There's a huge thread in NVG about live vs online who's better, blah, blah, blah. It ended up with a challenge and acceptance of a HU match, playing until one or the other won $40k. But of course, it turns out that the match most likely won't happen (huge surprise!)

During the discussion of the parameters, it was suggested that they do an equity chop on all-in hands, in order to reduce the effect of luck on the match by eliminating a bad beat on a huge pot tilting the results one way or another. But I guess everyone but me knew how that works, so I'm here asking the questions.

Does that type of rule only apply to all-in hands preflop? It seems weird to revert to an equity chop if say the 1010 hits a set on the turn, he bets, and the AA shoves over it, then reverting to preflop odds. Or at that point would they use the equity of the AA hitting an A on the river to win?

Do you think this equity chop actually does anything to help identify the better player? It seems to me like it's altering the game of poker to begin with. If someone is "running good" and say hitting sets vs overpairs, but the betting doesn't end up all in, he still gets the benefit of "beating the odds". So I don't really see how the all in provision makes the match more of a test of skill.

I don't actually think a single HU match proves anything about who is the better player anyway, but does using the equity chop on all in hands make it closer to fair, or does it just simply change the game to something else?

On another note (not specifically probability related) is this whole notion of using HU matches to decide who's the "better" player a relatively new phenomenon arising out of online play, or did live players do it as well "back in the day". I remember one time reading Doyle saying that he didn't understand the focus on HU; that in "his day" you played full ring poker to win money from the fish, period. That there really wasn't this issue of who is the best player in the world, etc. It was just about winning money. It seems that often on NVG, whenever there is any sort of dispute about anything, it turns into a pecker check about playing HU4Rollz. Just wondering about that.

Thanks.

I assume the equity would be calculated at the point in which the players went all in. It wouldn't make sense to revert to some previous point in the hand.

Yes. EV adjusted winnings in a HU match should always be used instead of normal winnings to determine the better player.

No.


EV isn't complicated. If you ran significantly under EV you'd have a reason to understand why it's a better measure of skill. My guess is that most people who struggle to understand EV are people who run significantly above EV. It's the only explanation. These people just don't want to hurt their own ego.

Yes.

lets say I make a huge bet on the flop with 2 overs and flush draw. player b calls me with a small pair lets say 60 to 70 percent of our stacks went in at that point. turn comes a blank we both naturally wind up all in why should I be penalized for making proper bet on flop?

You could make a variant of the equity chop game that handles these situations. Just chop the amount that went in preflop based on the preflop equities, the amount that went in on the flop based on the flop equities, etc.

Then in your example you would gain money on the flop and lose some of it back on the turn, ending up slightly ahead most likely.

This still doesn't eliminate luck completely but might be fun to try.

That is not a variant of the equity chop game. It is a completely different game and totally irrelevant.

No, it is a variant of the equity chop game which is also not 'totally irrelevant', since it addresses the point made by maulaga as to why simply chopping when the last bit of money goes still leaves huge amounts of luck in the game.

Also worth noting that games are completely different. For example, if you wanted to know who is the better poker player between Phil Helmuth (live tournament specialist) and ShaunDeeb (online tournament specialist) - playing Heads up NL doesn't really make sense. I'm sure they are both competent at the game, but it would not be a real measure of their skill at their actual poker game, which is large field tournaments.

(this might not be the best example since heads up play, the difference between 1st and 2nd in a tournament is actually a huge part of a tournament player's repertoire...but I think the point is still valid. Maybe you could replace them with ring game players who rarely if ever play heads up for a better example)

The equity chop game can't be considered as a variant of normal poker. While the amount you win may differ, the strategy would be exactly the same. It's just like the difference between playing $1/$2 with someone and $10/$20. Mathematically they are identical. But anyway, the game you described is radically different to all poker games. Giving money according to equity on the street is a dynamic not present in any form of poker. It would play very strangely.

Karg, do you even know what variant means?

dictionary(variant) - tending to change or alter; not agreeing or conforming; differing, especially from something of the same general kind.

