this thread is awsome still getting a head acke doing all the math in my head tbh ive been using sage for a while and just deviating from it acording to my reads on villain

as for nash i really thought that the idea was about 1 hand not being exploitable like shoving a2 for 10 bbs even if you knew that i was shoving a2 for 10 bbs you cant exploite it but now i get the range it really makes things much more clear

ty spam.

I somehow thought jack said that we have to stick to proper nash ranges in order to stay in the equilibrium. So we shouldn't start limping the good hands and shoving the rest, because if we do so, our T7o shove might be -EV (which is true, because villain might change his callingrange properly if we start doing this).

But instead of quoting the last phrase I quoted the second last one.

As I reread it, I pretty quickly saw that you two guys (Bluemage55 and yaqh) where of course right and I was completely braindead that evening. I didn't even read yaqhs reply properly ("you should probably read this thread") and just reread the OP (and answered "it's a good post" lol)... sorry guys.

@bluemage: it's probably hard to believe and pretty embarrassing for me, but I actually know the definition of a nash equilibrium.

Anyhow, at least I somehow managed to get this nice post by spamz0r and valuable replies on the surface again...

Yeah but you just ship HUMTTs without NASH so wtf.

Sorry about being thick but I still have trouble grasping that concept...(but then again i guess I am probably not the only one)

aren't those two statements above contradictory!?

This is completely wrong. If playing more combos hurt you, you could just play a mixed strategy where you folded some of the combos.

Removing {AJ+, 99} from your shoving range doesn't cost the rest of your hands that much. For example, at 10bb, the optimal calling range now includes {K4o, K3o, Q8o, J9o, T9o, T8s, 98s, J7s, Q6s and Q5s} presuming your shoving range otherwise stays constant. This costs you a whopping 0.01bb per hand in EV.

By far the most significant problem with limping {AJ+, 99} is the loss of EV it would have on those hands themselves (this should be the case in almost any situation). Those hands collectively have an EV of 2.29 shoving 10bb deep into a Nash caller. If you limped them and your opponent caught on that you were only limping monsters, this must necessarily go below 1 (because your opponent could simply check/fold the vast majority of the time, and will sometimes draw out on you). So, this represents a loss of at least 0.08bb per hand and more when your opponents pick up or flop better hands.

That's not to say you can't have a limping range (it's almost certainly better than Nash to do so above ~7BB), it just can't be unbalanced as this one.

which one is right?

Correction: your EV for those hands must necessarily go below 1.5, for a minimum of -0.05bb per hand.

No. Pushing 54s is +EV against the Nash calling range. It is not, however, +EV against any calling range. In order to force your villain to call with the Nash range, you must use the entire Nash pushing range.

OK, can I ask a stupid-ish question please?

Using SAGE in a Super Turbo HUSNG.

Blinds 15/30, Hero is in Big Blind.

Hero has 150 chips after posting the Big Blind.
Villain has 405 chips after posting the Small Blind on the Button.

Hero is dealt Q7o.

I know that if villain open-shoves his button that SAGE says to call here.

--What if villain limps? Do we check and see a flop cheap or do we stick to NASH and shove here. In other words, my question is: SAGE says to call a shove from the SB here; does that automatically translate into shoving even if SB isn't shoving at us in this spot?
--Does the answer change if villain minraises? If he raises a higher amount that still doesn't put me all-in?

Oh, and am I correct in looking at short stack size in BB's AFTER the blinds are posted or am I supposed to do it before?

Thanks in advance.

I just saw this thread for the first time and noticed this chart. I apreciate the effort, but there are mistakes in it. according to the chart 87o wpould be a fold with 3BB effective stacks even against a loose pusher (75%). 87o has about 40% equity against that range, so with 3BB stacks its a clear call, since only 33% are needed.
maybe I got the chart wrong, or dont really understand the stack sizes you are referring to. just wanted someone else to check on this, because such a chart in itself would be quite useful

As a beginner I've found the OP and whole thread very interesting and helpful, thanks OP and everyone . I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Firstly the OP says the following about using Nash to decide whether to call from the BB:

If sage is just a simplified version of Nash, then does this advice also apply to the SAGE calling chart (ie don't use it because it's only ev0 or ev-)?

Second question - OP says if you want to use Nash don't deviate from it, but also recommends not using it above 12BBs. According to the chart if I've got 19 BBs and K2s I should shove. If I decide not to shove my stack of 15 BBs with K2s, but rather play another strategy, isn't that a deviation?

Limping ranges are usually sufficiently different from shoving ranges that SAGE and Nash aren't really applicable. Additionally, the option to see a flop is quite significant. Suppose he limped and called exactly the Nash shoving range, and you had a hand that was just above the stack size for calling a shove with. That means your hand is just slightly above 0EV for shoving with, however you could get somewhat more than that by checking and winning some % of the pot post-flop.

Raises have a similar story, though not to the same extent. Against some larger, pot-committing raises, you probably won't lose much by treating them as shoves.

Before.

This is true if you believe you can effortlessly calculate the maximally exploitative calling range. But if that's the case, why even bother learning about SAGE, Nash and Chubukov at all? All of them sacrifice equity relative to an exploitative strategy against a non-optimal opponent. Seems like you're sending contradictory messages.

lol - adapt nash to villain. if he calls light - tighten up a bit and v.v.

^ villain's calling range could be just AA. then obv opponent would be favorite every time u get called. but obv you should shove every hand to pick up the blinds.

also, if villain is calling light, correct adjustment is not to tighten up.

AA example = what i said. yes.

but i am not so sure bout second, if villain is shoving light (often) then i want to be a clear favorite when calling and have enough spots to do so... this is a thought i actually took over from other's advice...i was also always rather in the coin to loosen up a bit too, but not as much as villain and still have an edge on him....would be great to have some statments of a superpro here.
(did not check if u r - but i guess u probably r much more skilled than i am)
as u know from regs-thread i am a huge fish..smile

If Villain is calling lighter than optimal, there is no clear cut to decision to shove lighter or tighter. Some hands that were previously shoves you should fold, some that were previously folds you should shove. It's not that clear what they should be. Consider my shoving chart of Q5o from this thread:



As your opponent loosens up, you should initially tighten up with Q5o but as he becomes really loose, it becomes profitable to shove it at higher and higher stack sizes.

ups..i saw such charts here and there but refused to really think it over....but now i know that i really have to do this soon!

many thanks for advice!

sick post. thanks

Thanks
I think I start to see where my mistake is.

So do s-c numbers only work for shoving from SB?

what do u mean by 'work'?

Seriously?

I mean is that what the intended use is, for SB shoving?

(And not BB calling or BB shoving over a limp or possibly other spots I'm not thinking of).

They only work for shoving, not calling. s-c numbers are a face-up shove, showing situations where you can shove profitably even if your opponent calls perfectly.

Any calling or reshoving numbers you can possibly come up with depend on your opponent's opening ranges, and that includes Nash as well, because individual hands in the Nash calling range can be -EV if your opponent is not shoving loosely enough.

That doesn't mean calling nash is exploitable, because your opponent is losing more EV on the hands he doesn't shove when he's supposed to than he gains by being more ahead of your calling range when he does shove, but it does mean you can probably do quite a bit better than Nash if you have a good handle on his opening ranges.

But then again, who really ever has a good handle on what their opponents are up to? Not me, certainly.