May I reply? :-)
I do not really get your thought process behind the EV-formula, so I can't really tell you where or why you made the mistake. Here's the corrected formula (I did use the combo fractions instead of 0.35 to make more clear what the numbers mean and I used more brackets than necessary to exactly show the different terms):
EV (shove) = (11/31 x ((0,76 x -217) + (0,24 x 384))) + (20/31 x 167)
EV (shove) = 81.92
Here's the formula in words:
EV (shove) = (C% x ((VEQ x B) + (HEQ x [P+B]))) + (F% x P)
C% = percentage Villain calls
F% = percentage Villain folds (1-C%)
VEQ = Villain's EQ
HEQ = Hero's EQ (1-VEQ)
B = betsize (Hero's shove)
P = potsize
Formula for checking looks good.
July 9, 2020 | 5:55 p.m.
I still do not really understand just exactly how it would be bad to bet small and get called by a weak Ahigh on the flop and turn
It's not bad in isolation - but it's bad due to the fact that you don't bet against the A-high fraction of your opp's range, but you bet against the entire range. Once again - you need 50% EQ (against the calling-range) to bet for value (assuming that otherwise it would get checked down). That is because you want to get more money back (or at the very least the same) than you invest.
When you bet with 44% EQ, you only get back $0.88 for every $1 you invest (44% of $2 after bet and call). That means, you either need some FE (which you don't have against the given range with the small bet) or you want to avoid losing EQ by getting bluffed on later streets - which again is unlikely.
That is why I showed the extreme example with TT+, AhKs. It's exactly the same - only that you lose even more money by betting, but the principle remains the same. As long as you're an underdog, it doesn't matter how much - that simply impacts the amount you lose, but you'll lose (EV) in ANY case.
July 9, 2020 | 4:13 p.m.
0.9 is Villain's EQ with overpairs - 0.1 is our EQ against.
Against a 50/50 range with 50% overpairs and 50% overcards, you got 44% EQ overall. That said, below 50% equity and w/o any FE at all, ANY bet in position will lose money. It does not matter that against one part of Villain's range you could valuebet - if overall you just run into better hands.
Imagine you're against a range of TT+, AhKs. Still you're 75% ahead of ONE combo - but lose to 30 combos. Still worth betting? :)
July 9, 2020 | 2:16 p.m.
Whatever size you choose, xb has the highest EV (assuming V. calls overpairs, folds AK and ignoring our marginal EQ when called):
EV(shove) = (0.5 x -100) + (0.5 x 90) = -5
EV(minbet) = (0.5 x -20) + (0.5 x 90) = +35
EV(check) = (0.5 x 0.25 x 0) + (0.5 x 0.75 x 90) + (0.5 x 0.9 x 0) + (0.5 x 0.1 x 90) = +38.25
So, when we take +38.25 as a baseline, we can calculate the break-even-point for betsize - assuming that Villain will ALWAYS fold AK to our bet:
(0.5 x -Z) + (0.5 x 90) = +38.25
-0.5Z + 45 = 38.25
-0.5Z = -6.75
Z = 13.5
That means, if you could bet 13.5 and Villain folds half of his range that you beat, the EQ denial would compensate for the loss. Anything > 13.5 is worse than checking.
July 9, 2020 | noon
Flop play is okay, but turn is unnecessary. With "overcard" you mean "overpairs"? Unlikely. It's less than PSB left, Villain won't fold an overpair. Same for NFD (incl. gutshot), I'd prefer to just xb and rely on your SD-value, along with some additional EQ.
July 9, 2020 | 4:53 a.m.
EQR is the EV-share that you will realize. Your "theoretical" EV is calculated by EQ x pot. That means, if for example you have 40% EQ and a pot of 10bb, your share will be 4bb. If you realize only 3bb instead (over the long term), your EQR is 75%.
A bunch of factors determine EQR. Imagine AJ in position against a range of 55+, AQ+. Pot is 10bb, your EQ is 36%. That means, you should take home 3.6bb on average. Fact is - you won't. When the flop comes A-high you'll win very little or lose rather big. That's why your EQ will not represent your "true EV".
That's why assuming an EQR of 115% IP is rather "dangerous".
July 6, 2020 | 2:42 p.m.
I'd expect a bluff here like never - and with only one combo left for each, you're against 4x Jx and 3x J8, 77. That is not enough, given you're risking 72 to win 27.5 (half of initial pot + your bet of 18).
And yes - I'm aware that we are "never calling" then, but that a) is based on the assumption that I'd never expect to see a bluff here (which likely is based on the assumption that no NL200-player will fold Jx here), b) shows how powerful position is and c) maybe makes the initial bet not the best choice.
July 4, 2020 | 7:47 a.m.
My WTSD is 19% and my W$SD is 66%.
And that - sorry to say that - is what makes me angry. Again.
It's the Xth time that you created a new nickname and started to post how rigged all that bull* were and that nobody were to win anymore. Nothing makes sense and anybody who truly works on his game were just a poor insane. We heard that over and over again from your different nicks (that were eventually banned).
I told you to work on your basics. Reply? => Started with "Dude..." and ended up telling me how these games were a joke and blabla ...
