The evolution of the mid-high stakes forum

[DeeJ]

Eric
I have been surprised that I'm usually one of the few people to say "I call 50%, fold 50%" or something like that. Maybe it's not having played for long enough to be sure of any particular recommendation it's also a good way of hedging my bets [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

edit: I've become Pooh. Bah!

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, but now you are talking about reads and psychology. It's not what's implied by the {fold,call,raise} notation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your assumption. I think {50, 50, 0} simply says that over your career in this situation, you should fold half the time and call half the time.

Now, if you don't think you can better judge these things than your opponent, then yes, you can use dice and randomize the decision that way. In the KQ vs KJ hand, I agree that always calling the KQ and always folding the KJ is a good way to use the cards to make the decision random for you.

However, many players feel that they CAN outguess their opponent, or at least that they would like to try. Maybe they fold the 50% of bets that seem to come the fastest, for example. Or maybe they fold the 50% of bets where their opponents put their chips into the pot in the most unusual way. Whatever. Your holding a Q kicker or a J kicker may not be the best way to ensure that your calls have the highest win rate.

By the way, folding the KJ always and the KQ never is in fact somewhat exploitable, in that if your opponent knows exactly what you are doing, he can profit by bluffing a little more any time he holds a queen. From a purely theoretical view, you have to call the KJ just as often as the KQ.

-Eric

[elindauer]

Hi SpicyMouse,

I agree completely that a good player will not want to use dice to randomize the selection, but should instead use his judgment to try to make the best choice available right now.

This of course comes with the caveat that if the choice is {50, 50, 0}, he cannot use his judgment to constantly decide to fold. This implies that he needs to find a way to keep track of his history somehow, to make sure that he isn't judging his way into a {90, 10, 0}, making his game exploitable without realizing it.

We're also assuming that this player is in fact better than his opponets, aren't we? He should only use his judgment if he feels he can outguess the opposition. Maybe he's sitting in a game with three bad players, five average, but one outstanding, world-class player. The game may be good, but against the world-class player, he should not try to use his judgment to decide whether to call or fold. He should flip the coin. This will help him defeat the good players edge on him in those pots where they face each other.

But first he has to know the percentages, so let's start working on them. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Eric

[Paluka]

I think this usage of the triple {} thing is pointless. Most people usually say stuff like "I call here. If X were true I would raise, if Y were true I might fold. This is a spot where I might vary my play if I was playing against a guy I play against every day." This is way more useful than just trying to be ultraprecise and put some numbers out there.

[DrSavage]

Usually people balance their play with hand ranges and not probabilities of action with a given hand. In your KQ example, the correct action against a good opponent is mostly a function of your hand range with which you bet the river, you can easily construct a range in which always calling will be correct, another one where always folding will be correct and another one where always reraising will be correct. Your actual decision will almost always depend on specific hand you have and you will use game theory here
practically never. Also, trying to use game theory in "calling" problems is just wrong, either your opponent's range is small enough so you can always fold or it's wide enough so you can always at least call or it's just enough so it's not really correct to do either, in which case it doesn't matter what you do. It's absolutely never a correct strategy to call X% and fold Y% for any given opponent, it's either always call or always fold or you are [censored] either way.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Eric
I have been surprised that I'm usually one of the few people to say "I call 50%, fold 50%" or something like that. Maybe it's not having played for long enough to be sure of any particular recommendation it's also a good way of hedging my bets [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

edit: I've become Pooh. Bah!

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel a certain sense of honor that you made your pooh-bah post in my thread. I'm pretty sure that makes me quite a dork. :P

So does using that little :P symbol just now. Man, my ego is taking a beating tonight!

-Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this usage of the triple {} thing is pointless. Most people usually say stuff like "I call here. If X were true I would raise, if Y were true I might fold. This is a spot where I might vary my play if I was playing against a guy I play against every day." This is way more useful than just trying to be ultraprecise and put some numbers out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's one attitude. My own feeling is that more precise answers are better than less precise answers.

I think you may be saying that you don't like someone writing {35, 50, 15} because no one can be that exact. I have two thoughts on that.

First, many game theory problems are fundamentally solvable, so it is not so ridiculous, when crafting a strategy that we are going to employ, that we could in fact be that exact.

Second, I have no problem with a notation that allowed for ranges. Already I've seen someone post something like {20-30, 50-60, 20-30} which only suggests ranges. This, to me, has much more merit than "sometimes do it", or "if I'm mixing up my play I do it" or the other highly vague notions that we use those times we do address this issue.

I agree that at the start, we'll suck at putting down the numbers. It will be awkward for experienced players who are used to knowing the answers to fumble with these numbers and admit that they really don't know the answer. My fear is that this might dissuade some people, perhaps some of the best players, from even trying.

My hope is that it won't.

-Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Usually people balance their play with hand ranges and not probabilities of action with a given hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I go any farther, I wanted to highlight this sentence as being very insightful and absolutely true. There are many situations where this works well. Obviously, because that's all we talk about here at 2+2 and some of us have in fact been known to do quite well at this game. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
In your KQ example, the correct action against a good opponent is mostly a function of your hand range with which you bet the river ... you will use game theory here
practically never.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not so fast. It's really about the comparison between the range our opponent will raise and the range we hold. You can't just construct a range where you should always call. It's always going to be opponent-dependent.

