Single tables: TicTacToe or a Live game??

[uphigh_downlow]

Preamble: This is not a mud slinging post, just seeking opinions.

I guess I really shouldnt be making this post, if I want to preserve my tournament equity, but after much though I realized that it works both ways. It does create a little bit of confusion, yet it would lear a few things. Anyway here goes nothing.

This post is prompted by the apparent excessive(or maybe its not) use of ICM or the mathematics of hand holdings. Most of the Is it a push any 2 spot? or is this a call? posts are replied with numbers about gains and losses in equity while making the decision. I can understand if these were guiding principles, but is it OK to exclusively rely on these numbers??

I pose an example here.

Hero and 2 players left in a party 50+5. blinds at 100/200. Chip stacks random.

If I have over time, determined that both the remaining players have been employing the pushing and calling etc strategies using ICM, or eastbay's tool.

Then do I have a strategy that can exploit it?? To me the answer is yes.

For example, if its a clear push any 2 spot for a guy(considering FE and CE), I know that its a clear call for any ace 7 if my equity improves in calling with a 55% hand. A7o stands ~58% against 2 rndom cards. What is important here, is the fact that the guy who is calling has position and extar information about how the hand is going to play out.

Another simple example would be out of position. If I know that it a mut call for a guy with A7 on bb, and he wont call a small raise with trash anyway, I can easily push with AK. Of course this is too simple of an example, but it does get the point across. Surely someone will have a better example.

I understand that some of these pushing and calling strategies exploit the unique nature of the situation, and if you dont exploit what you can, you end up losing some equity.

BUt the point I'm trying to make is:

Are such calling and pushing strategies using purely mathematical tools optimal?? And by optimal I mean unexploitable. Personally, I doubt it.

So all you have to do is determine where your opponent is straying from the optimal strategy, and adopt a counter strategy.

And that brings to the picture an understanding of fine or small edges which pay off in the long run, which I doubt any existing tools can reproduce. SO I hope, we can slow down on advocating a call or a push if its just barely +EV

The closer that the play is, the more exploitable it is.

I can finally end with a smile, knowing (or rather hoping) that this game of poker is still live and not a game of tic tac toe, even if its single tables.

ps: The reason I made this post is rather selfish. I feel that with such a huge following of icm/such toolson these forums and their extensive use, it is much more helpful to the below avg-avg players, and not really as useful for the avg-above players. As I said in the beginning, I dont know if this post will hrt my tournament equity against good players or improve it against avg players. But since the bracket is bottom heavy i figured it was worth a shot.

Flame away

[TheUsher]

HU on Level 5 with 100/200 blinds? That's all I need to read in this post to know something's off.

Edit: Ok, I fully read it now. Feel free to try your plan at the 215's. If my method is exploitable, then you'll rape me there for the full value.

[ZebraAss]

Well of course you use counter ICM techniques. When someone has 3bb UTG and pushes your calling range is much larger. If it is the bubble and a short stack pushes into you of course your calling range is larger.

There are much better examples...

[eastbay]

You bring up a few things here, but in general I think your points ring hollow.

A good deal of poker decision making, based on a calculational method or "instincts", depends on making assumptions about how your opponent will play. To the extent that your assumptions are correct you will make winning plays, and to the extent that they are wrong you may make mistakes.

It sounds like you're saying "If villian assumes X about me and makes play A based on that assumption, I can 'exploit' this by actually doing Y." Well, sure, in many cases if his read is wrong about you his play will be sub-optimal based on an incorrect assumption. So what? This reveals nothing about the calculation except that the quality of the results depend on the quality of the inputs. This is nothing new.

On the other hand, one advantage of these kinds of methods is that they can reveal situations where it doesn't matter what you assume about your opponent, your play is correct no matter what. In these situations, as villian you're screwed, there's absolutely nothing you can do to defend against the correct play. As for me, I think it's important to recognize these situations. They are not always obvious.

Finally, you seem to be critiquing some of the calculations that people do as being "not optimal", i.e., exploitable. The problem with that is that "not optimal" is often much, much better than "optimal" (defined in this sense of unexploitable). I care more about winning than not losing, and I think most people share my conviction. The reason that "optimal" is not usually a best counter-strategy for a given opponent strategy is that vast majority of opponents don't know how to exploit what you're doing. They can't even recognize what you're doing. This is partially ignorance and partially the imperfect information nature of the game. If I put you in 3 times in a row from the SB, I could be pushing any two, or I could have picked up 3 strong hands in a row. You're guessing about my strategy just as much as I'm guessing about yours. This is one reason I don't reveal my active sn here, because this kind of information is priceless.

No amount of calculation can take away the other human beings at the table when their decisions can impact the outcome (which is usually, but not always). What the calculations do is take the human parts of the game (educated guesses about opponent holdings and strategy) as input and generate recommendations about counterstrategy based on the more concrete factors like the probabilities of the deck. So it strikes me as a little naive when people say that ICM calculations reduce the game to "tic tac toe."

