If it wasn't bad marketing I probably would have named that program "Project Ragnarök." That being said, it's still somewhat limited in its capacity, but the 2.0 version is going to be double-disgusting.

you say bad marketing, i say awesome

Ridiculously overblown statement of the day:

After one sim I am 90% convinced that raising 27o is awesome and there is no balancing issue whatsoever and there is no effective counter strategy.

(towards bobbofittos

Ok I'm trying to understand you but please also try to understand me even though I'm just a 400nl HU player.

We're just talking about the bottom % of hands (like 72o) that you would raise and I would fold, so that's just a small % of the hands. Ofcourse we're not giving up a .5bb edge on EVERY hand.

I know the small pots are the most important in HU, but again, I'm talking about the very few hands you would raise and I wouldn't, not EVERY hand.

I'm really not trying to be an ass but how is this not applicable? Isn't the .5bb edge false because you're not checking down all streets and so quite some hands you're ahead of will push you out of the pot?

I myself play very loose pf too and I agree very much on you saying small pots are the lifeblood of HU, I'm just trying to say that it might only give you a super small increase in winrate if you DO raise these bottom % of hands, but if you don't play them very well it can cause a much bigger drop in winrate. Besides that it makes it harder to control the game imo. I just don't think it's worth the effort and risk (and no I don't think I play like a nit at all lol).

It means you are giving up a .5bb edge on 20% of your hands. With also a metagame aspect that, game theoretically, has to help the rest of your range. This is $10 20% of the hands or $2 a hand. This is some people's entire edge playing HU. Scary.

edit: Only on button. So $1 a hand. Still respectable.

where do i get this stoxEV thing?

www.stoxpoker.com

dont see where to buy it tho

could someone clue me in as to why or how bobbo and xorbie have become the experts on this topic?

so far krantz and raptor have both said 100% is not optimal (i think taylor also said something to this effect)

aej also chimed in as to not optimal

ec10 and myself are two of the better 5/10 hu regs...and i know were both in agreement on this. id be interested in hearing pasterbator, mastr's thoughts on this as well as other hs guys if they have time.

ive read the thread, although not with a microscope, and it seems like u 100% ppls argument is like "ya, well it might not be optimal, but its still profitable" Do either of you even play much HU?

So you basically didn't understand what you read.

*sigh* if ur point is that its profitable to raise every bn in a vacuum alone then who the fk cares (why does this thread exist). if ur saying that it's part of an optimal HU strategy then I think you are very wrong and my prior post applies.

Yep, the guys with real EXPERIENCE are always the best at understanding poker, clearly. Also please try to explain how "in a vacuum" and "optimal" are different, given both, at least to me, are about the unexploitable play, i.e regardless of villain. EC10 has been rather clueless in every discussion about poker theory I've seen on 2p2 so his opinion I could not really care less about.

nah you're definitely right. experience is so overrated. everyone knows xorbie/bobbofittos/mdma > krantz/raptor/green plastic when it comes to optimal hu play!

and maybe i can help with that question you have for jsnipes: unexploitable play is not optimal.

I'll tell you guys what, let's play. I open 100% of my buttons, you guys (whichever) play however you like and pay me whatever you think is the -EV of raising the bottom 20% of my range. You guys both have a lot more HU experience than I do and surely should be better at every other aspect of the game.

lol EC10, you just put on the clown shoes

my intention was just to agree that, ya, if play ends after we raise the bn then raising 100% of buttons is great. however, raising 100% of buttons is not part of an optimal strategy. playing unexploitable is not the most profitable strategy


This is what I was saying earlier MDMA when i said "100% ppls argument is hey, it can be profitable, just not most profitable" In the above scenario I think durr would win vs most players, but at any rate, even if opening 100% was profitable against him, is it the most profitable strategy? If that's all we're arguing, is if it's profitable, I just don't see the point. It seems clear to me that it's just not the most profitable and I don't understand why anyone would take a less profitable strategy (except people like to boost their e-peens by saying they are such badasses and raise 100% of bns)

jsnipes,

You really think durr (or anyone) could play winning poker in a HU match that he is OOP the entire time on the but the other player has to play 100% VPIP? No way. That's laughable, really.

FWIW 23o is the worst HU starting hand.

Yes, it would be profitable to raise 100% buttons if the hand ends before the flop is dealt, and this is where you are decieved into thinking your math is impeccable.

I think most of the argument in this thread has to do with the fact that many people involved in it are not keen on the precise definitions of the words they are using..

The various responses this thread have received entertain me.

At dinner, on phone. But I shouldve said that durrr would likely be + from bb in a match against a lot of ppl

Also, ur arrogance is shocking

Yeah and I think it's ridiculous (like a 3rd person arrogance) that you think durr would be +EV in the BB against anyone who is decent at HU.

you do not greatly weaken your postflop ranges by expanding your preflop range from 80% of hands to 100% of hands. on nearly all boards you increase the # of unpaired hands by <1% and decrease "showdownable" hands of all kinds by <1% (tp+, mp, <mp, strong draws on flop/turn, etc.), which isnt all that much. balancing isnt going to be the deciding factor.

i dont have an opinion on raising 72o hu. i do think your opponent will become less complaisant and more difficult to read, and that's bad. and i do think you limit the flexibility of your "meta-strategy" (the "cat and mouse" game of adjustment and counteradjustment, or rock-paper-scissors). but i dont know.

I don't think you quite have the right understanding of the term "optimal strategy" EC10/jsnipes.

edit: Just noticed Lefort beat me to it.

seriously, why do you feel like you are any kind of authority on HU strategy? because of some sklansky-esque BS math pulled out of your ass? have you even played 10,000 hands of HU lifetime?

and LOL at thinking durr is not tough enough and smart enough to adjust and play profitably from the BB vs {random mediocre player} playing 100% of their hands. i am almost certain that if durr didn't have something better to do he would play, say for example, YOU, given those stipulations.

your whole argument is invalid because HU hands do not occur inside a vacuum and the fact that the most inexploitable strategy is not the most profitable one. and your challenge to me and jsnipes makes it obvious that you don't get the point i am trying to make. i WILL however give you unlimited action at HU, you can raise 100% of your btns and i will pay you your magical .5 BB every time you win a pot with 72o.