AF3

So the whole idea is that it's basically a kind of arbitrage in the sense that:

1) The Asian sportsbooks set the "true price" (By Assumption)

2) You then have an opportunity to "buy" the bet below "true market value" with a sportsbook before they can update the betting line.

3) When you place the bet, you are also kind of instantly selling it right back to the market at a profit of the "edge".

Is that more or less the idea?

The nature of intuition is that it's an instinct which moves much faster than the part of your brain which even thinks about things like trust and defining intuition.

If I drop somebody off a building, gravity works whether they "trust" themselves or not.

You can just turn around and say that any study which attempts to "invalidate" intuition is actually just attempting to retrain it.

"We are dependent on arriving at certain solutions in the way that we
THINK that we need to, in order for those solutions to be worth something."

That's interesting -- so you're saying that you think it's common to confuse the familiarity of the method for it's efficiency​?

Thanks for the detailed response -- I'm basically just getting back in to poker to play for a little bit. I like the part about playing your range better being more important than playing the perfect range, which is why I'm looking for something that's obviously not going backwards.

I'll check out the PIO thing you mentioned -- I guess it basically lets you get some ranges for when it folds around to you in the Big Blind.

Alex Sutherland is the GTORB guy -- he uses a different program as an adjunct to GTORB.

Yeah, that's the type of perversion that I was looking to avoid with the assumption "2" above, but as you aptly point out, I need to do more than that:

"2) I have assumed that we know which hands to 3-bet so that we avoid some possible perversions in the solution (i.e. calling a hand like Aces distorts the EV of the range in such a way that with how I have worded the questions, we may "calculate" that we can end up calling very weak hands.)"

So, constructing the calling range (assuming we know the 3-bet range) is basically a case of marginal range building as Alex Sutherland calls it?​

I guess you could think about the question as, "how do we find a calling range that's for sure not going backwards in our quest for more EV?"

While the Nash calling range will be unique, the ranges in the line above should not be.

Just assume the bet sizes are fixed -- better yet, take Limit Hold 'Em. I don't think it matters for the concepts that I'm trying to figure out.

Thanks, I'm not sure how to word the question in a better way -- you're essentially saying the implication "in the GTO calling range ==> they are higher EV than folding pre-flop" does not hold in the other direction, if I read that right.

That's why I put this in there, but it might not be clear what I meant:

"Now, want to find a game-theoretic calling range from the Big Blind. (I use the term "a" calling range and not "the" calling range because I want to keep things simple for myself at the moment, though I understand that our calling range will technically be unique.)"

Are you saying that they aren't necessarily in the Nash calling range because of the way that we've selected the hands? (I.e. we've taken a subset of the complement at random without considering the entire thing, and the EV of our calling range depends on all of the hands in there, so it may well be the case that we have left some out?)

"I hope that you don't think this.
I look at it as if we instantly fold hands that have some strength then it becomes very easy for them to exploit us on that street (profitable bluffing with ATC) and then, they never have to bluff later streets because we only continue with the nuts. I am not saying that you must call here but if you do fold im saying you must be aware of what your opponents are doing. Since pots grow exponentially from street to street, it becomes much more costly for them to double or triple barrel bluff."

If we are treating Villain as unknown, they do what they do no matter what we do, and we look at the equilibrium.

Our EV of checking Aces is X.

Our EV of betting Aces is Y.

By hypothesis, X > Y.

We bet.

Our EV of bet/folding 9 BB's -9.

Our EV of bet/calling is....? We don't know.

We need to be able to claim at least 17/68 (25%) of the resulting pot to call the raise.

I don't see how we can conclude any more than this.

In the same way that you are talking backwards induction with regards to bluffs, as in Villain pays a lot of money to bluff on later streets at larger amounts, Villain also called to get this (rare) flop, so I don't see why ​it's a simple game to just say that we have to call once we bet to avoid being exploited.

I know, you have flop check-call as the most important thing about the hand. So if that's the case, then why is it advised to call a raise once we've made an initial mistake?

I'm asking because whenever I think that I've mis-played a street, I pretty much tend to exit the hand immediately so as not to compound a mistake, but maybe you're making a case that my mentality is flawed.

I didn't see this part before I responded to the other thing, but:if you're saying that we shouldn't bet the flop in the first place, then why should we call a raise after betting?

"the problem with folding to the first bet or raise in a line of raises/bets is that we can be very easily exploited."

I question how accurate this statement is, and even the reasoning behind it.

1) This flop is pretty rare, Villain did pay a bit to get here, so it seems quite difficult to even find how often we should be defending until both of the pre-flop ranges are clarified. Thus, it seems the best we can do is come up with some conditional "if -> then" type statements that clarify the relationship between what our assumptions are and how we should apply them.

2) Let's just break down our own range, even though we don't know what frequency we should actually be defending at. The 3-bet range wasn't really stated, so I'm just going to look at how some of the top tier hands hit this board:

Straights (Nuts): At least 16 Hands (KQ) and any 78s that was 3-bet
Sets: 6 Hands (JJ - TT)
Strong Draws: 6 Hands (QQ)
Pair + Gutshot: At least 6 Hands (KK and any KJ that was 3-bet)

OESD's with no draw:

AQ (16)
Qx Bluffs (do you have any)?

