Phaedrus, JP and Mattywein debate some new features that extrapolate deeper VPIP and aggression measurements in poker calculators.
I note your enthusiasm for this feature Matty. If I understand it correctly, you would like a 20 percent, or 30 percent hand range broken down into probable holdings and your hole cards matched up against say the average of that range.
Its a nice idea but I really think it will create too much techo reliance and lead to some pretty bad reads. For example the program would need to take into account position and action in front, Mzone probably ICM the looseness
, tightness and stack sizes of the players behind just to name a few variables. By the time you had reliable data with all these variables your opponent will most likely have died of old age.
Mostly I think of VPIP this way.
A sub 20 percent range is incredibly tight. The are playing big pairs and big cards and maybe most pocket pairs. The may play some suited connectors but not many. These guys are easy to read post flop and its great to be in pots with them because you won't lose much.
A 25 to 35 percent range is much more dangerous. These guys are playing quality cards with just enough suited connectors in the mix that any flop can help them.
Over 35 percent is still dangerous to play against. The individual player is playing too many hands and will most likely be a losing player over time. But they can have pretty much anything in their hand and so its very hard to read them correctly, particularly if they are also aggressive. Best approach is mostly to trap the before the flop or on the flop.
But notwithstanding all of that, you need to be mindful, especially in sit and go tournaments about what blind pressure is doing to players ranges. This is why this particular program feature would not be helpful to my game. Tight players know to loosen up when the pressure is on and their game will change dramatically
If you tracked me over a SnG you would find I am a rock or TAG at the start and a maniac at the end....virtually every tournament.
In an multi-table poker tournament online you will quite often track me as a maniac or calling station at the start and then Tag in the middle, maniac at the end. Or depending on stack sizes, maybe a rock at the end. Its all situation dependent.
A much more reliable read of peoples ranges is their stack size at the time. Small stack almost always = big range. Big stack can mean different things though.
One other observation is that I use Poker Office for my cash games at Pacific. The HU display put numbers all over the screen (quite distracting really) I can select which numbers I want to see from a massive list of indicators. But at the end of the day, VPIP, pre flop raise percentage, post flop aggression, went to showdown and win at showdown together tell a very accurate and complete story. I really don't care about how often someone steals blinds or how well they defend their blinds. Blinds are minuscule compared to stacks. I'd rather have the info that allows me to make the best decision for a 100 big blind bet than a poultry 1.5BBs
In tournaments blind steal and defense stats are also pretty meaningless. It all depends on the size of the blinds and the size of the stacks. most all players are thieves when under pressure and you soon learn how well the guys on your left defend without needing a calculator.
-----
I disagree with this. I think those stats are valuable and when reviewed in combination with other stats and the current situation can reveal a lot about the player and what they may be doing in that situation.
For just one example "defense", not sure what number you look at for that but I look at PFRR (pre flop re raise) AND combine it with pfrr-W$SD which means IF they pfrr then they W$SD If they don't win at showdown often when they pfrr then it tells me they pfrr too much and are more likely to defend with a weak hand so their re raise to me has a high probability of being a defensive re steal. Granted, EVERYTHING else about that hand, that player, the actions leading to that moment, stack sizes, the hands leading up to this etc... will ALL play a role in what happens and the decision making process. But stats, when used correctly, are a tremendous aid to a player in order to "play the player" when you can't simply play your cards. (how often they fold to steal bets in bb and sb are main defense stats but they don't play a part in this particular example unless they have high fold but this time are re raising and they have low re raise or hi win if pfrr. Then I fold)
-----
I hear what you are saying JP and agree with it at a theoretical level. The problem for me in practice is that there is a pretty small window in a tournament when blind steals and defense are either not a waste of time (ie. blinds are too small) or not pot committing (i.e blinds are so large any raise pot commits you and your opponents reaction is irrelevant).
I have had quite a few players tell me I am a blind thief at the table. When I tell them I have just had a run of good cards, several have then told me about my Poker Edge or Crusher stats. Apparently these must show I raise a lot from steal positions (which I do)
The problem is that this is not necessarily stealing, it is just correct position play. I play a wider range in late position and I typically open raise. But I almost always am playing solid hands for my position. So I really don't know whether that qualifies as stealing...to me is just seems more like pressurizing aggressive play
-----
Phaedrus I totally agree with you on this point, BUT
This statement sort of misses the point I was making. You are still relying on the 2 figures to make your judgment and you have to compensate due to other players inflection points and M values. The figure I'm after would give BEGINNERS a better understanding of where they would be in the hand and what the odds would be against the players range. You're still relying on a figure either way and making a judgment on that and all the other factors mentioned.
I do think this would be difficult to implement though, but only because a pro's 30% range would be a lot different to a beginners, Plus the math would probably be mind blowing. Confused Confused...
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Using a new Poker Calculator for Omaha
As you can see, here, I limped in with what Omaha indicator calls a premium hand, with 27 Hutchison points. The reason why this is not a top 10 hand is because of that eight being a suit of its own, and really offering no strength at all for the low or a possible straight. So in this hand, I leave you really playing for the nut low, because I have two of the deuces, seriously reducing the likeliness of another player at the table also holding Ace deuce. So in that case, again, there's absolutely no reason to raise as you really want as many people in the pot with a hand like this as you can muster.
The flop is somewhat reasonable for me, although there are no diamonds I only need one card for the low end and as you can see in Omaha odds calculator indicator I have 20 low outs. One player bets 90, I call, one player folds, and another calls, making the pot 435 with three players left in the pot.
