JediMindTricks

I agree with some of the comments concerning people having to move down if they lose X amount on a stake, have to leave for some reason and then return.

I think the opportunity to rejoin a stake with the amount you left with would be a good workaround.

Poker Bob still has to buy in for 100bb, but when he has to go for dinner, he isn't forced to move down. Instead, he has the option to rejoin with the amount he left with. If he busts then he has to buy in for 100bb again.

What the hell is a diamond dozen?

what's the software?

CardRunners EV.

Maybe?!

@Jedi

you sound really frustrated and I'm sorry.

You're right. Thank you!

@Hick Howard

We're basically saying the same thing, you're just overcomplicating it for some reason by focusing on semantics to try and sound more intelligent. I'm concerned with someone actually being able to understand it.

No, we're not saying the same thing. You've failed to say anything coherent and now you've turned to making your own assumptive accusations in an attempt to make up for your shortcomings.

I'm going to take a shot at this in the way that I think is the least vague possible:
-Unless we're working with a perfectly polarized toy game model, bluffs have equity on earlier streets, and this allows the aggressor to bet wider while still remaining balanced. This was stated by someone.

This is not the reason why the aggressor can bet wider over a multi-street betting game versus a single street betting game. This only highlights the inherent flaw with the terms ‘bluff' and ‘value’ which are contrived. These terms are akin to units of measure such as meters which measure distance, or minutes which measure movement, all of which are great when used objectively but don’t actually exist in reality and are certainly not the guiding principles for behavior. At a fundamental level, there is EV.

⦁ Bluffcatchers have an obligation to get to free showdown when calling a bet on an earlier street.

This obligation is what requires the aggressor to prepare his early street betting range in a way that "gives up" frequently enough with bluffs over future streets that the bluffcatcher is held to indifference. If the bettor is following through too frequently with too strong of a range on future streets, he breaches the equilibrium and the bluffcatcher loses the incentive to call --> exploits by overfolding earlier streets.

These statements are just fundamentally incorrect. You're implying that the aggressor is concerned with the bluff catching players range while he constructs his own, but In reality, the aggressors only concern is to maximize his EV. This is the fundamental objective in poker and is done by betting the widest range possible at all times.

The real reason:

why bluffing thresholds shift dramatically from single street to multi-street betting games, In other words: why a balanced range is able to bluff more on the flop than on the river?

is that any time a combo can bet again on the next street it gains the chips that the bluffcatching player puts into the pot on that street which means the aggressor must add combos to his range that give up on the next street to the point that the bluff catching player is indifferent.

Let's play a game: the first person to be able to express why bluffing thresholds shift dramatically from single street to multi-street betting games, wins. In other words: why is a balanced range able to bluff more on the flop than on the river? One sentence or bust.

Bluffing combos on a single street like the flop that bet again on the turn are effectively flop value bets for that single street, same with the turn, allowing you to add more bluffs on the previous street.

Okay...I'll give you that one.

Never going to die as long as capitalism and the internet is a thing.

Never going to die!

The BB has 3% 3bet over 305 hands. This sample is more than enough to conclude that villain is only 3Betting with a value range. Squeeze range is renowned for being tighter than simple 3Bet range and BB vs UTG is the position which is notably 3Bet the least.

The very best case scenario is that BB has QQ+, AKs, AKo, though I wouldn't be surprised if the BB is 3Betting KK+ here. This coupled with the fact that you're not closing the action and the pot will go multi-way often, I think this becomes a trivial fold PF.

Recorded existence of Jesus confirmed?

Nope. It is worse to call with the bottom 63.4% and fold the top 36.6%.

Yes, thanks Ike.

Suppose we are using GTO strategy playing against a non-GTO player, is hero's EV always gonna be zero?

No. Here is a toy game example. 10bb HU push or fold game.

The GTO strategy is for SB to push 58.3% and BB to call 36.6% which results in the following EV's:

SB EV = -0.05
BB EV = 0.05

Let's examine what happens if the BB deviates from the GTO solution:

BB calls 100%

SB EV = 0.5
BB EV = -0.5

BB calls 0%

SB EV = 0.37
BB EV = -0.37

Max exploit strategy for SB vs BB calls 0% strategy.

