Two Plus Two Poker Forums Am I missing easy value on the river?
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Video Directory TwoPlusTwo.com

 Notices

 Micro-Small Stakes Limit Discussions about micro-small stakes Texas Hold'em (all stakes up to around 15/30)

 Thread Tools Display Modes
 04-11-2017, 09:52 PM #26 Bob148 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: May 2012 Location: far too young and clever Posts: 8,630 Re: Am I missing easy value on the river? I'm in bed so I can't really explain at the moment. Youre wrong about range construction and gto poker. Sorry.
04-12-2017, 12:47 AM   #27
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 I'm in bed so I can't really explain at the moment. Youre wrong about range construction and gto poker. Sorry.
No need to apologize. Just explain when you have the chance.

 04-12-2017, 07:43 AM #28 Bob148 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: May 2012 Location: far too young and clever Posts: 8,630 Re: Am I missing easy value on the river? For starters, the equilibrium opening ranges for 3+ player poker remain unknown, thus calling any multiway strategy "gto" is a mistake. Equilibrium strategies for real poker are mixed strategies at nearly every decision point; including value hands and bluffs at 100% frequencies will not lead to an equilibrium strategy. The indifference principle is useful only for certain all in situations and some river situations; when ranges are asymmetrical, using a frequency based approach to decide how much of our range we should fold isn't going to give us an equilibrium strategy. True indifference is about forcing our opponent to play a mixed strategy in order to maximize his expectation. We do this by playing a mixed strategy of our own. If our opponent plays a pure strategy, then we should also play a pure strategy. Traditional definitions of value and bluff are being abandoned for preflop, flop, and turn strategies; the profitability of a hand is what matters. Hands derive expectation in a number of ways so putting hands into nice neat categories doesn't tell the whole story. Categorizing hands is a mistake.
04-12-2017, 11:05 AM   #29
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 For starters, the equilibrium opening ranges for 3+ player poker remain unknown, thus calling any multiway strategy "gto" is a mistake.
You'll notice that I called it a "GTO-style" of play. I never claimed that what is suggested is GTO or that GTO is even known.

Quote:
 Equilibrium strategies for real poker are mixed strategies at nearly every decision point; including value hands and bluffs at 100% frequencies will not lead to an equilibrium strategy.
This is true, but irrelevant. It's also irrelevant to the analysis. The range construction process is about building intuition and understanding for how hand ranges interact with each other. The intention is not to declare that this is *THE* way to play the hand.

This is where I believe that you are likely to be making significant overadjustment errors. The arbitrary approach to picking hands with which you alter at random frequencies is likely causing more errors than it is improving your EV by mixing your strategies.

Quote:
 The indifference principle is useful only for certain all in situations and some river situations; when ranges are asymmetrical, using a frequency based approach to decide how much of our range we should fold isn't going to give us an equilibrium strategy.
It was never claimed that this is giving us an equilibrium strategy.

Quote:
 True indifference is about forcing our opponent to play a mixed strategy in order to maximize his expectation. We do this by playing a mixed strategy of our own. If our opponent plays a pure strategy, then we should also play a pure strategy.
This is true insofar as you assume that your opponent's pure strategy is also a fixed strategy. That is, your opponent will never adjust. At the lower levels, this might be true. But this mentality would also lead to a stagnation of overall poker skill development. If you intend to move up, then you should begin to develop habits that are applicable at the higher levels. Feeling out what a baseline strategy might look like is the start of an iteration of strategies, not the end product that should stand for all time.

I'd rather have a methodical choice of mixed strategies than a haphazard approach of "I think I would adjust my KK and KQ completely arbitrarily."

Quote:
 Traditional definitions of value and bluff are being abandoned for preflop, flop, and turn strategies; the profitability of a hand is what matters. Hands derive expectation in a number of ways so putting hands into nice neat categories doesn't tell the whole story.
Nobody ever claimed that it did.

Quote:
 Categorizing hands is a mistake.
Blanket statements like this built on a faulty reading of the post is also a mistake. You seem to have some sort of vendetta against GTO-style play in favor of a more old-school "feel" sort of approach to poker. That's fine. It's your money; play how you want to play. You can even be 100% dismissive of anything remotely reeking of a different theoretical approach to the game.

But those who are able to read and think carefully can see right through the strawman argument you've created against the analysis that was presented.

04-12-2017, 11:20 AM   #30
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012
Location: far too young and clever
Posts: 8,630
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 You seem to have some sort of vendetta against GTO-style play
Not at all. In fact I <3 gto. However, the post linked upthread only has a connection with gto poker because it's about limit texas holdem. Any other similarities between this supposed "gto style" are superficial at best, and utterly misguiding to be frank.

