@TheJacob
Very interesting perspective. That's what I was thinking in the beginning too. Damn! Just when I got convinced that I shouldn't memorize something like that.

Hmm prove me wrong. Come to 50$+ games and crush them with nash strategy. Notice you cant play any hands other than push and fold. (starting from bb 20).

You are welcome at hyperturbo STT too, in case you wish to quickly get into better BB relative stack size arena.

Also you could try to run 6 nash bots in 6 max sng with 8% rake and see if they show profit.

First, most of the super turbos I've played were on FTP and cake(last year).

I think Nash bots could certainly beat the 6max SuperTurbos on FTP up to $20. I have a feeling if programmed to game select they could beat higher games as well.

Why anyone would make a straight nash bot is beyond me though.

I was addressing someone suggesting bots aren't running around because they wouldn't be profitable. If I were programming a bot it certainly wouldn't be a straight nash bot and I'm fairly confident under a structure like FTPs I could program a bot to beat virtually any stakes.

Also, your "Come run 6 nash bots" is extremely stupid. I couldn't win in any poker variant playing 5 other versions of myself, but guess what I've made money playing poker.

No strategy beats itself lol.

You adjust to players, stacksizes, players left,etc. All of which come from a ICM calculation. Your right most situations don't come directly from a chart or a calculation you did in SNGwiz or elsewhere, but the decision you make is directly related to the knowledge you have from there.

As I said you extrapolate from the calculations you have done that most closely resemble the situation.

You aren't really adjusting to players.

Your calling range is entirely dependent on their shoving range and vice versa.

The idea I have some static chart that doesn't take that into account is wrong.

Also, I made the post trying to point out that your chart/calculations are the #1 most important thing in Hyper/Super turbo SNGs. I wasn't suggesting nothing else is involved. Others seem to think you can't beat Hyper/super turbos with simple memorization and I'm confident they are wrong.

What about limpers or raisers before you ?

Its not stupid, if bots were around games would be instantly dead and there would be literally noone to play, I hope you can extrapolate such situation. While they are they underground of-course games can continue for some time, yet once they are out games die.

As for "not being nash bots" - of course not nash bots would beat the game. I was saying that nash bots won't beat the game cause nash strategy is useless in real games, and you kinda confirm it so ok.

Nash bots could have definitely beaten the FTP superturbos pre-black friday.

How high they could beat I can't say.

Raises are calculated in this chart.

^yeah, all-in raises, so called shoves.

this chart is a good place to start but there are many more variables you have to take into account to make a decent hourly. I'm probably running a bit above EV but im beating 6 max hypers for about 8-9% pre rakeback roi over 4000 games so far.

I actually pulled up this same chart when i starting grinding hypers but there are so many other factors you have to take into account. If you want to pay me for coaching i'd teach you =) otherwise gl

$7 stars ones? I'm getting about the same ROI over about the same sample. Never used a chart though, just my basic ICM and game dynamics knowledge

If you're at $7 Stars pm me your SN curious who you are .

wish i could play on stars

fwiw, here's a chart I made for 10bb, 6max, 65/35 payouts...

Its made with an algorithm that simulates future rounds of play so I believe its going to be... better

which do not include mini-raises...

Bubble and HU play are much more important than early game pushing range.

Charts are good to let you have idea how wide you should push/call but not much more.

^not even that.

chart seems like a good idea, i will try it too.

I encourage more people to use this strategy and play as many tables as possible, because more tables=more $

Nash is unexploitable not an optimal solution.Its only optimal if all other players play according to Nash which is never the case.So for optimal pl;ay you have to adjust your Push/Call ranges to their ranges.This is called POKER.The charts are simulations of a mathematical model that does not exist in the real world.Its an equilibriam baseline if everyone is following the model(which they are not).
Most importantly there are too many variables that the model does not take into account mentioned elsewhere above in the threads.These adjustments is where your ROI comes from not the model.Even if the model is unexploitable in terms of play in reality you pay rake so you have to cover it first then you make all sorts of mistakes like clicking,wrong table decisions,model application mistakes ect. which hit you ROI as well so to make a profit you need to maximize your +EV decisions not just playing unexploitable game.