The turn brings to three of clubs, which gives me the nut low and a reasonable expectation that I will not be sharing it. When you are in the spotlight this against two opponents holding the nut low, you do not want to be pushing either of your opponents out of the pot, because they are likely splitting the high or at the least fighting for it. So to have them both continue contributing to the pot is your main objective, which is the only reason I simply called phantoms that of 360 chips. Unfortunately cubsfan did fold, leaving a pot of 1155 chips, for me and Phantom to fight over.
The river brings a jack of hearts filling out a flush and a possible straight. Phantom checks to me and I checked down as well. There are a lot of players here who would bet in my position, simply because they have the nut low and feel they have nothing to lose by adding more of the pot. That is a huge mistake in this situation because as you can see, I have no chance of winning the high side of this pot, and Phantom could possibly have a share in the low side of this pot, and me betting out here might just result in a reraise, so there is absolutely no point in adding to the pot at this stage.
As it turns out he was afraid of the flush as well, but his set of nines easily took the high side, and he wisely checked it to me after the river which critically devalued his high hand.
The flop is somewhat reasonable for me, although there are no diamonds I only need one card for the low end and as you can see in Omaha odds calculator indicator I have 20 low outs. One player bets 90, I call, one player folds, and another calls, making the pot 435 with three players left in the pot.
The turn brings to three of clubs, which gives me the nut low and a reasonable expectation that I will not be sharing it. When you are in the spotlight this against two opponents holding the nut low, you do not want to be pushing either of your opponents out of the pot, because they are likely splitting the high or at the least fighting for it. So to have them both continue contributing to the pot is your main objective, which is the only reason I simply called phantoms that of 360 chips. Unfortunately cubsfan did fold, leaving a pot of 1155 chips, for me and Phantom to fight over.
The river brings a jack of hearts filling out a flush and a possible straight. Phantom checks to me and I checked down as well. There are a lot of players here who would bet in my position, simply because they have the nut low and feel they have nothing to lose by adding more of the pot. That is a huge mistake in this situation because as you can see, I have no chance of winning the high side of this pot, and Phantom could possibly have a share in the low side of this pot, and me betting out here might just result in a reraise, so there is absolutely no point in adding to the pot at this stage.
As it turns out he was afraid of the flush as well, but his set of nines easily took the high side, and he wisely checked it to me after the river which critically devalued his high hand.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Poker Tracker 3 and Calculatem Pro
You may also find this of interest if you do like the program and would like to purchase it.
Poker Tracker
Basically people who have bought pokertracker2 and PA HUD will be getting a discount applied to their PT3 purchase. Although as far as I know they are planning on having the commercial release of PT3 somewhere around the end of this month. Keep in mind the release date has been changed a number of times now so that date may not be firm.
I purchased an odds calculating program a while back and from my own experience it was a waste of money. Calculatem Pro I think it cost around $100 and I used it for about a week before I ditched it. It does suggest what actions you might want to take, but as BNS has mentioned it is kind of bot like if you plan on doing exactly what it says. I also don't think it's suggestions are all that profitable...mind you it might be good in limit, I tried it out in NL which was probably a mistake in itself.
Poker Tracker
Basically people who have bought pokertracker2 and PA HUD will be getting a discount applied to their PT3 purchase. Although as far as I know they are planning on having the commercial release of PT3 somewhere around the end of this month. Keep in mind the release date has been changed a number of times now so that date may not be firm.
I purchased an odds calculating program a while back and from my own experience it was a waste of money. Calculatem Pro I think it cost around $100 and I used it for about a week before I ditched it. It does suggest what actions you might want to take, but as BNS has mentioned it is kind of bot like if you plan on doing exactly what it says. I also don't think it's suggestions are all that profitable...mind you it might be good in limit, I tried it out in NL which was probably a mistake in itself.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Poker Calculator for Omaha?
Sure it is a small market compared NL holdem, but with all the big pros like Gus Hansen and Phil Ivey playing omaha and omaha HL for hundreds of thousands of dollars most nights on Full Tilt, you would think that such a poker calculator would be successful.
It isn't like there haven't been attempts, but sadly they don't even rate good enough to well, rate. Mostly becuase you have to plug in your own numbers while the game is in play.... Yukkk.
But wait - word is that a new product from the makers of tournament indicator are on top of things again. A self reading, poker calculator designed specifically for Omaha and Omaha HL.... stay tuned - it should be good.
It isn't like there haven't been attempts, but sadly they don't even rate good enough to well, rate. Mostly becuase you have to plug in your own numbers while the game is in play.... Yukkk.
But wait - word is that a new product from the makers of tournament indicator are on top of things again. A self reading, poker calculator designed specifically for Omaha and Omaha HL.... stay tuned - it should be good.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The Math of the Deal.
Several years ago, a computer engineering team (can't remember the exact school they were from) decided to beat the slot machines. They managed to shell out the cash to buy an old model that was still widely used in their state's casinos. They reverse engineered the source code, and found that the slot machine's programmers had poorly implemented a common random number generator: they intended to make it simpler to work with the slot machine's limited computational capabilities, but without that key piece of code, the RNG's output was almost completely predictable based on its last few outputs. The team made over a million dollars playing these machines before they were caught and tried.
It's a fascinating story, but I can't find it at the moment.
However, the points are this: 1) you'd need to know the exact RNG and shuffling algorithms used by the individual poker site, and 2) the algorithms would need to be very poorly implemented. There would be no 'catch-all' solution. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that the majority of poker sites use hardware RNGs as the source of their random bits, against which this attack would be completely irrelevant.