As for your contention that these methods are more useful for less experienced players, do you expect that to be controversial? Of course more experienced players already have these correlations burned into their brain via experience. In fact, it's really by comparing with expert opinion that we have confidence that the methods give good advice when supplied with good inputs.

eastbay

[Maulik]

can you share an example?

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, one advantage of these kinds of methods is that they can reveal situations where it doesn't matter what you assume about your opponent, your play is correct no matter what. In these situations, as villian you're screwed, there's absolutely nothing you can do to defend against the correct play. As for me, I think it's important to recognize these situations. They are not always obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

reveal situations where it doesn't matter what you assume about your opponent

[uphigh_downlow]

I was afraid this was going to happen. I'll make this brief.
I am not in criticise mode, just in trying to elicit healthy opinions.

While I might ring hollow, you certainly dont. I dont disagree with you on many points. In fact I agree with most of it. What i disagree with is the blind use of such tools.

The game is not tic tac toe, and that was precisely my point.

I have noticed some people using ICM calculations blindly to establish grounds for a call or a fold. And my point was that ICM might provide insightful information for a certain hand, but it cannot be used as grounds for justifying a play consistently. Because if it becomes consistent, it becomes predictable, and it becomes exploitable.

I havent seen any suggestions along the lines of mebbe you can call 75% of the time here and fold the rest, since it is after all a marginal EV play.

I was hoping to lead the discussion towards constructive and forward progress, not trying to attack existing methods. And only because I'm sure there are sharper poker brains out there, that might have something insightful to say or add another dimension to playing skills.

I guess I will stop here, since I dont see this discussion as of any benefit to me or other sharp/er players who already have similar/more advanced plays hard coded in their heads.

ps: A starting point would be how to beat an excellent player(or an average player), who depends a lot on ICM to make winning plays, coz ICM techniques do increase the skill level that you have to contend with.

But I'd sure be interested to talk to anyone with interesting ideas. I guess it will have to be elsewhere, since I cant really stand up and defend this everytime.

Do PM me if interested

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I was afraid this was going to happen. I'll make this brief.
I am not in criticise mode, just in trying to elicit healthy opinions.

While I might ring hollow, you certainly dont. I dont disagree with you on many points. In fact I agree with most of it. What i disagree with is the blind use of such tools.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anybody who disagrees with you on that point is an idiot.

[ QUOTE ]

The game is not tic tac toe, and that was precisely my point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we agree on that. However, I think you have to admit that ICM methods do help reduce the mystery in the game significantly to a player who starts by being lost in the wilderness. So in that sense I think I understand where the "tic tac toe" comments come from.

[ QUOTE ]

I have noticed some people using ICM calculations blindly to establish grounds for a call or a fold. And my point was that ICM might provide insightful information for a certain hand, but it cannot be used as grounds for justifying a play consistently. Because if it becomes consistent, it becomes predictable, and it becomes exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your opponents adjust to you, you have to adjust back to keep an edge. This is a fact. It just may not be particularly important at, say, Party $55 games, where you don't see the same players all that much.

[ QUOTE ]

ps: A starting point would be how to beat an excellent player(or an average player), who depends a lot on ICM to make winning plays, coz ICM techniques do increase the skill level that you have to contend with.


[/ QUOTE ]

Gear switching is important for playing against players who know how to play well against any one particular strategy. You make their life harder if they aren't sure what to put you on.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
can you share an example?

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, one advantage of these kinds of methods is that they can reveal situations where it doesn't matter what you assume about your opponent, your play is correct no matter what. In these situations, as villian you're screwed, there's absolutely nothing you can do to defend against the correct play. As for me, I think it's important to recognize these situations. They are not always obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

reveal situations where it doesn't matter what you assume about your opponent

[/ QUOTE ]

A trivial example:

Blinds 250/500, Stacks CO 4k, BTN 2.5k, SB 1.5k (you), BB 2.5k.

You have QTo. BTN and CO are good players. Does it matter what BB's strategy is?

eastbay

[TheUsher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can you share an example?

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, one advantage of these kinds of methods is that they can reveal situations where it doesn't matter what you assume about your opponent, your play is correct no matter what. In these situations, as villian you're screwed, there's absolutely nothing you can do to defend against the correct play. As for me, I think it's important to recognize these situations. They are not always obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

reveal situations where it doesn't matter what you assume about your opponent

[/ QUOTE ]

A trivial example:

Blinds 250/500, Stacks CO 4k, BTN 2.5k, SB 1.5k (you), BB 2.5k.

You have QTo. BTN and CO are good players. Does it matter what BB's strategy is?

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

These type of situations make me wish Party had an "all-in" button instead of making my life difficult always sliding that bar. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

(BTW, did you get my PM eastbay?)