Why are u pushing same range from UTG+1 as from UTG.That cant be right esp. in a 6 max.

Why are u pushing same range from UTG+1 as from UTG.That cant be right esp. in a 6 max.

Saying that you believe that "its going to be better" with rolledeyes is nice.

Its still useless because its not related to real poker though where you plan to win $ not make breakeven plays, as chav highlights ( pretty much 100% same position as I state in some posts above)

Also its pretty obvious there are mistakes in it as chav noticed utg+1 and utg ranges gotta be different.

There are going to be competing factors that determine the range for each position. The "later" the position, the wider the ranges will tend to get because we are less likely to be called because there are fewer players that we need to "get through". But as the stacks get shorter and the blinds approach, our situation becomes more "urgent" and our ranges get wider also.

At some point there is going to be an equilibrium between stack sizes, players left to act, and impending blinds that will cause the UTG and UTG+1 players to have the same range. It just so happens that the scenario in this chart is an example of that point.

If I re-calc this scenario but with 20bb stacks instead of 10bb, I get these open-push ranges:

UTG: 9.2%
UTG+1: 11.6%
CO: 11.9%
BTN: 15.8%
SB: 49.0%

and here is with 6bb:

UTG: 28.2%
UTG+1: 26.1%
CO: 31.2%
BTN: 36.3%
SB: 62.6%

When we're deep, impending blinds dont factor into our strategy as much as when we're shallow.
I'd like to hear more about any "obvious" mistakes you notice... is there some range in that chart that you think is prone to being exploited? If so we can investigate the math as to why you think so.

So you are saying basically that with 6BBs you can push wider from UTG than UTG+1?
No way this is true for any stack size.
Below is from Nash(hldmresources):

Level: 50.0/100.0/10.0
Structure: 0.65/0.35
Players: 6
Runtime: 46ms [300 Iterations]

Player Stack Push% EQPre EQPost EQDiff
UTG 600. 25.5% 0.1667 0.1717 0.00499
UTG+1600 30.9% 0.1667 0.172 0.00528
CO 600.0 33.6% 0.1667 0.1723 0.00562
BU 600.0 41.2% 0.1667 0.1724 0.00574
SB 600.0 79.8% 0.1667 0.1609 -0.00572
BB 600.0 0.1667 0.1508 -0.0159
You can also try Icimizer(nice and free ICM calculator) to customize ranges and you will see equity of push is always better for UTG+1 compared to UTG for the same ranges.

I belive nash(and ICM obv.) doesnt take into account that you are going to post blind next hand that is 1/5 or 1/6th of your stack.

for me on very shallow stack UTG is like new button, you need to ship any decent looking card, cose guess what, next hand you probably gonna call with crap cose of odds or fold and go down to 3bbs cose there is almost no way you will be able to push sb vs bb hand after that first in.

basically my take on it is: if you fold utg at shallow stack you throw your skills outside the window and hope to get dealt nice hand within 2-3 hands to double up, thats purily counting on LUCK.

the ranges from holdemresources.net are only an approximation of a Nash equilibrium. It says so right on the page. One of the differences is that a true Nash equilibrium would account for future rounds of play, movement of the blinds and other factors that holdemresources does not. Also, holdemresources relies on the standard ICM equations which are massively flawed because, again, they do not account for position or many other important poker strategy factors.

The ranges that I posted are going to be a *better approximation* of a Nash equilibrium because they were made from a program (SnG Solver) that simulates thousands of "what if" situations from future rounds of play. This results in a much more plausible equity model than standard ICM and ultimately better strategies.

The analysis from any tool based on standard ICM equations (sngwiz, holdemresourses, icmizer, etc...) is going to get worse as the stacks get shallower or as position becomes more important.

Heres a post were I go over some of the numbers:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=38

full disclaimer: I wrote SnG Solver

Plug these numbers in and tell me that you trust this nash calculator:

3-handed: 1500, 1000, 500 stacks
50/100/20 blinds
50/50/0 structure

http://www.holdemresources.net/hr/sn...6=&s7=&s8=&s9=