NLHE - Opponent Moves All-In Every Hand...

[KipBond]

You're not getting it. Do you see why? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I'll let someone with more patience explain it.

[DannyOcean_]

Kip,

If you have a very very slight edge against this opponent (in an SnG), it is correct to wait, because the likelyhood of having a very large edge in the coming hands is nearly 100%. you are forgetting the opportunity cost. You should pass up a slight +EV for this SnG to get a much greater one. Your chances of winning this particular SnG are maximized this way.

[Mr.JR]

[ QUOTE ]
If the guy was going all in every time, would you have called him with AKs? of course, right? (answer wanted)

I suppose this situation isnt a predicament if you will get to keep playing this same opponent over and over even after going broke yourself... Eventually you will catch him as an overdog and your hand will hold up. The math would play out in the long run...

However, in a SNG format you really cant wait for aces, agreed? -or KK or QQ or JJ. If you get a bad run of cards for a while, the blinds you folded will add up...


[/ QUOTE ]

Against this type of player, I call with J's or better, and any AK. If you want more risk, Play AQ and 10's. Here's some PokerStove #'s regarding this situation:

83,902,896,000 games 0.157 secs 534,413,350,318 games/sec

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 1: 75.050% 74.54% 00.51% 62539462740 429316098.00 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 2: 24.950% 24.44% 00.51% 20504801064 429316098.00 { random }

130,049,488,800 games 0.282 secs 461,168,399,999 games/sec
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 1: 72.421% 71.82% 00.60% 93401503408 781002838.00 { TT+, AQs+, AQo+ }
Hand 2: 27.579% 26.98% 00.60% 35085979716 781002838.00 { random }

[RobNottsUk]

The ppl saying, that the number of trials doesn't matter, your expectation is the same, may be should think about "Kelly Criterion" ideas.

There, if you have a limited bankroll, the optimal way to grow it, is not to risk so much, and reduce variance.

Isn't the single shot at this player, analagous in a way? You have a one off opportunity, and theoretically a 60:40 edge, therefore by same reasonibg as Sklansky Advanced Tourney book, your call should be made with a hand that has at least a 60:40 edge over a random hand.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a very very slight edge against this opponent (in an SnG), it is correct to wait, because the likelyhood of having a very large edge in the coming hands is nearly 100%. you are forgetting the opportunity cost. You should pass up a slight +EV for this SnG to get a much greater one. Your chances of winning this particular SnG are maximized this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. As the # of games you get to play decreases, the more edge you should wait for. If you only play 1 game, you should wait for a significant edge. If you get to play an infinite #, then the slightest of edges is good.

This isn't considering blinds, time, or bankroll, though. It was theoretical (see my first reply).

[fraac]

The optimal way to play 1 sng against the guy is the optimal way to play against him in any, so long as you're within your bankroll. All that changes is if you know you can play him many times, you want to beat him faster.

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
The optimal way to play 1 sng against the guy is the optimal way to play against him in any, so long as you're within your bankroll. All that changes is if you know you can play him many times, you want to beat him faster.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not quite true. Apart from admin fee arguments...

You have 1 lifetime opportunity to score against a crazy player.

Instead of say a 55:45 edge over a normal opponent, this dude offers you 60:40.

Therefore, there's an opportunity cost if you are not slightly more cautious, because it's a one off event. If you can repeat indefinitely, then you know you take his bankroll in long run, you can rely on long run.

Hope that is clearer now.

[fraac]

No. If you know his strategy, the blinds determine an optimal way to play. That doesn't change however long a run. The cards you call with changes depending on the stacks, but you've worked that out in advance. In practice, with rematches you may trade some edge for an improved hourly rate.

[Deorum]

On single trial vs. multiple trials:

When you are able to play multiple trials (or allowed multiple buy ins, ie. he/you will rebuy if he/you lose the hand) the proper strategy for maximizing EV is to play every hand that is better than an average hand. This is because your total expectation for the session is equal to the sum of all the expectations of the individual hands that you play. Therefore, any hand that has positive expectation (ie. any hand better than a random hand) should be played as it adds to your total expectation. You never have to worry about giving up future expectation because when one of the two of you goes broke, you or he simply rebuys and you get a new hand.

When you are only allowed one game or buy in (ie. as soon as you play a hand, barring a split pot, he will leave) the proper strategy for maximizing EV is to fold some hands that are slightly better than random hands even though calling with them would be +EV. This is because playing those hands prevents you from taking advantage of hands that would be more profitable against a random hand in the future due to the game ending as soon as you play one.

Clearly, it is correct to change the range of hands with which you call based on how many games you get to play. I hope this has cleared some things up.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
No. If you know his strategy, the blinds determine an optimal way to play. That doesn't change however long a run. The cards you call with changes depending on the stacks, but you've worked that out in advance. In practice, with rematches you may trade some edge for an improved hourly rate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. There is a set % of calling hands for each blind level that will maximize your return for the SNG, and it's not "any hand with an edge" that yeilds max EV for the particular SNG.

In addition, though you might widen your calling range to a still-+EV range, though not optimal, in order to increase your hourly rate (against an opponent you know will continue to play against you the same way), you STILL might not widen it to 'any hand with an edge' because what you gain in time might not be made up for by what you sacrifice in EV for the SNG.

[ QUOTE ]
On single trial vs. multiple trials:

When you are able to play multiple trials (or allowed multiple buy ins, ie. he/you will rebuy if he/you lose the hand) the proper strategy for maximizing EV is to play every hand that is better than an average hand. This is because your total expectation for the session is equal to the sum of all the expectations of the individual hands that you play. Therefore, any hand that has positive expectation (ie. any hand better than a random hand) should be played as it adds to your total expectation. You never have to worry about giving up future expectation because when one of the two of you goes broke, you or he simply rebuys and you get a new hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
False. The number of trials is irrelevant. Your expectation is maximized by calling with a particular range (that is tighter than any-hand-with-an-egdge). Your expectation is maximized by doing this regardless of the number of trials. The only affect the number of trails has, as fraac said, is that you might decide to sacrifice maximum expectation per SNG in order to increase $/hour rate. But if you're attempting to merely optimize expectation per each SNG, then calling with "any hand with an edge" regardless of the number of trails, will not yield optimal results per each SNG. It will yield slightly +EV results, which is a lot different than optimal.

What is so difficult about this concept? Against an opponent using a highly exploitable, bad strategy your solution is to use a strategy that just BARELY beats him, rather than one that clobbers him? WTF? If you call with 'any hand with an edge' you're doing him a huge favor.