i guess my point was that the s-c numbers are of very very little use for anything (including sb shoving) if villain can't see your cards.

They're useful for exactly one thing:

The "should I ever even consider folding this hand" sanity check. If a hand is a shove by s-c, then you should never ever ever ever ever ever open-fold it.

And yes, some people shove so tight from the SB that this is relevant.

Sorry if this has been answered somewhere in the thread already.

I've noticed that most villains (at the micros) call way too tight out of the big blind, and it's profitable to shove wider than Nash. What general trends do you see as far as people shoving from the BTN? Do people shove wider than Nash? Do people shove a tighter range than Nash?

Thanks for the information, this is going in my favourites

Did you ever figure out what really goes on here with 97o vs K5o for their respective pushing stack sizes?

Nice thread, ty!

Tks dude^^

Good first post.

nichlemn why are u reading DrModern posts? (got stuck reading his ask a wittgestenian thread)

It's more a reference to his posts being lengthy and verbose than a stamp of endorsement (though it is that too).

I read the whole thread but didnt see an easy to understand, definitive answer to the whole single hand or range being +ev for pushing in determining Nash. Can I clarify that:

- Pusher picks a range to shove they think will be +ev as a whole (not individually)
- Caller evaluates single hands vs. that range to come up with a calling range which are all individually +ev
- Pusher then refines their pushing range to add/remove hands which increase ev of range as a whole (not individually)
- etc. till equilibrium

So pusher has a +ev range vs. caller range, with some hands being individually -ev vs. that range, and caller has +ev hands only making up their range.

-EV hands cannot be part of a Nash equilibrium, because the player can unilaterally improve by folding them.

Their arguments seemed off to me. K5o has more fold equity (card removal effect) than 97o so it doesn't need to do as well against their calling range. Basicly its more +ev to shove so its a shove.

Thread was possibly worth a bump anyway, so bump.

showing that your ranges contradict the definition of nash equilibrium doesnt mean the definition's wrong -- it means your ranges are wrong :-p. that is, the chart you read off doesnt represent the exact equilibrium strategy. don't worry, though -- it's close.

but it's still all about the equity.

nah, if this were the case then there'd just be a mixed strategy for those hands

so yea, the issue is that the ranges given at holdemresources.net are just not quite right. not that big a deal though. obv just the fact that it shows the data in that chart form makes it impossible to indicate a lot of strategies, including when some are mixed.

for example, a better approximation of the equilibrium strategy at 14.2bbs is:

sb shoves
{22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q4s+,J5s+,T6s+,95s+,85s+,74s+,64s+, 53s+,A2o+,K6o+,Q9o+,J9o+,T8o+,98o,87o,76o}

bb calls
{22+,A2s+,K6s+,Q9s+,JTs+,A2o+,K9o+,QTo+,J9s about 66% of the time, K8s about 35% of the time}

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It still comes down to EV but we didn't take into account extra fold equity from the K blocker.

As mentioned before, this doesnt go against the nash equilibrium definition. K5o has higher EV / more fold equity due to the K-blocker.

Beta Calc gives me:

sb shoves
48.1%, 22+ Ax+ K2s+ K5o+ Q4s+ Q9o+ J5s+ J9o+ T6s+ T8o+ 95s+ 98o 85s+ 87o 75s+ 64s+ 54s
bb calls
29.1%, 22+ Ax+ K6s+ K9o+ Q9s+ QTo+ JTs

These ranges appear to be a perfect NE, all +EV hands are pushed/called, all -EV hands folded. You can check the EVs at the link above.

tnxion seemed to think it did, and i think it's worth pointing out that if it did, that would only mean the ranges were bad, not that a nash equilibrium isnt a nash equilibrium.

well, the chart is inaccurate, but about the exact ranges, you're totally right.

good point about the card elimination effects. i was neglecting that in my calculations, so thx for correcting me.

You first say, that if any player deviates from the equilibrium solution he will be EV- (and the player following the equilibrium will be EV+).

Then you go on to say you wouldn't use the calling chart if you think your opponent isn't using it, because it will be EV-.

The calling chart should be unexploitable if i understand it correctly so it should always be EV neutral at worst. Granted, against many players there are better calling ranges which exploit their shoving range. But it still should be EV neutral or better.

Or did i understand something wrong?

As an overall big blind/small blind combined strategy this is correct.

He doesn't actually say this. He just says it's better not to use the calling chart which means it is better EV to exploit our opponent's non nash range.

Nash doesn't actually require that equilibrium strategy is EV neutral for both sides. What it means is that no side can do better without the other side changing first. Being in the small blind or big blind might be an overall advantage and in fact being in the big blind is if we require the small blind to only push or fold. In the solved Nash equilibrium for the push/fold game being in the big blind is slightly +EV and being in the small blind is slightly -EV when the stacks are above 7 big blinds.

Yeah, the key idea there is "unexploitable" doesn't mean 0EV. If you have to pick a number between 1 and 10 and if I get it right I get $50, it's unexploitable to randomize your choice. But you still lose $5 on average.

is there any kind souls who can tell me in simple words what you have to understand of those 3 systems ?..........

i cant beleive some dudes play with that grid on the side calculating their PI before acting when shorstack..........? ........ am i so stupid ?...... lol

wtf do u think OP is?

perfectly dont know ! lol

OP ?...... On Position ....? lol .... no really keep one second your awesome acronym language to talk to me in english . ty... oops sorry thanks you.

OP = original post. google any acronyms you don't know, because based on your posts yes you are so stupid.