Re: Heads up Theory
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I've been explaining myself fairly well, but I must not be. You must not understand what I am thinking because my logic is entirely sound. I am sure of that.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is entirely not meaningless. The advantages I'm talking about have to do with chip stack disparities. If I have 6k chips vs. 4k chips, what matters is how many chips I have after this play is made. What does not matter is the fact that say, I lose 15 chips on average. What matters is that 70% of the time I gain X chips, 10% of the time I gain Y chips, and 20% of the time I lose Z chips.
What matters is the chip stack situation after the play, which will actually NEVER be 5985 vs. 4015. Therefore, the average chip equity is not the whole story, and what actually happens is not meaningless.
My thinking is not at all ridiculous, and I'm suprised that you don't see this.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
These cases, while entirely unrealistic, are not as irrelevant as you seem to think. These fictional characters make mistakes based on stack size, which our real life opponents do too. Our opponents just aren't as exact, farfetched, and predictable about theirs.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I am not talking about +cEV moves. I am talking about moves that are -cEV. Remember from above that cEV is an average and is not the entire story.
I am talking about moves that on average lose chips, but the majority of the time gain a small amount of chips. Therefore, the majority of the time, they lead to the advantages I'm talking about.
I can't see how you don't understand this. Clearly you must agree that in the 'strange' Lawanda case, it is correct to make a -cEV push. What?!? How? A -cEV move that is good for you? This is the same exact concept that you apparently can't grasp.
As strange as the case is, it explains how it is possible to make a push that is -cEV but still correct, and NOT +cEV.
I think that my posts have a tone of 'hey, check this idea out. What do you think?' while some posters have more of a tone of 'This is fact.' or 'Haha. You're obviously wrong.'
I think this leads to some of my points being taken too lightly, and me sounding unsure of myself.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I am sure that my logic is sound. I am sure that I am correct and that these advantages that I am talking about exist.
I will continue, as I said in a previous post, to employ these strategies in my game. I should not care that not everyone agrees with me, but I honestly do for some reason. If I can think of a way to explain it so that you will understand it, I'll post it.
|