Re: Heads up Theory
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you make a -CEV push as the big stack against your opponent HU, you are actually GIVING him chips, by definition. You can't do that and claim that you are decreasing the size of the smaller stack. That's absurd.
[/ QUOTE ]You are, in a sense, giving him chips, but it isn't that simple.
If we are in a situation with 300/600 blinds, and our push is going to be called 30% of the time, and the push is stil -cEV (compared to folding), we aren't simply giving him chips.
70% of the time, we are taking 900 chips. This puts us in the situation we are looking to get in (where they make more mistakes).
30% of the time, you are in a -ev gamble for a bunch of chips. This accounts for the -cEV of the play. You're account for what happens 70% of the time as opposed to what happens 30% of the time still adds up to simply giving your opponent chips _on avarage_.
It's not some imaginary "sklansky chips".
Giving them 'Sklansky chips' is not the same as giving them real chips.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jman, I think you're stepping deep into a logical and mathematical limbo here. In other words: you are making less and less sense. I think you have to address these theoretical points way before you are getting into any simulation thing.
Look, the way you are describing what happens 70% of the time as opposed to what happens 30% is meaningless, since you are still giving him chips _on avarage_.
These are not imaginary "sklansky chips", that are different from "real chips". This is absolutely ridiculous thinking. You are going against the fundamental idea of EV here (I'm not sure if you fully understand that that's what you're actually doing). You don't need sklansky and his "imaginary chips" to see this.
The fact that there might be strange cases, that you enjoy inventing, that for them making -EV moves might be right because it will DEFINITELY cause your opponent to make bigger -EV moves down the road, has very little to do with all this. That's very simple to understand, no need to invent a "theorem" or something for this. But these are your invented cases, which are fun, yet are very far from any poker reality.
And now for another new point that you make later on:
[ QUOTE ]
After doing some thinking, I realize that the value of this heads up adjustment I'm suggesting is MUCH more pronounced when you are the big stack then when you are the small stack.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's very funny, because now all you're actually saying, is nothing more than this: "It might be correct to make -CEV moves that increase your stack's size". well, Doh? If they increase your stack's size they are +CEV by definition.
|