*SnG Solver* - open beta
09-09-2011
, 08:01 PM
09-10-2011
, 12:39 PM
09-10-2011
, 03:11 PM
Quote:
So you agree that there is no difference in naive evaluation between standard icm and your icm [advanced icm]? That is to say, is BOTH of the following true:
1. Using only standard icm and future game evaluations, one can arrive at the same results you do
2. When future game evaluations are no longer allowed, when evaluating your advanced icm function on the current leaf node, is it different than evaluating the standard icm function on that same leaf node?
1. Using only standard icm and future game evaluations, one can arrive at the same results you do
2. When future game evaluations are no longer allowed, when evaluating your advanced icm function on the current leaf node, is it different than evaluating the standard icm function on that same leaf node?
1) it is not enough to just apply standard ICM equations to future game nodes
2) if you disallow processing of future nodes, you are no longer doing "Advanced ICM". Ergo, if you apply "Advanced ICM" to a leaf node, you have created a paradox
09-10-2011
, 03:33 PM
I do apologize for the size of the download, it couldn't be helped. Hopefully you'll find it was worth it.
09-10-2011
, 06:58 PM
09-10-2011
, 09:18 PM
09-10-2011
, 09:29 PM
Quote:
The future depth is always *at least* 1... that is, I always fully solve for at least the next hand. How far beyond that is somewhat variable... with extra depth focused on areas that are deemed to be more important. So I guess, yes, this does help minimize the "horizon effect" you mentioned. But I think also this is much less a problem for poker as opposed to, say, chess. In a game like chess, an entire branch of the game tree might have an actual "equity" of zero, but this is never true in poker. So, the effects of becoming "trapped" can never be as devastating.
The "with extra depth focused on areas that are deemed to be more important" comment though, it sounds like you are doing something akin to a "quiescence search" and if so this should lessen the problems associated with the horizon effect.
It would still be interesting to see how much difference you get between searches each depth in turn as this should help show where your idea is an improvement on current software (see my post above requesting worked examples, etc).
Quote:
And yes, I do use a standard (Harville) ICM to evaluate the leaf nodes... at least for now. But ironically, I might end up using a *worse* model (like proportional equity) in some spots instead because if faster leaf processing can lead to additional depth, the value of that depth can trump accuracy at the leafs.
Somewhere on 2+2 there is a good thread about difference approaches to approximating tournament equity (you may well have read it already?) and IIRC, some of them are cheaper to calculate that ICM (although less accurate), but these may well be useful to you though.
Juk
09-14-2011
, 04:40 AM
OKAY
I think if we look at some basic numbers, some pretty clear distinctions will emerge. Lets compare some equity estimations between SitNGo Wizard, holdemresources.net, and SnG Solver. Calculating stack equity is going to be the *core* of any kind of strategy analysis we eventually want to make.
Lets imagine a simple scenario... but one where the players are short stacked, short handed, and near the bubble. We've got 5 players with 500 chips each. Blinds are 100/50 with a 500-300-200 payout structure.
So first thing actually, lets see what a "standard" ICM calculator will say about this scenario:
Since the standard ICM model only takes stack sizes and payouts as inputs, it can only think that equal stacks must have the same equity. Everyone (hopefully) knows this does not match reality. We know that the 500 chips on the BTN is worth more than the 500 chips UTG. We may not be able to say how much more, be we know that it must be more because of the advantage of position. So thats problem #1 for the standard ICM model.
Problem #2 is that it doesnt make sense that the SB and BB have the same equity since they are forced to commit some of their chips into the pot whether they like it or not. Clearly, they should have at least some amount of reduced equity relative to the BTN since they have donated chips to the pot that are now vulnerable to attack.
Already, it should hopefully be clear that standard ICM all by itself has some serious issues.
Okay, let put our scenario into the calculator at holdemresources.net:
Okay, well there's clearly some improvement in representing the loss of equity from the stacks in the blinds. But right away, we see the values from the other positions dont match what we know to be true in reality.
According to this anaylsis the stack UTG is more valuable than the stack on the BTN. If you were sitting at the BTN in this tournament would you want to trade seats with the UTG player? Me neither.
