Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Poker Theory General poker theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-01-2017, 03:18 PM   #1
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
a brief history of poker theory

Cross posting something I posted in the beginner's forum today for more points of view:

Premodern indifference theory taught us to build value ranges and then add bluffs as the price for our opponent to call got worse. The more expensive it was for our opponent to call, the more we bluffed. The selection of these bluffs was often debated, with one side saying to bluff from the bottom of your range while the other said to bluff with the best draws. After looking into this topic further, I decided that we needed to define some terms that had come into favor not just in the forums, but in the literature as well. Here's my attempt to define flop texture:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...xture-1471300/

I learned a lot thinking and posting about this topic, and in that time I also came around to the idea that humans needed to play mixed strategies in order to compete effectively in the modern poker environment.

Then I participated in this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...whosnext+mixed

and I found a gem here:

Quote:
in equilibrium the optimal mixed strategy of one player causes the EV of the other player's mixed strategy to have the same EV for every action with positive prob of being played in the optimal strategy mix.
What this means is that the old view of building value:bluff ratios is not going to give an optimal solution. Instead, as solvers have shown, in order to maximally exploit the best counter strategy, a mixed strategy must be used at nearly every decision point. That doesn't meant we mix with every combo in our range, but rather that there will be hands within our range that take two or more actions at frequencies because our opponent's strategy makes us indifferent to our options. The effect is that with draws, we see lots of mixing. With strong hands we see some slowplaying in addition to the many bets we will make with strong hands; slowplaying is extremely important to our defense of overbets. With some bluffcatchers that don't have any draws to go along with the showdown value, we will see mostly calling or folding with very little mixing.

Now, the next step at least for me, is to study asymmetrical range game theory more. I might come back later with some questions but I'm just gonna post this as is for now.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 03:45 PM   #2
robert_utk
adept
 
robert_utk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Interesting thread Bob. As you study, can you show some examples of threshold hands, that are the tipping point between pure solution and mixed strategy? Like, how strong does our value need to be, so that slowplaying at frequency becomes more optimal than betting for value.

Are you sure that so many decision points require mixed strat to be optimal?

And, lets make sure that we are all on the same page for vocabulary:

Mixed Strategy: sometimes take different action with the exact same holding in the exact same decision.

Pure strategy: always take the exact same action with a holding and a decision.

So, if I am reading correctly, the premodern system was:

Bluff this spot with this ratio of value and bluff combos.

And modern would be:

Sometimes bluff this spot at frequency PLUS sometimes slowplay value and sometimes bluff with merged ranges, and sometimes fold.
robert_utk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 03:51 PM   #3
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

I agree with all of that except to say that the mixing of fold and call is a rarity that I'm not really concerned with at the moment.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 03:54 PM   #4
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Quote:
Are you sure that so many decision points require mixed strat to be optimal?
Particularly with draws, yes I think this is true.

With slowplays it's about winning stacks in no limit, where in limit we rarely slowplay anything of value because the pot grows linearly as opposed to geometrically, as it does in no limit.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 05:00 PM   #5
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Question time:

In multiway pots, does the need for a mixed strategy dissolve as you add players?

I think yes, but it probably also has to do with the ranges involved and how they interact with the potsize. Contrast these two situations for example:

9 handed 100 big blind no limit holdem $1/$2

utg raises 3x, utg+1 3 bets to 10x, folds to button, button calls, small blind folds, big blind calls, utg calls. 80 bucks in the pot and everyone has about 180 bucks left in the stacks.

compare that with the same action but with shorter stacks. Seems like the need for a mixed strategy goes down to me.

or this action with 100 big blinds:

HJ raises 3x, co 3 bets to 10x, button calls, small blind folds, big blind calls, HJ calls. 80 bucks in the pot again and everyone has about 180 bucks left to play with. However, the wider ranges seem to allow much more room for draws to realize expectation both by checking or betting, thus there will be more mixing than the above situations.

Now the same action with 200 big blinds.

Seems to me that there should be more mixing as the number of players goes down and the stacks get deeper and the ranges get wider.