And then you show these ridiculous stats!! Please let me repeat - WORK ON YOUR BASICS. Or be more concentrated, whatever it takes. But for god's (or whomever) sake - stop ranting about your bad game in a pokerforum where aspiring and motivated players try to really work up their game.
Sorry for exploding, but that got to be released.
July 4, 2020 | 7:29 a.m.
Weird stuff. From my first gut feeling I was in the calling camp, because I don't think he's bluffing. On the other hand, if we count all two-pairs+ containing an 8 (including 88), we are a huge favorite. And he's likely not folding those to a shove, so shoving actually seems to be most profitable.
July 3, 2020 | 3 p.m.
Regardless of the (non-visible) results, it's the wrong point-of-view. It's not as if you should expect to make money with AK when you get all-in preflop. Why?! Same with QQ ... what worse range do you expect your opps to stack off pre?
July 3, 2020 | 12:15 a.m.
SD is the square root of variance. Variance is the median of squared results of chunks.
Sounds a bit complicated, right? :) OK, let's get real. You got 75k hands on your clock. Now, we separate these in chunks of 100 hands each. That makes 750 chunks. Let's imagine these were "mini-sessions". Now, we look at all those 750 sessions and note the deviation from your average winrate for each. Say, it were +300bb (=300bb/100), -200, +50, -80, +450 and so on. Now we square those and calculate the median:
M = [(300^2) + (-200^2) + (50^2) + (-80^2) + ... )] / 750
Say, we got a median of 9.025. That is your variance! Now, we take the square root - which is root(9.025) = 95 - and that is your standard deviation. It's a measure for the spread of actual results around the overall median (which is your current overall winrate).
In other words, a standard deviation of 95 means that on average (!) you ended each chunk within a margin of 95bb above or 95bb below your average winrate, meaning your chunks ended in a range of [-76bb;114bb].
Now, if you wanna get a feeling on how future sessions might impact your SD, just grab excel and try the following:
Cell A1 = Enter your current number of hands (75k)
Cell A2 = Enter your current SD (95).
Cell A3 = Enter your current winrate (19).
Cell A4 = Enter a formula that calculates the number of 100-chunks (=A1/100).
Cell A5 = Enter a "ficticous swingy" amount of bb won or lost over the next 100 hands (i.e.400).
Cell A6 = Enter the following formula (substitute x by the asterisk, can't do it here):
Now, you can play around with the number of hands in A1 - to see at what amount the swingy session of +400 (or -400, doesn't matter due to squaring) does not show any "significant" impact on SD anymore.
July 2, 2020 | 8:58 p.m.
Have you identified the true standard deviation from your tracker?
With the given stats your assumptions (true WR being > 10.15 with 99% certainty) are correct.
You can as well see it in the confidence interval. With 70% certainty the winrate is between 6.39 and 13.91% (which is quite narrow, hence the low certainty) and with 95% certainty it's between 2.64 and 17.66 bb/100. As your above that, you're in the 5% interval - which spans below and above (meaning 2.5% certainty that actual WR is below 2.64 and 2.5% that it's above 17.66). So, yes, with actual winnings of almost 19bb it's very, very likely that your true winrate is higher than 10.15.
Ah - and congratulations for that. :)
July 2, 2020 | 6:39 p.m.
I believe you - but it does not fit together. Players with 36/22 are not DIFFICULT, regardless if they're bots or not. Bots likely don't make blatant preflop mistakes - unless they're programmed to "mimic" human beings. But then they don't automatically win.
Eventually, bot or not, I see three possible reasons for your situation:
1) You are not winning because you're on a (prolonged) downswing.
2) You are not winning because you're not good enough. "Good" in terms of not optimally adjusting against uncommon player styles that crush your comfort zone.
3) You are not winning because the site implemented own bots (that mimic humans by occasionally making "mistakes") and simultaneously lets these bots win (by tilting the probabilities in their favor).
#3 is as old as (online) poker economy - and believe me (or don't), it's for many, many reasons (that would exceed the available room for discussion, so I'll just drop "complexity of algorithms" and "killing one's own business model" here) so highly unlikely to actually happen, that we can exclude that. Rest is upon you.
July 1, 2020 | 11:59 a.m.
That is not the point. It's as if you would ask if it were okay to call the river with medium pair. Circumstances are key.
Imagine you 5-bet-shove with AK. Then you filter for all hands that saw a flop. What do you expect? Massive losses - obviously. Does that make the all-in -EV? No, obviously not (hopefully).
=> Filter for specific scenarios. If you wanna know if shoving AK pre is okay, compare it to a) folding (how much were you losing if you just folded) vs. b) calling (what's the EV if you called?). Then you get your answer.
July 1, 2020 | 4:19 a.m.
Assuming V. opens to 2.5, we attack a pot of 4bb, where the total pot when called is 22. If we ignore 4bet the following formula can be used:
EV(3bet) = (f3b x 4) + ((1-f3b) x ((22 x EQ x EQR) - 10.5))
f3b = % Villain folds to 3bet
EQ = Equity of our hand
EQR = Equity Realization of our hand
"EQ x ER" is what Pio shows when running the scripted sim.