Something I've been working on, anyone interested?

[Bigwig]

I've been using Pokerstove, Sklansky's books, and this forum to slowly develop some info on NL Hold Em preflop play based on game theory ideas. This is far from a highly scientific project, but I'm getting good, interesting results. A lot of my broad theory question threads have been used for input on range of hands data.

I was wondering if upon the completion of this garbage, would anyone be interested in seeing the results? If I get enough 'yes' answers, I'll post them. Also, before I do, I will have a number of threads designed to try and get a more solid consensus on the range of hands issue, which to me appears to be the biggest variable I'm struggling with.

The final data will be useful, I believe, because a player could use the information differently depending on their opponent. Because the range of hands part is flexible, you can broaden or shorten it based on your opponents level of aggression.

I'm sure I'm not even close to the first person to do this, even on 2+2. So, anyone interested?

Or should my 20% ROI mouth shaddup? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[eastbay]

Make a post or two about some concepts you're using, how, and why. I think interest level will become clear.

eastbay

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Make a post or two about some concepts you're using, how, and why. I think interest level will become clear.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept is putting your opponent on a range of hands that they may be raising with preflop, and then the odds of your hand beating them to the river.

An example would be a thread I posted about typical opening EP raisers. The consensus was pairs 88-AA, AKs-ATs, AKo-AJo, KQs-KJs, and KQo.

My final analysis would be to show each hands equity vs. a particular range of hands to the river. Short-term, I've come up with my own 'Hand Groups' based on NL value, as oppossed to Sklansky's limit value. So right now, I could tell you that my Group 2 NL Hold Em hands (which include TT-JJ, AKs & AKo) have 55% equity against that range of opening hands.

Now, I believe that playing AKo and JJ the same isn't a good idea. I merely did that as a starting point. But that's the general idea.

It has huge implications, IMO, in the CO, Button, and blind positions, because so much of our play in SNG's is short-handed, and so much of the active betting at a full table comes into play at these positions.

This what you were looking for?

[esswest]

I am interested. Post away!

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I am interested. Post away!

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. I guess that's one yes.

This thread is just to guage interest. I don't want to be cluttering up the forum if people simply aren't interested. Also, I want people to know why I will be posting certain threads in the future. The input I get will be a must.

[Ryendal]

Yes, do it !

[Lloyd]

I'd be interested as well. Thanks for taking the time.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Make a post or two about some concepts you're using, how, and why. I think interest level will become clear.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept is putting your opponent on a range of hands that they may be raising with preflop, and then the odds of your hand beating them to the river.

An example would be a thread I posted about typical opening EP raisers. The consensus was pairs 88-AA, AKs-ATs, AKo-AJo, KQs-KJs, and KQo.

My final analysis would be to show each hands equity vs. a particular range of hands to the river. Short-term, I've come up with my own 'Hand Groups' based on NL value, as oppossed to Sklansky's limit value. So right now, I could tell you that my Group 2 NL Hold Em hands (which include TT-JJ, AKs & AKo) have 55% equity against that range of opening hands.

Now, I believe that playing AKo and JJ the same isn't a good idea. I merely did that as a starting point. But that's the general idea.

It has huge implications, IMO, in the CO, Button, and blind positions, because so much of our play in SNG's is short-handed, and so much of the active betting at a full table comes into play at these positions.

This what you were looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, sort of. The idea that you can compute win rates of a given hand against a range of hands is not new.

You say you have devised hand groups based on "NL value" vs. "limit value" but then you don't say anything about how this value is established.

So it is still unclear to me what you've done.

eastbay

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Make a post or two about some concepts you're using, how, and why. I think interest level will become clear.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept is putting your opponent on a range of hands that they may be raising with preflop, and then the odds of your hand beating them to the river.

An example would be a thread I posted about typical opening EP raisers. The consensus was pairs 88-AA, AKs-ATs, AKo-AJo, KQs-KJs, and KQo.

My final analysis would be to show each hands equity vs. a particular range of hands to the river. Short-term, I've come up with my own 'Hand Groups' based on NL value, as oppossed to Sklansky's limit value. So right now, I could tell you that my Group 2 NL Hold Em hands (which include TT-JJ, AKs & AKo) have 55% equity against that range of opening hands.

Now, I believe that playing AKo and JJ the same isn't a good idea. I merely did that as a starting point. But that's the general idea.

It has huge implications, IMO, in the CO, Button, and blind positions, because so much of our play in SNG's is short-handed, and so much of the active betting at a full table comes into play at these positions.

This what you were looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, sort of. The idea that you can compute win rates of a given hand against a range of hands is not new.

You say you have devised hand groups based on "NL value" vs. "limit value" but then you don't say anything about how this value is established.

So it is still unclear to me what you've done.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not sure I've 'grouped' everything perfectly. I'm going to need feedback on this. But before I go posting a flood of threads on the topic, I want to guage interest.

What I did was use charts available on the net for equity hand values based on a wide range of hands played. Then, I discounted certain hands (suited connectors) and increased others (big A hands, big pairs) for their NL value. I then grouped them into 7 categories. Mine have a higher curve than Sklansky's limit hands. For example, my group 1 hands include only AA, KK, & QQ. And my group 7's include 198 different hands.

[The Yugoslavian]

From what it sounds like I can't believe that anyone would not be interested in your posts on the subject.

