AOMax

What are achievable evbb/100 in stats in your opinion and what should you have as a winning player? For example I wanted to move up in stakes, but I lost much money on the stakes with a 5 evBB/100 game. No I went down again where im playing 12 evBB/100?

Am i hitted by variance or should i try to improve my game further.

Pls answer this question one time hypothetical and one time practical. This would really help me in my game selection

The eV is not important. It counts how often the sum is >2,5m. Even if the eV is 3 Million it can be or i guess it is, that more than half of the results are <2,5m. You need tools to calculate this.

One way would prob be to estimate the eV of the avg top 100 player. Type that into the pokerdope variance calc and produce some samples of 100 tourney samples. Yes samples of the samples. As Phil says the ev will drastically be influenced by the top 5%

awesome post. Thanks!

Ok I get that one, but couldnt it be also maximizing ROI not to take every +eV Spots, if you do not have a postflop edge but better shoving ranges.

So lets say your opponents all take every nash spot that are. +0.2BB, if you take all spots that are +0.1BB you have obv an edge over the field. If you now start to take every +0.0x spot You would reduce your chances to use this edge, so it could maximing your ROI on long time. Am I wrong?

I mean ofc this is hypothetical and the numbers are not exact, but I just cant to understand if its a correct logical assumption to let go some +eV spots to have the chance to get more +eV Spots in later stages even without postflop edge

Another example: If we have a +0..000001BB Spot which has a risk of ruin of 25% and we know with our shoving ranges we make evBB about 5 per 100 Hands and in the stage of the tournament we play in average 50 hands more with that stack. We expect to make 2.5 BB in this tournament and we reduce that eV if we risk to ruin for 25% and reduce our eV to 0,75* 2,500000001+ 0,25 * 0 = 1.875

Am I getting this right or Im wrong?

Ok I get that one, but couldnt it be also maximizing ROI not to take every +eV Spots, if you do not have a postflop edge but better shoving ranges.

So lets say your opponents all take every nash spot that are. +0.2BB, if you take all spots that are +0.1BB you have obv an edge over the field. If you now start to take every +0.0x spot You would reduce your chances to use this edge, so it could maximing your ROI on long time. Am I wrong?

I mean ofc this is hypothetical and the numbers are not exact, but I just cant to understand if its a correct logical assumption to let go some +eV spots to have the chance to get more +eV Spots in later stages even without postflop edge

Another example: If we have a +0..000001BB Spot which has a risk of ruin of 25% and we know with our shoving ranges we make evBB about 5 per 100 Hands and in the stage of the tournament we play in average 50 hands more with that stack. We expect to make 2.5 BB in this tournament and we reduce that eV if we risk to ruin for 25% and reduce our eV to 0,75* 2,500000001+ 0,25 * 0 = 1.875

Am I getting this right or Im wrong?

Ok I get that one, but couldnt it be also maximizing ROI not to take every +eV Spots, if you do not have a postflop edge but better shoving ranges.

So lets say your opponents all take every nash spot that are. +0.2BB, if you take all spots that are +0.1BB you have obv an edge over the field. If you now start to take every +0.0x spot You would reduce your chances to use this edge, so it could maximing your ROI on long time. Am I wrong?

I mean ofc this is hypothetical and the numbers are not exact, but I just cant to understand if its a correct logical assumption to let go some +eV spots to have the chance to get more +eV Spots in later stages even without postflop edge

Another example: If we have a +0..000001BB Spot which has a risk of ruin of 25% and we know with our shoving ranges we make evBB about 5 per 100 Hands and in the stage of the tournament we play in average 50 hands more with that stack. We expect to make 2.5 BB in this tournament and we reduce that eV if we risk to ruin for 25% and reduce our eV to 0,75* 2,500000001+ 0,25 * 0 = 1.875

Am I getting this right or Im wrong?

just add me guys soccout8 ill add you to the group.

just add me guys soccout8 ill add you to the group.

thank youuu sooo much <3

6 and growing

ok we are 4 now

This makes perfectly sense. You help me a lot. This might be a major leak in my game as someone who always try to max out nash..