Gutshots: At least 16 Hands (AK) and any Kx suited bluffs (do you have any?)

So that's a minimum of the following:

50 hands that are straights, sets, strong draws, or pair plus gutters.

16 Pure OESD's

16 Gutshots

That's a minimum 82 hands that seem like they should play around this board. If you add up the hands above, you'll see that this 82 hands is a "minimum" because this is not accounting for any Tx pairs, 9X pairs, or even counting all of the straights and such that you can possibly have (78s).

Okay, so we're at 82 hands as a conservative estimate. (Note: AK is also going to have a slight removal effect on the KQ straights, that's worth considering in my opinion.)

Now, let's get a minimum percentage of what these 82 hands represent as a percentage of our pre-flop range. We won't even account for removal of the board (which should be pretty significant) when we're calculating our percentage, so the actual percentage that those 82 hands represent is going ot be a good bit higher.

Here are some various 3-bet percentages and how they translate (assuming that the hands above are actually getting 3-bet):

12%: 51.5%
13%: 47.5%
14%: 44.1%
15%: 41.2%
16%: 38.6%
17%: 36.3%
18%:34.3%

So, even if we've got a pretty aggressive BB 3-Bet range of 18%, more than 1/3rds of our hands are as described above, and we haven't even gotten to the Aces yet.

Furthermore, Aces should basically have a removal effect that works against us here, shouldn't they? They take out a bunch of his AQ, and they also take out a bunch of Ax suited hands.

Maybe you've considered all of this and see a bunch of reasons that are more advanced as to why we should even be betting the flop here, let alone calling the raise, but I'm not sure why Aces are even considered to be very strong on this board.

Curious as to the actual EV of Aces against some various ranges on this board in GTORB or PIO, and what line is actually taken with them. It's definitely the worst of our overpairs (I would argue it's the worst by far), and I guess the rest comes down to how many pre-flop semibluffs like Kxs and Qxs that we have?

Just watched your Relevance video and sent you a PM about it -- the punchline from the book I recommended is that twhen the guy is deciding what to do, he asks himself "what's the ONE thing that makes everything else easier or unnecessary" and the whole book is basically about expanding on that idea

"By 2025 i predict there will be a device that can read the levels and consistencies of a person's emotional dissonance and plot it over large sample gradations. It will also be able to map the subject for contextual associations at the onset of dissonant triggers as he interfaces with reality. High scores will be achieved not by avoiding dissonance, but by transforming it. "

The first part is available now in a device and you can argue that it does the second -- costs around $200 - $300.

I think there's a huge difference between the "talent" of having the ideal body ratios and muscle types to be a sprinter, and the ability to learn skills through smart frameworks for learning....

Read "Moonwalking With Einstein", for example, which is an awesome book because the guy actually went out a did something instead of these ivory tower fucks who like to sit back and comment.

Laughing at the last line...are you referring to your dog or your girl?

Nick for President!

Let Thy Robe Floweth Forth Unto Thee Galaxy...

I'm so sure about this, though. For one, you run in to the not-so-subtle problem of dealing with what it actually means to have an infinite number of multiverses, and whether the set of all multiverses actually exists...Russell's Paradox seems like an example of why this is rather important.

A few other points:

1) Probabilities (as you know) are distributed along the [0,1], so the only way for something to be "infinitely more likely" is for the probability of it not being true, or equivalently, for the only other option to be true, to be zero.

Which brings me to...

2)) It's odd that there is no option to be N of them where N isn't 1, but I guess that's kind of his set-up.

3) With regards to the last paragraph, you're saying that if I think I'm living in one of more than one possible universes, then there is zero chance that I'm living in the only one, so basically if I pick this option then I just can't be flat-out wrong? Maybe you just mis-worded what you were trying to say, and you were trying to say that there is a contradiction in my beliefs.

Also...

A) Technically speaking, you never have an "infinite number" of anything, as that's kind of an oxymoron -- the basic definition of infinity revolves around the idea that you have no upper bound on the number of objects in the collection of things that you are either trying to count or measure.

What you would have, however, is that the collection of multiverses (in this case) has infinite cardinality, which is different, but colloquially you refer to that collection as "being infinite" or whatever. It seems Janda may not know enough to know the difference, though.

In addition, when you say that is something is infinite, you usually want to specify how infinite it actually is, meaning that you can have two collections which are both technically infinite, but one will actually still be larger than the other and be "more infinite" in some sense (countably infinite vs. uncountably infinite). In this case it's relevant, because when you talk about probabilities you are talking about infinite trials of an experiment, and I'd like to know how he is going to measure that -- to which you may say that objection is irrelevant since he is only trying to expose a bias. Okay, fair enough.

So he's basically saying:

"I can do a perfect experiment where I can measure the number of universes we are living in. If I run this experiment and measure the results each time, then as the number of trials gets larger and larger, my results will get closer and closer to some value."

Note -- If there are an infinite number of multiverses, then he gets "closer and closer to infinity" by having no number for which there are a corresponding number of universes (he just keeps counting higher every time he does the experiment and the whole thing blows up).