Quote:
 . The range construction process is about building intuition and understanding for how hand ranges interact with each other.
It's building bad intuition imo.

Quote:
 It was never claimed that this is giving us an equilibrium strategy.
Then please stop using the term "gto style."

Quote:
 This is where I believe that you are likely to be making significant overadjustment errors. The arbitrary approach to picking hands with which you alter at random frequencies is likely causing more errors than it is improving your EV by mixing your strategies.
I disagree. When I'm active at a table with lots of preflop raises and postflop action, I get called down much more often compared with the rare times that I'm card dead preflop.

Quote:
 Nobody ever claimed that it did.
Yes, frets entire post is exactly about value:bluff ratios and combos. This approach is only effective on the river.

Quote:
 in favor of a more old-school "feel" sort of approach to poker.
You're wrong. If you had kept up with any of the modern ideas about gto poker, you would know why.

04-12-2017, 11:36 AM   #31
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012
Location: far too young and clever
Posts: 8,630
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 This is where I believe that you are likely to be making significant overadjustment errors. The arbitrary approach to picking hands with which you alter at random frequencies is likely causing more errors than it is improving your EV by mixing your strategies.
It's not random. It's an exploitation of the opponents calling frequency with hands that I consider to be marginal. They call down more often when they think I'm too loose, thus I value bet slightly thinner than I would as default.

04-12-2017, 11:36 AM   #32
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 Then please stop using the term "gto style."
Meh. Given that the two common approaches are GTO-style and exploitative, and that Fret's is clearly not exploitative, I find no issue with the usage. That you want to be particular about it is your own issue.

Quote:
 Yes, frets entire post is exactly about value:bluff ratios and combos. This approach is only effective on the river.
I'll simply repeat myself: Nobody ever claimed that it tells the whole story. A methodical approximation of the solution on a board in which the hand strengths are relatively well defined is better than a haphazard approach.

Quote:
 If you had kept up with any of the modern ideas about gto poker, you would know why.
I'm always amused when people say this sort of thing. Maybe you're right, but you've provided no real evidence for your statement.

04-12-2017, 11:40 AM   #33
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 It's not random. It's an exploitation of the opponents calling frequency with hands that I consider to be marginal. They call down more often when they think I'm too loose, thus I value bet slightly thinner than I would as default.
How much do you think your EV changes by changing your style on precisely these two hands in this particular situation? And on what basis have you chosen just these two particular hands?

I don't disagree with the theory. I just find the application to be arbitrary.

04-12-2017, 11:54 AM   #34
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012
Location: far too young and clever
Posts: 8,630
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Meh. Given that the two common approaches are GTO-style and exploitative, and that Fret's is clearly not exploitative, I find no issue with the usage. That you want to be particular about it is your own issue.
Frets approach is neither exploitive nor gto.

Quote:
 A methodical approximation of the solution on a board in which the hand strengths are relatively well defined is better than a haphazard approach.
I agree, but neither option is as good as a properly mixed strategy that is built on maximally exploiting the opponent's best counter strategy.

Quote:
It's about maximizing expectation. Assume the opponent plays gto: if we are to maximize our expectation vs this opponent, we must play a mixed strategy or else we will not maximize our expectation vs this opponent with few exceptions. Any deviation from equilibrium will result in a loss of ev equal to or greater than zero.

Assume the opponent plays some other non equilibrium strategy, whether it be static or mixed: there will be a maximally exploitive pure strategy that will have an expectation higher than gto would have vs the same opponent. However, when we change our strategy in an attempt to exploit, we become vulnerable to counter exploitation, which is why it's important to exploit exclusively on the margins, with the exception of closing the action with a fold or a call, which must either end the hand on the river, or be an all in situation.

04-12-2017, 12:02 PM   #35
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012
Location: far too young and clever
Posts: 8,630
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 How much do you think your EV changes by changing your style on precisely these two hands in this particular situation? And on what basis have you chosen just these two particular hands?
1) not much. Just a fraction of a big bet.

2) When we have Ax, we block some of our opponent's Ax combos, which makes a value bet quite clear. With KK, our opponent has more Ax combos than when we hold an Ace, thus there will be a significant ev difference between betting KK and Ax here, despite the hands being "close" in absolute value. With KQ, the same logic applies. With QJ, the same logic applies, but if I bet that hand for value, then I become slightly more vulnerable to counter exploitation; gotta draw the line somewhere.