If someone has any footage for this like vids or posts, let me know

Anyway i just found this chrome extensions after posting:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-speed-controller/nffaoalbilbmmfgbnbgppjihopabppdk

So i dont need your help anymore. ;)

Hey Akira I have a pretty important question to what you say at 24:10.

"If you keep jamming these hands its pretty hard to run deep in a tournament, but I still believe its nash+"

This might actually be the leak im looking for in my own game. Im often just jamming at about nash. And i play about 8-10 evBB/100 at my buy ins and i have also won a lot, but my finishing percentage is just 10% in the last 10% . In 2015 (2k sample) its:

Early 6% (10%)
Early/Middle 18% (20%)
Middle 45% (40%)
Middle/Late 21% (20%)
Late 10% (10%)

I try to figure out what I could do wrong that i dont get into the last 10% often enough even im playing winning in BB/100 and in $. As im on the looser side i think the point you make could be right, but im still not 100% certain if this is a correct logical conclusion i mean. chipeV+ is chipeV+

Do you have any further information to this concept? Basically its missing chipeV+ spots to have a longer avg tournament life.

Greaaat video

I really Like your views and your principles but a bit More in depth analysis would be nice for The Next time

Anyway i calculated it and its a pretty easy push:

http://hands.holdemresources.net/?id=19tgpiqm547j0

Do you really think A6s is not a jam? I mean we are effective UTG +3..If you are not sure I would like you to put it in HRC. We learn more from in depth analysis than just your comments

ofc you can add me too!

And i would still play Mr. Win because like some ICM Leaks are just so -eV. You cant reach this with just bad playing. I would go in that case even tighter in opening into that guy.

you mind adding me in skype ? soccout8. I think you are a good sparing partner.

@pepelepew:

Im not sure are we at one table with both of them at the same time or not?

If we have a Mr winner takes it all player at the table our correct adaption is to be tighter than normal, because for his shame he is probably busting too early. And you cant measure your edge on this player in BB/100 . Basically you have to play -BB/100 if to play correct. I had a small convo with some low stakes reg and someone was saying. If the SB trys to ICM pressure me in the BB im calling looser than he will not do it the next time. We all know thats bullshit. Its totally ok to play -BB/100 if its icm correct. And if we see something like this the correct adaption is to make a note, that we have a player at a table who doesnt recognize ICM and to tighten up in any action. Not just in the action with this player, but with all players, since the chips we have aren even more valuable than in a pure icm perspective.

With a icm familiar player we have a edge on its nothing special. In longterm we should play +bb/100 .

If you compare the edge on both players I would guess that the edge on MR Win is way higher and if you calculate the $eV of some of his actions this is just pure gold for us.

We range people and run ICM, not Nash. Might have just been a slip on your part so apologies if this thusly sounds pedantic but just in case!

I think we both mixing up some things.

So ICM is just a way to calculate which includes and independent $ Value. We dont always use ICM, because in early stages it is not important.

Nash Equilibrium is like the way we should play if we dont have any further informations than his chips on the table. To play according Nash Equi is the perfect way to play if anyone else playing perfect too.

Correct is Nash refers to the nash equilibrium. Its an equilibrium point from which neither player can adjust their strategy to make more money, while knowing your opponents strategy.

Thats correct if our opponent all plays in a nash Equilibrium we cant improve over Nash even if we know his strategy.

So nash equilibrium is the irrefutable best move possible.

But just in this case. If ppl dont play nash strategy. Nash can be not maxeV and also -eV. Ill come to this later. Also we have to remember that fe the famous nash HU Table is just for the hypothetic version in which just push/fold is allowed.

Of course we only have equilibrium points solved for certain cases, open shipping being the best example. As someone drops out of nash, our equilibrium point changes.

Yes this is right but im not sure if the terms are correct, because if someone drops out of Nash we are not in a Nash Equilibrium more and what we calculate is just a mathematic solution of a problem

So if a dude calls much wider or much tighter, our goalposts now move based on that so we can make more money from his mistakes.

Yes and as told before here comes the situation where nash can become -eV. If someone calls to light, he can make the spot -eV for him and you! And everyone on the table or tournament gets +eV. I think you mentioned this in the video.