There's also the fact that a decent, well-implemented RNG would never (again, by "never" I mean "never in the lifespan of the universe") shuffle a deck of cards the same way twice. There are 52! (52 factorial) ways to shuffle a deck of cards. That's roughly 8 followed by 67 zeroes. If you can beat odds of that number to one, you don't need to play poker. Just go ahead and win a few lotteries.
So the database these people are compiling is useless. (Assuming they are even compiling anything, and not just spitting out random answers.)
I asked about this topic on PokerEdge forums under "fuzzy math". I was told that FT runs a reshuffle after hole cards, then flop then each street therafter to defeat any possible reverse rng program from working. The main one advertised states that it will show at least one other players hole cards and 3 cards that will hit the board by the river. I asked if this reshuffling would effect winning odds ie 2-1 of completing 4 flush by river ect. I was told that since it's the same number of remaining cards, that the odds did not change. I asked this after having, as most of you probably have too, my allin flop bet on trips or flopped straight being beat by AXs sucking out a runner runner flush on me.
I've also been card dead (Sklansky group Cool for 30- 50 hands and saw one section of the table getting a high concentration of group 3 and above.
But those suck outs are beyond my control. ie, some donk calling my AA allin push with J4s and flushing me out. When I actually get ITM in a STT, I still place first more than anything else. (20 finishes ITM 11 wins)
It's a fascinating story, but I can't find it at the moment.
However, the points are this: 1) you'd need to know the exact RNG and shuffling algorithms used by the individual poker site, and 2) the algorithms would need to be very poorly implemented. There would be no 'catch-all' solution. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that the majority of poker sites use hardware RNGs as the source of their random bits, against which this attack would be completely irrelevant.
There's also the fact that a decent, well-implemented RNG would never (again, by "never" I mean "never in the lifespan of the universe") shuffle a deck of cards the same way twice. There are 52! (52 factorial) ways to shuffle a deck of cards. That's roughly 8 followed by 67 zeroes. If you can beat odds of that number to one, you don't need to play poker. Just go ahead and win a few lotteries.
So the database these people are compiling is useless. (Assuming they are even compiling anything, and not just spitting out random answers.)
I asked about this topic on PokerEdge forums under "fuzzy math". I was told that FT runs a reshuffle after hole cards, then flop then each street therafter to defeat any possible reverse rng program from working. The main one advertised states that it will show at least one other players hole cards and 3 cards that will hit the board by the river. I asked if this reshuffling would effect winning odds ie 2-1 of completing 4 flush by river ect. I was told that since it's the same number of remaining cards, that the odds did not change. I asked this after having, as most of you probably have too, my allin flop bet on trips or flopped straight being beat by AXs sucking out a runner runner flush on me.
I've also been card dead (Sklansky group Cool for 30- 50 hands and saw one section of the table getting a high concentration of group 3 and above.
But those suck outs are beyond my control. ie, some donk calling my AA allin push with J4s and flushing me out. When I actually get ITM in a STT, I still place first more than anything else. (20 finishes ITM 11 wins)
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
The most advanced poker calculator yet....
Ok I think it would be quite advantageous to have this kind of skill at the poker table. This could be the most advanced poker calculator on earth!
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
At least I was favored!!
A few random hands where my poker calculator shows I am a huge favorite to win, but things just didn't work out.
TI Profile ebook.
There is a free ebook at SitandGoCertified.com that deals with the traditional profile grid as explained by Dr. Alan Schhonmaker AND the profile icons that Tournament Indicator use when it profiles your opponents at the table. I think it is useful to combine the two to show where those icons are actually situated on the grid, and why.
Even if you don't use Tournament Indicator, a lot of poker calculators use the same or similar profile icons so this ebook - which includes 4 videos btw - should prove useful nonetheless.
Even if you don't use Tournament Indicator, a lot of poker calculators use the same or similar profile icons so this ebook - which includes 4 videos btw - should prove useful nonetheless.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Poker Crusher sucks, or no?
Some forum members are debating about Poker Crusher and its accuracy:
You are using a "free lookup" and as such it is just a hodgepodge data collection. It is the SUM TOTAL of every game type, cash or tournament, any buy in level, full table or short table, no limit and fixed limit ALL added together then analyzed.
Raz is more uniform or narrow in game types, therefore his "analysis" is going to be a bit more accurate as there are fewer fringe numbers added in to skew the result.
Since you have a lot of FL games in there and you also have short table games in there, you have a larger portion of looser style play numbers added in to the sum total. You do not play the same starters short in FL as you do NL and your positions you play are also different. Likewise if you are short table and HU you play different. You may have vp of 50+ for straight HU play, 25-30 for 5 or 6 way play, 10 for early stages, etc...
That analysis rating is everything thrown together and not a good barometer. It's there to entice you to look deeper. Now if you strip things out and filter them properly...
I've edited and generalized so as not to put specifics out but:
Sun137 FT poker, Full table tourney play, NLHE, Shark, TAG.
VP-(removed exact number but it's under 20)
PFR (Again removed exact but it's under 12)
W$SD (Over 50% is all I'll say Very Happy )
JP's profile summary: Alpha-T - If he raises, reraises or goes all in preflop, fold unless you have AA-KK-QQ as he is more likely to win the hand if it goes to showdown historically. Laughing
Now this is ONLY for a tournament of no limit hold em and a full table of 7-9 players on full tilt only.
