Re: CONCLUSION OF MY THEORY IN PLAIN ENGLISH
 

[ QUOTE ]
DUH. DUH. DUH. I was just explaining why you want to do that.

In fact, Ill put it more succinctly for you:

(PUSH ANY TWO)

[/ QUOTE ]

At what ratio of blinds to small stack does pushing any two become correct, then?

Re: CONCLUSION OF MY THEORY IN PLAIN ENGLISH
 

[ QUOTE ]

Pushing has EV difference of -.000001% of prize pool (edited this for clarity)

Jman's Theory says: PUSH
Matt's Theory says: FOLD

Am I making sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a novel idea: test your theory.

I think you will find it is false.

If you can't test it on full scale poker (although I don't see why it's not possible), come up with a simplified model that retains the properties that you think are essential to making your theory correct.

eastbay

Re: Heads up Theory
 

My boring theory is that the better player is able to more precisely put his opponent on a range and then do the math to calculate the best EV decision. Seems to me that every time you make a -EV decision you are losing chips and that doesn't seem good.

I think that 92 push cost you about 600 Sklansky chips.

Re: Disclaimer
 

I understand what your saying here jman, I've been thinking along the same lines at times when heads....
At times I will be ahead say 6000-2000 with blinds of 150-300

I will push Every hand at this point. My reasoning being that I'f I can get him down to the point where he has to call he has to win like 3 hands in a row to get even again. If I lose now he thinks I'm pushing 9 2 all the time and will call me with any 2 when We are even and I have a2 or k3 or something like this... which again is +ev cause he will be callling with worse hands now..

Not sure if I made any sense or if this is the same thing your talking about Jman, But just some thoughts I had on the same situation.

Re: Heads up Theory
 

yes but Can It gain you more on later hands.. By loosing 600 sklansky chips can you gain say 1000 ?

Re: Heads up Theory
 

I don't think so.

Say you are in this situation 1,000,000 times and on average you lose 600 chips. How are you going to turn that to your advantage?

A big percentage of the time, maybe 60%, you will just pick up the blinds. The fact that you won those chips is already accounted for in the average amount won/lost. You have pushed one more time (already pushed quite a bit recently) and have thus opened your opponents calling range even further. This means you will have fewer pushable hands. This isn't a huge factor, but I don't think it is positive.

A decent percentage of the time you will lose - about 25 - in those cases you will lose a bunch of chips (which are already accounted for) and you will show down 92, which will widen your opponents calling range and leave you the short stack and much more likely to be called.

The rest of the time you win. All good there.

Re: CONCLUSION OF MY THEORY IN PLAIN ENGLISH
 

hi Jman,

what kind of blind sizes are you assuming here?

thanks,

- Kenny

Re: Heads up Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
My boring theory is that the better player is able to more precisely put his opponent on a range and then do the math to calculate the best EV decision. Seems to me that every time you make a -EV decision you are losing chips and that doesn't seem good.

I think that 92 push cost you about 600 Sklansky chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly off topic, but what calling range do you put my opponent on in the specific hand we were discussing?

I'm giving him a range of 22+,A2+,K5+,Q8+,J9+,T9 and getting a +EV push, right? (This of course, before applying my theory)

Edit: I think his actual calling range is even less.

Re: CONCLUSION OF MY THEORY IN PLAIN ENGLISH
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pushing has EV difference of -.000001% of prize pool (edited this for clarity)

Jman's Theory says: PUSH
Matt's Theory says: FOLD

Am I making sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a novel idea: test your theory.

I think you will find it is false.

If you can't test it on full scale poker (although I don't see why it's not possible), come up with a simplified model that retains the properties that you think are essential to making your theory correct.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to do this.

As for full scale poker, I think it would take many years to come up with a sample significant enough.

A full scale model, sounds good. Unfortunately I have no idea whatsoever how to do this. Wanna help?

Re: Heads up Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]

Say you are in this situation 1,000,000 times and on average you lose 600 chips. How are you going to turn that to your advantage?


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't turn this to my advantage.

I'm talking about situations where I average losing, say, 20 chips.