|
|
#11
09-12-2006, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
Do your 29.7% and 14.2% figures come from your actual data or are they hypothetical? [/ QUOTE ] Actual data. The interesting thing is that there is a sizeable difference of the fold around probability for the BB dependent on his stack size at all blind levels. The probability for BTN and SB to encounter an unraised pot was pretty much independent of their respective stack sizes. One other thing: The probability to get folded around was the lowest for the 3rd stack and not the 4th stack. I differentiated for blind levels and differentiated whether BB was me or one of my competitors. Same order (1-2-4-3) for all cases. [ QUOTE ] As far as the number .6% at the end, I think one of the biggest problems is that you don't differentiate stack sizes at all in the fold around percentages. I'm sure there is a difference between being a slight big stack and being far and away the big stack... [/ QUOTE ] I am also sure there is a difference, however, I think it is small. But keep in mind that this is about dynamics from one hand to another. At the t600 level we are talking about a swing of 2200 chips between two stacks from one hand to the next. 
|
|
#12
09-12-2006, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
I get the 0.6 by blatant crude estimation.
Correct. I can't really add them just up. But maybe just a little bit? Discounting? My take: There is not going to be a new model. ICM is the mathematical basis ignoring some side effects. Why is the probabilty to get your blinds folded around dependent on your stack size? a) Because villains apply ICM correctly? b) because due to the intimidating factor of the stack No 1, villains apply ICM incorrectly? What I am looking for are characteristic spots where you cannot decide upon ICM alone, isolated at that current hand but where you have to take into account the next and maybe also the 2nd, 3rd and 4th next hand. For example: you are in the BB again and the smallest but not tiny stack. Biggest stack pushes into you from UTG. Enter SnGPT and its a close decision. IMO, you should take into account that if you fold, you are likely to get a more profitable SB->BB push in the next hand. Some things like that...
|
|
#13
09-12-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
OP, I only skimmed your post because to read it word for word would make my brain explode. [/ QUOTE ] I know I have a weird way of explaining things in German. It's not really getting clearer when I put this in English.
|
|
#14
09-12-2006, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] OP, I only skimmed your post because to read it word for word would make my brain explode. [/ QUOTE ] I know I have a weird way of explaining things in German. It's not really getting clearer when I put this in English. [/ QUOTE ] No the flow and grammar all made sense. I think it was the math. I do agree with the essence of what you are saying though.
|
|
#15
09-12-2006, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
Your post brings up interesting questions about the concensus pushbot strategy.
One of the problems I have w/SNGPT and the pushbotting strategy is that to me it seems to be in opposition (direct or indirect) to some basic elements presented in the Theory of Poker. Specifically the ideas presented by Sklansky as it relates to Risk of Ruin. First lets define ruin as being elimated from the tournament and therefore unable to win any money from the contest. Sklanksy states (loosely) that if you have a bet that has a positive expectation to it; but that by losing that bet you have eliminated yourself from the opportunity to take an even better bet in the future you would be correct to pass on the first bet even if it has a positive expectation to it. I think (and maybe I'm wrong here) that we get in to EV is EV is EV (which it is) but don't think about the ramifications of taking that particular +EV bet vis a vis future bets and the impact of taking the current bet has on future betting opportunites. Now if you don't agree that going out of a SNG is the definition of ruin then the above argument doesn't hold. However, if we isolate it to the single unit it might have some merit. It is an interesting discussion and I really enjoyed your thought process in your post.
|
|
#16
09-12-2006, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically the ideas presented by Sklansky as it relates to Risk of Ruin. First lets define ruin as being elimated from the tournament and therefore unable to win any money from the contest. Sklanksy states (loosely) that if you have a bet that has a positive expectation to it; but that by losing that bet you have eliminated yourself from the opportunity to take an even better bet in the future you would be correct to pass on the first bet even if it has a positive expectation to it. [/ QUOTE ] there is also the opposite that holds true as well. There are many times where it is best to take a slightly negative ev if you are fairly sure that you will be stuck with an even worse play for all your chips soon after. This happens usually when you are the short stck with 4 to 5 players left and the blinds have left you with 1 round left, or something similar. I know I have posted on this in the past and there would still be ICM based answers.
|
|
#17
09-12-2006, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
Sklansky was talking about blowing your whole bankroll or maybe losing all the cash you brought to the casino when you are in a juicy game. You can start a new STT and have more +$EV opportunities.
edit: I think it was more the losing all the cash you brought to the casino example.
|
|
#18
09-12-2006, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky was talking about blowing your whole bankroll or maybe losing all the cash you brought to the casino when you are in a juicy game. You can start a new STT and have more +$EV opportunities. [/ QUOTE ] Just to add on I believe the consensus here has always been that the belief of another higher ev play will present itself cannot be proven because of the blind structure of stt. Leaving one to essentially take what you can get.
|
|
#19
09-12-2006, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky was talking about blowing your whole bankroll or maybe losing all the cash you brought to the casino when you are in a juicy game. You can start a new STT and have more +$EV opportunities. [/ QUOTE ] Are you sure, I thought he was talking about tournament poker?? I could be wrong....it's been awhile since I read that book.....
|
|
#20
09-12-2006, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some Heuristics and a Question to the Forum
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Specifically the ideas presented by Sklansky as it relates to Risk of Ruin. First lets define ruin as being elimated from the tournament and therefore unable to win any money from the contest. Sklanksy states (loosely) that if you have a bet that has a positive expectation to it; but that by losing that bet you have eliminated yourself from the opportunity to take an even better bet in the future you would be correct to pass on the first bet even if it has a positive expectation to it. [/ QUOTE ] there is also the opposite that holds true as well. There are many times where it is best to take a slightly negative ev if you are fairly sure that you will be stuck with an even worse play for all your chips soon after. This happens usually when you are the short stck with 4 to 5 players left and the blinds have left you with 1 round left, or something similar. I know I have posted on this in the past and there would still be ICM based answers. [/ QUOTE ] i agree with this i was just saying that as the big stack, where you wouldn't be faced with a worse gamble, or when you still have reasonable amount of bb's, etc. that this may become more of a factor.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