Now, if I add in ALL the data from the cash games FL and NL the numbers shift upwards in all cases but one which is a hair downward by comparison. So you see, it's not an accurate portrait of a player as there are too many unknowns in the the matrix. That website is useless for profiling, but the program is not as you can filter out exactly what you want.
Just like poker tracker, it's usless to know you played 224,899 hands, you have to sort it out with various criteria to make is useful to us. AA had it 180 times means nothing as it's just the sum total of how often you had it. But filter it and sort by position, amounts won, hands played etc... and it starts to take on meaning that we can do something with.
It can also vary from site to site! On stars, I am tighter than Sun, on FT Sun is Tighter than me yet we seem to have similar playing style as in a tight aggressive play for NLHE.
But it is entertaining to look at and if you play MOSTLY one type of game, the profile can be close.
You are using a "free lookup" and as such it is just a hodgepodge data collection. It is the SUM TOTAL of every game type, cash or tournament, any buy in level, full table or short table, no limit and fixed limit ALL added together then analyzed.
Raz is more uniform or narrow in game types, therefore his "analysis" is going to be a bit more accurate as there are fewer fringe numbers added in to skew the result.
Since you have a lot of FL games in there and you also have short table games in there, you have a larger portion of looser style play numbers added in to the sum total. You do not play the same starters short in FL as you do NL and your positions you play are also different. Likewise if you are short table and HU you play different. You may have vp of 50+ for straight HU play, 25-30 for 5 or 6 way play, 10 for early stages, etc...
That analysis rating is everything thrown together and not a good barometer. It's there to entice you to look deeper. Now if you strip things out and filter them properly...
I've edited and generalized so as not to put specifics out but:
Sun137 FT poker, Full table tourney play, NLHE, Shark, TAG.
VP-(removed exact number but it's under 20)
PFR (Again removed exact but it's under 12)
W$SD (Over 50% is all I'll say Very Happy )
JP's profile summary: Alpha-T - If he raises, reraises or goes all in preflop, fold unless you have AA-KK-QQ as he is more likely to win the hand if it goes to showdown historically. Laughing
Now this is ONLY for a tournament of no limit hold em and a full table of 7-9 players on full tilt only.
Now, if I add in ALL the data from the cash games FL and NL the numbers shift upwards in all cases but one which is a hair downward by comparison. So you see, it's not an accurate portrait of a player as there are too many unknowns in the the matrix. That website is useless for profiling, but the program is not as you can filter out exactly what you want.
Just like poker tracker, it's usless to know you played 224,899 hands, you have to sort it out with various criteria to make is useful to us. AA had it 180 times means nothing as it's just the sum total of how often you had it. But filter it and sort by position, amounts won, hands played etc... and it starts to take on meaning that we can do something with.
It can also vary from site to site! On stars, I am tighter than Sun, on FT Sun is Tighter than me yet we seem to have similar playing style as in a tight aggressive play for NLHE.
But it is entertaining to look at and if you play MOSTLY one type of game, the profile can be close.
Friday, August 01, 2008
69% win odds so I decide to go for it!
Phaedrus75 did a better job of describing my own video, than I did myself.
I have only just gotten around to watching this, and I thought it warranted forum discussion.
In the video Marty shows 2 hands, the first being an all-in with middle pair and a flush draw (K8s) and the second is folding pocket kings to board with 2 Aces and a flush draw.
The two hands are diametrically opposite in terms of risk tolerance, but IMO were both perfectly played.
The K8s hand, Marty has an M of 24.5. He has a lowish table Q and I would expect that his tournament Q is probably pretty low as well.
He gets to see a free flop from the BB with K8s and flops middle pair and a flush draw.
In the video, Marty describes how he was feeling, it was late at night, he had a mindset of double up or go to bed and chose to ignore GCI and let it ride with this hand (which has to be said is a very strong hand on the flop).
I think the most important discussion point in this decision is not so much about green Mzone IMHO, but about poker tournament equity.
Despite his green M, the field is starting to get away from him at this point. The next blind increase will leave him with a yellow stack. He will have then lost the opportunity to play many potential double up type hands such as suited connectors and small pocket pairs. He must then wait for big pairs and AK / AQ type hands or potentially a few re-shoves over limpers.
When he plays these hands from a yellow M, he would be aiming to playing for his whole stack. He therefore MUST win those hands and must not get sucked out on. He must also leave it to pure chance that he will get a playable hand in yellow M before his stack dwindles further and the rest of the field pulls further ahead.
In terms of tournament equity, this situation is not very encouraging. Sure, he may come back sometimes, but to reach a stack size equivalent of what he would win by shoving the K8s hand (and to have that stack size match what his Q would have been by winning the K8s hand) he needs a mini-miracle. Certainly I would estimate that the chances of the come back happening are way less than 50/50.
So instead of waiting for that to occur, Marty takes a 50/50 poker odds chance with his still viable stack. IMO shoving (or in this case calling) the draw was significantly better in terms of tournament equity, than folding to live on to fight another day.
Marty says it was uncharacteristically LAG play which made him get all his chips in with a draw. Maybe it is a bit loose, but when you consider his standing in the poker tournament at the time the hand occurred, versus if he wins this coin flip (and and lets not forget coin flip was about the worst case) then IMHO it is an insta-push or insta call every time (not just late at night).
I have been toying around with the idea that Mzone needs some adjustment for on-line tournaments to account for the speed of the blinds (even in non-turbo MTTs) as well as loose players.
Mzone has been a concept which has been around for decades. It was first given a name by Paul Magriel of backgammon fame in the 1970s I think and since then, has been applied to all tournament situations.