In real time, we thankfully get to play one hand at a time. So any long term ev loss is negligible from this hand in an individual sense, unless this is the last hand we're ever going to play. I think this means that we can play very straight forwardly with short stacks and strong ranges and many opponents.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2017, 12:54 PM   #6
robert_utk
adept
 
robert_utk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Regarding family pots,

A value hand will have to be higher in range, near nutty, to be a bet, and bluffs will be harder to push through. However, draws to the nuts are just as strong and even more profitable multiways.

If a balanced player checks a nfd flop in a family pot, some percentage of the time, this can force balanced opponents to bluffcatch or pay off a flush with stacks.

As for wide ranges and deep stack NLHE family pots, I think that format is so far away from solved, that GTO may not be worthwhile (Even if a solution exists).
robert_utk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2017, 08:01 PM   #7
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

If you're going to use examples such as this:

Quote:
If a balanced player checks a nfd flop in a family pot, some percentage of the time, this can force balanced opponents to bluffcatch or pay off a flush with stacks.
Please back it up with some realistic preflop action so we can discuss it.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2017, 11:24 AM   #8
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Quote:
However, draws to the nuts are just as strong and even more profitable multiways.
I'm inclined to disagree here. In 4+ way pots, my betting range is (value) and I don't think I'm missing much, if any long term expectation with such a betting range.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 11:55 AM   #9
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Quote:
As for wide ranges and deep stack NLHE family pots, I think that format is so far away from solved, that GTO may not be worthwhile (Even if a solution exists).
Well there are standard plays and profitable exploits that we should be making, but understanding why and when to make the standard play is, is pretty much the gto of multiway poker imo. Knowing that we're making an exploitive strike isn't necessarily the source of our ev with a particular exploitive play. However I think that having a good idea of where the margin lies is crucial to understanding the ev of such plays even on an intermediate level.

I have a loose theory regarding how far from the margin we can exploit, depending on which street we're on, the number of opponents, and how many bets have gone in.

On the most basic level, if everything is equal, there is the most room for exploitation on the river heads up. On a deeper level? I think we would have to break it down into categories:

exploitive folds: 0ev exploit to avoid a -ev call vs a value heavy opponent. A penny saved is a penny earned. Very valuable on the river when the pot is large.

exploitive calls: slightly + ev relative to folding, even on the river a bluffcatcher's ev will be zero or slightly positive with rare exception.

exploitive bets: many possibilities for exploitation here. Slightly profitable with low equity relative to folding, but very profitable with high equity relative to folding. Very valuable on the river with value hands, because bluffcatchers are drawing dead. Not so valuable on the river with bluffs.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 02:50 PM   #10
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
exploitive folds: 0ev exploit to avoid a -ev call vs a value heavy opponent. A penny saved is a penny earned. Very valuable on the river when the pot is large.
Bolded to note that I was referring to no limit games, where the bets are much larger. In limit games, exploitive folds facing a single bet heads up on the end isn't the place to attempt exploits with the rare exception of a very value heavy opponent when holding a very marginal hand.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2017, 12:53 PM   #11
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Quote:
exploitive bets: many possibilities for exploitation here. Slightly profitable with low equity relative to folding, but very profitable with high equity relative to folding. Very valuable on the river with value hands, because bluffcatchers are drawing dead. Not so valuable on the river with bluffs.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...=calling+minds

Quote:
Looking to discuss best way to exploit these opponent tendencies!

Avg opponent stats for these games
HU
-------------
BTN - [PFR 75%] [4bet 30%] [Cbet 80/80/70] [Raise vs 3bettor cbets 40/20/20] (flop/turn/river%s)
BB - [VPIP 80%] [3bet 40%] [Cbet 80/70/85] [xRaise vs BTN cbets 30/40/0] WTF? LOL
BB is XR flop 30% and turn 40% wow
and 70% Went to showdown wowww

[x] 350 BB downswing in these games
[x] holy **** variance
[x] occasional missplays
[x] results forced me to do deep analysis and now i'm just flat interested

^_^ Haven't put too much thought into it yet, first time i've experienced massive downer vs this playertype. Usually they busto immediately. Ready to develop my hardcounter exploitative lines.
Quote:
The frequencies that are very far off from GTO are (and worthy of discussion for counters imo...)

