Expert Heads Up No Limit Hold’em v.1: Optimal and Exploitive Strategies by Will Tipton
03-20-2014
, 07:56 PM
Quote:
I just wished to comment on this part of your post. This seems to be a misreading of what Tipton says on p.232. It would be strange that he would have positively proven that GTO solutions don't exist in NLHE. He isn't saying either that they aren't achievable in practice at the table (which might be how you read him). He's merely suggesting that you can't easily strive to bluff with the correct frequency merely through considering particular spots as they occur while you play. You must rather arrive at correct frequencies trough consideration of whole ranges in those (and similar) spots and this, of course, requires much range analysis away from the table, and active revision of hands you played. Ed Miller also much insists on this in his latest book.
Still, I can't understand those tables
Edit: What do you think of Ed Miller's Books (which one are you reading?)? Are they generally applicable to HU?
Last edited by KnutXX; 03-20-2014 at 08:02 PM.
03-22-2014
, 09:39 AM
Hi i cant understand few things in BB bet or check game on page 238. So with symetric distributions and if P=B=S SB should call 50% of time. It means BB cutoff hand for betting will be h_b=1/4. ----> so BB will bet 75% of all his hands like book sugests on page 244.
So as i understand he will bet his top 50% (2/3) of hands and bot 25% (1/3)?
Than if ranges are the same why is that SB can only call with 50% of hands while BB can bet 75%? Its just huge difference between 100% same ranges
Im probably missing something huge here
What would happen if SB started to call not 50% but 1) 52% or 2) 75% (what would happen in both cases - BB changed his strategy and BB didnt change it)
So as i understand he will bet his top 50% (2/3) of hands and bot 25% (1/3)?
Than if ranges are the same why is that SB can only call with 50% of hands while BB can bet 75%? Its just huge difference between 100% same ranges
Im probably missing something huge here
What would happen if SB started to call not 50% but 1) 52% or 2) 75% (what would happen in both cases - BB changed his strategy and BB didnt change it)
03-22-2014
, 07:22 PM
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
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?
Which holdings are you referring to? AKs type hands?
Except for the nuts, right?
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'?
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)?
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?
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...
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'?
Which line of reasoning? SB firing only once on AK2r?
Is this the main reason why good HU players tend to widen their BB defending range in today's games?
Last one...
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?
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"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 5, p144 you write:
"We might refer to these holdings as weak made 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"
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"
- 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"
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"
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"
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"
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p188 you write:
"There was real danger in defining his range early in the hand on volatile boards"
Last one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 7 (example 3), p199 you write:
"This flop (KQ8r) is fairly static and strong for the BB"
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.
03-23-2014
, 09:48 AM
Quote:
I just came across section 7.2.5 (p. 221 ff.) and I understand those concepts but I find it really hard to put them into real situations. Looking at the tables on p.234 ff. I have no idea what they're about because I don't understand how they're being calculated. Could someone please explain them to me?
The EV distributions show how much value different parts of the players' ranges capture. Those plots are certainly not meant to be memorized, but there's a few of them there so that we can look at trends -- how the EVs of players' ranges are affected when we play w/ different stack and bet sizes or with different amounts of slowplays.
Quote:
I feel like it's no very useful to know all the GTO frequencies because a GTO bluffing frequency is impossible to achieve (as stated on p. 232) ingame. Do you generally think these tables are worth putting in more work or will things get more clear once you read on?
Thanks
Thanks
. What I do say on p 232 is that balancing relies on a clear awareness of the players' ranges, your own in particular. Reading your own hand is a prerequisite for any kind of strategic play, and I probably should have talked more about that in Vol1. Here's a post w/ a few more thoughts on that: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=353
03-23-2014
, 09:51 AM
Quote:
I just wished to comment on this part of your post. This seems to be a misreading of what Tipton says on p.232. It would be strange that he would have positively proven that GTO solutions don't exist in NLHE. He isn't saying either that they aren't achievable in practice at the table (which might be how you read him). He's merely suggesting that you can't easily strive to bluff with the correct frequency merely through considering particular spots as they occur while you play. You must rather arrive at correct frequencies trough consideration of whole ranges in those (and similar) spots and this, of course, requires much range analysis away from the table, and active revision of hands you played.
Quote:
I already found it really helpful to analyze the equilibration exercise using CREV and finding the correct bluffing frequencies. Becoming better at finding equilibrium bluffing frequencies corelating with correct sizings probably affords a ****load of work away from the table.
Still, I can't understand those tables
Still, I can't understand those tables
03-23-2014
, 10:09 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Than if ranges are the same why is that SB can only call with 50% of hands while BB can bet 75%? Its just huge difference between 100% same ranges
Im probably missing something huge here
Im probably missing something huge here
Quote:
What would happen if SB started to call not 50% but 1) 52% or 2) 75% (what would happen in both cases - BB changed his strategy and BB didnt change it)
BB can also exploitatively adjust by stopping bluffing and, perhaps, valuebetting wider.
03-23-2014
, 10:58 AM
Quote:
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
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?
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"
"As we will see, at least on the river, the ideal equity distribution is, in some sense, a straight line"
Quote:
Which holdings are you referring to? AKs type hands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 5, p144 you write:
"We might refer to these holdings as weak made hands"
"We might refer to these holdings as weak made hands"
Quote:
Except for the nuts, right?
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"
"This ranking does not depend on Villain’s range of holdings. The specific equities of hands still depend on Villain’s range, of course"
Quote:
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, 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"
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"
- 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:
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, 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"
"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"
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)?
I don't like the bolded words. Looks good otherwise.
Quote:
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, 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"
"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"
Also, is the fact that BB defendds top 40% taken into account here?
I don't believe I'd specified players' ranges in that discussion. Sure, we can see how BB's defending range will pretty strongly affect how many 2nd pairs and draws he has on those two boards.
Quote:
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, 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"
"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"
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...
I agree the quote is kind of vague but mostly it means that it sucks when Villain knows what you have but you have no idea what he has
.
Quote:
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, p179 you write:
"We will now consider a couple of turn cards"
"We will now consider a couple of turn cards"
Actually, I wouldn't say that I ever run simulations. I've a Poker Theory post on choosing subsets of cards for generating approximate games, but that's not something that's ever used in Volume 1.
Quote:
Which line of reasoning? SB firing only once on AK2r?
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."
"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."
Quote:
Is this the main reason why good HU players tend to widen their BB defending range in today's games?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 6, p188 you write:
"There was real danger in defining his range early in the hand on volatile boards"
"There was real danger in defining his range early in the hand on volatile boards"
Quote:
Last one...
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapter 7 (example 3), p199 you write:
"This flop (KQ8r) is fairly static and strong for the BB"
"This flop (KQ8r) is fairly static and strong for the BB"
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?
03-23-2014
, 08:17 PM
Thanks Will, very interesting point about flop staticity.
How about a 3rd volume? Expert Heads Up No Limit v.3: Heads Up Theory Made Simple .
.
03-25-2014
, 08:18 AM
Quote:
I got Tipton's volume 1 in the mail today (along with Chen & Ankenman, while Janda still is one the way). I've already pre-ordered volume 2. This volume 1 is on top of my priority list right after I'm finished with Miller's 1%. I'm looking forward to digging into this.
