I've definitely done my share of gamestarting over the years at small stakes online limit holdem. I've not studied the famous bot Cepheus much, not in over a year, and I think there's still room for exploitive profits at heads up limit holdem, depending on rake of course.

Because of the rake problem, playing heads up at a 2 max table just doesn't make sense, which is why you don't see the format spread often. However, I've been playing some 2% rake heads up sit n go games recently, perhaps even vs some of you.

So it begins.

I just beat Cepheus by 85.

They will say things like "good luck building your bot." and "you're a sitebot." etc. Don't let it get you down. Some will refuse to play you if you're too good. I think these players are the ones that will never make it in the long run. Gamestarting yet refusing to play is just about the lamest behavior I've seen in all of my online pokering.

Some people are just jerks, but let's leave them out of the equation. Can you see why someone might not want to game start with someone they think is decent at poker?

Yes I see why Doug, but I still think it's pretty lame to sit an empty table only to sit out when I join.

Where?!?!

Which site for game starting? Which site for the SNGs?

I've gamestarted on PokerStars, FullTilt, UltimateBet, Most of the WPN skins, swcpoker, carbonpoker, and probably some that I'm forgetting.

I discovered the 2% rake husng on swcpoker, which is quite reasonable imo.

My pet hate: seeing a head-up game at a 6max table, sitting in, and one of the two players quits their big blind.

Same as being buttoned by a game starter.

Why the f hasn't any software addressed these issues? A complete fix may be tough, but so many ways to at least improve on the situation.

If I had a nickel for every time I've been buttoned? lol.

I've discussed potential fixes with other players, such as a minimum number of hand requirement. Also, I think this is relevant:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...light=grimming

http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/

This is my current understanding of heads up poker ev. Cross posting from the theory forum for more points of view. Edit: Should read: folds 7 combos of Q8..........calls 9 combos of Q8.

For those wondering where some of the combos of certain hands went: this is due to mixing on the turn. The weaker my draw, the less often I bet it on that particular turn.

Very interestingly, imo, this is not the first time this number showed up in my analysis. Notice that it shows up when we do this:

(pot - ev of bluffing and checking Q4)/(pot) = button's pot share expressed as a fraction of the pot, or a percentage like this:

(6.25 - 0.4075)/(6.25) = 93.48% of the pot belongs to the button, which is almost identical to the sum of the evs which the button receives from the pot as shown above:

Maybe it's a coincidence, but I think it indicates that (QT) is at or near ev neutral between (bet/check) as both options are quite profitable. Since I chose this hand as the bottom of my value range? I'm quite happy with this coincidence.

Also, this means that (big blinds pot share) is equal to (ev of bluffing Q4) is equal to (ev of checking Q4) is equal to (ev of check calling J3s).

correction:

I had a long analysis typed up but the internets ate my homework. Here's the important part:

QTo is near ev neutral as a bet or a check; it's quite profitable either way.

Despite having big equity, 99 seems to earn more as a check:

90.91% equity for 99 vs the big blinds checking range. That means we can check back and earn (6.25*90.91%) = 5.681875 big bets of checking ev.

If we bet 99:

we win (7.25*19.41%) = 1.407225 - 1 big bet invested = 0.407225 big bets.

we win (8.25*88.11%*80.59%) = 5.8581475 big bets of profit - 1 big bet invested = 4.8581475 big bets of profit.

added together: +5.2653725 big bets of profit betting 99.

despite having well >50% equity vs the calling range, checking is better with 99.

Unless I made a terrible mistake here, I think this is good.

Had another long analysis typed up but the internets ate my homework again.

cliffs:

standard pot limit (0,1) game with one pot sized bet left.

the results?

player B's total ev = 75% pot/hand

player A's total ev = 25% pot/hand

Now, the equation a few posts back did not correctly predict the button's pot share, but I think the catch is that both players can hold (.4) without removal effects. The difference between the prediction (87.5% pot share) and the result (75% pot share) is exactly the fraction of the pot that player A is entitled to forfeit at will without fear of exploitation. Thus there is no loss of value.

I think.

Actually I think that conclusion is wrong, or misguided. Instead:

Since (.7), which player A holds at 25% frequency, can beat exactly 50% of player B's value hands, then we see the difference:

player A's ev = 25% pot/hand

player A's ev broken down:

(.4) = 0ev fold
(.5) = 0ev fold
(.6) = 25% 0ev fold; 75% 0ev call.
(.7) = +1 pot +ev call.

So I think I need to tweak the equation that I believe predicts player B's share:

[pot - (2* value of checking/bluffing)/(pot)] = player B's average pot share.

(pot - player B's avg pot share)/(pot) = player A's complementary pot share.

The (2) is bolded to note that it's there because player B has bet, thus doubling the pot size.

cross post for posterity:
big blind's ev:

( 0.6312 * 8.25) = 5.2074 big bets -1 big bet investment = 4.2074 big bets profit earned by hands that can beat QT. * 30 = 126.22 big bets profit/range

(0.9184782) 0ev call/fold range for everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------
total: 126.22 big bets/368 combos in range = 34.29945% pot share for the big blind per hand. *6.25 = 2.1437156 big bets/hand for the big blind.

Thus the button must have a complementary share in the pot:

1 - .3429945 = 65.7055% pot share for the button per hand. * 6.25 = 4.1062843 big bets/hand for the button.