A new approach to calling ranges?

[roma12]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think alot of you missed the point of the OP. Hes trying to show a donk perspective-which i am assuming, non of you have. Why have 44+ instead of 22+. to you yes it might be different, but to our fish, it is not. As well as A6s vs A2off...they simply don't know the difference

[/ QUOTE ]

so? so you put his calling range in your mind instead of at 44+ at 22+, and instead of at A6s+ at A2o+. that doesn't seem to be what the op was talking about at all. i dunno, i'm tired and this didn't seem of any theoretical or practical value to me when i wasn't tired. so i'm just going ot leave it alone.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what my formula accounts for is facing a random opponent. Let's be honest, when playing tons of tables at once it is tough to put players on specific calling ranges. Let us assume for a minute that half of the players at a specific level are total donks and half are tough pros. In that case, your push might get called by A2o 50% of the time.

Does that clarify my position at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your thought process is so logically flawed-although i understand where you are coming from, that it is almost impossible to get a clear response to your original post-which i assume is what you are looking for. like i said in my previous response, lowering a villains percentage of the time he will call is the same exact thing as decreasing his calling ranges. When are you EVER going to get a read where you feel that villian is going to dump a certain percentage of the time, yet call w/ the same hand the remaining percentage of the time? The point is, i think you are asking for a more accurate mathematical-theoretical veiwpoint on push situations, and what i am saying is...theres nothing better than the ICM/eastbays program, analysis, in terms of pure mathematical examples.

[zoobird]

Not EXACTLY the same. If I assume my opponent's calling range includes ATo as 'shorthand' for the fact that I really think he would be only 50% likely to call with either ATo or A9o, its the same thing unless my hand is something like 99 or TT in which case it makes some difference. I don't know if its enough difference to matter though.

[pergesu]

I think I get what you're saying here.

Assume opponent will call 100% of the time when he holds AA, and 50% of the time he calls with KK. He will get dealt AA once every 220 hands, same with KK. Now he will only call you 3/440 of the time - 25% less. Then you figure out your EV after going vs AA, EV after going vs KK, and weight it by the probability before doing to over all ICM.

Wow. That would be some [censored] up math.

[viennagreen]

no--- that doesn't make sense.

it isn't like you have to set each player to have the same calling range in eastbay's program.... so...

i don't know--- maybe i'm not understanding your point... but you can set "donk1" to have a loose calling range and "pro1" to have a tight one, based on your observations, and doesn't that do the same thing?

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I get what you're saying here.

Assume opponent will call 100% of the time when he holds AA, and 50% of the time he calls with KK. He will get dealt AA once every 220 hands, same with KK. Now he will only call you 3/440 of the time - 25% less. Then you figure out your EV after going vs AA, EV after going vs KK, and weight it by the probability before doing to over all ICM.

Wow. That would be some [censored] up math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, that what he means. Although people are brushing aside the OP's idea since it isn't very practical, this type of calculations could be done very easily by a computer (ie bot). An intelligent system could do a pretty good job of assigning the probabilities based on player characteristics and the game situation.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I get what you're saying here.

Assume opponent will call 100% of the time when he holds AA, and 50% of the time he calls with KK. He will get dealt AA once every 220 hands, same with KK. Now he will only call you 3/440 of the time - 25% less. Then you figure out your EV after going vs AA, EV after going vs KK, and weight it by the probability before doing to over all ICM.

Wow. That would be some [censored] up math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, that what he means. Although people are brushing aside the OP's idea since it isn't very practical, this type of calculations could be done very easily by a computer (ie bot). An intelligent system could do a pretty good job of assigning the probabilities based on player characteristics and the game situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, with ten thousand hands on a player we could calculate calling range instead of guesing it. But we don't. So we make an educated guess. Sometimes not even that.

I think this is where experience comes in. After a couple of thousand SnGs we start to get better att guessing what a VP$IP 30% PFR 9% player with 1200 chips would do with AJs UTG in level 4. Not as good as fine combing a huge database would be, but good enough to give us an edge. I doubt we will ever be good enough to start thinking in terms of them dumping it 25% of times and pushing the rest.