eastbay
01-08-2004, 01:38 PM
I did a little more thinking about my all-in play EV calculations.
Let's group games into "tight", "normal", "loose" and "wild" characterized by the following calling hands of all-in plays at a table of even stacks S:
tight: AA KK QQ AKs
normal: tight + AKo JJ TT 99
loose: normal + AQ 88 77
wild: loose + 66 55 44 33 22 AJ
These are a bit arbitrary and I'm open to suggestion for better groupings.
The scenario is you hold AKo (just to be concrete) and push-in with N players at the table and B blinds (or maybe limps) on the table.
The first time I calculated break-even expectation ratio S/B. But of course all-in with even stacks is a big risk, and you'd like more than a guarantee of break-even. So let's repeat the calculations considering that you'd like to expect 10% or 25% profits in order to push.
"tight" table:
N break-even 10% 25%
9 30.2994059 7.13443333 3.3232823
8 34.3580626 7.38439837 3.39105201
7 39.5763354 7.64816511 3.46051478
6 46.5340326 7.92690911 3.53173487
5 56.2748085 8.22194328 3.6047798
4 70.8859725 8.53473865 3.67972063
3 95.2379124 8.86694885 3.75663214
2 143.941792 9.22043934 3.8355931
1 290.053432 9.5973225 3.91668653
Now these numbers are starting to look pretty realistic to me, in particular the 10% column.
Maybe the most striking result here is the weakening dependence on N as your requirements for profits grows.
The "normal", "loose" and "wild" results are proprietary. (just kidding, too lazy to finish right now.)
Let's group games into "tight", "normal", "loose" and "wild" characterized by the following calling hands of all-in plays at a table of even stacks S:
tight: AA KK QQ AKs
normal: tight + AKo JJ TT 99
loose: normal + AQ 88 77
wild: loose + 66 55 44 33 22 AJ
These are a bit arbitrary and I'm open to suggestion for better groupings.
The scenario is you hold AKo (just to be concrete) and push-in with N players at the table and B blinds (or maybe limps) on the table.
The first time I calculated break-even expectation ratio S/B. But of course all-in with even stacks is a big risk, and you'd like more than a guarantee of break-even. So let's repeat the calculations considering that you'd like to expect 10% or 25% profits in order to push.
"tight" table:
N break-even 10% 25%
9 30.2994059 7.13443333 3.3232823
8 34.3580626 7.38439837 3.39105201
7 39.5763354 7.64816511 3.46051478
6 46.5340326 7.92690911 3.53173487
5 56.2748085 8.22194328 3.6047798
4 70.8859725 8.53473865 3.67972063
3 95.2379124 8.86694885 3.75663214
2 143.941792 9.22043934 3.8355931
1 290.053432 9.5973225 3.91668653
Now these numbers are starting to look pretty realistic to me, in particular the 10% column.
Maybe the most striking result here is the weakening dependence on N as your requirements for profits grows.
The "normal", "loose" and "wild" results are proprietary. (just kidding, too lazy to finish right now.)