Heads up Theory

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about his friend, but if he has to do it, he has to learn the language and development time will be huge. Also, development time is human time, which in some rare cases is more valuable than computer time. Plus, it's almost certainly a one-off thing with no practical purpose or deadline. Also, if you do have a purpose to reuse it a lot it isn't too hard to rewrite and/or a lot of easier to learn and develop languages can handle extensions in C for the crunching (I know this program is mostly crunching).

Ok, Ok, I'm just a PHP/Perl hack, I admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

All valid points.

On the other hand...

I know a little bit about doing simulation work. If a code can turn around a result in an hour vs overnight, the difference in utility is vast. When it takes a day to turn around a result, it's too easy to forget exactly what your last run was supposed to show, and just give up. It's a human factors thing. Nobody has the patience to get good results out of a slow code.

So there's a strong nonlinear utility to fast execution times for these kinds of sim tools.

eastbay

[microbet]

Well, I'm working on a project where I may be learning this lesson the hard way. That'll be ok though, lessons learned the hard way are well learned. At any rate I actually think my development time will be shorter writing it in PHP first and then translating to C, than writing in C in the first place.

[PrayingMantis]

[ 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.

[Jman28]

[ 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.

[PrayingMantis]

Jman, I'm sorry, but I understand everything you're saying with 100% certainty, and I repeat that your logic is very very confused. It's not that you're advocating some advanced concpet, you are simply confusing some contradicting ideas and somehow arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at.

You sound like a clever guy, so it's not about disrespecting your intelligence or anything, but I suspect you don't fully comprehend the meaning of the term "EV", and that's part of the reason you're using it in some very illogical manners (there are other reasons).

I'll try to address your last points, but in my exprience in such discussions (as I did had a few.....), I have a feeling you won't be convinced, which is fine, but it is still NOT a matter of opinion, or of misunderstanding you.




[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a very confused idea of EV, that's all I can actually say. If you really think that there's a differece between what you'll have in "reality", and what you'll have on "avarage" according to some simple EV calcultion, you don't understand the concept of EV. It is difficult to discuss your "ideas" when the way you are talking about EV is so confused (BTW, you are making some similar fundamental mistakes in other posts on this thread, not only as a reply to my posts).

I'll move to the second part of your post, in which you deal with your last point (after I wrote: 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.)

In reply you say:

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you don't seem to understand what EV means. If you make a -CEV move, the result is BY DEFINTION a decrease in your stack size (this is when we are talking about specific EV for a move WITHOUT comparing it to other moves. A move can be -EV but still +EV in comparison to another one. Note that this is NOT what we're talking about).

Therefore, what you are saying is essentially nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I really hate to repeat it, but you don't understand the meaning of EV.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lawanda's example, as presented, is confused, for the reasons already mentioned. And still, it's very far from being a good example for what you're trying to say, because in that case, you might make a -EV move that will cause your opponent to make some clear and bigger -EV mistakes down the road the big majority of the time. So what you're actually doing is RISKING giving her chips (i.e, sacrificing chips), for this purpose. Saying that you are decreasing her stack is confused thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing with the idea that a -CEV push might be correct in some very specific circumstances, HOWEVER, claiming that you are actually WIDENING the gap between the stacks by doing so (as the big stack), is completely absurd.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
If you really think that there's a differece between what you'll have in <font color="green"> "reality"</font>, and what you you'll have on <font color="blue">"avarage"</font> according to some simple EV calcultion, you don't understand the concept of EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I have 1000 chips.

I make a push that 80% of the time gains 100 chips, and 20% of the time loses 405 chips.

On <font color="blue">average</font>, I lose 1 chip.

However, I never actually lose 1 chip. I never have 999 chips the next hand. Ever. Do you disagree?

I will often have 1100 chips and sometimes have 595 chips. These are the outcomes in '<font color="green"> reality</font>'

I really think that is a difference. Really.

[ QUOTE ]
If you make a -CEV move, the result is BY DEFINTION a decrease in your stack size

[/ QUOTE ]

On average.

In the above example, 80% of the time I increase my stack slightly, and 20% of the time I decrease it greatly.

I usually increase my stack. Do you disagree?

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

Lawanda's example... It's very far from being a good example for what you're trying to say, because in that case, you might make a -EV that will cause your opponent to make some clear and bigger -EV mistakes down the road the big majority of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? This is exactly the same as what I'm trying to say except that it is much more clear cut. That is the point of examples like these. They illustrate a concept at work in a much more obvious setting.

In fact, I can express my exact idea using your own words to describe the Lawanda example.

"you might make a -EV [play] that will cause your opponent to make some ... -EV mistakes down the road"

How is it not a good example? It leads you right to the point I'm trying to make, and shows that point at work in an obvious way.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I usually increase my stack. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not (that is, I'm not disagreeing). Note also that this is a good reason to make -EV moves in a lot of situations in poker, because there are often cases in which "you are usually increasing your stack". The sad fact is that you are losing money by doing them, i.e, you are DECREASING your stack.

I don't have an intention to keep this discussion going. As I said, you have a very confused idea of EV (the way you are thinking about "in reality" as opposed to "in avarage", etc), and I don't think this is getting anywhere. I think that I've made my points quite clear, and there's not much to add here as far as I'm concerned.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have an intention to keep this discussion going. As I said, you have a very confused idea of EV (the way you are thinking about "in reality" as opposed to "in avarage", etc), and I don't think this is getting anywhere. I think that I've made my points quite clear, and there's not much to add here as far as I'm concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, but could you please explain to me before you leave how the 'average' and 'reality' are not different here?...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you really think that there's a differece between what you'll have in <font color="green"> "reality"</font>, and what you you'll have on <font color="blue">"avarage"</font> according to some simple EV calcultion, you don't understand the concept of EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I have 1000 chips.

I make a push that 80% of the time gains 100 chips, and 20% of the time loses 405 chips.

On <font color="blue">average</font>, I lose 1 chip.

However, I never actually lose 1 chip. I never have 999 chips the next hand. Ever. Do you disagree?

I will often have 1100 chips and sometimes have 595 chips. These are the outcomes in '<font color="green"> reality</font>'

[/ QUOTE ]

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
That's fine, but could you please explain to me before you leave how the 'average' and 'reality' are not different here?...


[/ QUOTE ]

That's really beyond my powers here and now. It's too fundamental.

I'll say just one more thing, that has something to do with it.

[ QUOTE ]
I make a push that 80% of the time gains 100 chips, and 20% of the time loses 405 chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is really still very very unclear (despite your argument that villain makes somewhat bigger mistakes when his stack is shorter) why the (fewer) times in which you actually lose much more chips than you gain when you gain, are not in fact working against you when you use this "tactic", because clearly you are letting villain get much deeper into a territory in which he'll be making less mistakes.

And now I leave.