Toy Gaming Episode 5: Multistreet Polarized Games
Posted by Sauce123
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 11 Comments...
28:00
Would a reasonable approach to finding exactly what hand class we're making indifferent when we bet be to look at what the defense threshold is for his range vs your bet sizing and make that threshold hand indifferent?
For instance on your A72r btn v bb 1/2 pot c-bet example, OOP needs to continue 66.6% of the time to make our c-bet breakeven with a 0EV bluff. Given our bluffs have equity and some EV checking back and BTN has a range advantage OOP can defend less, so maybe 55%-ish. Could we isolate the main hand-class that makes up that 55% threshold of his range and structure our betting range such that the threshold hand is indifferent on the flop (or at least aim to get close)?
Eh, I feel like people want to choose ways of thinking about poker situations that are consistent and lead to precise answers. I think adopting the method you're describing will lead to consistency, but I don't think it will lead to better poker necessarily. Why assume that you know where to put the thresholds or which freq of hands should continue in which spots? I think you'll just end up being more confident in answers which are just as sketchy as before.
What other consistent approach do we have for gauging what threshold hands to make indifferent (outside of using solvers)? Using intuition is pretty weak imo simply because it's both inaccurate and inconsistent. MDF at least allows us to get a starting point. As for how far above or below to adjust, I don't really know. I tend to aim to defend as close as possible while still arriving to the turn with a range that is pretty balanced and more evenly matched against BTN's flop betting range.
Seems pretty reasonable. I think learning from solvers is important too.
I think you nailed it when you said that while this stuff is all very interesting, in the end it's largely unhelpful when it comes to practical application. Bit like trying to learn how to play snooker from a mechanics textbook.
I try to warn people against the "modificationist" approach of taking some provable result from the toy game, adding some assumptions and applying it to the real game.
It's of course true that the full game has a solution also, and both are computable (at least HU) inside game theory.
Is it proven that HUNL is solvable? At this point it seems overwhelming likely, but has anyone actually confirmed it?
There's a tiny bit of grey area when it comes to bucketing betsizes, but yea, it's solvable.
Here is the link to download the CREV files in the video
Great video Ben.
That note its just shocking. GTO Magic ! xD
GTO Magic the gathering
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.