FWIW while FU_15 does alot of stuff wrong I'll actually give him some credit here. IMO, openshoving > limp re-raising AI b/c of a previous hand I had with FU_15. Stars $200r I limp shoved from sb 30 bb's with A2s and he 3x'ed from bb and snap called my all in with KQ. Anyway my point is, if he is calling limp shoves with KQ then limp shoving QTs I don't think can be that profitable with how often he intends to call our shove if he raises preflop. To be honest, I just like 3x'ing pre > open shoving > limp shoving. I think FU's leaks are more prone to be exploited postflop calling with hands he should fold than preflop edges.

If shoving is mathematically unexploitable then this thread isnt up for discussion and let's remember who we're talking about. Djk isn't Ansky or some other great postflop player(not that you don't play well postflop Dan) but he will describe himself as a preflop player...this is where his edge is and this shove is mathematically perfect any argument to the contrary is a tourney life claim and I'm sure we all feel the same way about that bit of stupidity.

Ul FU.

The ony thing funnier than watching good players trying to justify a play with an algebraic proof in a game-theory based game like NLHE is having other good players calling in "unexploitable".

LMAO

I mean, once you do the calculation and set out to play that way, don't you think a good player is going to significantly widen his range to offset your mechanical shove?

The assumptions behind these calcs are so subject to change, particurly by good players, and I think its laughable that people can call that standard, obviously +EV and unexploitable.

And that doesn't even address the factor of whether a +cEV move is worthwhile risking busting out early to pick up 2 BBs... which is another risk dimension of the tournament equity that is not addressed in the calculation.

why does everyone insist on saying it's 800 chips in the pot pre? It's 960!!!!

I was well aware of that fact.

But the EV of the shove is almost exactly 2 bb's.

Wow wtf, I cant even make my post now cus this was so incredibly close to what I wanted to say and completely true and accurate imo. I'll try to add something anyway.......


The key to this hand is that it's a bvb battle where the two players in question are not particularly fond of the button on the left. And while FU15 can certainly check pre with his garbage hands, those are all hands he would just fold to the shove anyway and he doesnt get the chance to beat DJK in a pot postflop when he has position and DJK has an awkward/handicapping stack size. Whereas if FU_15 is raising pre, his range to raise and then fold to a l/shove from DJK is borderline non-existent (as Randal said) and he will r/c pre even wider to induce and possibly even too wide because he will refuse to be outplayed by DJK. Like he might even raise A6 pre and then I'm pretty sure he would snap when DJK shoved on him and hope to see the exact type of hand DJK has.

So basically, optimal is between 3xing and shoving, and since FU_15 is also fond of the resteal, and he can do this with an even wider range than he can raise/call with, I can see clearly why DJK chose to shove and I like it a lot.

But to all those people saying you can shove this profitably faceup is that in fact accurate? If we actually knew DJK was shoving 25 bb's every hand with QTs there's no way we could exploit this and open our calling range so that we crush him? I posted something about this in the p5s thread after Stevie made a prop bet to anyone that he could play this unexploitably faceup.

i don't quite think you understand what unexploitable means. it means that FU's calling range is irrelevant; no matter what it is, the shove is going to be +cEV. either he's calling too tight, meaning you pick up the pot enough to make it +cEV, or he's calling wide enough for QTs to have enough equity against his calling range to justify it

Yes, it's accurate. If cEV is all that matters and BB knows djk has QTs, he'll call in this spot with {22+,AT+,KT+,QT+} (the only one that's close is QTo, but it's barely a call here given stacks/blinds/antes). So if djk is called his equity in the pot is (see Stove below):

10863*0.38359 - 10303*0.61641 = -2183.93

DJK will get called 16% of the time (196/1225 which includes card removal effects), so the overall cEV of the shove if BB is calling perfectly against QTs is:

960*0.84 - 2183.93*0.16 = +456.97



Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

323,625,456 games 0.031 secs 10,439,530,838 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 38.359% 35.52% 02.84% 114961103 9177163.50 { QdTd }
Hand 1: 61.641% 58.81% 02.84% 190310026 9177163.50 { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+ }


---

Okay. Shoving is optimal for Dan but 3x'ing is optimal for me. Is that better?

I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to be that much better postflop than a competent player when the preflop pot is 7 BBs and the effective stacks are 22 BBs behind.