Post away!!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[St8Gate]

I would be interested, thanks.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
What I did was use charts available on the net for equity hand values based on a wide range of hands played. Then, I discounted certain hands (suited connectors) and increased others (big A hands, big pairs) for their NL value. I then grouped them into 7 categories. Mine have a higher curve than Sklansky's limit hands. For example, my group 1 hands include only AA, KK, & QQ. And my group 7's include 198 different hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you attempting to do this for only SNGs or for all types of NLHE? Depending on stack size some of what you've said is completely wrong. Heck, even at different sites different hands are going to have different amounts of power. If you're playing at a site like stars with deeper stacks then those suited connectors that you took down in value are worth a lot more and Axs can be crap.

I think it's going to be a lot more difficult to do this than you think it is. I do hope you can figure a lot out because it would be very helpful, but I just think that NLHE is so much more situation dependent than LHE that it will be very difficult to come up with a good rote stragety.

[donny5k]

What "game theory ideas" are you using?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I did was use charts available on the net for equity hand values based on a wide range of hands played. Then, I discounted certain hands (suited connectors) and increased others (big A hands, big pairs) for their NL value. I then grouped them into 7 categories. Mine have a higher curve than Sklansky's limit hands. For example, my group 1 hands include only AA, KK, & QQ. And my group 7's include 198 different hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you attempting to do this for only SNGs or for all types of NLHE? Depending on stack size some of what you've said is completely wrong. Heck, even at different sites different hands are going to have different amounts of power. If you're playing at a site like stars with deeper stacks then those suited connectors that you took down in value are worth a lot more and Axs can be crap.

I think it's going to be a lot more difficult to do this than you think it is. I do hope you can figure a lot out because it would be very helpful, but I just think that NLHE is so much more situation dependent than LHE that it will be very difficult to come up with a good rote stragety.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that it's impossible to quantify every hand, as situations dictate what's playable. I'm not attempting to come up with a system that says do a in x situation. Just something that can be used as a basis for adjusting your play to situations.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
What "game theory ideas" are you using?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing too specific. Just the general ideas that your opponents are playing 'optimal' strategy, and use that information to figure out what range of hands that they are likely to be raising/reraising with, and what kind of shape you're in preflop.

[jakethebake]

Will this research be incorporated into the predictive results of Baulucky's $100K PPPM (Party Poker Pattern Mapper).

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Will this research be incorporated into the predictive results of Baulucky's $100K PPPM (Party Poker Pattern Mapper).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm unfamiliar with this. Got a link?

BTW, to all of those that responded, the info I'm putting together isn't suppossed to be some kind of great tell all on how to win at NLHE. I'm not delusional. Just another resource that might help you (and of course me) win more. I'm not trying to be the next great poker theorist.

[stupidsucker]

Lets see it.. If the ideas look bleak, perhaps some of us can point out possible holes. If it looks good then maybe we can all benefit and point out some good things to focus on.

I recomend starting up a brand new post and really lay it out instead of little things here and there. The interest is here to see what you have. We dont want tidbits we want some meat. We dont need everything you have, but we need more then your giving atm.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm unfamiliar with this. Got a link? BTW, to all of those that responded, the info I'm putting together isn't suppossed to be some kind of great tell all on how to win at NLHE. I'm not delusional. Just another resource that might help you (and of course me) win more. I'm not trying to be the next great poker theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the link: Party Poker Pattern Mapper (http://www.sarcasmdetector.com)

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see it.. If the ideas look bleak, perhaps some of us can point out possible holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen, I'm sure there are holes. It's why I'm going to toss some of the info around on these boards. To try and improve it, if possible.

[ QUOTE ]
I recomend starting up a brand new post and really lay it out instead of little things here and there. The interest is here to see what you have. We dont want tidbits we want some meat. We dont need everything you have, but we need more then your giving atm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay.

I'm just wondering where I should start.

How about listing the NL Hand rankings I have, and some of the assumptions I used about typical raising hands of preflop raisers by position?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm unfamiliar with this. Got a link? BTW, to all of those that responded, the info I'm putting together isn't suppossed to be some kind of great tell all on how to win at NLHE. I'm not delusional. Just another resource that might help you (and of course me) win more. I'm not trying to be the next great poker theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the link: Party Poker Pattern Mapper (http://www.sarcasmdetector.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty funny.

[jakethebake]

Just playin'...I think your project sounds very interesting and would like to see the results.

[SpeakEasy]

Yes, please post.

Does this just apply to 1-table, or multi-table as well?

Possibly the same question in a different form: does your work take into account the gradual loss of players at the single-table tournament? In other words, do your hand value rankings change as you lose players (10 vs. 8 vs. 6)?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please post.

Does this just apply to 1-table, or multi-table as well?

Possibly the same question in a different form: does your work take into account the gradual loss of players at the single-table tournament? In other words, do your hand value rankings change as you lose players (10 vs. 8 vs. 6)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, sort of. It takes into account position, so at a 5-handed table, UTG is actually a MP player with everyone having folded to them.

[KJ o]

[ QUOTE ]
And my group 7's include 198 different hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any particular reason you don't stick to the 169 original ones? Are there jokers in your deck?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there jokers in your deck?

[/ QUOTE ]
ROFLMAO

[stupidsucker]

There are 1,326 exact different pocket hands.

Its only 169 when you count AcKc the same as AsKs as well as doing the same for offsuits and pairs.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 1,326 exact different pocket hands.

Its only 169 when you count AcKc the same as AsKs as well as doing the same for offsuits and pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Was this response to me? Yea. I know. It was a funny comment though...jokers... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[poboy]

I'd be quite interested in this. I can't speak for everyone but anything that can possibly help is worth taking a look at.