Options

Future Edge...

There is something that I see poker coaches on coaching sites do all the time that I'm wondering if its wrong or I'm just missing something.

For example: the pro will be HU with a chip lead with 20bbs vs an 8bbs stack with antes (turbo). He is on the button and dealt 57o and folds because he says the can wait for a better spot.

I'm curious how other winning/experienced players feel about this?


This leads me to want to say, "You don't have future edge if you are folding in +ev spots in the present and in the future"

Comments

  • Curious about this too, I personally don't ever really wait for better spots that often but sometimes I think I should...
  • jdAA88 wrote: »
    Curious about this too, I personally don't ever really wait for better spots that often but sometimes I think I should...
    Doing it heads up thought I think is a travesty...well when you're short like that especially.

    I wonder if people trying to fold spots they shouldn't is rooted in this misunderstanding of heads up's winner take all format...or maybe I don't understand it.

    I definitely see pros of all types doing it.
  • Wait, the guy with 20bbs folding 75 off to an all in?
  • nope he is first to act and he is folding 75o instead of choosing to push vs the short stack

    What if we change it to 73o or 72o?
  • It makes sense tho

    if villian has 8bb and we have 20 , we really do need to find a better spot- if we get it in light, and villian gets a hand, we are now behind.

    don't think shoving unexploitably works HU all that much. Kx is good, any ace, pairs, broadway, that typa stuff.

    min raise folding isnt really an option either

    so folding is fine as far as im concerned, but id like to hear the argument you are about to make.

    :)
  • Me too . . . I would have thought that an edge is an edge is an edge. If it is +ev to shove, and you do not, then you have made a mistake, no? As for waiting for a better spot, the future is guaranteed to no one, so take your +ev spots while you can.
  • costanza wrote: »

    don't think shoving unexploitably works HU all that much. Kx is good, any ace, pairs, broadway, that typa stuff.


    :)
    Just to be clear of what I'm saying....

    HU is when the whole unexploitable force is at its strongest. When we use nash for mid game cev (chipev) shoving we enter 1 in the payouts because there are no payouts so we are simulating 'winner take all play' because its similar to mid tourney play. But thats a little wrong because we need to add a litte 'ICM' force (we should tighten up slightly for errors sake, because we are never truly 100% cev).


    When we are HU and we use nash, we enter 1 because it actually is winner take all, since the winner takes all of the remaining prizepool. So its the most chip ev part of the tourney and is essentially 100% cev.

    Unless you have edge on the other player...but does one have edge when they are folding +cev and in cev spots, and will admittedly do that more in future spots.
  • i cant believe im about to ask this, but

    fuck sakes... sigh

    how do u feel about limping on the puck?
  • a lot of it has to do with how taking too many +EV spots makes them less +EV
  • Milo wrote: »
    Me too . . . I would have thought that an edge is an edge is an edge. If it is +ev to shove, and you do not, then you have made a mistake, no? As for waiting for a better spot, the future is guaranteed to no one, so take your +ev spots while you can.
    Yes this is one side of the argument that i mostly subscribe to. And I think I can end it by suggesting as time goes on the average play will be better so the attainable edge decreases. So the edge argument has less weight than before.

    But there are certainly marginal spots in ICM situations that we will not take because the other players are wildly busting each other. So this filters to our non ICM game because there is always a slight ICM factor but like I said....not heads....yet pros constantly pass hu spots up, obvious ones they admit are +ev.



    costanza wrote: »
    i cant believe im about to ask this, but

    fuck sakes... sigh

    how do u feel about limping on the puck?

    you must mean Heads up, otherwise thats quite the derail. Limping is great but not if your this short usually.
  • im not gonna offer anymore insight lol

    i just realized how little i know about HU play... this is good that ur doing this
  • Richard~ wrote: »
    a lot of it has to do with how taking too many +EV spots makes them less +EV
    But it won't ever make these spots -ev.... it may effect future spots, however once we steal the blinds which we do more often than not we going into a spiral in which villain can't make hardly any of our shove -ev.

    If he doubles up he has no reason to assume we will still be shoving light. Some do and some don't.

    Here's a question I don't know the answer to...if we make a +ev play here is it +$ev or do we have to win to get paid? Because at the final table we get $ money for making +$ev moves right?
  • shoving down to 75o seems exploitable if he calls atc
  • Richard~ wrote: »
    shoving down to 75o seems exploitable if he calls atc
    He can't choose to do it when you have 75o though.

    Edit: this is not me saying im right, this is something that confuses me!?


    Edit2:

    So if he decides hes gonna screw us because we are shoving 57o, and he calls with ATC, our 57o ev will go down but our overall ev from our ranges will skyrocket.

    He can't adjust his range in such a way that he gains from 57o without losing big time to our entire range.
  • well, if you hsove atc he can call 90% ish and make money. If he suspects you're shoving 80+% he absolutely HAS to adjust to calling closish to atc. If he thinks you're around 50% chances are he'll tighten up too much

    sorry for not answering faster, I was busy steamrolling my first round of the saturday duel : D
  • Heads Up example

    Here's what we can shove unexploitably I guess:

    Attachment not found.Attachment not found.


    The actual equilibrium is set at 67/48....

    If we adjust the bb down 4% to 44% our +ev range shoots to 78% of hands
    If bb calls 36.7% of hands ATC is profitable.

    He really really has to open up for him to change anything?
  • looks alright. Few things tho

    -If we shove 80% and get called it's over, you took a 0,1 BB edge and got caught, now you either win or lose, and you're probably not getting it in ahead

    -Maybe villain only shoves 40% on you, maybe even less at lower levels, if so shoving 80% seems really bad cause there are better ways to approach the match

    -maybe villain doesn't call 4% less but 10% more, maybe he's getting stressed cause it's a turbo and will call randomly because fuck yeah, if he's unstable there are better ways to adjust to that
  • Richard~ wrote: »

    -If we shove 80% and get called it's over, you took a 0,1 BB edge and got caught, now you either win or lose, and you're probably not getting it in ahead
    But do we need to win in order to gain money? or do we gain every time to make a +ev play?


