Unexploitable refers to tourney EV, correct?

It's not been explicitly stated in the thread whilst a few of the posts make it seem like they're talking about chip EV.

Yeah, I mean...it always refers to $EV, and it just so happens to be that that equals cEV in cash games. I just felt it was easier to demonstrate the principle using cEV.

And unrealzeal posts unblievable garbage, as usual.

I mean, really. That stuff is so bad and wrong, I'm at a loss for words.

How common are unexploitable shoves in practice? My feeling would be they're pretty rare 3 or more handed because of the possibility of imperfect play by your opponents sucking equity from both of you.

unexploitable refers to anything. what maybe an unexploitable play in a MTT may be exploitable in a STT. i like to think of it as picking rock paper or scissors each 33% of the time in the game rock paper scissors.

if they are not playing correctly you always gain equity you will never lose it. if i make an unexploitable shove w/AA how is their imperfect play calling w/27o going to suck equity from me? it may not be the most profitable play shoving AA but simply because there is no move available to my opponent to make money off me its unexploitable.

If your shove is unexploitable, then by definition nothing they can do sucks equity from you. That's not what I'm talking about.

If your opponent makes a mistake, it will cost him equity. However, that doesn't mean that you gain it. It happens frequently that a shove which would be +EV if all your opponents were playing perfectly according to ICM, even if they were assuming you're shoving ATC, actually becomes -EV because they're calling too wide.

playing by the exploitable push/fold ranges is something that only happens in the higher stakes I would imagine. versus the fish you are often making a lot of very exploitable shoves (most obvious is bvb ATC shoves, very exploitable if they start calling you wider but since they call only 13% or something, we show great profit shoving ATC).
theres no point in shoving the unexploitable ranges when you can exploit your opponent. I would imagine your ROI would be so low.

about the above posts I have a good example. sometimes people limp call with trash. they limp and you shove some weak holding assuming they would fold trash, but they call and you both lose a ton of equity. an unexploitable shove by your side depends on his limping range.

more on unexploitable versus optimal plays:
lets say you are playing rock-paper-scissors. an unexploitable strategy is to randomly choose between rock, paper and scissors and playing each third of the time on average. lets say your opponent is always playing rock. surprisingly, playing the unexploitable strategy versus him we can expect winning only half of our games (no profit, or even negative profit if we pay rake). we would much prefer playing only paper against such an opponent (blind versus blind ATC shoves).
A rational opponent will realize he is being exploited and start mixing up his plays with papers and scissors, and so will us when we realize this, so at the end we both play the unexploitable strategy ("high stakes adaption"). any other mixture of plays other than 33%-33%-33% , is exploitable.

Many players who make 100% "unexploitable" shoves are exploiting themselves in multiple ways. Know who you are shoving into when you make these shoves. It is the major key to your success.

Against some players I can make "unexploitable" min raises FTW.

Only making unexploitable shoves would be shoving daftly tight.

Forgive me if this was linked already, but it seemed relevant to the discussion for those that wanted to investigate further:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36...ed-ter-300450/

My head is spinning....

There seems to be alot of confusion (again) about the terminology in here. Read this post by drzen in the thread that AMT linked:

Unexploitable
If the players left to act knew your exact pushing range and each made the play which maximizes their own EV, then is your push still +EV? If yes, then the play is "unexploitable" (when each player is playing the Nash Equilibrium strategy then each player's range is said to be "unexploitable" because no player can unilaterally change their range to gain any EV from another).

Unspiteable
If the players left to act knew your exact pushing range and each made the play which minimizes your EV, then is your push still +EV? If yes, then the play is "unspiteable" (I don't think the term "unspiteable" is ever used other than to differentiate between "unexploitable" and "unspiteable" for the purpose of clearing up the confusion around the term "unexploitable"...).

Unexploitable even if you reveal your hand
This doesn't really have a proper name, but is still interesting as it is what the Karlson-Sklansky ranking system is based on: If the players left to act knew your exact hand and each made the play which maximizes their own EV, then is your push still +EV? If yes, then the play is "unexploitable even if you reveal your hand".

