FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question.

Lambert180

You should have a play around on ICMizer (it's not just for ICM), you'd be vvv surprised to see how wide you can profitably 3bet jam.

Example I just did, BTN minraises from 34xbb, and we are in the BB with 20xbb, what hands can we jam.

I gave BTN opener this as opening range

22+,A2+,K7s+,K9o+,Q7s+,Q9o+,J7s+,J9o+,T7s+,97s+,86s+,75s+,65s,54s

And this as the range he calls the 3b jam with

66+,ATs+,AJo+

Both pretty fair readless ranges imo, and with those 2 ranges, we can literally jam ATC and it's +EV. 

http://tinypic.com/r/1dyt0g/8

Not saying we should jam ATC but you get the idea The bigger the gap between what they open and what they call, the wider we can jam.

F_Ivanovic

Yeah as Lambert says Nash is unexploitable and +ev but is not necessarily the most ev line to take. Also, the thing you have to remember with Nash is that you can only play shove or fold and that for it to work you need to be jamming your AA along with your 54s. If you are m-r your AA (and some other hands) then it becomes no longer profitable to jam lots of small-mid suited connectors. 

In regards to suitedness making such a massive difference - depending on the suited connector but they seem to average about 3.5% equity more (I tried for 10% and 20% range and both gave suited connectors about 3.5% more equity) - this is also more than I thought but it's not just the added equity that's important but as said before it's about our whole range. There's only 4/16 combos of each hand that are suited, the other 12 being off suited. These suited connectors help balance our range and it's what make them +ev shoves. If they are being called too wide that also means you are getting called wide when you have value hands like QQ+

@FeelGroggy: Again, regarding these hands then yes, we can also jam these hands. But the key is not to jam them every time because then we will be too wide in our shoving range. If you haven't been active and think you can get away with a shove - then go for it. But if you have been on a card rush and been active then it's probably not the best idea to be shoving with JTo or T9s UTG.

unknown_username

this thread is immense,thx guys

StayOrGo

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question.:

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : No that's not true. The entire point of Nash is that it's impossible to exploit. We are shoving a range that is +EV and there's no range you con construct to stop it being +EV. If they tighten up we get folds more often to add to our overall EV and if they call too much it just makes our equity better. To take your example, say we assume we have 10bb, and someone is calling 90%... Nash shoving 10bb 22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J3s+,T4s+,95s+,84s+,74s+,64s+,54s, A2o+,K2o+,Q7o+,J8o+,T8o+,97o+,87o Calling 90% 22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J2s+,T2s+,92s+,82s+,72s+,62s+,52s+,42s+, 32s,A2o+,K2o+,Q2o+,J2o+,T2o+,93o+,84o+,74o+,64o+,53o+ In that spot we have 55% equity with our range v theirs, we also get folds 10% of the time. It's impossible to come up with a range that'll make nash shoving ranges not +EV, that's the whole point of them. Like I said, it's not always optimal but is always +EV
Posted by Lambert180

Hi Lambert and Danny,

From my limited understanding the basis of Nash is when ALL players are playing optimally. However lets use the SB, BB scenario where the BB calls 90% of the time.

Clearly our friend in the BB is not playing optimally, therefor ranges have to be adjusted and one should not shove so wide from the SB. So I tend to lean towards Danny's view here.

Whilst the principle of Nash is that it's unexploitable, and you will ultimately be +EV over time, against our villain in the BB, you will be even greater +EV, by tightening up a bit imo.

Interested in your thoughts.

Cheers,

Graham

StayOrGo

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question.:

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : I just had a look at the what we can profitably shove with on 10bb and can't believe how wide it recommends.  Would be useful to see the suggested Nash calling range which allows this to be profitable. Seems crazy we can jam 5 high off 10 bb and expect to make money in the long run. Think it has to be very opponent dependent but very interesting. Your probably right about calling ranges being tighter than Nash although I don't know the calling ranges, so we might be able to shove almost any two cards.
Posted by FeelGroggy

Hi Danny, interestingly I just read that if players are not playing optimally, you should tighten up your range by 5% in ALL cases. This confused me at first, as I thought if players were too tight, then surely you widen the range, however I was wrong about this. :=(

I think the reason behind it is that even though they are calling less, when they do call, they will likely have you crushed, so the equity going to flop is clearly less against tighter players and this apparently is a bigger factor than the additional fold equity.

