Hi Will,
The questions below are about chapters 5&6 (except for the last one), I'm trying to finish vol1 before vol2 comes out. I know that's a LOT of questions and you must be pretty busy so... yeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 5, p142 you write:
"As we will see, at least on the river, the ideal equity distribution is, in some sense, a straight line"
I'm not sure what you mean here... Is it something we should aim for in general or is it only applicable to specific boards/distributions? Why is the ideal EQ distribution a straight line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 5, p144 you write:
"We might refer to these holdings as weak made hands"
Which holdings are you referring to? AKs type hands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 5, p149 you write:
"This ranking does not depend on Villain’s range of holdings. The specific equities of hands still depend on Villain’s range, of course"
Except for the nuts, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p160 you write:
"When it comes to relative strength, however, it is especially important to notice that the board texture is not just a property of a board but also of the ranges involved"
I'm not sure what you mean here. The way I look at it:
- When we talk about absolute strength we look at 2 factors: Our range/hand, the board
- When we look at relative strength we look at 3 things: our range, our opponent's range and the way they interact with the board
Is that what you're saying when you say that 'the board texture is not just a property of a board but also of the ranges involved'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p161 &162 you write:
"Thus, the hand’s average equity (its relative strength)will improve on some turn cards that do improve some of Villain’s hands to better as long as the new card does not improve Villain’s range as much as the average turn card would have"
How do you define the average turn card?
Can I rephrase the above: As long as the new card does not improve vilain's range as much as the average turn card would, our hand's equity will improve on average (our relative hand strength)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p162 you write:
"The board K♠-J♥-3♣ is less volatile than K♠-6♥-3♣ in a very important way: the second pair on board is far more likely to be devalued on the turn on the second board"
What about OEs and GS? Do they matter? Is it just a matter of combinations, as in: Our opponent will have more overcards (to 6x) on the second board than GS or OE on the first board?
Also, is the fact that BB defendds top 40% taken into account here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p165 you write:
"changing board textures are generally bad for a player with a range narrowly defined on early streets. That is, if a board is volatile, then many turn and river cards will be strong for the player with the wider and less defined range. This effect is tempered by the fact that he has a wider and weaker range in the first place"
Is it another way of saying that, when our range is tighter:
1. Our equity is inherently more static?
2. Our equity is also higher (range vs. range)?
I think I get the idea, but I guess I'm not sure what to take away from this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p179 you write:
"We will now consider a couple of turn cards"
I'm just curious, how do you select your turn cards when you want to run simulations? Do you simply look at the main 'equity changers'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p187 you write:
"However, this line of reasoning does lead to a severely unbalanced turn betting range and also leaves the SB very vulnerable to the out-of-position float play."
Which line of reasoning? SB firing only once on AK2r?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p188 you write:
"There was real danger in defining his range early in the hand on volatile boards"
Is this the main reason why good HU players tend to widen their BB defending range in today's games?
Last one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 7 (example 3), p199 you write:
"This flop (KQ8r) is fairly static and strong for the BB"
I agree that it is fairly strong for the BB, but I was wondering about staticity.
In this thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...s-guys-864888/, Erdnase17 classifies flops according to how often the best flopped hand loses by the river.
And on page 161, you say:
"So, the second important texture-related property of a flop is how likely future cards are to change the relative values of players’ hands", so I'm wondering:
Do you think that flop staticity moslty depends on ranges (ours/our opponent's), or can it be considered an inherent property of a flop?
Last edited by unlimited.; 03-22-2014 at 07:35 PM.