Juk

I would imagine a big part of the confusion is that in zero sum games (aka heads up, where a lot of unexpolitability is discussed, SAGE etc), unspitable would also mean unexploitable, because minimzing your opponent's EV is increasing your own EV. but since in common game theory we only consider rational behavior, there really is no place for a term that minimzes your own EV.

edit: now that I think of it, a fullring is also a zero sum game right? I dont really know how to call it, but the idea is still the same

there is a really really good thread in the hsmtt about exploitable vs optimal...if AJo is just slightly ahead of the random shuffle UTG then shoving will show a profit but it may or may not be eliminated by the rake so when you shove you are counting on people calling sub-optimally

also if you do have a hand that is ahead of the random shuffle is it not better to raise for value?

but in the end it's really good to know all the hands that are unexploitable esp when you are short stacked or playing a turbo

another good point...poker is zero sum, if your opponent makes no mistakes you can't win but that also means he has to know what hands he can always shove to make a profit...those that don't know are feeding the sharks

wow i shouldn't read backwards lots of great stuff here...example of unspiteable please?

Nice link. I was definitely thinking "unexploitable" meant what "unspiteable" apparently does.

Why are you still saying these unbelievably stupid things? Have you not read the thread?

I'm a bit tired, but right now, I'm pretty sure Juk's definition of unexploitable is wrong.

It's the part that deals with our shove as part of a range, rather than as an individual hand that disturbs me.

A pretty easy example would be this:

My pushing range is AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,32o

Against this range, 99 is a snap fold. I don't see how this makes my shove of 32o unexploitable.

I'm assuming villain can only call QQ+ here, so 32o should steal often enough to make it way +EV.

I dont think this range makes sense as an unexploitable range, but lets assume it is. shoving 32o is unexploitable if you are indeed shoving only those specific hands. shoving just 32o on its own is very exploitable, as in the only hand you shove is 32o.
your opponent cant know when you are shoving KK and when you are shoving 32o (obviously), so you can also shove 32o and be sure you cant be exploited. (again this range doenst make sense as an optimal or unexploitable range but just for the sake of this post)

Example 1 in this post.

Juk

You have to ask, how will the caller exploit you? That is all.

I'm also rather tired so I could also be wrong, but I think you are right... it just means that, technically, unexploitability is a property of shoving ranges, not of particular shoves. A particular shove then is unexploitable only in the context of some range... shoving 32o is unexploitable as part of the shoving range {AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,32o}. It is exploitable as part of a lot of other ranges. In particular, when you say "shoving 32o is unexploitable", without giving a full range, it will usually be interpretted as "shoving 32o+ is unexploitable" (that is, shoving the hands 32o and better (according to some hand-ranking) or 100%), which obviously isn't true in your example.

The reason people think this range of {AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,32o} doesn't make sense is because we usually think of preflop shoving ranges as being transitive/gapless/whatever you want to call it, that is, a certain hand and all hands better than it (according to some ranking). So if someone says "shoving XX is unexploitable", they'll probably mean, "shoving XX is unexploitable, assuming your range is XX and all better hands).

Maybe (probably) sometimes it might be useful to talk about "shoving ranges with gaps", like {22+, AT+, T9s} (NOT including some hands better than T9s acoording to our hand-ranking) or something, but I'm not really sure when...

I can't really add much to this: the problem is you have to consider your entire range to decide if the hand is or isn't unexploitable (see the thread that AMT linked to - IFoldPktOnes brought this point up here).

Another good place to see this in action it in the heads-up Nash Equilibrium tables: hands such as 89o and 54s can be pushed with relatively large effective stack size as part of your whole range, but if your opponent could see your hand (ie: as in the game used to generate the Sklansky-Karlson tables) then the effective stack size for a profitable push becomes much smaller.

Juk

I disagree that villain should be calling QQ+, as 32o makes up a bigger proportion of your range approximately equal to two PP's and JJs vs 32o > AA v JJ. Just stoved it and you can call JJ's profitably

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 48.586% 47.07% 01.52% 178928364 5763462.00 { TT+, 32o }
Hand 1: 51.414% 49.90% 01.52% 189676200 5763462.00 { JJ }


Yes I am a life nit, but I like finding out my instincts are right