cpf-ers wanted to know if this was a jam....

Vekked

darbday;259580 wroteOpen jamming a range of {QQ+,32s} 40BB deep on the button is unexploitable?

is it? how would you know that?

ok i can't wrap my brain or explain this i don't think...

This is why it's unexploitable:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.971% 61.94% 03.03% 108182820 5292906.00 { QQ+, 32s }
Hand 1: 35.029% 32.00% 03.03% 55886376 5292906.00 { QQ }

They can't call unless they get KK+ even if we tell them we're shoving 32s as well as QQ, KK, and AA.

but perhaps what im saying is that you gain a gbucks style ev when you jam the non exploitable jam range....you don't make your chips for each hand you make them based on the range you shove.... q9s is just as valuble as aces in this spot if its part of the non exploitable shove range. and we never lose in respect to our range....

Yea basically, if it makes our play overall most +EV by shoving slightly -EV hands then obv it's best but I don't think in reality this is usually the case, we should mostly try to make +EV shoves since people aren't playing perfectly vs. our ranges, so we want to exploit that.

and without knowing your opponents exact range it is the most optimal way to play when your blinds are to the point where you can only jam or fold......do we agree there?

I don't think playing Nash without reads is optimal most times, no. I think it's more optimal to make assumptions about people's ranges and shove a bit wider in most spots.

so I guess im saying q9s may not be +ev but we no longer look at the ev of hands separately but instead we decided if our range is +ev (or at least neutral ev)......again because we almost never know our opponents calling ranges....shoving the non ex range is the best way to play.

I think over time we know a lot more about our opponents' calling ranges than you think and we can adjust to have default ranges that are better than nash, don't you think? Basically I think by playing exclusively nash ranges you're leaving a lot of money on the table.

But yea my point was just that shoving Q9s itself isn't unexploitable in a vacuum, but that doesn't always mean you shouldn't shove it (for the g-bucks type reasons, and also because there are plenty of hands that aren't unexploitable to shove, but they're +EV so who cares? lol).

[deleted]

yoda, u know im a fan of yours via PM... I just dont think this is the best spot :(

I had a glass too many of red wine which is why i was a bitch and im sorry....

[deleted]

Vekked;259954 wrote
They can't call unless they get KK+ even if we tell them we're shoving 32s as well as QQ, KK, and AA.

k i get this, its sparks more thought for me.

Yea basically, if it makes our play overall most +EV by shoving slightly -EV hands then obv it's best but I don't think in reality this is usually the case, we should mostly try to make +EV shoves since people aren't playing perfectly vs. our ranges, so we want to exploit that.

how would we do this......

I don't think playing Nash without reads is optimal most times, no. I think it's more optimal to make assumptions about people's ranges and shove a bit wider in most spots.

this was awesome lol.

I think over time we know a lot more about our opponents' calling ranges than you think and we can adjust to have default ranges that are better than nash, don't you think? Basically I think by playing exclusively nash ranges you're leaving a lot of money on the table.

but we are shoving every nash hand regardless right? pre icm, and accounting for any issues nash has (clumping, upcoming blinds, etc.)

But yea my point was just that shoving Q9s itself isn't unexploitable in a vacuum, but that doesn't always mean you shouldn't shove it (for the g-bucks type reasons, and also because there are plenty of hands that aren't unexploitable to shove, but they're +EV so who cares? lol).

please list all examples for every situation, in downloadable spreadsheet form

In short we've said we are gonna shove every nash hand, but also add a few?

like how do you go about constructing a villain calling range (which im sure will be incomplete) and then constructing a shove range....

[deleted]

also, I searched this thread 3 times and could not find a paragraph on un ex shoves from wett1012....ill check again...

Vekked

darbday;260064 wroteIn short we've said we are gonna shove every nash hand, but also add a few?

like how do you go about constructing a villain calling range (which im sure will be incomplete) and then constructing a shove range....

In short, yes in most situations is will be nash+ more, especially a lower stakes, and vs. random. Basically people who can't hand read and put us on a range and call correctly. At higherstakes you remove hands vs. capable players because they will call correctly if not too wide.

