Forum Replies Created
Thanks. It’s marginal volume for me
Check out this day: http://qtippoker.com/the-gauntlet-has-been-thrown-down/
Good question, which. It’s a long story really. I’ve spent some time with small volume at higher stakes (up to 3KNL), but didn’t enjoy it as much.
When I started, I always had an insufficient bankroll. This had me bonuses whoring for the beginning of my poker career. I got so used to multi-tabling, it’s difficult to stop doing it once you’ve started. Also, the variance is wonderfully low. In 10 years, I’ve yet to have a losing month.
I’m not sure if I’ll ever dabble with nosebleeds or not. I think about it from time to time, but I have some financial goals to accomplish before I get adventurous. Right now, I have a sure way of accomplishing those goals.
Agreed, which. My statement is merely in the theoretical constraints.
Thanks for the thoughts, Arty. I started with recording like 10 pieces of data for about 1,000 flops when BTN opens and BB calls. I’ve been going through this data to see what I can find. I tried comparing the more extreme situations with other scenarios (say UTG opens and BTN calls) to compare; however, things seem more complicated than I hoped. I have other ideas, but it’s a matter of finding time.
We’ll keep plugging away.
Not Villain’s perceived range, YOUR perceived range (corrected perceived). In other words, Villain is making solid assumptions about your strategy…
Thanks for the comments, Arty. Seems you’re headed down a similar path of research.
I’ve noticed all the things you’ve pointed out, too.
The donkbetting is typically quite low, but there are textures where the donk frequency is quite high: Q97r, T97r, J97r, etc.
I’ve been looking at the range vs range equities seeing if I can find patterns there. I’ve not found anything eye-popping yet. However, it’s been interesting to note the range vs. range equities are rarely as bad as 56:44.
Anyway…I’ll keep digging, and see what else comes up. As you say, I’ve certainly picked up some stuff on filling out buckets I think is valuable.
Yeah, I don’t understand the order either. I’ll see what I can find. (Think I have it fixed.)
- This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by QTip.
Thanks for your interest in Snowie.
There are several thoughts to that question:
1) In general, there can be GTO situations where one side can make auto-profit. This happens if the board cards strongly favor the range of one of the players. In your example, this is not really the case though.
2) Even if in your example an auto-profit can be generated, that does not mean that this profit should necessarily be cashed in. The EV may be even better by checking. If you give the bb player Ks9c the EV for check is 1.92 according to Snowie, for example.
3) Soon we’ll release a new, improved version of the AI, which is more consistent. I have checked this situation, and the button folds only 35% instead of 41%, which is probably better.
FYI: I sent Snowie support an email asking for some insight. Doubt I get a response there, but not much to lose sending it.
Also, I’ve been going through hundreds of flop textures recording frequencies. I’ll see what I come out with when I’m done.
I’m still exploring ideas that legitimize Snowie folding over a threshold in these spots. I understand Snowie is not perfect, but I also feel this stuff is murky for everyone. So, I’m guessing there are things we simply haven’t considered yet.
So, another idea:
MOP pg. 278. “Sometimes it may seem you are being exploited on a particular street while playing near optimally. However, often this occurs because the opponent has sacrificed equity on a previous street in order to obtain the position where he can exploit on this street.”
Perhaps this related to your 2nd option: “(2) we have reached a node in the decision tree that constitutes a bad event. (This most likely is compensated by value gained in other branches).”
Yeah, I hear you. Let me go back into the think tank with this for a while.
Thanks again for the feedback. I love having your thoughts/posts here.
Yeah, exploitative is the “preferred” form. Exploitive is sneaking in as a replacement, which I prefer because it’s shorter (a common motive for these types of evolution). I’ve latched on to exploitive, better or worse, hoping to contribute to the change
Good points with the definitions. I’ve updated the blog with maximally exploitive. I wanted it that way to force people to think of the connection between GTO and exploitive.
- This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by QTip.
Thanks 72. Part of the inspiration for this blog was seeing the posts in other forums I actually meant something different than both of those I meant to say Bob is not playing an exploitive strategy. Of course, your description is correct as well.
Clutter is not a problem here
Something else I came across today in MOP page 122.
“Optimal strategies are not always indifferent to bluffing; only the threshold hands are truly indifferent. Often the weakest bluffs have positive value (compared to checking).”
If this is applicable to the flop in real poker (not sure yet and this section of MOP was in toy games), then the idea of making sure Nemesis doesn’t have a +EV bluff with his worse hands is probably building on an inaccurate foundation.
Again, dear reader, understand I’m just thinking out loud in here. Hoping to learn and get feedback.