a trivial poker problem
Oct. 18th, 2007 12:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksPlaying short-stacked opponents, your decisions are often, in the technical sense, 'trivial'. The Germans on Party Poker like their minimum stacks because they can make their decisions from a crib sheet. The reason why most of them still lose money is that their opponents' decisions are also simplified.
Incidentally, Party has introduced 'beta' "depp-stack" tables. In fact these are merely "higher minimum stack" tables (minimum of half the max buy-in). I've sat down at them when they are running, but the liquidity is not yet there.
Anyhoo, here was a little "work in progress".
A loose full-stacked player limps in something like MP1 and MP2, a short-stacked player who has only played a couple of hands, raises to 4x BB. I have 88 in the big blind.
We could head into a debate about the right move empirically here. The pessimist might say "short stack is bound to have you dominated and you aren't getting the implied odds. Fold". The optimist might say "Hell, these guys could have anything. He's probably Ax. Make him make a decision. Reraise to $20".
Indeed, if this was a raise first-in rather than a raise of a limper, I might have tried a shove, on the grounds that AQ, 99, TT or JJ might fold. However, since I have one x full-stack opponent and one x small-stack opponent, the old Flynn-Miller-Mehta line on "effective stack sizes" rather falls down. My call here is mainly based on the line that I have no idea what situation I will be facing post-flop in terms of ESS.
Loose-passive limper folds pre-flop. Board comes 654 two of a suit.
Shoving here is "trivial", once I have decided to call the raise pre-flop. Indeed, I had decided to shove any flop that did not contain a king or an ace.
So, there's $9 in the pot and we have an effective $16 each. Is my call pre-flop and my shove decision post flop mathematically sound?
Much of this depends on the range of my opponent's initial raise. If he's the default during the day short-stack player, he could be anything from 4%/0% (only raises with aces) to 14%/12% (will invariably raise if he comes in). Then there's the one in 50 outlier who is short-stacked nutty, 70%/50% or something like that.
My default range on this guy was AA to JJ, AK, AQs, plus half chances of smaller pairs down to 6s or so, and some other lesser likelies, AJs, KQs, QJs, etc. All in all, I reckoned he was somewhere between 55% and 60% to have a "high hand" and 40% to 45% to have a high pair. My rough back of an envelope calculations at work the following day gave me a positive EV of about $2.90 through calling and then shoving on any aceless or kingless flop.
You could also argue for shoving any flop, (A or K on board would/could get QQ and JJ to fold).
++++++++++
"Your mailbox is over its size limit" ..... an email message that can strike fear into the heart of the hardiest soul.
Whoever put together Microsoft Outlook should be taken out and shot. Actually, I suspect that it was put together by the committee that had just finished designing the elephant. Its unremitting awfulness when it comes to file and folder management is legendary. .pst folders archiving, automating functions, changing 'views'; all of these things are so counterintuitive that you forget things that you did five minutes previously, let alone six months ago. Take something as simple as finding out the Folder size.
1) Right clisk on the Outlook Today icon in Outlook shortcuts
2) Click on Properties
3) Click on Folder Size
Or Archiving. File - Archive might look like a good bet, but, no chance.
1) Tools
2) Options
3) Other (talk about a catch-all)
4) Auto Archive
Of course, there's a strongly highlighted "RightFax" option - TYVM.
Then there is Tools - "Enterprise Vault". Is that the same as the Archives? Fucked if I know. And why have I got three seets of Archives, and why does it sometimes create a duplicate folder (with a '1' at the end to differentiate it from the original?) in the Archives? And why am I meant to save stuff on the network, but it keeps putting the C Drive .PST as the default archive?
And so on and so on. No simple intuitive answer is ever available in Outlook. You can usually guarantee three things:
1) What you want to do is possible
2) It will take you forever to find out how to do it
3) The next time that you need to do it again, you will have forgotten, because the solution was so counter-intutive.
Incidentally, Party has introduced 'beta' "depp-stack" tables. In fact these are merely "higher minimum stack" tables (minimum of half the max buy-in). I've sat down at them when they are running, but the liquidity is not yet there.
Anyhoo, here was a little "work in progress".
A loose full-stacked player limps in something like MP1 and MP2, a short-stacked player who has only played a couple of hands, raises to 4x BB. I have 88 in the big blind.
We could head into a debate about the right move empirically here. The pessimist might say "short stack is bound to have you dominated and you aren't getting the implied odds. Fold". The optimist might say "Hell, these guys could have anything. He's probably Ax. Make him make a decision. Reraise to $20".
Indeed, if this was a raise first-in rather than a raise of a limper, I might have tried a shove, on the grounds that AQ, 99, TT or JJ might fold. However, since I have one x full-stack opponent and one x small-stack opponent, the old Flynn-Miller-Mehta line on "effective stack sizes" rather falls down. My call here is mainly based on the line that I have no idea what situation I will be facing post-flop in terms of ESS.
