Mathematics of Poker Push/Fold strategy NL

[Nichomacheo]

Anyone tried following it exactly? How does it work against the standard opponent? Do you feel that you're losing value by not playing exploitatively?

Thx.

[derosnec]

i've followed it for a long time. people are very exploitable hu. no need to stick religiously to jam/fold tables. we discussed this a little in one of the threads i started the other day.

ok, if you're playing phil ivey, use it.

[Nichomacheo]

your post seems to contradict itself.

if you've followed it for a long time, then why do you say there is no need to stick to the tables?

also, correct me if i'm wrong, but if you're playing exploitatively, shouldnt you just loosen up the pushing standards for a tight bb and tighten them up vs a loose player bb?

[derosnec]

i used to follow it religiously. not anymore.

i still jam quite a few hands, don't get me wrong. but alot of hands i'm just limping or minraising now. because most of my opponents are idiots postflop - either too agrro or too tight. so if i minraise or limp AA, yeah my opponent's unpaired cards will flop two pair or trips 2% of the time, but he's often going busto with one pair or a draw.

that chapter in mathematics of poker is in the game theory/optimal play section. so, it's neutral to +EV, definitely not -EV (well there is the rake). but exploitative is more +EV.

and yes jamming can be exploitative against tight players. but there is no reason not to jam the minimum jam hands against loose players, because it's at worst neutral ev (again, not taking into account the rake), unless you want to wait for a better spot, but if a loose player is calling too loosely (looser than he is supposed to call according to the tables) then you're doing better than neutral ev.

anyways, it comes down to your opponent's style: both preflop and on the flop.

disclaimer: i'm no HU expert.

[Nichomacheo]

wait a sec.

its only neutral EV if your opponent is also playing perfectly. If your opponent deviates from optimal strategy, it will be +EV for you. The dilemma is whether deviating from the jam tables will be more +EV than playing perfectly. Lets not kid ourselves... no one at our levels plays near perfectly with < 12bb stacks.

[derosnec]

exactly. alot of people love to bluff flops or c/r cbets or push any pair when blinds are high. or some are too tight. so adjust for those people.

even the authors hesitate from advocating following the tables blindly. for example, on page 271, they say that jamming is better than raising a lesser amount when your stack is 7 times the pot. but that's at a table with multiple players, not heads up. and the jam/fold tables are for stacks much bigger than 7xpot. so following the tables might not be the best approach when stacks are bigger, even though tables say you can jam/fold at the bigger stacks sizes. for example, i can jam AA at every blind level and stack size and never make a mistake. but why would i? even if my opponents are not playing optimally (in other words even if they call 2% of the time my push with AA when stacks are 200bbs big it does not mean that jamming is best option. yes it's +EV because my opponent is not playing optimally, but we want to make some real money here).

btw, when blinds are high, it is really hard for opponents to play incorrectly by playing loose. they can call with alot of hands. so even loose players are often not making a mistake at the 50/100 level. look at the crappy Q7 hand in the tables. it's a call at 8.

[Nichomacheo]

a few points....

I believe they say that the tables are best for when one of the player's stacks is less than 12bb. I dont think anyone would advocate pushing AA 200bb deep.

Also, I don't remember it saying that its for a table with multiple players. Maybe it does. It shouldnt matter though. Its the same situation whether 6 players have folded before you and you're the SB or whether its just you and the BB. The effects of people folding are negligible.

[Nichomacheo]

bump.

anyone else messed around with these tables?