Eventhough shoving is unexploitable, since you are playing a lot with FU_15 you have to consider the effect this has on your range. Are you open shoving AA? AK? 88? What hands do you start raise/calling with? Are you raise/folding anything? Are you limping anything? I don't expect djk to answer this because he will be giving up a lot of information, but if you are only open shoving the bottom end of unexploitable shoves you are making it really easy to play against your non open shoving range.

This is more what I was trying to get to earlier as it affects metagame in bvb situations in the future. As often as both of them play I'm sure (eventually, possibly, ok maybe) FU will adjust and start calling this lighter/more correct.

How about we re-create this situation, except you and I can use real money and run the situation over and over and over again. I will play my QTs face up and you can be dealt a random hand and decide whether to call or fold to my shove.

We'll keep going until you are dead broke.

You have no business berating people (or even posting in this thread), especially given you have no idea what unexploitable means.

Ah ok, now this is all dependent on the antes right? Like if the blinds were x and y and nothing else was in the pot and I had 25x the big blind in the sb and it folded to me with QTs, I could no longer shove profitably face up right?

Todd if we know the villian has QTs why are we not calling with Any ace and any King?

The ante-less unexploitable shove question is answered by the Sklansky-Chubukov number, which is the maximum stack you can shove unexploitably from the SB with the blinds at 1-2 (so the S-C number divided by two is the maximum number of BBs you can shove unexploitably from the SB if there are no antes and the SB is 1/2 the BB, as it usually is). The S-C number for QTs is 43.89846, which means the max number of BBs you can shove unexploitably from the SB is less than 22, so yeah, a 25 BB shove from the SB without antes with QTs is not unexploitable.

Always good to see someone put their math where their mouth is

Yeah, you're absolutely right, that's what I get for doing stuff immediately upon waking up in the morning, I'll fix it in the near future.

Raise/folding and limp/shoving are both pretty close but you are still way off in that open shoving is better than limp shoving for obvious reasons. If anyone in the world is looking this shove up with a hand like KQ it is him, and a limp-shove might be slightly more tilt inducing but at the same time you can actually repping a credible range that includes monster hands, but alas it's just simply a math problem I'm too lazy to solve but positive I would be right about. Also once again you can't discount postflop equity even out of position you are going to have a positive edge. Finally, Randal that A3s hand you posted might be marginal/crazy but the hand plays worse and the blinds are deeper and it still almost makes sense so if anything I think it helps my arguement for this hand.

Isn't A2-A9/K2-K9 (s & o) also in the calling range faceup?

still folds something like 64% of the time (i don't think that takes into account card removal)

so 64% of the time we pick up the pot

36% of the time he calls with 22+, A2s+, K2s+, QTs+, A2o+, K2o+, QTo+

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

3,047,901,120 games 0.067 secs 45,491,061,492 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 43.030% 41.66% 01.37% 1269673072 41834378.00 { QTs }
Hand 1: 56.970% 55.60% 01.37% 1694559292 41834378.00 { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, QTs+, A2o+, K2o+, QTo+ }


---

so equity if he's called is

10863*0.43030 - 10303*0.56970 = -1195.2702

so (.64)(960) - (.36)(1195.2702) = +184.103

still +cEV

ty for the math dpottz much appreciated

Hopefully this one is correct, still unexploitable, sorry for the mixup:


Calling range: {22+,A2s+,A2o+,K2s+,K2o+,QTs+,QTo}

Equity if called (see Stove below):

10863*0.4303 - 10303*0.5697 = -1195.27

Getting called 35.6% of the time (436/1225), so overall cEV =

960*0.644 - 1195.27*0.356 = +192.89


Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

3,047,901,120 games 0.005 secs 609,580,224,000 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 43.030% 41.66% 01.37% 1269673072 41834378.00 { QTs }
Hand 1: 56.970% 55.60% 01.37% 1694559292 41834378.00 { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, QTs+, A2o+, K2o+, QTo+ }


---

Against any ace, any king, QTs+, QJo+, 22+, we have 42.9% equity. This is a range of 33% of hands after we remove our cards.

cEV = 0.33*(10863*0.429 - 10303*0.571) + 0.67*960
= 0.32*(-1222.8) + 643
= -403.5 + 643
= +229.5

So its unexploitably +cEV, but not by much.

It probably wouldn't be unexploitable at 25 BB's no antes, but if it wasn't face up it'd probably still be profitable because BB's calling range will almost always be too tight.
Technically, you can shove 100 BB's profitably (and stupidly) if BB's calling range is only QQ+.