    -Maybe villain only shoves 40% on you, maybe even less at lower levels, if so shoving 80% seems really bad cause there are better ways to approach the match
    Yes we can compare the total ev (Jbx) of each scenario, but I guess that assume that my statement above is incorrect.

    -maybe villain doesn't call 4% less but 10% more, maybe he's getting stressed cause it's a turbo and will call randomly because fuck yeah, if he's unstable there are better ways to adjust to that
    Yes we have to range our villain correctly and we may fold marginal spots, but if its +ev, my thought is we aren't worried about widerning is future range, because we have him by the neck. If he doubles up (even though we made a +ev shove) then stacks are deeper and we are still the favorite to win.


    4677131290_7bca5d434c_z.jpg
    I just had a mini mind explosion seeing that in order to look at the correct stats we need to be comparing JodaBux.


    But first I need confirmation on something so I sent out some emails.

    When we look at the equilibrium jam range hu, the bb takes + difference and the button takes a - difference and they add up to 1....but i thought they should be equal.

    I can't sort this once I know what the reason behind that is. Its really because of posting the bb I guess but I thought if anything the button had the +ev diff advantage (but its called eq diff on nash so I asked someone).
  • you seem to kinda be rambling again. We need to win to make money yes, if he makes a larger mistake with his shoving range than his calling range we should focus that part of our game and finally, the way unexploitable ranges work, if you're shoving on the line you make money from him going too tight and too wide but if you tweak your line either way you're exploitable to him adjusting
  • Richard~ wrote: »
    you seem to kinda be rambling again. We need to win to make money yes, if he makes a larger mistake with his shoving range than his calling range we should focus that part of our game
    Im suggesting that since there are no ICM factors and its WTA that we shouldn't be weighing out the value of how plus ev a shove is compared to a call (what im suggesting might be wrong though?). But we should simple take them all, because each play is $'s in our pocket (or no?).

    That part is still subject to not wanting to cause him to open up..but....
    and finally, the way unexploitable ranges work, if you're shoving on the line you make money from him going too tight and too wide but if you tweak your line either way you're exploitable to him adjusting
    Yes but we are talking about players who don't know nash and therefore don't know how to adjust. He will intuitively adjust but it will rarely be anywhere near 44%...

    If the players knows nash we will simply shove nash.



    My new 'thesis' here is if we are folding hands from the equilibrium jamming ranges, while effectively short stacked heads up, then we have no future edge to make up for folding non negative ev hands.
  • Apparently: At stacks deeper than ~7.8bb the positional advantage for BB in push/fold play outweighs the larger posted blind. Thats why the SB loses equity on average.
  • I think you're gonna have to accept the thesis: "Taking every single +EV spot is most of the time not going to be the most profitable way to play"

    that said, many pro's making videos does not always make the otimal decisions in every spot. I can kinda justify folding our tiny edge in some spots without knowing the exact math. Not sure how to put it but shoving wider than nash suggests is kinda too greedy. Your opponent is unlikely to have proper push and call ranges so shoving too wide is kinda gambling to get that little bit of extra edge while risking the bread and butter edge you have right now
  • I see there is an inflection point....
    Sage:

    .......

    Note that this becomes slightly ev- for the sb to push starting from 7bb's. Small negative ev, but still ev-. So you should only adapt this when really shallow imo.

    Also note that this is far from optimal play. If you think villain shoves tight your calling range should be a little tighter but you can shove wider. Basically (since it only works for 6bb's or shallower) this is just a crapshoot and it's almost a "push any two cards" and hope villain folds. 6bb's is really nothing, and you barely need fold equity preflop to make shoving ATC ev+ because there's already 1.5bb's in the pot. Some higher stakes winning players actually DO shove ATC in these spots because villain will often have a way too tight callingrange.
    Finishing an opponent heads-up: sage, nash and chubukov.



    (on using nash calling charts)
    Nash: ...... Actually, it's better not to use it vs ANY opponent unless you know 100% sure he uses the nash pushing chart, which is a really rare occassion.
    Just found this little quote...these days its not so rare
  • Some random thoughts coming up, I'll prob edit them into here:
    This thread will remain unfinished for awhile I'm sure......and this could all be wrong.


    DO NOT TAKE THIS SERIOUS YET.

    This uses JodaBux (JBX): the total ev we make off our entire shove range vs our opponents entire calling range. So rather than thinking about the profits from our given hand were are thinking about the profit from range vs range.

    Because we have the edge in the BB at this certain inflection point (around 7bbs), when playing equilibrium shove/fold ranges we can use the nash equilibrium calling ranges because any deviation the button makes from the nash equilibrium shoving ranges will result lowing his JBX.

    So there is an inflection point with both players playing nash equillibrium hands where the JBX advantage goes to the BB....and that means a graph can be produced and observed of how and when that cross over takes.

    So at this inflection point stack size our net JBX vs. our opponent will be positive and never negative if we are in the BB and we use the nash calling ranges.

    Also if this inflection point is true then folding your button to the sb would raise his stack size out of the inflection point and bring the nash equilibrium JBX edge back to even or the buttons favor.

    This doesn't mean we will do this always because both players aren't playing perfectly nor are they thinking like this.

    Using the value of this spot can only come after analyzing future outcomes with different player strategies and seeing which players are ideal to use this against and which strategy you would take.

    ???
Sign In or Register to comment.