Model for short-stack all-ins

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, to translate into poker hands, we need a hand ranking system. But the top ones should stay pretty much the same. The 95% should translate roughly to 99-AA and AQ/AK--unless one wants to quibble over whether 99 is better than AJs. That's pretty re-assuring to me, as those are exactly the hands I'd move in with as shortstack even UTG.

As one gets to around 90% (5-player game), one can start thinking about hands like 55/66, A9s, ATo and KQs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, Aisthesis; I've been busy and haven't had a chance to read or respond to this, and I'm departing soon for WPF, so it'll probably have to wait until after.

Two things though:

- Multi-player games always have Nash equilibria, but these are not "optimal" solutions in the sense that if you play your strategy from the Nash equilibrium you can't be exploited. You can normally find coalition strategies that exploit the Nash equilibrium strategy. You might want to google a post of mine on rgp from a few years ago about a three player rock maniac game.

- The matchup between .95 and .93 in the high-number wins [0,1] game is 100% win for .95. (I don't know why you all don't play the lowball version, it makes the algebra much easier). The matchup between AK and TT in holdem isn't. Be careful in trying to map the [0,1] game to holdem; the equities aren't the same or even similar.

Jerrod