great stuff man, watched one time, need to do it again and play with your equation on my side. it gives me an idea for review my database, and how I deal with setmining.
when setmining is not anymore profitable what is your approach with pocket pairs? as a regfish I started to fold a lot pre some pocket pairs when I get shallow and I feel much better :) but still difficult to play when it comes to higher pocket like 88-99 even TT, JJ
When it's not profitable to set mine anymore, it's mostly just a ship, depending on the obvious constraints like depth/opponent/position etc. When we have less than 12/15 times the raise size with say 99, it's very frequently just a ship and with 22-55, it's frequently just a fold. We need to play with equity calculators to figure out specific spots but what I will say is that small pairs flop really really badly but have decent all in equity, so it's usually a binary push/fold decision
Thanks guys :) thought you would enjoy more theory, and thanks for the suggestion arnaud
In Dan Harrington's latest book on tournaments (Part 3, under heading "playing the small pairs"), he says he wants to be able to win 20-25 times his call amount to jusatify seeing a flop with a small pair. Seems to be in line with your analysis. Utility change concept is new to me and seems quite valuable.
Hey John,
again, really great video! A crossover between these two concepts would have been fun. Something like how far can we go down in order to set mine profitably having in mind that our utility increases by a great margin if our stack doubles.
Looking forward to your future videos!
Hmm, interesting way of looking at it, I had to think a while before responding.
I think it's a little moot to discuss them hand in hand. Given we lose so little when we miss our set, and we double up so infrequently, utility considerations don't really apply. Utility arguments are best used when A or B happens and they are each relatively likely, particularly over one street. With set mining, we can't even say that we double up every time we flop our set so judging our change in utility is tough.
As an economist I definitely feel you did a good job with your piece on utility. There are defintitely crossovers in utility curves with respect to stack sizes, but as you've put it increasing from 40-90bbs isn't the greatest jump in utility - reflecting the law of marginal returns. Would be interesting to see how FT ICM affects utility in the 25-40bb stack size. In all a great video John.
I was wondering if there was a way to model utilty when you're in mid/late stages of an mtt and you are the big stack and are using your stack to leverage, and generally trying to take control of the table. Here I would assume that increasing utilty of the 40bb+ stack (assuming average stacks are 25-30bb) is more significant than you have previously suggested, unless the table is particularly tough and everyone is capable of playing back.
I think the intuition here is that table dyanmics, toughness of villains, structure will definitely affect the utilty of the 30bb+ stack in different ways (i.e sometimes the utilty jump from say 60-80bbs will be much greater than other times) and in real time modelling this is at best speculative but its useful in game to have an idea of what an optimal stack depth might look like.
Its hard to quantify mathematically all the factors for setmining threshholds
Like u need better odds if u r OOP vs IP even if u close the action in BB since its harder to extract value OOP.
Also player types count a lot.Vs habitual pot controllers u need much better odds since on a lot of boards they go into check calling modes with Overs/TP so u wont be able to stack them where u would normally stack a more casual player.
Great series i hope u can do some more math based ones on 3/4/5 bet dynamics and optimal stack sizes for each.
Loading 11 Comments...
great stuff man, watched one time, need to do it again and play with your equation on my side. it gives me an idea for review my database, and how I deal with setmining.
when setmining is not anymore profitable what is your approach with pocket pairs? as a regfish I started to fold a lot pre some pocket pairs when I get shallow and I feel much better :) but still difficult to play when it comes to higher pocket like 88-99 even TT, JJ
When it's not profitable to set mine anymore, it's mostly just a ship, depending on the obvious constraints like depth/opponent/position etc. When we have less than 12/15 times the raise size with say 99, it's very frequently just a ship and with 22-55, it's frequently just a fold. We need to play with equity calculators to figure out specific spots but what I will say is that small pairs flop really really badly but have decent all in equity, so it's usually a binary push/fold decision
Thanks guys :) thought you would enjoy more theory, and thanks for the suggestion arnaud
Excellent series....really great primer on how to think about stack sizes and strategy. Thank you so much. Have to go back and rewatch right away
I forgot ! Keep continue to make this kind of material, very good! just a suggestion: concepts-powerpoint following by hands examples would be great.
In Dan Harrington's latest book on tournaments (Part 3, under heading "playing the small pairs"), he says he wants to be able to win 20-25 times his call amount to jusatify seeing a flop with a small pair. Seems to be in line with your analysis. Utility change concept is new to me and seems quite valuable.
Hey John,
again, really great video! A crossover between these two concepts would have been fun. Something like how far can we go down in order to set mine profitably having in mind that our utility increases by a great margin if our stack doubles.
Looking forward to your future videos!
Hmm, interesting way of looking at it, I had to think a while before responding.
I think it's a little moot to discuss them hand in hand. Given we lose so little when we miss our set, and we double up so infrequently, utility considerations don't really apply. Utility arguments are best used when A or B happens and they are each relatively likely, particularly over one street. With set mining, we can't even say that we double up every time we flop our set so judging our change in utility is tough.
As always, love the feedback guys, thank you
As an economist I definitely feel you did a good job with your piece on utility. There are defintitely crossovers in utility curves with respect to stack sizes, but as you've put it increasing from 40-90bbs isn't the greatest jump in utility - reflecting the law of marginal returns. Would be interesting to see how FT ICM affects utility in the 25-40bb stack size. In all a great video John.
Thank you zenful, delighted you liked it
I was wondering if there was a way to model utilty when you're in mid/late stages of an mtt and you are the big stack and are using your stack to leverage, and generally trying to take control of the table. Here I would assume that increasing utilty of the 40bb+ stack (assuming average stacks are 25-30bb) is more significant than you have previously suggested, unless the table is particularly tough and everyone is capable of playing back.
I think the intuition here is that table dyanmics, toughness of villains, structure will definitely affect the utilty of the 30bb+ stack in different ways (i.e sometimes the utilty jump from say 60-80bbs will be much greater than other times) and in real time modelling this is at best speculative but its useful in game to have an idea of what an optimal stack depth might look like.
Its hard to quantify mathematically all the factors for setmining threshholds
Like u need better odds if u r OOP vs IP even if u close the action in BB since its harder to extract value OOP.
Also player types count a lot.Vs habitual pot controllers u need much better odds since on a lot of boards they go into check calling modes with Overs/TP so u wont be able to stack them where u would normally stack a more casual player.
Great series i hope u can do some more math based ones on 3/4/5 bet dynamics and optimal stack sizes for each.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.