2007PBWC NLH FinalTable - Bot mistake? or misfortune?

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I get what u were saying before. Using the names screwed me up, I though u were talking about the two involved in the hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there was 19 in the pot (not 17) ... your bad

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there is 18? I thought villain was in the BB, but he's not, he's in the SB. So there is the 6 from the button raise, the 10 from the SB min raise and 2 from the BB. So, 18...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The pot is 19. PPro HH's explicitly state player spends only (i.e. the atomic amounts that transact from stack to wager).

According to the HH, the spends were 1 2 6 10. Our discussion here is a good example of why it does this - to know with certainty how much was in the pot at any given line in the HH (you just add up the spends).

RIIT

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I get what u were saying before. Using the names screwed me up, I though u were talking about the two involved in the hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there was 19 in the pot (not 17) ... your bad

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there is 18? I thought villain was in the BB, but he's not, he's in the SB. So there is the 6 from the button raise, the 10 from the SB min raise and 2 from the BB. So, 18...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The pot is 19. PPro HH's explicitly state player spends only (i.e. the atomic amounts that transact from stack to wager).

According to the HH, the spends were 1 2 6 10. Our discussion here is a good example of why it does this - to know with certainty how much was in the pot at any given line in the HH (you just add up the spends).

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why we convert the HH to be readable. It said he raised 10. That made me think he raised to 10. As I have it figured now, he actually raised to 11. 10 above the 1 he put in the SB. However, his raise was actually 5, he called 5 and then raised another 5.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I get what u were saying before. Using the names screwed me up, I though u were talking about the two involved in the hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there was 19 in the pot (not 17) ... your bad

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there is 18? I thought villain was in the BB, but he's not, he's in the SB. So there is the 6 from the button raise, the 10 from the SB min raise and 2 from the BB. So, 18...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The pot is 19. PPro HH's explicitly state player spends only (i.e. the atomic amounts that transact from stack to wager).

According to the HH, the spends were 1 2 6 10. Our discussion here is a good example of why it does this - to know with certainty how much was in the pot at any given line in the HH (you just add up the spends).

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why we convert the HH to be readable. It said he raised 10. That made me think he raised to 10. As I have it figured now, he actually raised to 11. 10 above the 1 he put in the SB. However, his raise was actually 5, he called 5 and then raised another 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I guess it is a matter of personal taste as to which of the 3 methods is used (spend,raise,raiseto). The PPro hh's record atomic spend amounts and tag the spend with the word the player would typically speak when executing that play.

RIIT

[Guaran]

You guys are really speculative on my opening range aren't you?

RIIT was correct in saying I am laying down anything except AA-QQ.

As for the range of reraising 3 handed, Thats where it blurs. Honestly, I'm playing a bot differently than I am playing a human. So, Since it was a reraise vs a bot, I am going to have a premium hand; for in most cases if it plays back, it also has a playable hand at a full table. If it was against HTC, You can open that range up exponentially from AA-QQ.

As for the bot, It raised A9, a good hand 3-handed, is probably going to get me to fold 99% of the time, unless I have AA-QQ, and its a big underdog against AA-99. Thats only 6 hands that can horribly beat it, 3 of which I'm folding to the all-in.

It would then be an entirely different discussion on whether or not it needs to risk all-in to a race that early if i had 22-88, again, all of which I'm folding.

I think its a bad play overall, but it got unlucky that I actually had a hand. This play would of worked 97% of the time.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ummmm.... .no?

[/ QUOTE ]
no what?

[/ QUOTE ]
"No" to your analysis method, specifically what you're doing to determine Guaran's hand range. Sorry for the confusion.

Your "QM analysis" method looks really wrong from both a poker and quantum mechanics point of view. I'm pretty good with both of those subjects, actually. This is a joke, right? I mean, you can't be serious people are doing this sort of analysis and attempting to use the results to program poker bots. The reason this method isn't discussed in books is because it makes no sense and produces useless and wrong answers.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its a bad play overall, but it got unlucky that I actually had a hand. This play would of worked 97% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your calling with 1.4% (AA-QQ). For it to work 97% you bot would have to be raising 46.7% of hands.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ummmm.... .no?

[/ QUOTE ]
no what?

[/ QUOTE ]
"No" to your analysis method, specifically what you're doing to determine Guaran's hand range. Sorry for the confusion.

