Heads up Theory

[A_PLUS]

Ok, I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. I see now.

You can't use ICM $EV calcs to 'prove' that ICM is flawed for one.

The positive +EV spots that are created are just a result of the fact that you have taken away most of your down-side risk when making a risky bet.

You have 3600 chips, you have only lose 72$ in equity in the portion of the ICM where you get called and lose. So with the upside held constant, lowering your starting equity always makes a situation more +$EV than having more chips would.

So the increased $EV has nothing to do with the $ equity when a steal is successful.

It also has nothing to do with the $EV when you are called and win.

It only is effected by the times you get called and lose, b/c you dont have much to lose to begin with.

So these +EV situations are real, and from what I can see compltely accounted for by the ICM. But the only time you are going to feel benefit of this higher $EV is when you bust out "hey, I didnt have many chips anyway!"


I understand that you are saying "we are not as bad off as we think, b/c of these new higher $EV opps." and not "we are better off with less chips."

I think you are wrong here, but I may not be explaining my point well. My point is the the $EVs are just a construct of having little left to lose, not any higher upside. And since you cant rebuy constantly at a certain chip level, I think passing up EV neutral spots when SS is a big big mistake. (BTW, this is the basis of buying in short at a NL table. It works there b/c you can always rebuy. Basically limits your reverse implied odds)

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pushing has EV difference of -.000001% of prize pool (edited this for clarity)

Jman's Theory says: PUSH
Matt's Theory says: FOLD

Am I making sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a novel idea: test your theory.

I think you will find it is false.

If you can't test it on full scale poker (although I don't see why it's not possible), come up with a simplified model that retains the properties that you think are essential to making your theory correct.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to do this.

As for full scale poker, I think it would take many years to come up with a sample significant enough.

A full scale model, sounds good. Unfortunately I have no idea whatsoever how to do this. Wanna help?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, no.

I will just say that I have done investigations along these lines before, however, both with simpler model games as well as full preflop push/fold NL Hold'Em and have consistently found that there are no circumstances HU where taking -cEV situations is superior to some other strategy which never does. In fact, very strong strategies will collapse very quickly once you add -cEV moves to them.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's one for you.

You're playing against opponent X. You've been playing with him for 6 hands heads up.

Hero: 6000
X: 4000
Blinds 250/500

Opponent X is a tall slender man with a rugged handsome face. He has been folding every hand except for AA.

He's waiting for those aces baby! And he's gonna bust you so good when he gets em.

Now you are dealt 94s in the sb. He will only call with AA. However, this opponent X has decided that if you push 4 times in a row into him (you've already pushed 3) that he will adjust his range for the rest of the tournament to calling and even pushing himself with 22+, Ax, Kx, Qx.

Clearly, the optimal strategy is to fold this 94s, even though pushing the hand is +cEV. Then push the next three chances you get, then fold again.

Now, in real life, examples aren't this clear cut. They are more like the one's which I am trying to describe in this thread.

Would you mind opening your mind and thinking about them now that I have shown you how +cEV plays are not the optimal strategy 100% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind applying basic reading comprehension and reasoning skills to see what you're posting is a complete non-sequitur?

eastbay

[Jman28]

First let me say that I hope I don't come off as offended or overly-argumentative. I appreciate your contribution to this thread.

I think we are finally on the same page almost. I'm gonna respond to different parts of your post out of order.

[ QUOTE ]
The positive +EV spots that are created are just a result of the fact that you have taken away most of your down-side risk when making a risky bet.


[/ QUOTE ]
Right

[ QUOTE ]
You have 3600 chips, you have only lose 72$ in equity in the portion of the ICM where you get called and lose. So with the upside held constant, lowering your starting equity always makes a situation more +$EV than having more chips would.


[/ QUOTE ]
Right.
[ QUOTE ]
So the increased $EV has nothing to do with the $ equity when a steal is successful.

It also has nothing to do with the $EV when you are called and win.

It only is effected by the times you get called and lose, b/c you dont have much to lose to begin with.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

[ QUOTE ]

So these +EV situations are real, and from what I can see compltely accounted for by the ICM.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I'm having trouble explaining myself better than I already have. I'll keep trying.