However when the Mzones were first developed (and I don't know if Harrington was the first to do this, but rather suspect the first to publish it), then it stands to reason that most of the Mzone theory is based on bricks and mortar tournaments (and tournaments which were being played before the Danish HLAG brand was injected into the game).
Whilst I don't think radical transformation is required for on-line, there are a couple of differences. Firstly, fast blinds and relatively shallow starting stacks typically mean that in the early middle stage, you are not that comfortable with an M of say 22. Secondly, lots of LAG on-line poker players at the start of MTTs tend to accumulate monster stacks very quickly. Unless you keep up with them to the extent that you have fold equity over them later, these are the guys who will in the later stages run over the top of you and/or suckout when you finally do get AA.
Accordingly, at about the same stage of the tournament Marty is at with the AKs hand, I have tended to be thinking of a 25-30M stack (in the early/middle stages) as boarderline yellow, meaning I can still play suited connectors and small pocket pairs in the right circumstances, but I am pretty happy to play for my whole stack with way less than the nuts.
The KK hand, was of course an excellent laydown in the face of what seemed very likely to be a bluff by a big stack. However tournament equity was now much higher and the big green stack again needs to be treated with divine reverence.
These are just my thoughts on the video and I'd be interested to hear what others say.
I have only just gotten around to watching this, and I thought it warranted forum discussion.
In the video Marty shows 2 hands, the first being an all-in with middle pair and a flush draw (K8s) and the second is folding pocket kings to board with 2 Aces and a flush draw.
The two hands are diametrically opposite in terms of risk tolerance, but IMO were both perfectly played.
The K8s hand, Marty has an M of 24.5. He has a lowish table Q and I would expect that his tournament Q is probably pretty low as well.
He gets to see a free flop from the BB with K8s and flops middle pair and a flush draw.
In the video, Marty describes how he was feeling, it was late at night, he had a mindset of double up or go to bed and chose to ignore GCI and let it ride with this hand (which has to be said is a very strong hand on the flop).
I think the most important discussion point in this decision is not so much about green Mzone IMHO, but about poker tournament equity.
Despite his green M, the field is starting to get away from him at this point. The next blind increase will leave him with a yellow stack. He will have then lost the opportunity to play many potential double up type hands such as suited connectors and small pocket pairs. He must then wait for big pairs and AK / AQ type hands or potentially a few re-shoves over limpers.
When he plays these hands from a yellow M, he would be aiming to playing for his whole stack. He therefore MUST win those hands and must not get sucked out on. He must also leave it to pure chance that he will get a playable hand in yellow M before his stack dwindles further and the rest of the field pulls further ahead.
In terms of tournament equity, this situation is not very encouraging. Sure, he may come back sometimes, but to reach a stack size equivalent of what he would win by shoving the K8s hand (and to have that stack size match what his Q would have been by winning the K8s hand) he needs a mini-miracle. Certainly I would estimate that the chances of the come back happening are way less than 50/50.
So instead of waiting for that to occur, Marty takes a 50/50 poker odds chance with his still viable stack. IMO shoving (or in this case calling) the draw was significantly better in terms of tournament equity, than folding to live on to fight another day.
Marty says it was uncharacteristically LAG play which made him get all his chips in with a draw. Maybe it is a bit loose, but when you consider his standing in the poker tournament at the time the hand occurred, versus if he wins this coin flip (and and lets not forget coin flip was about the worst case) then IMHO it is an insta-push or insta call every time (not just late at night).
I have been toying around with the idea that Mzone needs some adjustment for on-line tournaments to account for the speed of the blinds (even in non-turbo MTTs) as well as loose players.
Mzone has been a concept which has been around for decades. It was first given a name by Paul Magriel of backgammon fame in the 1970s I think and since then, has been applied to all tournament situations.
However when the Mzones were first developed (and I don't know if Harrington was the first to do this, but rather suspect the first to publish it), then it stands to reason that most of the Mzone theory is based on bricks and mortar tournaments (and tournaments which were being played before the Danish HLAG brand was injected into the game).
Whilst I don't think radical transformation is required for on-line, there are a couple of differences. Firstly, fast blinds and relatively shallow starting stacks typically mean that in the early middle stage, you are not that comfortable with an M of say 22. Secondly, lots of LAG on-line poker players at the start of MTTs tend to accumulate monster stacks very quickly. Unless you keep up with them to the extent that you have fold equity over them later, these are the guys who will in the later stages run over the top of you and/or suckout when you finally do get AA.
Accordingly, at about the same stage of the tournament Marty is at with the AKs hand, I have tended to be thinking of a 25-30M stack (in the early/middle stages) as boarderline yellow, meaning I can still play suited connectors and small pocket pairs in the right circumstances, but I am pretty happy to play for my whole stack with way less than the nuts.
The KK hand, was of course an excellent laydown in the face of what seemed very likely to be a bluff by a big stack. However tournament equity was now much higher and the big green stack again needs to be treated with divine reverence.
These are just my thoughts on the video and I'd be interested to hear what others say.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Polaris Computer defeats Stox Team
Stox Poker could not duplicate the win Phil Laak had over Polaris in season 1.
"This year we were down with two matches to go," said Michael Bowling, leader of the university's computer poker research group. "We were just shaking our heads, wondering how we'd gotten so far down."
But when the numbers from the last matches were on the screen, it became clear that Polaris had caught up and was ensured a win.
"It's hard to describe how good that felt," said Bowling. "As a group, we may not all be great poker players, but all of us really, really want to win."
