|
|
#61
10-15-2007, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 100 FO - Pretty Basic Spot That Confuses Me
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If any program says it's very slightly +EV to push, that probably means it's -EV due to the small chance of being called in two places (and going against AK and 99 etc). Also the edge has to be more than really tiny for me to want to open push here. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure SNGPT takes into account multiple callers. So when I said it was barely +cEV or barely -cEV with various reasonable calling ranges, this was already taken into account. [/ QUOTE ] SNGPT does NOT take into account multiple callers. [/ QUOTE ] You're right, although it gives the appearance of doing so. I want my money back! 
|
|
#62
10-15-2007, 07:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 FO - Pretty Basic Spot That Confuses Me
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also shoving here will rarely be unexploitable because guys can call with stuff like T9s. [/ QUOTE ] No offense, but this doesn't make sense. You may want to read up on what "unexploitable" means, regardless of whether or not shoving 44 is an example. And it's not of course, it was hyperbole to show that I felt like it's +EV vs a whole lot of calling ranges. [/ QUOTE ] Unexploitable means regardless of their calling ranges its going to be +EV, calling with things like T9s means you're fairly rarely going to get folds with 3 players behind meaning you get so little from when everyone folds cause its so rare, no way 33 can be unexploitable here cause they can call with any hand that is a bigger pair or 2 overs which is a ridiculous amount of hands. [/ QUOTE ] I've seen "unexploitable" used in this manner, +cEV regardless of calling range (which is the same thing as +cEV if you turn your cards face up), in a few different threads here. Does anyone know the original source of this misuse of the word "unexploitable"? [/ QUOTE ] Not +cEV, +$EV. How do you contend its a misuse?
|
|
#63
10-15-2007, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 FO - Pretty Basic Spot That Confuses Me
[ QUOTE ]
Not +cEV, +$EV. How do you contend its a misuse? [/ QUOTE ] How are we getting from +cEV to $EV? A strategy is unexploitable if we are no worse off if our opponent knows our strategy. In a zero sum game, this is equivalent to our opponent being no better off if he knows our strategy. An opponent is always better off knowing what we have when we shove, as he can play a perfect calling range, thereby minimizing our EV. +cEV if known would be equivalent to unexploitable only if EV were binary rather than continuous.
|
|
#64
10-15-2007, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 FO - Pretty Basic Spot That Confuses Me
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Not +cEV, +$EV. How do you contend its a misuse? [/ QUOTE ] How are we getting from +cEV to $EV? A strategy is unexploitable if we are no worse off if our opponent knows our strategy. In a zero sum game, this is equivalent to our opponent being no better off if he knows our strategy. An opponent is always better off knowing what we have when we shove, as he can play a perfect calling range, thereby minimizing our EV. +cEV if known would be equivalent to unexploitable only if EV were binary rather than continuous. [/ QUOTE ] You really couldve just said based on ranges as opposed to your actual hand, and I dont agree thats its usage, you're just talking about forming a proper range, its only an unexploitable shove if face up your move is +ev(Unexploitable is often not the most +ev play) Also cEV doesnt really mean anything on its own, its only used because $ev cant be determined efficiently in an MTT and the correlation between the 2 is very similar for much of the tournament.
|
|
#65
10-15-2007, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 FO - Pretty Basic Spot That Confuses Me
Todd Terry,
stop being a nit. next time we'll say it's unexploitably +cEV instead of letting you assume we're talking +$EV since there's a 1% chance that the example using that word falls in the space where cEV and $EV diverge
|
|
#66
10-15-2007, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 FO - Pretty Basic Spot That Confuses Me
[ QUOTE ]
Todd Terry, stop being a nit. next time we'll say it's unexploitably +cEV instead of letting you assume we're talking +$EV since there's a 1% chance that the example using that word falls in the space where cEV and $EV diverge [/ QUOTE ] I don't care at all about cEV vs $EV in this context, it was something the other poster threw in so I asked about it. My problem with the usage of the term unexploitable has nothing to do with that. Saying "unexploitably +cEV" rather than "unexploitable" is correct, though.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
