] I guess it's a sort of proof for ICM calculations so you can wrap your brain around it better. Saying this is all pointless because we have ICM calculators is like saying that learning math is unimportant because we have standard calculators. [ QUOTE ] As far as the rest of the players, it's +EV for those not involved virtually any time two players go at it, again an easy conclusion to draw from ICM. [/ QUOTE ] This was hardly the point of the post, or even the point of that sentence. The point is that it is -EV for you.
|
|
#16
05-24-2006, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What is all this? [/ QUOTE ] I guess it's a sort of proof for ICM calculations so you can wrap your brain around it better. Saying this is all pointless because we have ICM calculators is like saying that learning math is unimportant because we have standard calculators. [ QUOTE ] As far as the rest of the players, it's +EV for those not involved virtually any time two players go at it, again an easy conclusion to draw from ICM. [/ QUOTE ] This was hardly the point of the post, or even the point of that sentence. The point is that it is -EV for you. [/ QUOTE ] Well, your post is hardly a "proof" of ICM, but whatever. I don't want to get into a beef here. Next.
|
|
#17
05-24-2006, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is all this? [/ QUOTE ] I guess it's a sort of proof for ICM calculations so you can wrap your brain around it better. Saying this is all pointless because we have ICM calculators is like saying that learning math is unimportant because we have standard calculators. [ QUOTE ] As far as the rest of the players, it's +EV for those not involved virtually any time two players go at it, again an easy conclusion to draw from ICM. [/ QUOTE ] This was hardly the point of the post, or even the point of that sentence. The point is that it is -EV for you. [/ QUOTE ] Well, your post is hardly a "proof" of ICM, but whatever. I don't want to get into a beef here. Next. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying "Look, I've just uncovered the code they use to make ICM calculators." I'm just showing a detailed hypothetical situation that proves that several +cEV decisions can add up to a -$EV result. I think I've done that and it might help some people who read it. I think you're completely missing the point if you just say "what is all this? why not just use an ICM calculator?"
|
|
#18
05-24-2006, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
This is isn't really that complicated, is it?
Pre-flop, Hero's $EV is 8.7% of the pool. If Villain always folds to a flop push, Hero's $EV is 11.1% If Villain always call the flop bet, stacks Hero when he improves and folds the turn unimproved, Hero's $EV is 13.5% when the Villain folds (88.9%) and 0% when Villain stacks him (11.1% of the time). That's a net $EV of 12% of the pool when value-betting. EDIT: Fixed my math (and used the stack sizes given in the OP).
|
|
#19
05-24-2006, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
Assuming 10-handed, everybody has 2000 before this hand, (blind=50/100):
push $ev (villian folds): 0.1212 bet t500 on flop $ev 1. villian improves on turn and hero busto: 0 2. villian does not improve and folds on turn: 0.1426 push: 0.1212 bet t500: 88.9%*0.1426 + 11.1%*0 = 0.1268 $ev diff = (0.1268-0.1212) = 0.56% In conclusion, it is close for the supercomputer's example. it is even closer if villain has 2 overs (6 outs instead of 5) .
|
|
#20
05-24-2006, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Giving Your Opponent Incorrect Odds Is Not Enough
These calculations are bringing me closer to my point, which I will try and articulate here.
If you are using an ICM calculator for these things, you make decisions like this based on "this is + $EV so it must be good" even if it is marginally +$EV. And in a world where time stood still and you could play infinite tournaments with no vig, that would be correct. But in my example, you see that the play is +$EV if you don't take into account the $81 vig, but -$EV if you do take it into account. So it is plausible that this play will appear to be +$EV using an ICM calculator, but -$EV if you take into account the vig. Assuming hero is a winning player (+ROI after the vig) then, we can say that he should pass on this marginally +$EV situation and find the edge where it truly lies...in surviving the tournament while other players take these gambles.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