After last year's loss, the U of A team made some changes to bring their program up to snuff. Of course, when training for any competition, practice is the key. To get ready for the match, Polaris played eight billion games of poker-against itself.
"Polaris has a more sophisticated learning component this year," said Bowling. "It identifies a set of styles of playing that it thinks are effective poker strategies and it can decide which strategy will counter the styles of its opponent. As the games progressed, we were seeing different sides of Polaris. Players watching one match might assume that Polaris plays a certain way, and then they'd face a completely different strategy when they sat down to play."
Polaris faced a number of opponents, including Stoxpoker.com coaches Nick Grudzien and IJay Palansky, as well as contributor Matt Hawrilenko, each of whom can boast more than $1 million USD in lifetime winnings. This year's match ran concurrently with the 2008 World Series of Poker as part of the 2008 Gaming Life Expo at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino.
The program played the professional players in a game of limit Texas Hold'em poker. Each match consisted of 500 hands, with the cards dealt in duplicate, meaning that Polaris received the same cards in one room that the professional received in the other room and vise versa. The duplicate system was employed to balance out the luck of the cards and emphasize the capabilities of the participants.
"It's possible, given enough computing power, for computers to play 'perfectly,' where over a long enough match, the program cannot lose money," said Bowling. "Humans will always make some mistakes, meaning the program will have an advantage."
The competition wasn't all fun and games, however. Progress in developing artificial intelligence that can excel at poker can lead to some real-world solutions, says Bowling.
"Other games that have been solved by computers, like checkers or chess, are 'perfect information' games, meaning there is a limited number of possible moves and outcomes to be calculated, and each opponent has the same amount of information about those possibilities," he said. "When you look at games where players are asked to make decisions with different amounts of information, missing information, poker is the quintessential game.
"In general, problems in the real world are going to be more like poker than chess. You're not always going to have all the information."
While they are taking time to savour the victory, Polaris' programmers aren't about to rest on their laurels.
"This was really the simplest form of poker," said Bowling. "There's a lot more we can look at, such as playing without betting limits, or playing with more than two opponents. One of the reasons I got excited about this line of research is that it's not just a one-off. It's a really challenging path of research."
The department of computing science at the University of Alberta is one of the foremost institutions in the world to study artificial intelligence. The university's computer poker research group consists of 15 researchers and graduate and undergraduate students whose primary focus is artificial intelligence.
Source: University of Alberta
"This year we were down with two matches to go," said Michael Bowling, leader of the university's computer poker research group. "We were just shaking our heads, wondering how we'd gotten so far down."
But when the numbers from the last matches were on the screen, it became clear that Polaris had caught up and was ensured a win.
"It's hard to describe how good that felt," said Bowling. "As a group, we may not all be great poker players, but all of us really, really want to win."
After last year's loss, the U of A team made some changes to bring their program up to snuff. Of course, when training for any competition, practice is the key. To get ready for the match, Polaris played eight billion games of poker-against itself.
"Polaris has a more sophisticated learning component this year," said Bowling. "It identifies a set of styles of playing that it thinks are effective poker strategies and it can decide which strategy will counter the styles of its opponent. As the games progressed, we were seeing different sides of Polaris. Players watching one match might assume that Polaris plays a certain way, and then they'd face a completely different strategy when they sat down to play."
Polaris faced a number of opponents, including Stoxpoker.com coaches Nick Grudzien and IJay Palansky, as well as contributor Matt Hawrilenko, each of whom can boast more than $1 million USD in lifetime winnings. This year's match ran concurrently with the 2008 World Series of Poker as part of the 2008 Gaming Life Expo at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino.
The program played the professional players in a game of limit Texas Hold'em poker. Each match consisted of 500 hands, with the cards dealt in duplicate, meaning that Polaris received the same cards in one room that the professional received in the other room and vise versa. The duplicate system was employed to balance out the luck of the cards and emphasize the capabilities of the participants.
"It's possible, given enough computing power, for computers to play 'perfectly,' where over a long enough match, the program cannot lose money," said Bowling. "Humans will always make some mistakes, meaning the program will have an advantage."
The competition wasn't all fun and games, however. Progress in developing artificial intelligence that can excel at poker can lead to some real-world solutions, says Bowling.
"Other games that have been solved by computers, like checkers or chess, are 'perfect information' games, meaning there is a limited number of possible moves and outcomes to be calculated, and each opponent has the same amount of information about those possibilities," he said. "When you look at games where players are asked to make decisions with different amounts of information, missing information, poker is the quintessential game.
"In general, problems in the real world are going to be more like poker than chess. You're not always going to have all the information."
While they are taking time to savour the victory, Polaris' programmers aren't about to rest on their laurels.
"This was really the simplest form of poker," said Bowling. "There's a lot more we can look at, such as playing without betting limits, or playing with more than two opponents. One of the reasons I got excited about this line of research is that it's not just a one-off. It's a really challenging path of research."
The department of computing science at the University of Alberta is one of the foremost institutions in the world to study artificial intelligence. The university's computer poker research group consists of 15 researchers and graduate and undergraduate students whose primary focus is artificial intelligence.
Source: University of Alberta
Monday, July 07, 2008
poker calculator for tournaments proves helpful...