I don't even see how you could possibly argue that this isn't a variant, which means different, which is your reason for saying its not a variant?

The games are played the same, but chips are awarded differently. By the definition of the word variant, that is exactly what a variant is. One is changed or altered from the other.

Would you consider Omaha to be a variant of Texas Holdem? That game is just as different (maybe more so) than the Equity Chop Game. Both are variants though because that's what variant means, different;changed;altered.

It's different but not in a meaningful way because the optimal strategies are identical. Would you class NLHE with a 4 color deck a variant of NLHE with a 2 color deck? Why not? Something to do with the strategies being identical perhaps?

You are mistaken on this. The strategy of every part of the game would change for thinking players. When to go all-in, when to call, when to bluff, and all other decisions would be altered dramatically.
The simplest example is that there is no longer the threat of elimination from the big stack shoving preflop, as you can't go broke on the hand by calling.

This also raises the question of how you get eliminated in such a game? When your equity becomes less than the smallest chip value? Or when you call drawing dead?

The OP was talking about HU cash games.

Karganeth is correct that the strategy for the equity chop game described in the OP doesn't change in that situation. You can't lose your full stack, but you still lose the same amount of $ on average.

You are correct that the strategy is different in a tournament situation where more than two players remain, equity chop affects ICM decisions and yes, you would probably have to add a threshhold at which you were eliminated or no-one would ever bust (once they got low they could go allin pf every hand and thus never be drawing dead when the money went in !)

Thanks for the correction.

The EV of individual actions might be exactly the same in both games, but I am confident that the games would play out very differently, and would therefore have different optimal strategies.

you could argue that the games 'shouldnt' play differently, but they would. Players would be more likely to call shoves, more likely to semibluff, etc since they know they have some equity. To play optimally against a player that adjusts would require an adjustment in your own strategy.

The optimal play is determined entirely by the EV of individual actions, so the optimal strategy would be the same.

You seem to be confusing optimal play with exploitative play.

Lets say you are playing a NL poker variant with at least 2 streets with effective stack size of X. As it so happens, you are playing an opponent with a ridiculously exploitable idiosyncrasy:

If you bet on both streets, he will always call on the 1st street and fold on the 2nd street. If you do not bet on the 1st street, he will always check (or limp) the 1st street and call on the 2nd street, not always, but too often for bluffs to be profitable.

Your optimal exploitive play is to bet X minus 1 chip on the 1st street and bet the remaining chip on the 2nd street with ATC.

Normally this will make you X - 1 every time. With your chop idea with a hand having zero equity, you have no way to exploit this opponent with a bad hand. Everything you bet on the 1st street will be lost to your opponent who will always call your bluff on the 1st street.

Of course, the situation above is not realistic, but it serves to show that it's a very different game.

I never said it wasn't a different game !

maybe you don't know what 'optimal' means either.

optimal: the best or most favorable point, degree, amount, etc.

in poker, it would refer to that strategy which expects to win the most money. And although it can't be proven generally, it would almost assuredly include exploitive play.

An illustration of why 'optimal' play is not necessarily merely taking the most EV move at each situation - merely suppose a scenario whereby you passup a small ev gain now in order to achieve a big ev gain later. 'Optimal' poker play is not achieved by making every decision in a vacuum. To play optimally, you must play exploitively and view all decisions collectively.

Here is your argument:
Assume Player A folds if no equity split
Assume Player A calls if we use street by street equity split
Conclude 'no equity split' and 'street by street equity split' are different games because player A behaves differently.

This conclusion is not solid because your assumptions are arbitrary.

You could just as easily have had this made up player of yours continue his idiosyncrasies in the street by street equity case and still fold to the 1 bet on the river - which would then lead you to conclude that the games are the same.

But in game theory, 'optimal' has a very precise meaning which is not this.

That's my first 3 years of live MTT poker right there.

Cashed in over 20% of MTT's I played in in local clubs. Though I was the bomb. Turns out I'm not.

Oh well. Thankfully playing poker is a hobby worthy of my time and money!