But, in many cases, our opponents range depends on whether or not we will call. Some players are good enough to adjust to what we are doing, just the way we try to adjust to what they are doing. Just looking at your own hand for the decision is what rookie's do.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, trying to use game theory in "calling" problems is just wrong, either your opponent's range is small enough so you can always fold or it's wide enough so you can always at least call or...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very eloquent statement of what I think is a widespread misconception on these boards. On the surface, your argument makes sense. Either it's right to call, or it's wrong.

Your mistake is in the subtle assumption that we can know our opponents hand range. Can we? Against a good opponent, this will be very difficult. He can change gears silently without our knowledge. He can adjust to the way we are playing him without our knowledge. He can be an unknown to us. He may be much better than us and understands the way we are thinking, perhaps because we post all of our thoughts on message boards for anyone to see. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In all of these cases, the safest choice for our strategy is to use a mixed strategy until we have more information suggesting we should try to outguess him.

[ QUOTE ]
It's absolutely never a correct strategy to call X% and fold Y% for any given opponent, it's either always call or always fold or you are [censored] either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? How about if I describe the following opponent: she is smarter than you. she is able to judge whether or not you are going to think she will bluff. she recognizes the kinds of boards you think are "unbluffable", and the kind you don't. How should you decide whether or not to call? Do you want to go on trying to outguess her, when you know she is better than you?

Think this person doesn't exist? Don't you think this about yourself relative to your weaker opponents?

Here's another opponent: good, solid, winner. Very observant and able to adjust to her opponents. You know you are going to have to play with her often, because the player pool for this game is very small. Perhaps you are playing the big game at the Bellagio.

You've made a few big river laydowns today. You don't know if she thinks you're playing weak today, or if she'll recognize that you're just playing the opponent. You get check-raised by her in a spot where she usually has you beat, but it's close. Call or fold?

good luck.
eric

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this usage of the triple {} thing is pointless. Most people usually say stuff like "I call here. If X were true I would raise, if Y were true I might fold. This is a spot where I might vary my play if I was playing against a guy I play against every day." This is way more useful than just trying to be ultraprecise and put some numbers out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's one attitude. My own feeling is that more precise answers are better than less precise answers.

I think you may be saying that you don't like someone writing {35, 50, 15} because no one can be that exact. I have two thoughts on that.

First, many game theory problems are fundamentally solvable, so it is not so ridiculous, when crafting a strategy that we are going to employ, that we could in fact be that exact.

Second, I have no problem with a notation that allowed for ranges. Already I've seen someone post something like {20-30, 50-60, 20-30} which only suggests ranges. This, to me, has much more merit than "sometimes do it", or "if I'm mixing up my play I do it" or the other highly vague notions that we use those times we do address this issue.

I agree that at the start, we'll suck at putting down the numbers. It will be awkward for experienced players who are used to knowing the answers to fumble with these numbers and admit that they really don't know the answer. My fear is that this might dissuade some people, perhaps some of the best players, from even trying.

My hope is that it won't.

-Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

But the real problem is that proper balancing strategies will vary widely based on the situation. If we try and do this every thread will have to answer a) was it live or online b) did the player know you and did you know him c) did you have a history against each other blah blah blah. So all the poker strategy will become muddled by everyone's interpretation of the relationship between the two players. Now combine that with the fact that a) a very small percentage of my online opponents pay enough attention to make me want to vary my play with b) the precision of our answers is going to be awful and I think this is fairly pointless. I'd much rather get an explanation like the one I alluded to in my first post. You say you want precision, but what you are trying to do is measure something with a ruler and give an answer in 1000ths of an inch.

[w_alloy]

Elindaur, I really like most of your posts in this thread. But I think you are making a key mistake in part of your reasoning which I am surprised noone else has pointed out (maybe I am making the mistake, or someone pointed it out and i didnt see?).

We do not necessarily have to balance our strategy when we have top pair and get raised on the river in your example. We only need to balance our strategy for calling with a hand a % of the time we take the raise bet bet bet line and get raised on the river with this board against the BB. It is less relevent the actual hand we hold, because our opponent doesnt know when he raises the river after he takes that line.

Put another way, our weighted range of possible hands needs to have balanced actions, based on the action in the hand up to this point and our tendancies. So, for example, in the example KQ hand lets say we only take this line when we have exactly KdQc or better then top pair. We can then always fold KdQc (if we call with better then top pair) because we will call enough with our range to make his bluff unprofitable.

It may seem like this doesnt contradict any of your points, and that this is meerly a small point, but this is not so. Most players, instead of using triples for specific hands, choose to balance their lines and therefor possible hand ranges to optimal levels. Triples are sometimes required to balance lines, but usually only on earlier streets. This brings us to a more relevent point: Where one person may require a triple for a given spot, others will have balanced that line on earlier streets for that board. It becomes required to know that persons exact wighted hand range to know if a triple is required. This is all rediculously complex for normal internet message board advice, and furthermore assumes your opponent is astute enough to recogonize holes and exploit them (this has been discussed at length already in this thread).

I think triples are a good idea, but should only be used when the opponent is a true expert and very familiar with hero's play, hero's hand range is well defined, and we know what hero will do with his other holdings in this spot on this board (or we need to state it with our triple).