04-12-2017, 03:03 PM   #36
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 1) not much. Just a fraction of a big bet. 2) When we have Ax, we block some of our opponent's Ax combos, which makes a value bet quite clear. (1) With KK, our opponent has more Ax combos than when we hold an Ace, thus there will be a significant ev difference between betting KK and Ax here, despite the hands being "close" in absolute value. With KQ, the same logic applies. (2) With QJ, the same logic applies, but if I bet that hand for value, then I become slightly more vulnerable to counter exploitation; gotta draw the line somewhere.
(1) How significant of a difference do you estimate this to be?
(2) This is precisely the arbitrary nature of your analysis that leads me to believe you're prone to overadjustment. The analysis appears to be not particularly meaningful.

 04-12-2017, 03:05 PM #37 Bob148 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: May 2012 Location: far too young and clever Posts: 8,630 Re: Am I missing easy value on the river? 1) very slight difference. 2) ok.
04-12-2017, 03:09 PM   #38
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 With KK, our opponent has more Ax combos than when we hold an Ace, thus there will be a significant ev difference between betting KK and Ax here, despite the hands being "close" in absolute value.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Aaron W. How significant of a difference do you estimate this to be?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 very slight difference.
This doesn't bode well for the strength of your analysis.

04-12-2017, 03:12 PM   #39
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012
Location: far too young and clever
Posts: 8,630
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

I thought u wanted me to compare the ev of checking or betting KK, which I think is a small difference. The ev of betting KK vs betting Ax will be significant.

Because you asked me this:

Quote:
 How much do you think your EV changes by changing your style on precisely these two hands in this particular situation?
Then you pulled the old bait and switch, which isn't nice.

04-12-2017, 03:13 PM   #40
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 I thought u wanted me to compare the ev of checking or betting KK, which I think is a small difference. The ev of betting KK vs betting Ax will be significant.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Aaron W. (1) How significant of a difference do you estimate this to be?
.

 04-12-2017, 03:28 PM #41 Bob148 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: May 2012 Location: far too young and clever Posts: 8,630 Re: Am I missing easy value on the river? With Ax, I expect to have the best hand over 90% of the time, so my ev will be near (pot). With KK, I expect to have the best hand much less often, perhaps as little as 60% of the time, so my ev will be nowhere near (pot).
04-12-2017, 06:16 PM   #42
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 With Ax, I expect to have the best hand over 90% of the time, so my ev will be near (pot). With KK, I expect to have the best hand much less often, perhaps as little as 60% of the time, so my ev will be nowhere near (pot).
What sort of hand range do you think villain has here?

 04-12-2017, 07:19 PM #43 Bob148 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: May 2012 Location: far too young and clever Posts: 8,630 Re: Am I missing easy value on the river? Like I said it will depend on my cards because of the blocking effect. When I hold KK, I expect my opponent to have Ax or better much more often than when I hold Ax.
04-12-2017, 08:02 PM   #44
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 Like I said it will depend on my cards because of the blocking effect. When I hold KK, I expect my opponent to have Ax or better much more often than when I hold Ax.
You are creating a far from convincing argument that you have any real sense of game theory at all.

Let me put it this way: Do you think that card removal effects account for 30% of a player's hand range?

 04-12-2017, 08:18 PM #45 Bob148 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: May 2012 Location: far too young and clever Posts: 8,630 Re: Am I missing easy value on the river? I haven't done the math or stoves and I'm not really in the mood for your **** tonight. I said enough already. Take it or leave it.
04-12-2017, 08:36 PM   #46
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 I haven't done the math or stoves and I'm not really in the mood for your **** tonight. I said enough already. Take it or leave it.
Your mood is irrelevant to me. And I don't need an answer tonight.

But that you've cited a 30% equity swing on the basis of card removal effects alone doesn't speak well of your analysis. And until you present something else to support your argument, I see no reason to believe anything you've said.

 04-12-2017, 08:37 PM #47 Bob148 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: May 2012 Location: far too young and clever Posts: 8,630 Re: Am I missing easy value on the river? Ok.
04-12-2017, 08:52 PM   #48
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 With Ax, I expect to have the best hand over 90% of the time, so my ev will be near (pot). With KK, I expect to have the best hand much less often, perhaps as little as 60% of the time, so my ev will be nowhere near (pot).
So anyway, for anyone who wants to play around with hand ranges, it would be interesting to see what villain's hand range must look like for there to be a 30% equity drop changing hero's hand from A3 to KK on a A72 board against an identical* range.

Given that your two hole cards don't contain an ace, there are 13 aces and 37 non-aces in the deck, which means there are 481 unpaired-ace hands and 6 pocket aces for a total of 487 hands.

If you hold one ace and one non-ace, there are 12 aces and 38 non-aces in the deck. This leads to 456 unpaired-ace hands and 3 pocket aces for a total of 459 hands. That's not a big difference.