Great videos! | |
| Date: | 3 days ago |
| Message: | HI TK. I've been playing poker for 3 years now, and it's nice to see more players addressing the online poker world more extensively. I'm a (broke) college student, so I haven't been playing as much poker lately as I would like. That will change once my GI Bill money starts rolling in and I can set aside $100 or so a month for playing poker and building a bankroll. I see that you are a strong endorser of Tournament Indicator. I downloaded it for the 48 hour trial verson, and I cashed in 8 out of 10 tournaments, including a final table! I didn't really attribute it to the calculator until the trial was over and I was back to normal. I was amazed when I realized what an effect it had on my game. When I have the money, Tournament indicator will be the first thing I get. I did have a question though; do you know if they allow you to buy the software without signing up for a new account with a poker room? I have accounts on Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars, and I really don't intend on using any other poker rooms? Anyways, I love the videos and am now a subsciber. I look forward to more great videos. Brent |
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Skill building with your poker calculator.
fjxsMost everybody emulates at least one poker pro and wishes they could play as good as them and have a winning record like they have. That may include tournament cashes, cash games, trophies and bracelets.
In the world of Internet poker however, such thing as don't come as easy as it seems on television. Can you really make the bold kind of plays that Gus Hansen makes with hands like 35 suited? Can you really and down came the king in a multi-table tournament like Phil Hellmuth does? Across the table at your opponent and tell him what his hand is, like Daniel Negreanu?
Sounds easy. Looks easy. It's not easy. Even at a five dollar stake level online. If you want to make those types of moves and make them successful for you, while then you are looking at thousands and thousands and thousands of hands of practice, patients and skill building awareness.
Skill building awareness in online poker comes from looking at your own game and those controversial situations and asking yourself did you really make the right move, and if it was a tournament was this your best opportunity for such a move. One of the best ways for answering these types of tough questions and scenarios that come up game after game is to imagine that one of the professional players mentioned above is looking over your shoulder and acting as your coach. If you're a big enough fan of this game you may very well have very good idea of what they are going to say in regards to how you played your hand.
Can you justify what you did in the hand to one of these world class poker players? Maybe you can. Maybe you can justify the fact that this was the time for aggression, stack play, or fighting back on the maniacal player.
When you execute poker skill building awareness, step out of your own situation and analyze it like you would if you were actually one of your favorite players. You may very well be surprised how quickly you are going to recognize your own errors realizing that you may actually be embarrassed to describe your reasoning for some of the plays.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Bad beats are good... well sometimes.
You see it all the time online. A bad beat or and horrific bad beat send somebody to the rail prematurely. Usually that player was well ahead in the hand, when the chips when in the middle. The next thing you know, the chat box is a rattling with more profanity than you can find on late-night television.
Most new players cannot control their anger when this happens to them. And because the frequency of it seems higher in online poker, frustration is often the mood of the day. Then, anyone at the table can be subject to verbal abuse by the frustrated player, who simply knows no better. The worse the beat, the more likely there is to be an exchange of a heated nature.
A lot of this activity really boils down to experience. The more experienced a player has, the less likely he is to flip out after a bad beat. This is partly because of his understanding of the game, but as well because of his proper bankroll management. In other words, anyone would be more likely to freak out if they lose a pot when they are playing with 50% of their bankroll as opposed to 2% of their bankroll. Think about that. If you know that you cannot realistically avoid bad beats, and that they are truly part of the game that you know and understand, then bankroll management should in fact, prevent any type of bad beats from hurting your emotions too much.
Understanding the backbone of finances and mathematics in online poker can assure in any newfound depth in dealing with losses at the table. No longer should you be emotionally drained to suck outs the way your opponents are, and in fact, you may then find yourself past a point of cosmic return and be able to turn those horrible plays of your opponents into cash in your poker account.
So the next time you are the victim of a bad beat, try and look at it in the way that you got your opponent to do exactly what you wanted them to do. They made a big mistake, you were way ahead, and they won the pot. That is very likely a positive EV play that you've executed perfectly, and even though you did not win it this time, you have actually won.
When you get to the point where you can laugh off the biggest bad beats that goal against you, you are very likely on your way to poker freedom.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Monitoring balance and streak indicators to find a player on tilt.
I'm doing another sit and go demonstration here with tournament indicator, but I wanted to focus on a couple of key indicators in the poker calculator software program, which I don't talk about often enough and that is the balance and street features and those in those two features together can help in determining when a player is on tilt and basically that.
And found that even though she is a solid player. She was on tilt. So that's rather significant, given some of the plays that followed in the tournament where I notice that given her statistical record on SharkScope her record wasn't consistent.
In other words, the styles didn't match as you see in the video. After only 16 hands TI has labeled her gambler. And that's generally not a style of play that wins you as many single tournaments that she has one especially for the early stages. You can see the VPIP here is 38% pre-flop raising 25% aggression factor is infinite - that means she bets out at the flop. Every single time she's in a hand. However, the balance and streak features, well I just wanted to focus on those because they show how many because for instance, if you take the balance indicator that shows how many chips that you and your opponents have lost or gained over the last 10 hands. Now, it's only 10 hands because now although you can just now, although you can adjust the range of hands that you want the balance streak to monitor.
I like to keep it at 10 hands because, really in tournaments, this goes to the premise of knowing what your opponent is feeling at that particular time and place as you know, lying and anti-structures of the tournament and payouts can have a huge effect on the way a player place, because emotions often get in the way. So keeping an eye on the balance indicator may help you make a decision when you are in a confrontational hand with that player, in spite of pot odds that may not normal be considered favorable. In this video you will see an exact example of what I am suggesting.
You can easily envision it yourself. The kind of frustration when you might've been in eight or 10 hands in a row and you just can't do anything you know, you just feel like you're burning chips and that gets frustrating. No doubt about it. My pot odds really dictate that I should fold this, but I'm NOT going to fold it against his player. She's on tilt on SharkScope, and I've been watching her stats here in this tournament - and she's on tilt here, right now. Balance indicates so, streak indicates so, player profiling indicates so, VPIP indicates so, pre-flop or raising indicates that as well. Her aggression factor is infinite so her betting is out of control too.
