|
|
#13
04-18-2007, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
[ QUOTE ]
lol. i think anyone here would be happy to play either the all-in happy villain or the clueless original poster. [/ QUOTE ] i guess i need to work on my posting skills. i knew everything you people responded with. i just need to keep on one point and one point only. 
|
|
#14
04-18-2007, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
[ QUOTE ]
The optimal strategy against this opponent is optimal regardless of the number of games to be played. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think so. In the case where you only get to play 1 game, I would narrow my calling range. In the case where you get to play many games, I would broaden the calling range. Theoretically, if you got to play an infinite # of games, and time wasn't a consideration, then you would call with the slightest of margins (~ Q7+). With only 1 game, you want to maximize your chance of winning *that hand*, so you should try to call with much better cards (~ KQ+; 77+).
|
|
#15
04-18-2007, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
Calling on the narrowest of margins, has an opportunity cost. That of waiting for a slightly bigger margin over his basket of hands in each individual SnG.
The best strategy, is going to be adaptive to the blind:stack ratios, and start tighter and then loosen. Remember each SnG has an Admin Fee, so just as in a cash game with rake, you need a bigger edge than 51:49 to make a profit. If you do "flipping" you'll be a loser in the long run.
|
|
#16
04-18-2007, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The optimal strategy against this opponent is optimal regardless of the number of games to be played. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think so. [/ QUOTE ] Then you're wrong. [ QUOTE ] In the case where you only get to play 1 game, I would narrow my calling range. In the case where you get to play many games, I would broaden the calling range. [/ QUOTE ] Then you don't understand fundamental poker theory. The number of games to be played is irrelevant, and the optimal calling range (at each blind level and stack size) is set and immobile mathematically. If you deviate from it then your expectation is less than it would be if you don't, and this is true of 1 game; it's true of 100 games; it's true of 1,000,000 games. [ QUOTE ] Theoretically, if you got to play an infinite # of games, and time wasn't a consideration, then you would call with the slightest of margins (~ Q7+). [/ QUOTE ] Um, false. Calling with say the top 48% of hands will yield a +EV result, but it won't yield optimal results.
|
|
#17
04-18-2007, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically, if you got to play an infinite # of games, and time wasn't a consideration, then you would call with the slightest of margins (~ Q7+). [/ QUOTE ] Um, false. Calling with say the top 48% of hands will yield a +EV result, but it won't yield optimal results. [/ QUOTE ] How would folding hands that are +EV in this scenario yield a better result? Playing those hands does not prevent you from playing the ones where you have a greater edge.
|
|
#18
04-18-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The optimal strategy against this opponent is optimal regardless of the number of games to be played. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think so. [/ QUOTE ] Then you're wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. Your game theory understanding is confused. It's a different game if you only play 1 hand as opposed to an infinite # of hands. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In the case where you only get to play 1 game, I would narrow my calling range. In the case where you get to play many games, I would broaden the calling range. [/ QUOTE ] Then you don't understand fundamental poker theory. The number of games to be played is irrelevant, and the optimal calling range (at each blind level and stack size) is set and immobile mathematically. If you deviate from it then your expectation is less than it would be if you don't, and this is true of 1 game; it's true of 100 games; it's true of 1,000,000 games. [/ QUOTE ] You're wrong. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Theoretically, if you got to play an infinite # of games, and time wasn't a consideration, then you would call with the slightest of margins (~ Q7+). [/ QUOTE ] Um, false. Calling with say the top 48% of hands will yield a +EV result, but it won't yield optimal results. [/ QUOTE ] So calling with +EV hands over an infinite # of games (w/o consideration of rake/time/etc.) is -EV long-term? I don't think so. What exactly do you mean by "optimal" (in this case) if not +EV?
|
|
#19
04-18-2007, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Your game theory understanding is confused. It's a different game if you only play 1 hand as opposed to an infinite # of hands. [/ QUOTE ] False. The game is identical. The number of trials has no effect on the expectation of each individual trial. You flip a coin and it's it's coming up heads half the time. If you get laid 1:1 on the flip then it's a breakeven proposition, and would be if it were done once or done 1,000,000 times. Also, i don't know what you mean by '1 hand'. It's 1 game/SNG consisting of multiple hands, not 1 hand. [ QUOTE ] You're wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Nope [ QUOTE ] So calling with +EV hands over an infinite # of games (w/o consideration of rake/time/etc.) is -EV long-term? [/ QUOTE ] Um.. WTF? Who suggested such a thing? No, it's not -EV, it's just not optimal. Calling with top 48% is +EV and a winning strategy; it's just not optimal. That is; calling with a certain tighter percentages at the earlier levels is also +EV but more +EV than calling with the top 48%.
|
|
#20
04-18-2007, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...
[ QUOTE ]
False. The game is identical. The number of trials has no effect on the expectation of each individual trial. You flip a coin and it's it's coming up heads half the time. If you get laid 1:1 on the flip then it's a breakeven proposition, and would be if it were done once or done 1,000,000 times. [/ QUOTE ] You're ignoring the opportunity cost of waiting. If calling is +EV but getting to play another random hand against the idiot has a higher +EV, then you fold. For the same reason, you'd play tighter against idiots in a tournament than, but looser in a cash game (even to the point of making slightly -EV plays).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