SB EV = 1
BB EV = -1

Conclusion:

BB can't increase his EV by deviating from the GTO solution. Every time the BB deviates the SB's EV increases. The worst strategy the BB can use (versus SB equilibrium strategy) is to call 100% of the time.

Assuming 100bb effective, with 5% rake capped at $2, where Hero is BB closing the action and Villain is jamming 100% range, Hero should call:

Not closing the action will exponentially reduce your calling range as more players are left to act behind you.

Not this again. We had the same conversation 4 years ago when Snowie first launched and if anything the games have improved. Even tuff fish prophesied the end of online poker way back in 2007: tuff fish interview — Pocketfives podcast 15 February 2007

Is that really true? The models I've run against BB you play your range in an inefficient way if you do that because all air hands should be able to make a profitable bluff, but by checking back a range of almost only air you give up that option. The models I've run for this spot does not seem to validate what you're saying and rather the opposite.
For spots like BTN vs SB things might be a lot different and there can be special board textures etc.

Bolded is not true. You can only bet an amount of bluffs that your value range can support and even if every combo can be bet some percentage of the time that doesn't mean that you can bet 100% of your bluffs without villain being able to counter and make some of them -EV(less compared to checking). Even If betting is profitable with every bluff it assumes that checking back flop is less profitable and that villains are taking advantage.

Villain can't really exploit in the check back line because
1) we don't get to that node often enough
2) check back range is too weak to care.

Villains need to punish by folding less and check raising more in the cbet line.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWdM1UgUE

Not sure why that link won't work. Search Youtube for 'Lady Luck, An Award Winning Short Poker Film'.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is surely one of the greatest films ever made and easily in my personal top 5 movies of all time.

If you like Lock, Stock then you should also watch Snatch which is also directed by Guy Ritchie. While it's not poker related it's considered by many to be the better film. I personally have a soft spot for Lock, Stock though.

To be honest I'm pro-HUDs but I really don't see any argument that
HUDs make the game more creative. It's literally a box of stats that
often just tell you what to do, its not creative at all. It encourages
variations in strategy vs fish yes, but its not creative or skillful,
if anything it considerably lowers the skill in the games, as you
don't usually need to come up with these variations in strategy
yourself as you don't need to take time observing and identifying
weaknesses/leaks/exploitable qualities whatever you wanna call it.
People are still capable of paying attention to opponent frequencies,
it just becomes a little bit less exact, it goes from "he's folding to
83% of 3bets" to "he's folding to way too many 3bets". Strategies can
still be developed and deployed without having specific data to back
them up Fwiw I don't think insulting eachother is ever a particularly
good method of debating haha. This isn't 2+2

100% agree.

So what you're saying is that reading and interpreting HUD stats is a skill.
Imaging a spelling contest where all the contestants had access to google. I could argue that using google is a skill. If you don't see the issue then you never will.

My argument is this:

HUDs reduce two important components of poker; observation and memory.

Phil stated:

It should value the professional for embodying the dream that brings so many people to poker. For proving that poker is a game of skill.

Imo HUDs reduce the skill in poker.

Not at all. I think it is you who are trolling. You've made your stance on HUDs very clear by your post in Phil's thread:

I say FUCK HUD FREE games

There's obviously no room for any discussion. Your posts are purely propaganda, conjecture and out of touch with the current poker landscape, which leaves only one more question, which HUD program are you affiliated with?

Anyone else have any clue what this guy is on about?

Why are you on about multi tabling? That's not relevant to the topic at all.

The topic is whether HUDs make the game more or less creative. Surely the more info you have the closer to optimal (max exploit) you can play.

The question is whether having a computer program collect information for you reduces the skill margin and creates smaller edges between players.

Absolute BS. I couldn't agree less with you Quido. Having less info doesn't force you to play 'gto'. It requires you to pay more attention to how your opponents are playing.

We live in the field of thought where we seek security, but thought cannot possibly provide security because thought, is limited. And in that there is no possibility of ever having security, and therefore our brain is always uncertain. So we’ve built a prison in the search for security. We love our prison, or we are unaware of it. And when it is pointed out, all we do is try to accept the words, but we never break the prison. When there is freedom there is intelligence. That intelligence in itself is absolute security, unshakeable. For it depends on nothing, not environment, on a person, or on any kind of ideology.

Maybe the problem is the 3x raise. What changes when you use Snowie's 1/2pot sizing?