Your "QM analysis" method looks really wrong from both a poker and quantum mechanics point of view. I'm pretty good with both of those subjects, actually. This is a joke, right? I mean, you can't be serious people are doing this sort of analysis and attempting to use the results to program poker bots. The reason this method isn't discussed in books is because it makes no sense and produces useless and wrong answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slim,

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but some of the best bots on the planet do this very thing.

However, in all cases, accurate intel as to opponent hand ranges will yield better numbers (I've always believe this) so no argument there.

But what we're probably talking about here is a level 4 bot that does not use any information beyond the current hand (we'd have to hear from Asbak to know this for sure) and even if it did, there's only 17 hands in the history which isn't a huge precedent to understand what Guaran's range is. So what's this type of bot to do?

RIIT

[Guaran]

[ QUOTE ]

Your calling with 1.4% (AA-QQ). For it to work 97% you bot would have to be raising 46.7% of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a bot, it was myself playing.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]

Slim,

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but some of the best bots on the planet do this very thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do what? Shove A9o for 450 BB? Your explanation isn't making a bit of sense and "you just don't know anything about quantum mechanics" and "You just don't really understand poker" are two pretty bad excuses for why I'm not getting it.

Here's a few things I need you to explain so I don't feel the need to write you off as a jargon-spouting pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know how his computer tools work.

<ul type="square">[*]What is the hand range against which you run A9o to get your "risk of ruin?"
[*] Since Guaran has you covered, if this "risk of ruin" is something significantly different than the outright loss probability for A9o against said hand range then I would like to know why.
[*]I'm pretty sure what you're actually doing with your "quantum mechanical uncertainty certainty" approach is determining a hand range for an opponent . Explain how this works. You can use math and [censored]. I'll get it.[/list]

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Slim,

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but some of the best bots on the planet do this very thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Do what? Shove A9o for 450 BB?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, didn't we already agree that this was ev- ? As of this moment I'd like to apologize to anybody who was offended because I stopped to wonder about this play longer than you did or didn't get results as fast as you did or didn't get results the same way you did. Geez man!

[ QUOTE ]
Your explanation isn't making a bit of sense

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I'll try and do better.

[ QUOTE ]
and "you just don't know anything about quantum mechanics" and "You just don't really understand poker" are two pretty bad excuses for why I'm not getting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh c'mon man ... don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a few things I need you to explain so I don't feel the need to write you off as a jargon-spouting pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know how his computer tools work.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to get pissy man. I didn't do anything wrong. I simply have a preferred way calculating win chances in situation where little if nothing is known about the opponent (and I think this early final table situation might be such a condition). You and Devin don't need to begin each response to me with "um ... no";

I thought I already explained the calculation here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...11939#12411939
but maybe I need to do a better job.

[ QUOTE ][*]What is the hand range against which you run A9o to get your "risk of ruin?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The short answer is I don't know. What I'm most interested in is the win,lose,tie river chances for the hero. The tool I use deals 2 random hands and a random river ending and measures the hero's hand against those 2 hands for a win a loss or a tie and sums the results over many trials to get a statistical sampling of the current situation. The hero's hand must beat both hands to score a win, or equal the top hand for a tie or be less than the top hand for a loss. If you do this type of thing for 2 opponent hands over many trials, you'll find that the best opponent hand is centered 1/3 from the top and the worst opponent hand is centered 2/3 from the top. So there's not a single hand range - there's 2 hand ranges: the top 2/3 and the bottom 2/3. The resulting win,loss,tie numbers reflect the hero's chances against both simultaneously. I don't know how to tell you a specific hand range that you can plug into your tool(s) to track what I'm saying.

[ QUOTE ][*] Since Guaran has you covered, if this "risk of ruin" is something significantly different than the outright loss probability for A9o against said hand range then I would like to know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ROR calculation I use is the probability that X will be lost before it will be won (given the current statistical shape) - and X is the bot's stack before the push. The calculation depends on the win,loss,tie numbers (described above). The calculation depends (in part) on what's already in the pot and so that's one of the reasons the number is slightly different than the loss number. I'm not allowed to link to the page that explains the calc. If you want to PM me, I'll send you the link.

[ QUOTE ][*]I'm pretty sure what you're actually doing with your "quantum mechanical uncertainty certainty" approach is determining a hand range for an opponent . Explain how this works. You can use math and [censored]. I'll get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I think I did this above in answer to your first hand range question.

Slim, in all cases I believe that accurate intel about opponent hand ranges trumps this QM method; but the QM method is still an excellent base calculation for starters - it's what I tend to fall back on if I'm clueless about the opponent(s) style.

RIIT