So, his question is:

"How often will my results converge to 1? (Or, how often can I derive a contradiction from assuming that there is more than one universe.)

(Or, how often will my results not converge to 1, due to the way that I have set up the problem this means there are then infinite?)"

I guess you're saying if, for example, 90% of the time that we run our series of experiments, we will end up counting forever, and so that somehow supersedes everything else?

Seems like you have a lot of work to do to actually show that and you've got to specify a lot of things (but maybe I'm missing something very simple).

Cool idea, though.

Oh, and I've made every mmistake talks about in that post, and then some (inside of poker and out of it.)

1) An intelligent learner has released the insistent assumption that a human can only achieve greater levels of accuracy through higher levels of complexity.

The trap that you're talking about goes like this --

Your brain thinks a system scales by addition, so that if you add one component to a system with ten components, it's the same as adding 1 subject to 3 subjects. Or it's like adding one new tool to a collection of 99 new tools.

It's Not.

The complexity of your system always scales at least by combinatorics, and often exponentially.

For example:

You start off learning one thing about a subject, for example, and you know that everything else that you try to learn will interact with all of the others.

If you study one thing, you have one thing to worry about.

If you study *ten things, and EACH COLLECTION of those things has to be balanced, you have 2^10 = 1,024 new sets of material to be accurate with!"

If only two of the things need to be balanced with each other and you've got 10 of them, you've still got a 45-fold increase in complexity (take 10 choose 2.)

That's the demand that introducing all kinds of tools and contexts puts on your cognition.

Moreover, this has a huge snowball effect because the gap widens as the numbers get larger:

For example, if you take all the subsets in a collection of 2 things , it's 4 (including the empty set), and if you take all the subsets in a collection of 4 things, it's 16. That's a difference of 12.

If you take all the subsets in a collection of 5 things, it's 32, and if you take all the subsets in a collection of 6 things, it's 64.

Etc....

...

To Nick -- Thanks for writing this, because since I've basically retired from poker to start a few businesses, I've fallen victim to this trap, and seeing this actually snapped me back in to reality.

I heard an economist describing equilibrium in a way that is very related to what you are saying about "dynamic" forces:

"There are two ways for it to look like nothing is happening...one is for there to be no forces at play...the other way for it to look like nothing to happen is for two opposing forces to be pushing against each other in such a way that they are cancelling out."

The moral being that it's not like you're just "in the clear" when you're trying to play unexploitably, even though they are "stable" in the mathematical sense that the system will always converge to one of these such points under the evolution of strategy pairs in which each player is is trying to max their EV, etc..

-- I have both worked and lived with Nick, and I can wholeheartedly vouch for his commitment to the game and his intentions in helping those around him improve. In fact, I would say that he was unreasonably generous in our time working together, and I have no doubt that his coaching package is top-notch and he is truly committed to helping students improve.

Honestly, he'll probably be obsessed with helping you get better to the point where his dedication to improving your game may actually outpace your own.

Update: I have decided that those who are interested in negotiating have five days to contact me on RIO, and then I will move on, and (likely) offer a similar version of this bet for higher stakes, and at better odds for the opposing side, in the future.

By the way, if any mention of prop betting is in violation of RIO Forum terms, let me know, and I will be happy to remove the thread, and all associated contents on RIO.

Minimum amount of booking action for terms along the lines of 75 days @5:1 (me) is on the order of $15k, and the more people you will have vouch for your character, the more I am inclined to take your action.

Update: It appears that people are looking for a shorter duration, on the order of 75 days, so their money is not tied up in escrow for as long.

I am open to this, and would offer terms of 75 days @ 5:1 (me).

It's funny, if you don't see why this is not exclusive to personal development, especially mental fortitude (and will not involve sitting on the toilet, except during the obvious), then I don't know what to tell you.

I will not eat shit for any amount of money, for various reasons. I'm not sure how to interpret the fact that you would make this comparison, and wish you the best of luck.

It's funny, if you don't see why this is not (necessarily) exclusive to personal development, especially mental fortitude (and will not involve sitting on the toilet, except during the obvious), then I don't know what to tell you.

I will not eat shit for any amount of money, for various reasons. I'm not sure how to interpret the fact that you would make this comparison, and wish you the best of luck.

Update: *: I have *potential escrow (BigBadBabar), and a well-known RIO coach has potentially agreed to do physical monitoring, for the bet (in addition to multiple webcams).

Minimum amount of action to be considered for booking (at negotiable odds): $10k

I am looking to book at least $50k of action, at a minimum of 5-to-1 (for me).

Send me a private message if interested, I will not be checking the responses in the thread, w/ the exception of posting updates.

Nah, I'm just happy to take something that most people think is very difficult, and complete it, while making money in the process, and showing people the power of the brain, when properly trained.

It's funny, if you don't see why this is not exclusive to personal development, especially mental fortitude (and will not involve sitting on the toilet, except during the obvious), then I don't know what to tell you.

I will not eat shit for any amount of money, for various reasons. I'm not sure how to interpret the fact that you would make this comparison, and wish you the best of luck.