Stud 8 Scoop Review (part 1)
Posted by Christopher George
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 13 Comments...
Unless it was about balancing his range or something, I dislike the limp last before the bringin with (73)3. The hand is well ahead of the bringin's range. You want to steal the antes and don't mind building the pot.
Your commentary on the open fold of (48)A, r was interesting. I didn't think of a hand with an ace as a razz hand, as the ace has high potential. This hand would be an easy raise to steal from late position. I can see the ace to act makes it weaker for multiple reasons.
With the big antes, I would actually just limp (48)A. You want a multiway pot and you can reevaluate based on the action, almost always folding to 2 bets and in some situations to one. I know it may seem weak and donkish and you aren't doing that with all your aces.
Hi, great vid again. One slightly nitpicky point - an equilibrium strategy would not play hands that are negative ev for "balance" on later streets. Otherwise by definition the player could increase their ev by not playing those hands. The definition of an equilibrium is that neither player can unilaterally improve their equity. There is also the additional complication that multiway the equilibrium may be multiple and may not be the best strategy as the guarantees only involve one player unilaterally changing their strategy, if more tha one player does all bets are off. There are ways of constructing strong strategies multiway but these are reliant on removing dominated strategies. I am less sure of this point but I suspect a negative ev open vs a fold would count as a dominated strategy.
Edited slightly as I was less careful than I should have been in the point around multiway strats.
In terms of an equilibrium strategy there will be plays that may be -EV in order to balance our stronger bets. Some of our weaker bluffing hands will be -EV but potentially positive over our whole strategy. We want to force them to be indifferent in certain situations, otherwise if we are always making +EV bets opponent can always fold and increase his EV.
I agree multi-way pots are a whole different beast, and I am unsure which situation it was that came up, if you give me the time stamp I'd be happy to look back and re-evaluate!
Hi, I am not sure that this correct. Maybe we are talking about slightly different definitions of what a +EV bet is. It is not correct to say that if all of our bets our +EV our opponent can increase his EV by folding to everything. A bet can be +EV and our opponent still has to call. (We bet opponent calls because he has a flush draw - still a +EV bet). A nash equlibrium is mathematically defined so that neither player can unilaterally increase his equity. If we are making -EV bets we can unilaterally improve our equity by not making those bets. If we can do that we are not at a Nash equlibrium
See informal definition in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
The fact that such a point in strategy space exists at all in certain kinds of games under certain conditions (and poker is one such game) is a consequence of a mathematical theorem.
If we are running a Nash strategy some of our weaker bluffing hands might be -EV against the particular strategy that our opponent is running, but this loss is at least made up for in some other part of the range compared to him playing Nash. (Otherwise our strategy was not Nash in the first place). And if we were aware of this we should move our strategy to an exploitative place.
Look at PIO - it does not make plays with hands that have less EV than others eg betting on river when -EV and when checking has >= 0 value. (You might occasionally see it when the ev differences are very small where the simulation has not currently converged at that scale).
Or the in position [0, 1] game form Mathematics of Poker - the bluffs are not negatively valued. Happy to try to give more detail if that is useful .
I think the hand was whether to open a small pair some small frequency but my point was more around the equilibrium strategy. Hope my post doesn't come across too aggressively - I am well aware that I am outgunned in poker knowledge, I just have some experience with solving equilibriums in a game theoretic sense..
Holo you are correct, a GTO strategy always involves choosing the lines with the highest expectation. A bluff is not necessaily a -EV play. A GTO player would never take a line with negative expectation if their were lines with higher expectation availble.
Sorry I should have said less EV rather than -EV. There will be times where a bet might be less EV than a check but it's still made. Some strats constructed can include -EV plays, but they may not be GTO.
Also should you really be halving the equity in odds oracle? (The trip Qs hand). Presumably it is already doing that so you have 30% equity (not 15%). Propoker tools has it at 30% equity too. So would that make it a call?
@18:00 you DONT need to divide the equity by 2, it's allready taken into account that you are drawing to half the pot in the sim.
My mistake!
So should it be a call then?
@16:00 - I think it is definitely a call on 5th with A258T even if we assume we have 0% high equity. We're about 70% to make the low by 7th and are at most risking 280k (we can fold 7th if we miss) to win 1/2 of 413k = 207.5k. We make the low on 6th roughyl 31% of the time where we only have to risk 140k. There are very few situations in stud8 where this is a fold on 5th (exceptions are limped pots pre and checked on both 3rd and 4th).
really great video. learned a lol. Thanks!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.