|
|
#52
12-02-2005, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: You think this is a leak?
im pushing this and i dont think that hard about it.
problem is, that in mid/low buyins the big stacks arent nearly aggressive enough here to make me feel safe... in other words, the shorty is getting a walk too often, imo, to wait around. 
|
|
#53
12-02-2005, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You think this is a leak?
Now I've played a bit more with SNGPT. If we put SB on a calling range of 44+,A7s+,A9o+,KJs+ (loose default) and BB on a calling range of 66+,ATs+,AJo+ (average default) and we discount the SB 40% and the BB 70%, pushing T9s is only +0.3%. Make the calling ranges wider and the equity goes down. Discount the blinds more and the equity goes down.
Given these conditions, button's pushing range (minimum +0.5%) is 66+,ATo+,A9s+,KJs+,QJs (10%). If we losen up the pushing range to include T9s (33+,AKo,AQo,AJo,ATo,A9o,A8o,A7o,A5o,A2s+,KTo+,K7s +,QTo+,Q8s+,JTo,J9s+,T9s), then BB's calling range becomes 66+,ATo+,A8s+,KQs (10%). Using that calling range, button's pushing range becomes: 77+,AT+ (8%). The equilibrium ought to be between those two ranges somewhere. That doesn't narrow it down too much, but it does convince me that T9s is not in the pushing range. I've convinced myself (for the moment) that it's not really even close. There's plenty of room for other conclusions given the same situation because of how much the blind discounts change things.
|
|
#54
12-02-2005, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You think this is a leak?
Where/how do I do the blind discounting? And I'm not sure if I completely understand how one should be using this.
I think I'd rather find a way to 'discount' the fact that bigstacks sometimes let shorty off the hook, rather than the fact that they'll attack my blind.
|
|
#55
12-02-2005, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You think this is a leak?
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:28 am Post subject: v1.19-test8 (blind discounting)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v1.19-test8 is available. This release contains a new item under the edit menu called "Equity Modeling." Here I am adding options for gaining finer control over the modeling and estimation of tournament equity. The first addition is a long overdue way to "discount" equity for the taking of blinds on the next hand. The way this works is that your fold equity can be affected by your posting of blinds on the next hand. This can be important especially when getting short-stacked. Your fold equity is computed from some combination of your fold equity before posting your next blind and after posting it. The two sliders allow you to pick some combination of the two values, from no discount (0), to full discount (100). For a default setting, I've chosen to use discounting for both big and small blinds, and have chosen 50/50 values for both discounts. I think these are good starting points. As for how to choose values, you can see that in an aggressive game where you are unlikely to get a pass in the BB, you should weight the discounted value more heavily. In a passive game where you are likely to get a pass in the BB, you should not expect to lose your BB all that often and can use a lighter weight on the discounted value. eastbay As I understand this blind equity discount modeling should be turned off unless you are UTG(next BB) or BB(next SB). I am not entirely sure why it gives different results when you are not in these positions. ZPM
|
|
#56
12-02-2005, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You think this is a leak?
[ QUOTE ]
As I understand this blind equity discount modeling should be turned off unless you are UTG(next BB) or BB(next SB). I am not entirely sure why it gives different results when you are not in these positions. [/ QUOTE ] Because the equity lost by the hands in the blinds has to go somewhere: into everyone else's bank account.
|
|
#57
12-02-2005, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You think this is a leak?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As I understand this blind equity discount modeling should be turned off unless you are UTG(next BB) or BB(next SB). I am not entirely sure why it gives different results when you are not in these positions. [/ QUOTE ] Because the equity lost by the hands in the blinds has to go somewhere: into everyone else's bank account. [/ QUOTE ] I assume that is what it is doing. But, I'm not sure why it makes sense to "take" equity from those other stacks and disperse it among the others. The logic that you are going to get your fair share of that equity with your short-stack UTG next hand doesn't make sense to me. I think this feature was designed specifically to look at your reduced equity for paying the blinds next hand and not to share equity with you because the other stacks have to pay the blinds.
|
|
#59
12-02-2005, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You think this is a leak?
Okay, first off, somewhere down this thread two people have said they get it as -0.7% or something, what's going on here? What calling range gives you +0.9%?
Also, I think that pushing is less good than SNGPT may see, because shorty is UTG and about to post have his stack in blinds (assuming SNGPT does not now compensate for such things, I don't have the software so don't know for sure).
|
|
#60
12-02-2005, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You think this is a leak?
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, first off, somewhere down this thread two people have said they get it as -0.7% or something, what's going on here? What calling range gives you +0.9%? Also, I think that pushing is less good than SNGPT may see, because shorty is UTG and about to post have his stack in blinds (assuming SNGPT does not now compensate for such things, I don't have the software so don't know for sure). [/ QUOTE ]You can get a great range of EV for the same calling ranges depending upon how much you take into account the next deal's blinds. If you read through the thread you will see a post from me that gives ranges and numbers.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