As someone shoves too wide, we can call wider (relative to our stack size of course, very important!!!)

Yes but not as much more wider than he shoves and just in a chipeV perspective

That are just some comments, because this convo is becoming very valuable.

And bro can you explain me the eV edge stuff. Is it because icm does not consider that play advantage of a big stack or is it also your personal edge on the field?

First thank you very much for being so logical. I had a similar conversiation in a skype Convo and a better reg flamed at me just for being logical. I mean I dont want to bromance, but this is a really great and rare attitude and I like to point it out. I mean you are >>>>> better than me and im really new into poker, but I just mad a logical statement and you are like without hesitating "Yes youre right". This is great for you me and other r1 members.

Yes I was shocked too when calculating it the first times. I think its a common mistake to miscalculate the value because they dont use the correct equation and that led to massive overvalue of blockers. Postflop against really good players this can much more make a difference You are right.

Against 99+,AQo+,AJs+

T2s has a slight ( 0,4%) better EQ than A7o. But in this case the FE would really make the difference and A7o would be the better rejam.

I always try to be as neutral as possible when doing calculations, what is obv hard for ego based beings as we are. So your comment :

I think by far the best approach is to have done enough calculations off the table to have enough reference points to flat out know the range an icm calculator will spit out. That is our best model for these spots so whatever type range a nash icm equilibrium tells us to shove, I don't feel I can improve on that (we can absolutely can and should apply edges though!).

brought me to another point. And as we know every chip more is icm considered worth less than the one we had before so to do a really correct equation We must know that the chips we win through FE are undervalued / the chips we win in all in situation are undervalued. So this could lead to crazy icm suggestions like a spot where two hands have the same +ChipexpectedValue but different $eV. You see it?

I also want to comment into improving over nash. As you said its really hard to figure out when you can differ from Nash. Because if fe ppl call tighter than nash You can not push as much looser as they are playing tighter, because your FE increases but your all in EQ goes down but seeing this under the light of my previous passage it might make sense to push at least looser than nash.

Its really hard to figure out. So still the best is to give the ppl as accurate ranges as possible and then run nash. If our given ranges are correct there is really no way to improve the solution. Nevertheless its always good for the practical using to understand the math behind it
.

Ok lets do it with your ranges:

I use 16.3 now even if not all hands are correct:
66+, A5s+, K9s+, Q9s+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, QJo

so after CR of A7o this is left as
15.51%

The calling Range of : 99+,AJs+,AQo+
is 5.43% and after CR 4.9%

so the FE is

(0.1551-0.049)/0.1551 = 68,41%

and without blocker and random cards like 23o it is

(0.163-0.0543)/0.163 = 66.6%

So in this case the difference is just 1.8% in FE. The problem is that is like a really common mistake and I see a lot of regs doing is that they dont calculate their blockers on the opening Range.

As you yee the blocker is very minimal and the all in eq against his range is like really bad (26.37%). Anyway this are not the cards you think he would raise and call or?. I calculated this a lot of times and a ive rarely seen a Blocker makes out more than 2%. Even as an Openraise its just 3% vs all opponents and their reshoving probs.

As an example if we forget the blockers and go more for all in EQ against his ranges There are way better cards. Like A2s or 22. Seems strange but its true.

I would always go Pockets first than Axs KQs, than suited Facecards than the sc down to 9Ts. Than Ax down from A9o and stuff like KQo. Even T2s! has a better all in equity than A7o. This mind be a mindfuck for a lot of people, but its also valuable i hope.

love your comment to it @John

First i really like your stuff, because I think these types of videos are the one where you actually improve your game. Liveplay is entertainment. In my opinion the calculations and the deep analysis is the way to go.

At 17:40 when talking about A7o hand you say that the hand goes poorly when get called, but has a blocker. I see the blocker term really often in poker, but after calculating some spots i think the value of a blocker is major overrated. I have not figured out this spot, but like some basic spots for mid phase MTTs and I think one A Blocker should just add like 1% to the FE. Just check it in Equilab fe