So this printing comment on 1/3 is not quite true. If you look at PIO you will find the BB overfolds to various sizings of cbets even in an optimal strat. You have to compare the EV generated from the overfold to the EV generated from the X back line. So if you had a 0% equity hand and BB overfolds then you should probably bet this hand - but the truth is that hardly any hands truly have 0 equity and they may have even more EV in a delayed cbet line.
I think the rule as stated is worth remembering but like all things the truth is more complicated.
July 3, 2022 | 10:04 p.m.
Yeah the algorithms are pretty well known and the papers can be found on the arxiv generally. The trick is in implementing them correctly and making them run fast. PIO uses a proprietary algorithm I believe but it will still converge to the same answers. To be clear neural net machine learningy type solutions generally do not have guarantees about converging to the nash (or coarse correlated in the case of multiway) equilibrium. so the solvers as we know them are brute force decision trees (often with abstractions).
All "reasons" for things are stuff that we (humans) come up with for why the mathematical solution is what it is. A lot of people reason backwards - eg why doesn't the solver care about board coverage here etc. The point is it never cared - it just solved the mathematical problem, your heuristic just doesn't work here. If you want my "reasons" as to why 54 is preferred to 53s or 64s:
1) 54s makes better pairs than 53s
2) it makes more straights than 64s
3) if you started to have 64s and 54s in the same tight range you might have too many 4s in some sense and are starting to dilute the frequency of big cards too much allowing an opponent to exploit you. Also would mean you woudl be les lilely to cash in on 44x boards as the opponent knows you have a stronger range.
May 21, 2022 | 5:09 p.m.
Actually doesn't preflop rake reduce the incentive to take the flop down pre vs a game that doesn't rake preflop? It tightens you up though so hard to make a direct comparison.
To be clear I haven't run the sims. (I presume they don't rake the raise if not called).
April 21, 2022 | 8:17 a.m.
Monker let’s you input various sizes and see which one it chooses. Bigger oop is a thing. Pot sized raises (100bb) are too small. You basically allow the ip to take a cheap flop and then correctly over fold once they have seen the flop.
March 30, 2022 | 9:28 p.m.
You could probably get a small safety boost from shortstacking (as it will drop variance a bit) until you hit 4000bb. But I would also say that a chunk of the EV live comes from big mistakes in large pots (inelasticity of calling ranges etc)
March 15, 2022 | 10:21 a.m.
I am not totally convinced by the if you have a job don’t worry point of view. I think it is useful to treat that part of your life as a professional as well and is what lets you sustainably grow that part of your wealth. It also ensures you have the right mentality when that becomes (hopefully) a significant piece of your personal worth.
As for the lower buyin being the amount you bought in for - it is more
Complicated than that. It’s really the variance that you care about and that doesn’t drop as quickly as the buyin you are using. I think it is better to think in terms of if you have enough bb in your bankroll. 4000-10000 is solid. Maybe you can go a bit lower accounting for the easiness of the games online and the fact you can rebuild if necessary. 2000 would be an absolute floor for me.
March 15, 2022 | 10:19 a.m.
If people are not raising enough it's not obvious that the mix hand become folds - you would need Monker to figure this out. A bit like how on the flop if opponents don't raise enough we can small bet more.
But be a bit careful with frequency locking as it can do some clever stuff with its range allocation. You might need to lock it manually.
If they were calling too wide and raising correctly then I think the mix hand become folds.
Feb. 8, 2022 | 10:37 p.m.
I think your framing is the wrong way around. It is not that you need to extend the concept of pot odds. The EV at the nash equilibrium just is calculated by playing all possible hands according to the frequencies. That is the correct answer for the EV. Odd and implied odds are one tool for approximating what the correct strategy might be.
Jan. 1, 2022 | 1:24 a.m.
It’s not really logic in a classic mathematical sense. It is basic high school algebra - mostly solving simultaneous equations (but applied tersely and with the application foremost in the mind).
Jan. 1, 2022 | 1:19 a.m.
Yeah really like this format. Compressed takeways / highlights /heuristic are very valuable imho. I think the possible way to make it more entertaining is the way imba did it - with the review being of recorded play and then the video paused with deep thought given where necessary. It gives natural breaks in the teaching process but the density of info is probably lower. (I realise that is a huge amount of work though).
Dec. 22, 2021 | 5:49 p.m.
It's an OOP min bet so it's not reopening the action? I see your broader point though. It is possible that by altering the size the opponent can effectively bet from 33 and 75 to 45 only it is having that effect for a very small cost.
Oct. 25, 2021 | 8:55 a.m.
Would like some mixed game / PLO but content but recognise that you have said previously that you can't really reveal stuff because of other people you have worked with. Maybe something on the general differences between limit and big bet games pitched at a reasonably advanced level?
Oct. 16, 2021 | 2:55 p.m.
FWIW I do think getting mixes correct is important though as you could be accidentally exploited by an opponent (non nash) strategy but in this instance the Q was about an "ideal" opponent which I took to mean nash.
Oct. 11, 2021 | 9:56 a.m.
I think it is correct. If the hands are 0 EV vs fixed opponent strat whether you call or fold them then there is no way that your opponent can gain EV when you fold rather than call them. Your opponent would gain value on his bluffs but would lose the equivalent amount on his value hands (as your range is now stronger).
If he realised what you were doing he could bluff more often, still losing the same on value but gaining more on his bluffs (which he now has more of) and now would make more money.
Consider a nuts or nothing game where opponent has 50% bluffs 50% nuts.
Betting 1 unit into a 1 unit pot the nash strat is to give up half bluffs and bet all nuts and 50% bluffs.
As caller (with mid) I have 0 EV vs this on a call. And 0 EV when I fold.
My opponent's strat EV is 1 unit no matter what I do. If I call he makes 2 units 2/3 of the time when I he has value and loses 1 unit 1/3 of the time when he bluffs (4/3 - 1/3 = 1). If i fold he gets 1 unit.
Note that this is true whether I call 0%, 50% or 100%. The nash strat for me is to call 50% of the time so that his bluffs have 0 EV. If I deviate from this he makes no more money - unless he changes his strat too. If I call 100% he now loses on bluffs but makes on value. If I call 0% he profits on bluffs - but the key is he loses on value (as he never get the additional unit).
The point is if I deviate he can change his strat to make more money, not that nash auto profits vs any change whatsoever. There are changes (in other games) where nash will profit vs a change in strategy but the point is not all - and if a strategy is mixed it doesn't matter which you do if (and this is a big if) if your opponent's strat remains constant.
Oct. 11, 2021 | 9:48 a.m.
So there is a slight misconception in your statement. If your opponent plays ideally (nash) any deviation from your own nash strategy does not necessarily lose you EV. Hence why you can get 0 EV mixed hands. It does however open you up to being exploited if your opponent were to change their strategy. If you could guarantee that your opponent continued to play nash you could throw away all of your 0 EV hands.
Hence why it's "0 EV so do what you like" isn't 100% true. As it's only 0EV vs a nash strategy. Your opponent could deliberately (or accidentally) exploit you if you are not getting the mixes right. That said it probably doesn't make a huge difference