Loose-passive limper folds pre-flop. Board comes 654 two of a suit.
Shoving here is "trivial", once I have decided to call the raise pre-flop. Indeed, I had decided to shove any flop that did not contain a king or an ace.
So, there's $9 in the pot and we have an effective $16 each. Is my call pre-flop and my shove decision post flop mathematically sound?
Much of this depends on the range of my opponent's initial raise. If he's the default during the day short-stack player, he could be anything from 4%/0% (only raises with aces) to 14%/12% (will invariably raise if he comes in). Then there's the one in 50 outlier who is short-stacked nutty, 70%/50% or something like that.
My default range on this guy was AA to JJ, AK, AQs, plus half chances of smaller pairs down to 6s or so, and some other lesser likelies, AJs, KQs, QJs, etc. All in all, I reckoned he was somewhere between 55% and 60% to have a "high hand" and 40% to 45% to have a high pair. My rough back of an envelope calculations at work the following day gave me a positive EV of about $2.90 through calling and then shoving on any aceless or kingless flop.
You could also argue for shoving any flop, (A or K on board would/could get QQ and JJ to fold).
++++++++++
"Your mailbox is over its size limit" ..... an email message that can strike fear into the heart of the hardiest soul.
Whoever put together Microsoft Outlook should be taken out and shot. Actually, I suspect that it was put together by the committee that had just finished designing the elephant. Its unremitting awfulness when it comes to file and folder management is legendary. .pst folders archiving, automating functions, changing 'views'; all of these things are so counterintuitive that you forget things that you did five minutes previously, let alone six months ago. Take something as simple as finding out the Folder size.
1) Right clisk on the Outlook Today icon in Outlook shortcuts
2) Click on Properties
3) Click on Folder Size
Or Archiving. File - Archive might look like a good bet, but, no chance.
1) Tools
2) Options
3) Other (talk about a catch-all)
4) Auto Archive
Of course, there's a strongly highlighted "RightFax" option - TYVM.
Then there is Tools - "Enterprise Vault". Is that the same as the Archives? Fucked if I know. And why have I got three seets of Archives, and why does it sometimes create a duplicate folder (with a '1' at the end to differentiate it from the original?) in the Archives? And why am I meant to save stuff on the network, but it keeps putting the C Drive .PST as the default archive?
And so on and so on. No simple intuitive answer is ever available in Outlook. You can usually guarantee three things:
1) What you want to do is possible
2) It will take you forever to find out how to do it
3) The next time that you need to do it again, you will have forgotten, because the solution was so counter-intutive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-18 01:58 pm (UTC)And I'm running at about +4.5BB/100 over the last 2 months, which is most unusual for me in cash games - historically I was just about covering the rake and earning on the bonuses, both direct- and freeroll-based. But small sample sizes, one swallow != a summer, blah, blah, blah.
And if you think Outlook sucks, try spending a couple of years with Lotus fucking Notes.
FMM
Date: 2007-10-18 08:26 pm (UTC)I think that you, Mike, would likely have a style that would be helped by FMM. I hate to presume from little more than a personal acquaintance, but I would guess that your PT stats are more likely to be 12%/4% than 20%/15%. Miller seems to me intrinsically to play (at both Limit and No Limit) with a "wait to see flop" style. That's not to say that he doesn't raise, just that there's a little devil on his shoulder that prefers 80% hands to 55% hands. This is all to the good if your opponents are just as likely to call the 80% hands (where they are 20%) as they are the 55% hands (where they are 45%). Unfortunately, in my experience, opponents are not as a rule so accommodating.
Nevertheless, if you naturally fall into this mode of play, then I can see how FMM would be very useful in helping you to see the relevance of effective stack sizes and to play to those sizes more efficiently. Unfortunately for me there is more often the comment "Oh, for fuck's sake, get more of your money in NOW, don't wait for them to miss the flop".
I would rather win 60 x $10 pots that don't get past the flop than be in 30 x $40 pots where I've got the short stack all-in when he is an underdog. But, mathematically, there isn't much difference between the two.
I also note in the above that I refer to "Depp-stack poker". I could go back and edit it, but I like the image it conjures up, so I think I'll leave it as it is.
PJ
Re: FMM
Date: 2007-10-19 02:34 am (UTC)Chillingly I doubt he was learning how to play but probably forming a mental model of a Harrington player so he could formulate a suitable counter-strategy.
matt
Re: FMM
Date: 2007-10-19 09:35 am (UTC)But I'm not that much of a rock, blimey. About 18/12, I think.
If I ever start up an online poker room (not high on my list of things that are likely) I think I'll call it "Captain Jack's" and host a Depp-stack tournament every night.
Re: FMM
Date: 2007-10-19 10:19 am (UTC)PJ