Re: pop quiz
 

fwiw, I don't think I've learned much from this poll, and you haven't even told us how to run these filters in PT!

Re: pop quiz
 

Elindauer,

The idea that he is too loose is correct, but it also isn't very practical since it is impossible to analyze everyone of these spots using traditional methods. I have had always held back some ideas from the boards becuse they didn't seem logical (to people who may be reading it) or were too hard to confirm. Having the ability to attach a model to such spots would be highly useful. My basic theory on the issue is that calling in big pots is an overrated concept on the boards. So I just have to ask...

1) Is it possible to run a search like this?

2) If so, how do you do it?

Thanks in advance.

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's breaking exactly even so..

profit from +EV calls = loss from -EV calls

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, that's the point. "Loss from -EV calls" should be 0. You should never make a -EV call, right? If he has lots of -EV calls, it means he's calling too much. If he stops calling in those spots he currently thinks are close, he'll make more money. That is, if he plays tighter in this spot, he'll do better. That's what I was driving at in this total bomb of a thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Profit from +EV calls" should be maximum possible. You should always make a +EV call, right? If he has too few +EV calls, it means he's calling too little. If he calls more in those spots he currently thinks are close, he'll make more money. That is, if he plays looser in this spot, he'll do better.

Don't see how you can choose one over the other from the information given.

If he likes to call and has made almost every +EV call correctly then he has also made a ton of -EV calls to break even. (fold more)

If he likes to fold and has made only a few +EV calls then he has made only a few -EV calls to break even. (call more)

rgb

Re: pop quiz
 

You can't tell. He could start calling more and winning more. He could start calling less and winning more. Same with calling less.

Krishan

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
The answer I was looking for was: he's too loose.

The point was to show that if you need to win at 5% to justify a call, your true win rate when you call should be much higher. This is because every call you make should have, as a floor, a 5% win rate. You should get plenty of opportunities to call with much better odds than this though, and those calls should drive your winrate up.

If you answered too loose because he should fold if he's exactly 19:1 against then you got the right answer for the wrong reason. I should have made it "just a tiny fraction better than 5%" to make this logic clearly wrong.

If you got the wrong answer because it was unclear that I meant the 5% to refer to his winrate when he calls, and not overall, I apologize for the confusing wording.


thanks,
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I got it wrong. Thanks for making me a better poker player today than I was yesterday.

Krishan

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I was driving at in this total bomb of a thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said