So any major anomalies to optimal play from your opponents. "according to what I have read", should result in tightening up, and 5% tighter is the recommended amount

So, some good news for you my friend! No need to shove 23o in the SB :=)

Cheers,

Graham.

P.S. Tis great, this shared learning to help us all improve our games!

Lambert180

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question.:

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : Hi Lambert and Danny, From my limited understanding the basis of Nash is when ALL players are playing optimally. However lets use the SB, BB scenario where the BB calls 90% of the time. Clearly our friend in the BB is not playing optimally, therefor ranges have to be adjusted and one should not shove so wide from the SB. So I tend to lean towards Danny's view here. Whilst the principle of Nash is that it's unexploitable, and you will ultimately be +EV over time, against our villain in the BB, you will be even greater +EV, by tightening up a bit imo. Interested in your thoughts. Cheers, Graham
Posted by StayOrGo

Yeah definitely, this is what I said. Sticking to nash charts is guaranteed to be +EV but it's not always optimal/the most +EV play. Just like open jamming 100xbb w/ AA is +EV, but that doesnt mean it's the best way to play it.

StayOrGo

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question.:

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : Yeah definitely, this is what I said. Sticking to nash charts is guaranteed to be +EV but it's not always optimal/the most +EV play. Just like open jamming 100xbb w/ AA is +EV, but that doesnt mean it's the best way to play it.
Posted by Lambert180

Agreed :=)

Tikay10

Nash seems to be poorly understood by most, but it's utterly fascinating.

First up, Nash Equilibrium, as such, was not designed for poker at all, it's uses & benefits are much, much, wider, poker is bit a very small & minor use for it. In theory, it can be applied to any hostile situation where the opposing sides do not, or cannot, play perfect strategy. If both sides can play perfect strategy, Nash Equilibrium is of no use.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

John Nash was an extraordinary man. He became mentally ill, but later recovered. The film "A Beautiful Mind" was based on John's life.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_(film)


Tragically, John & his wife were both killed in a car crash just 6 weeks ago in New Jersey.

Poker players bandy his name around willy-nilly, but very few know much about the great man himself, & the wider uses of his theory.

StayOrGo

In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question.:

Nash seems to be poorly understood by most, but it's utterly fascinating. First up, Nash Equilibrium, as such, was not designed for poker at all, it's uses & benefits are much, much, wider, poker is bit a very small & minor use for it. In theory, it can be applied to any hostile situation where the opposing sides do not, or cannot, play perfect strategy. If both sides can play perfect strategy, Nash Equilibrium is of no use.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium John Nash was an extraordinary man. He became mentally ill, but later recovered. The film " A Beautiful Mind " was based on John's life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_ (film) Tragically, John & his wife were both killed in a car crash just 6 weeks ago in New Jersey. Poker players bandy his name around willy-nilly, but very few know much about the great man himself, & the wider uses of his theory.
Posted by Tikay10

Thanks for this TK. It's good for people to know this.

As you alluded to, it appears, poker players quote Nash Equilibrium a lot, so one does need to ensure that it is not just, "Their personal opinion and quoting Nash to give it substance"

However, regarding this thread, it does appear that there are simulations that back up the valid use of the great man's name, regarding this poker scenario.

I watched "A Beautiful Mind" a few years ago, where John Nash was played by Russell Crowe. Great film!

I didn't know about the recent car accident, how tragic. As you say, a great man! Much respect.

May he and his wife RIP.

StayOrGo

Just had a thought, do you think these same ranges would be valid, if you were the "Big Stack", say 50BB or more, and the stacks of the remaining player/s to act, were say 8 or 10BB's.

Interested in peoples thought on this.

In theory, we could have four versions of the above question for each position, although unlikely to have more than 3 players to your left all with < 10BB. So I think we should just consider CUT-OFF, BUTTON and SMALL BLIND for the scenarios below:

1) Mid stages of the tournament, still way off the money
2) On the bubble
3) In the money but long way off final table
4) Final table

Feel free to input!

Cheers,

Graham