SitNGo Wizard doesnt seem to have an "equity display" that just shows the value of each stack (unless I'm missing something... someone please correct me if I am). But you can get a "EQ Fold" for each stack. This is not exactly the same thing as stack equity, but these values should follow the same pattern as what a calculated total equity would be.
Here again, we've got some numbers that are not what we should expect. Like holdemresrouces.net, SitNGo Wizard is also trying to tell us that the stack UTG has an equity advantage over the rest of the table.
So now lets see what SnG Solver says.
Ah ha! At last, some numbers that make sense... The BTN has the most equity, followed by the CO. Next, even though the SB has to put up some "dead" equity, the fact that it has good position (both for attack potential on the BB and that it has a long way to go before the blinds) has made up for it. Finally, the BB is clearly the loser here... lots of "dead" equity, it is vulnerable to attack and the next hand it must put up even more of its stack in the SB. These are numbers that are consistent with good poker thinking.... and therefore the best chance to a good foundation to support later analysis.
Again, I am not trying to bash either holdemresources or SitNGo Wizard... they have both been a tremendous benefit to the poker community. But its also true that they both have some fundamental limitations that keep their analysis from being the best possible.
I think if we look at some basic numbers, some pretty clear distinctions will emerge. Lets compare some equity estimations between SitNGo Wizard, holdemresources.net, and SnG Solver. Calculating stack equity is going to be the *core* of any kind of strategy analysis we eventually want to make.
Lets imagine a simple scenario... but one where the players are short stacked, short handed, and near the bubble. We've got 5 players with 500 chips each. Blinds are 100/50 with a 500-300-200 payout structure.
So first thing actually, lets see what a "standard" ICM calculator will say about this scenario:
Code:
"Standard" ICM
Equity
UTG: 200.0
CO: 200.0
BTN: 200.0
SB: 200.0
BB: 200.0
Problem #2 is that it doesnt make sense that the SB and BB have the same equity since they are forced to commit some of their chips into the pot whether they like it or not. Clearly, they should have at least some amount of reduced equity relative to the BTN since they have donated chips to the pot that are now vulnerable to attack.
Already, it should hopefully be clear that standard ICM all by itself has some serious issues.
Okay, let put our scenario into the calculator at holdemresources.net:
Code:
holdemresources.net ICM Nash Calculator Results EQ post UTG: 209.4 CO: 209.4 BTN: 209.3 SB: 193.2 BB: 178.7
According to this anaylsis the stack UTG is more valuable than the stack on the BTN. If you were sitting at the BTN in this tournament would you want to trade seats with the UTG player? Me neither.
SitNGo Wizard doesnt seem to have an "equity display" that just shows the value of each stack (unless I'm missing something... someone please correct me if I am). But you can get a "EQ Fold" for each stack. This is not exactly the same thing as stack equity, but these values should follow the same pattern as what a calculated total equity would be.
Code:
SitNGo Wizard
"EQ Fold"
UTG: 216.0
CO: 209.8
BTN: 203.7
SB: 189.5
BB: 168.3
So now lets see what SnG Solver says.
Code:
SnG Solver
Equity
UTG: 189.1
CO: 216.4
BTN: 218.3
SB: 201.3
BB: 174.9
The BTN has the most equity, followed by the CO. Next, even though the SB has to put up some "dead" equity, the fact that it has good position (both for attack potential on the BB and that it has a long way to go before the blinds) has made up for it. Finally, the BB is clearly the loser here... lots of "dead" equity, it is vulnerable to attack and the next hand it must put up even more of its stack in the SB. These are numbers that are consistent with good poker thinking.... and therefore the best chance to a good foundation to support later analysis. Again, I am not trying to bash either holdemresources or SitNGo Wizard... they have both been a tremendous benefit to the poker community. But its also true that they both have some fundamental limitations that keep their analysis from being the best possible.
Last edited by sng_jason; 09-14-2011 at 04:52 AM.
Reason: typos
09-14-2011
, 06:33 AM
09-14-2011
, 02:08 PM
09-14-2011
, 02:45 PM
09-14-2011
, 09:15 PM
09-14-2011
, 09:20 PM
09-14-2011
, 09:32 PM
09-14-2011
, 09:43 PM