(*All equity calculators automatically take card removal effects into account because if you hold A, the simulator will not deal another A when it's working through the hand ranges. We would say that the ranges are identical if they describe the same collection of hole card combinations even if they don't have exactly the same collection of hands in them when card removal effects are taken into consideration.)

04-12-2017, 10:27 PM   #49
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012
Location: far too young and clever
Posts: 8,630
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

You got the board wrong and we were talking about river equity. Try taking out hands that the small blind would raise somewhere during the hand and also taking out hands that the small blind would fold as the hand progresses. Then run equity calculations and you'll see a significant difference in equity between KdKx and A2o vs the small blinds likely river calling range. Depending on how many naked Ax combos you assume the small blind would raise on the flop or turn, and how often you think the small blind raises preflop, you should find a difference in equity of 20% to 30% when you compare KdKx and A2o.

Quote:
 3 pocket aces
lmfao at including this in your combo count.

04-13-2017, 12:10 AM   #50
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,811
Re: Am I missing easy value on the river?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob148 You got the board wrong and we were talking about river equity.
Right. Because this is *really* convincing with regards to the conversation we've been having about Fret's analysis.

Quote:
 Try taking out hands that the small blind would raise somewhere during the hand and also taking out hands that the small blind would fold as the hand progresses.
Wait... you're asking *ME* to give you hand ranges? After I asked you to give it and your answer was "Well, it depends on what I hold"?

Quote:
 Then run equity calculations and you'll see a significant difference in equity between KdKx and A2o vs the small blinds likely river calling range.
Finally, we're getting to some meat. What do you think the "likely river calling range" looks like?

Quote:
 lmfao at including this in your combo count.
I'm just showing you all the numbers instead of trying to pull numbers out of my rear end. It's actually the *most* favorable aspect of card removal effects because it reduces the number of those types of hands in half as opposed to dropping just a few percent.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Two Plus Two     Two Plus Two Magazine Forum     The Best of Two Plus Two     The Two Plus Two Bonus Program     Two Plus Two Pokercast     Two Plus Two Videos     Marketplace         General Marketplace         Staking - Offering Stakes         Staking - Seeking Stakes         Staking - Selling Shares - Online         Staking - Selling Shares - Live         Staking Rails         Transaction Feedback & Disputes     Commercial Marketplace     Staking - Offering Stakes     About the Forums Fantasy Sports     Fantasy Sports         Sporting Events General Poker Discussion     Beginners Questions     Live Casino Poker         Poker Venues         Regional Communities     Poker Goals & Challenges     Books and Publications     Poker Theory     Poker Tells/Behavior, hosted by: Zachary Elwood     News, Views, and Gossip     Twitch - Watch and Discuss Live Online Poker     Televised Poker     Home Poker     Poker Legislation & PPA Discussion hosted by Rich Muny     That's What She Said!     Poker Beats, Brags, and Variance Coaching/Training     Coaching Advice     Cash Game Poker Coach Listings     Tournament/SNG Poker Coach Listings International Forums     Deutsch         BBV [German]     Français     Two Plus Two en Español No Limit Hold'em     Medium-High Stakes PL/NL     Micro-Small Stakes PL/NL     Medium-High Stakes Full Ring     Micro-Small Stakes Full Ring     Heads Up NL     Live Low-stakes NL Limit Texas Hold'em     Mid-High Stakes Limit     Micro-Small Stakes Limit Tournament Poker     STT Strategy     Heads Up SNG and Spin and Gos     Mid-High Stakes MTT     Small Stakes MTT     MTT Community     MTTc - Live         WPT.com Other Poker     High Stakes PL Omaha     Small Stakes PL Omaha     Omaha/8     Stud     Draw and Other Poker General Gambling     Backgammon Forum hosted by Bill Robertie.     Probability     Psychology     Sports Betting     Other Gambling Games Internet Poker     Internet Poker         Winning Poker Network         nj.partypoker.com         Global Poker     Commercial Software     Software         Commercial Software         Free Software     nj.partypoker.com         WPT.com 2+2 Communities     Other Other Topics         OOTV         Game of Thrones     The Lounge: Discussion+Review     EDF     Las Vegas Lifestyle     BBV4Life         omg omg omg     House of Blogs Sports and Games     Sporting Events         Single-Team Season Threads         Fantasy Sports     Wrestling     Golf     Pool, Snooker, and Billiards     Chess and Other Board Games     Video Games         League of Legends         Hearthstone     Puzzles and Other Games Other Topics     Politics         Economics     Business, Finance, and Investing     Travel     Science, Math, and Philosophy     History     Religion, God, and Theology     Health and Fitness     Student Life     The Studio     Laughs or Links!     Computer Technical Help     Programming

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 PM.

 Contact Us - Two Plus Two Publishing LLC - Privacy Statement - Top