For calling ranges you estimate as best you can according to experience. You then figure out how often they're folding, and the equity you need to breakeven on a 1,2,3,4 or w/e M shove. Then you figure out what hands will give you that equity vs. their range. Programs like SNG Wiz or SNGPT will make this easier and do most of the math but both of them take shortcuts, albeit different ones in each case.

Also, don't think you should worry about clumping all that much, blind movement kind of, but those things are hard to quantify, idk what the proper adjustment is for them really, since we also have rake and slight ICM considerations at all times to swing us back the other way.

[deleted]

Vekked;260068 wroteAt higherstakes you remove hands vs. capable players because they will call correctly if not too wide.

does this say that if they call too wide you need to remove some non ex hands?

Vekked;260068 wrote
For calling ranges you estimate as best you can according to experience.

but we can only do this vs regs we have history on right? like even 100 isn't gonna give use much better read than the nash shoves no? how many hands do think you can make adjustments with? or do we just have to see 1 wider call? perhaps this is easier at high stakes because there is more regs and a slighty smaller field?

what types of hands do you add?

Vekked;260068 wrote Also, don't think you should worry about clumping all that much, blind movement kind of, but those things are hard to quantify, idk what the proper adjustment is for them really

taking away a couple of hands for clumping, and adding a few for blinds adjustments is likely....but also quite insignificant im sure

Vekked;260068 wrote since we also have rake and slight ICM considerations at all times to swing us back the other way.

messed up man

so are your shove charts in your head then....or mostly in your head...or do you actually make them out for this kinda thing?

thx for your time.

Vekked

darbday;260069 wrotedoes this say that if they call too wide you need to remove some non ex hands?

but we can only do this vs regs we have history on right? like even 100 isn't gonna give use much better read than the nash shoves no? how many hands do think you can make adjustments with? or do we just have to see 1 wider call? perhaps this is easier at high stakes because there is more regs and a slighty smaller field?

what types of hands do you add?

taking away a couple of hands for clumping, and adding a few for blinds adjustments is likely....but also quite insignificant im sure

messed up man

so are your shove charts in your head then....or mostly in your head...or do you actually make them out for this kinda thing?

thx for your time.

1) If they're calling too wide, yea remove the bottom of the range b/c it becomes -EV and doesn't really add more EV to the top of your range cuz they're just gonna call the same anyways right?

2) When we're estimating calling ranges we defff don't need exact ranges. Sure you can get a bit closer w/ regs you know well and have some notes on what they've shown up with in diff spots or what their tendencies are, but generally you're gonna have something like tight/average/loose. Just generalize and categorize, just as we see a 40/10 and think fish, or a 18/16 and think reg.

3) I make charts for all types of situations. It's much harder to get a grasp of all the variables, trends, and possible situations if you're trying to remember them all.

[deleted]

Vekked;260072 wrote1) If they're calling too wide, yea remove the bottom of the range b/c it becomes -EV and doesn't really add more EV to the top of your range cuz they're just gonna call the same anyways right?

took me this long to clear my head and get back to this.....k i think your describing 'exploitative' play here.....(and forgive me if my words aren't quite right).

anyways, if villain(s) calls too wide we tighten up to 'exploit' right? but they can't exploit us by calling wide? they can't exploit us at all if we are shoving an unexploitable range?

I think what happened here is we skipped the solidity of un-exploitable shove definition and went into exploitative shoves.....which is great, but i need to know that i understand the non ex shove first.

in other words....i don't know if im confused on the definition of non ex shove , or just on what you are saying which isn't non ex shoves.

so thats first......

----------------------

2nd I've never heard ev being talked about in this aspect, but now ive found some threads with it, and i notice its charted on the holdemresources.net beta version.

but shoving the bottom of the unexploitable range, must be +ev....otherwise we would fold it?

That is....our 'hand'......vs their range...which is defined because of our range....is 0 ev if our opponent calls perfectly and +ev if our opponent calls less or more than perfect.

the assumption here is that the villain can't change his range vs our hand.

taking into account the amount of blinds we get when villain folds plus the equity our hand has vs the villains calling range we expect we are at worst neutral ev?

or is it?

------------

« Previous Page