I do not think that ICM accounts for the fact that aggressive opponents have more of an advantage when stack sizes are far apart.

Do you agree? If not which part do you disagree with?

That aggressive opponents have more of an advantage when chip stacks are far apart?

or

That ICM doesn't account for this?

I think after you answer that, I may be able to explain further.

also..
[ QUOTE ]

You can't use ICM $EV calcs to 'prove' that ICM is flawed for one.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense, you are right. I used ICM only as an example though to clarify my thoughts. I also am not looking to 'prove' ICM is flawed. Just that it isn't all-powerful, which I think you'll agree with .

Basically, my argument is:

Aggro players do better when there is a greater chip disparity.

ICM does not take that into consideration.

Therefore, if the conditions are right (you are more correctly aggresive than your opponent), you should lean toward decisions that increase chip disparity when ICM says it's very close.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pushing has EV difference of -.000001% of prize pool (edited this for clarity)

Jman's Theory says: PUSH
Matt's Theory says: FOLD

Am I making sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a novel idea: test your theory.

I think you will find it is false.

If you can't test it on full scale poker (although I don't see why it's not possible), come up with a simplified model that retains the properties that you think are essential to making your theory correct.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to do this.

As for full scale poker, I think it would take many years to come up with a sample significant enough.

A full scale model, sounds good. Unfortunately I have no idea whatsoever how to do this. Wanna help?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, no.

I will just say that I have done investigations along these lines before, however, both with simpler model games as well as full preflop push/fold NL Hold'Em and have consistently found that there are no circumstances HU where taking -cEV situations is superior to some other strategy which never does. In fact, very strong strategies will collapse very quickly once you add -cEV moves to them.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's one for you.

You're playing against opponent X. You've been playing with him for 6 hands heads up.

Hero: 6000
X: 4000
Blinds 250/500

Opponent X is a tall slender man with a rugged handsome face. He has been folding every hand except for AA.

He's waiting for those aces baby! And he's gonna bust you so good when he gets em.

Now you are dealt 94s in the sb. He will only call with AA. However, this opponent X has decided that if you push 4 times in a row into him (you've already pushed 3) that he will adjust his range for the rest of the tournament to calling and even pushing himself with 22+, Ax, Kx, Qx.

Clearly, the optimal strategy is to fold this 94s, even though pushing the hand is +cEV. Then push the next three chances you get, then fold again.

Now, in real life, examples aren't this clear cut. They are more like the one's which I am trying to describe in this thread.

Would you mind opening your mind and thinking about them now that I have shown you how +cEV plays are not the optimal strategy 100% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind applying basic reading comprehension and reasoning skills to see what you're posting is a complete non-sequitur?

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly I don't have these skills that you speak of.

The way I see it, I have continually countered everything you've said (with style).

If you could show me why what I said is stupid, I'd really appreciate it.

[Newt_Buggs]

quiz time: You have the option to play an average $55 PP SNG players heads up in a $50 freeze out as many times as you want at the blind level that you choose. If your only goal is to maximize the $ that you make, do you choose
A. 100 BB stacks
B. 10 BB stacks
C. 5 BB stacks

I think that one of the keys to Jmans post is realizing why C is the correct answer (at least I think its the correct answer, correct me if I'm wrong). There are two reasons for this:
1. Hourly rate
and more importantly
2. Average players suck at heads up, and even more so with big blinds because they will often make mathematically incorrect folds. When the OP states that pushing in his example will lead to a situation (shorter stacks) that favors the aggressive player, it doesn't so much imply that the good player is going to exploit the bad player by pushing but that the bad player is going to defeat himself by folding mathematically correct pushes. When your opponents lack a fundamental understanding of simple HU math you can best exploit this ignorance with shorter stacks.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

If you could show me why what I said is stupid, I'd really appreciate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, Jman.

I said that taking -cEV pushes appears to be always wrong.

You then "countered" (with style, no less) that passing on +cEV pushes can be right.

Don't you see that a strategy can pass on +cEV pushes and yet take no -cEV pushes? That these are two completely different things?