1) Their 4betting range preflop
2) Their WTSD @ 70% WOW
3) Their XR turn frequency @ 40% WOW
4) Their tendency to raise IP vs 3bettor's cbets on each street: 40/20/20. (I run a 15/15/15 to clarify)

Note) Their cbets are surprisingly reasonable in most spots. Can't do much vs their opens+barreling or vs their 3bets + barreling exploitatively.
Quote:
The fact that they use such a wide 4betting range preflop leaves their Raise/call range weak as sin.

so...After 3betting On most boards bet the flop + turn 100% vs players who have a wide 4betting range preflop. (Our RvR EQ on most flop textures should be > 60%)
My response:

Quote:
The bb's turn check raise seems like the best spot to attack. Any reads on what he's doing it with? If he bluffs a lot with turn check raises, I like betting to induce and calling down with lots of value hands. If he's value heavy, I'd check back more on the turn with my medium strength hands. I would not check back my stronger draws though because that would forfeit the ability to win the hand unimproved.

When you're in the big blind, I think you're gonna have to donk some of the more dynamic textures.

I'd need a read on the buttons bet when checked to on the turn in 3 bet pots, and a read on what he's raising your flop and turn bets with to really say any more. Maybe the answer is to donk check more turns in 3 bet pots to keep the pot small with your medium strength hands, which will in turn polarize your turn cbets, which is ok imo as long as you give up on the more showdownable bluffs on the river.

A key here is to never miss bets on the turn with the dominating draws. I've been thinking about the dominating draws a lot lately but have had trouble putting the concept in my mind into words. Basically, if I have a draw that has showdown value against my opponent's possible draws, and will benefit from some fold equity, then I always bet these dominating draws on the turn. Then I'll give up the bluff and check call lots of rivers with these hands. It may seem counter intuitive, or even backwards, but there's nothing better than betting your nut flushdraw on the turn when your opponent also has the flushdraw and is drawing to an offsuit underpair, which is only four outs, and then check calling the river and winning. Dominating straightdraws are not quite as showdownable as the nutty flushdraws, but I still think that missing a turn bet with something like JTs on the 972r 3o board in a 3 bet pot is a big mistake because of all of the worse draws out there, most of which JTs has absolutely dominated.

Also, I know you're a mixed strategy guy. I'm not. If I happen to mix my strategies, it's only because I either don't know the best line in a given spot, or because a read has given me reason to deviate from what I think is the most +ev play in a vacuum. Maybe there's a chance that you're missing +ev bets or raises because of how those bets and raises weaken your strategy. Perhaps you need to reevaluate the benefits and pitfalls of using a mixed strategy. For example, against this big blind with 70% wtsd, balancing your turn check back range seems like a big mistake to me. There's value on the turn, and I think that value far outweighs any possible river exploitation due to having a relatively unshowdownable turn checking range. The guy shows down a ton, so lets value bet him to death on the turn. If and when he wises up to your weak river range and goes bluff heavy in an attempt to exploit you, then it's time to check back more on the turn, not necessarily for balance, but because it's the most +ev play.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2017, 12:57 PM   #12
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Quote:
I know you're a mixed strategy guy. I'm not. If I happen to mix my strategies, it's only because I either don't know the best line in a given spot, or because a read has given me reason to deviate from what I think is the most +ev play in a vacuum.
To add that now? I'm a mixed strategy guy, but I have this loose theory that vs players that deviate far from optimal lines, a pure maximally exploitive strategy is best. For example, never bluffing the weak draws vs the above opponent, but always bluffing the dominating draws vs that same opponent.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 03:36 PM   #13
fisherfolk
grinder
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 403
Re: a brief history of poker theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
a mixed strategy must be used at nearly every decision point.
Do we need to, or benefit from having a separate branch of theory designed to maximize what a normal human can implement without software? It seems that some point we fool ourselves if we think we can randomize correctly with a mixed strategy in a live of tracking free situation. How do we know if the error from poor, but human, implementation of mixed strategies is not large enough to make indifference based strategies better in practice.
fisherfolk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 04:25 PM   #14
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,900
Re: a brief history of poker theory

I think some mixing, even if done at the wrong frequency, is superior to playing a pure strategy.
Bob148 is online now   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online