poker cant be put into charts for the most part

^and still this is page 6 of a pointless thread...

Are you saying that because of the shoving or the calling ranges ti generates?



@urinpain
It's not pointless because I have heard many interesting opinions and learned a lot about Nash and ICM. I hope others learned something too.

Its obvious to me that situation has to be pretty special in order for UTG and UTG+1 range be the same, when we are considering open push.

It will also be obvious to any real SNG player (correct me if I am wrong here guys).

Except you I guess. All your "math" is hidden behind and you cannot produce actual formulas you used to come up with that table.

You play it all oracle style: "here is the chart from my program and its better than other charts, however I cannot even describe how I came up with it. Weird results aren't weird, they are calculated using propriate formulas which produce better results than any other software in the world."

Notice that in plexiqs chart utg +1 range is wider than UTG range. It can be more slim in other chart, it can be wider, but when its exactlyt THE SAME its obviously wrong.

The idea that UTG must always have a tighter push range than later positions, regardless of stack size, seems pretty obviously absurd to me. I explained the logic of this a few posts back. You disagree with that logic?

I have made many posts on these forums explaining how my software (SnG Solver) works. Apparently you missed them so I will briefly explain again here:

I create a game tree that includes all possible future outcomes (for up to 3-way action)... I then generate approximate Nash equilibrium solutions for each game tree node to generate node frequencies and stack equities at each node. The game-tree is then summed and a final Nash equilibrium is calculated based on the new stack equities.

If you need more detail, let me know.

Yes, I do think my results are better than anything else I've seen... because I'm tackling one of the biggest known problems that other programs have: that you have to account for possible *future* rounds of play to have the best possible analysis.

Of course plexiq's charts will show UTG+1 as always wider than UTG... because holdemresources does not account for future rounds of play.

Well you still don't answer why they are same.

A possible logical reason - you only use 169 possible different ranges in all your calculations. Of course its more likely that balance will be found for same "range" since there is not 2^169 to choose from but 169 instead.

I'm pretty sure I answered this about 10 posts ago... right here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=71

If that wasnt clear enough... I drew this graph to help illustrate:


Competing factors can easily result in different positions having the same ranges.

I hope you're not getting hung up that "15.4%" is shown with the same selection of hands in both spots because thats hardly the point of any of this. I have certainly never claimed that the chart I presented is the "100% accurate, perfect down to the individual hand, unexploitable, Nash equilibrium solution"... its still just an approximation of unexploitable ranges. It just happens to be a better approximation than what is available elsewhere because it includes simulating future rounds.

That said, SnG Sovler *does* build its final analysis ranges from individual hands, and not predefined ranges (so yes, 2^169 possible choices, not 169 like you claimed).

op - i guess it is fine if you want to take a quick look at this chart (i.e. one scenario). understanding some general push/fold ranges is helpful.

a couple of things to keep in mind:

- this chart is about .0001% of what you need to know to be sucessful at sngs

- dont bother memorizing it becuase as you learn more there is not doubt these ranges will change quite a bit.

- start saving some hands and running those through analytical software.

op - Don't mention which analytical software you chose, or it may result in a penis length discussion......

Do you improve hand selection after running Nash calculation with linear ranges, or actually run Nash with 2^169 possible ranges (at least on top level)?

Replacing the calculated linear ranges w/ all +EV hands (against the calculated linear ranges) will cause some pretty weird / inaccurate results in many spots. (If you do it like that, the inaccuracies will likely dominate any improvement of the equity model.)

The "Nash stages" are all done with linear ranges (at the moment), but there are other calculations that are ultimately done with "2^169" type ranges. Of course these different stages of computation are like apples and oranges... and they are not combined in a way that would introduce any kind of inaccuracies or undo the benefit of the equity model.

Please correct me if i am wrong:
If you do the "Nash stages" with linear ranges, you will end up with a considerable % of -EV hands played and +EV hands being folded, right?

Oh yes, for sure thats all true.

Just to be clear, the chart I presented earlier in this thread is 100% using linear ranges.

The intent of my reply where I mentioned using "2^169 ranges" was only meant to rebut earlier generic comments about SnG Solver... a kind of sidebar... its irrelevant to the rest of the conversation. I apologize for derailing this thread even further.

Using charts can be both good and bad thing.
Good thing about them is they can help you set some pivot points for shove for certain number of blinds and positions. Bad thing about them is we can be very exploitable in the long run when our opponents analyze us and take advantage how tight/wide we shove call. Also it helps to compare NASH ranges vs actual ranges we come up with based on expected calling/shoving ranges of opponents.
In general, we should end up shoving or calling in 3 categories:
1) Nash
2) Wider than nash
3) Tighter than nash

Nash will not loose us money in the long run however if opponent is calling wider than nash assumed range , we are both loosing money (opponent is loosing more than us).
If opponent is calling very tight (20% or less bvb for example), we can shove wider than nash.
If opponent is calling very wide (30,35%+ bvb) then we should shove tighter than nash to be safe.

This is all some generalization and conclusions I came upon while playing sng 6 max and 6 max hyper turbos.
I have sample of about 8k games on 11$ and 11 euro games 6 max hypers combined with post rake back profit. I play on Party network and Microgaming. 6.6k games on Party 1.4k games on Microgaming.

I am sorry to go off topic, I am looking to find somebody to do sweat sessions for hypers and exchange experiences and material.

- Any hyper players on here to share their experience with me,perhaps do some sweat sessions?
- Do you have some useful material on 6 max hypers that you can share?

Thanks guys

Thanks for the input.

There is a study buddy thread here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36...ead-op-277520/

Thanks a lot, wrote there also

The chart looks about right at a glance. I usually use this site for the hyper turbo sit and gos. http://www.holdemresources.net/h/web...s/nashicm.html where push and fold is often optimal.

I think it is a good estimate. It's basically "unexploitable" - however it does depend on good play from the others.

For example, let's say you are in a double up tournament. There are 4 people left, you have 6000 chips and the guy to your left has 6000 chips. The other two have 3000 and have folded. You can't just push 6000 chips in to the other person "knowing" that the 6000 stack will fold. They will call you will all sort of crap. Sometimes they are just ignorant - othertimes they want to gamble - other times they simply want to be a jerk. Best course of action is to limp or fold except maybe aces or kings.

juggle, did you read any of the thread?

At any rate,