Your "counter" is a non-sequitur. I didn't say passing on +cEV pushes was always wrong (and in fact, I've even quantified this effect in some detail in the past). I said taking -cEV pushes is.

eastbay

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you could show me why what I said is stupid, I'd really appreciate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, Jman.

I said that taking -cEV pushes appears to be always wrong.

You then "countered" (with style, no less) that passing on +cEV pushes can be right.

Don't you see that a strategy can pass on +cEV pushes and yet take no -cEV pushes? That these are two completely different things?


Your "counter" is a non-sequitur. I didn't say passing on +cEV pushes was always wrong. I said taking -cEV pushes is.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I guess I misread this:


[ QUOTE ]
there are no circumstances HU where taking -cEV situations is superior to some other strategy which never does.

[/ QUOTE ]

to mean that no situation where making a play that is -cEV is best, whether that be pushing or folding.

By 'situation' I assumed you meant 'situation' and not 'push'

If I understand you now, you are saying that making -cEV pushes always appear to be wrong. Okay.

You opponent is now Lawanda. She is a friendly woman, though pretty new to poker.

Chip Stacks
Hero: 6400
Lawanda: 3600

Blinds, 300/600.

Hero has 32o.

Lawanda is calling pushes right now with 22+,A2+,K2+,Q6o+,Q2s+,J9o+,J7s+,T8s+, (45% of hands), and pushing 22+,A2+,K2+,Q2+,J2+,T3o+,T2s+,95o+,93s+,86o+,84s+, 76o,75s+,65s (75% of hands).

ICM says a push here would be -EV (only -.125%)

However, Lawanda gets very scared when she gets below 3400 chips. When she has less than 3400 chips, she folds every hand except for QQ+ in the SB, and doesn't call a push without AA.

So, pushing, while slightly -EV according to ICM, would be best since you would immediately get Lawanda to under 3400 chips and then run over her from there.

Please now type some short angry comment, then allow me to ask you to expand on it, and then tell me why this example doesn't satisfy your requirements.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
quiz time: You have the option to play an average $55 PP SNG players heads up in a $50 freeze out as many times as you want at the blind level that you choose. If your only goal is to maximize the $ that you make, do you choose
A. 100 BB stacks
B. 10 BB stacks
C. 5 BB stacks

I think that one of the keys to Jmans post is realizing why C is the correct answer (at least I think its the correct answer, correct me if I'm wrong). There are two reasons for this:
1. Hourly rate
and more importantly
2. Average players suck at heads up, and even more so with big blinds because they will often make mathematically incorrect folds. When the OP states that pushing in his example will lead to a situation (shorter stacks) that favors the aggressive player, it doesn't so much imply that the good player is going to exploit the bad player by pushing but that the bad player is going to defeat himself by folding mathematically correct pushes. When your opponents lack a fundamental understanding of simple HU math you can best exploit this ignorance with shorter stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty good representation of a key to my post.

To be a little bit more similar, and a bit more controversial, we might say:

'quiz time: You have the option to play an average $55 PP SNG players heads up in a $50 freeze out as many times as you want at 300/600 Blinds. If your only goal is to maximize the $ that you make, do you choose'

A. You each have 5k chips
B. You alternate games, each time someone starting with 7.5k and the other with 2.5k.

[A_PLUS]

Dude, you owe me like an hour of my life back. why you introduced the ICM $EV calcs into this I will never know. Is what you are saying that typically, opponents make more mistakes with high blinds and widely varied stacks? So when given a choice that is EV neutral pick the situation they are more likely to make mistakes in?

If so, gotcha. Dont know if I agree, but I see your point.

Now that $EV stuff was just a bad example. You see why that was complete BS right?

[dfan]

The theory is slowly becoming better defined as this debate goes on. It now seems to me to be:

Jman's specific hypothesis:

Since most tournament opponents stray farther from optimal play strategy as the difference in stack sizes increases, in neutral or very slightly -cEV situations, you should push if you are the large stack and fold if the small stack since each of these actions is more likely to increase the disparity in stack sizes.

Large form emerging from Jman/Eastbay discussion:

A betting decison that is neutral or even slightly -cEV can be +$EV IF the more usual outcome of the decision is to create a subsequent game situation that your opponent sucks even more at.