I call with what is normally a dominated hand, but I am sure I am ahead and my risk is rather limited since I have her way out-stacked too.
And found that even though she is a solid player. She was on tilt. So that's rather significant, given some of the plays that followed in the tournament where I notice that given her statistical record on SharkScope her record wasn't consistent.
In other words, the styles didn't match as you see in the video. After only 16 hands TI has labeled her gambler. And that's generally not a style of play that wins you as many single tournaments that she has one especially for the early stages. You can see the VPIP here is 38% pre-flop raising 25% aggression factor is infinite - that means she bets out at the flop. Every single time she's in a hand. However, the balance and streak features, well I just wanted to focus on those because they show how many because for instance, if you take the balance indicator that shows how many chips that you and your opponents have lost or gained over the last 10 hands. Now, it's only 10 hands because now although you can just now, although you can adjust the range of hands that you want the balance streak to monitor.
I like to keep it at 10 hands because, really in tournaments, this goes to the premise of knowing what your opponent is feeling at that particular time and place as you know, lying and anti-structures of the tournament and payouts can have a huge effect on the way a player place, because emotions often get in the way. So keeping an eye on the balance indicator may help you make a decision when you are in a confrontational hand with that player, in spite of pot odds that may not normal be considered favorable. In this video you will see an exact example of what I am suggesting.
You can easily envision it yourself. The kind of frustration when you might've been in eight or 10 hands in a row and you just can't do anything you know, you just feel like you're burning chips and that gets frustrating. No doubt about it. My pot odds really dictate that I should fold this, but I'm NOT going to fold it against his player. She's on tilt on SharkScope, and I've been watching her stats here in this tournament - and she's on tilt here, right now. Balance indicates so, streak indicates so, player profiling indicates so, VPIP indicates so, pre-flop or raising indicates that as well. Her aggression factor is infinite so her betting is out of control too.
I call with what is normally a dominated hand, but I am sure I am ahead and my risk is rather limited since I have her way out-stacked too.
Friday, June 20, 2008
calculating a Push strategy from Orange MZone
From gadget in the forum:
I don't know if it's good poker math or strategically correct to do so, but I usually push before I'm red mzone. I will wait under certain conditions, but rarely, I want it to hurt as I've mentioned before, so I'm pushing around 12 down to 9 M. Most times I'm only red from embarrassment at not taking my chance earlier and I'm only grey after a stroke.
I agree about Ax though, event hough I don't like it, sometimes it's just the way it goes and from the cut-off onwards it's auto-push.
Has anyone any thoughts about my earlier than 'standard' pushing strategy?
My plan is to get back in with a chance of winning the game or get myself out. My cards become immaterial and I could put my hand over the screen if I wanted to - and sometimes wished I had!. I have found I can steal 2 or 3 times without resistance sometimes. The table dynamic is important here of course; no good doing it on a table of nutters and noobs; and position and previous action, etc etc.
Another thing is that later on players are watching and expect a push from the shorties, so pushing a bit earlier gives them more of a decision, as it reps a bigger hand from a previously tight player. There's lot's more to it of course, but it's been working well for me, especially NTM or just before. However, this is only over a few months, so I'm not stuck to it and of course results are not the point.
I don't know if it's good poker math or strategically correct to do so, but I usually push before I'm red mzone. I will wait under certain conditions, but rarely, I want it to hurt as I've mentioned before, so I'm pushing around 12 down to 9 M. Most times I'm only red from embarrassment at not taking my chance earlier and I'm only grey after a stroke.
I agree about Ax though, event hough I don't like it, sometimes it's just the way it goes and from the cut-off onwards it's auto-push.
Has anyone any thoughts about my earlier than 'standard' pushing strategy?
My plan is to get back in with a chance of winning the game or get myself out. My cards become immaterial and I could put my hand over the screen if I wanted to - and sometimes wished I had!. I have found I can steal 2 or 3 times without resistance sometimes. The table dynamic is important here of course; no good doing it on a table of nutters and noobs; and position and previous action, etc etc.
Another thing is that later on players are watching and expect a push from the shorties, so pushing a bit earlier gives them more of a decision, as it reps a bigger hand from a previously tight player. There's lot's more to it of course, but it's been working well for me, especially NTM or just before. However, this is only over a few months, so I'm not stuck to it and of course results are not the point.
Friday, June 13, 2008
PT/HUD for tournaments not that useful.
From 2+2 below... My feelings exactly in regards to MTT play... but use TI to do the observation for you, esp if multi-tabling.
Re: How many successful MTT players use HUD's/PT in realtime
I used PT/PAHUD a lot. But I don't have the feeling that it helped me that much.
Usually in those large field MTTs you are rarely running into the same players twice. Also, once you have some stats on them, the table breaks.
The other thing I dislike about PT/PAHUD in tournaments is the dynamic of the table. People play differently when they have a bigstack/smallstack. If I have a nice stack and there are no super-shortstacks at my table, I raise like hell.
If half the table has 10xBB or less I even tighten up with a bigstack.
There is also M, Q, streak, tilt factor etc. you could be watching to make this a very useable amount of information from a poker calculator like Tournament Indicator.
What if you play the rebuy hour with a player and 2 weeks later you meet him at the final table only to label him as a maniac according to his stats?
When it comes to MTTs I've changed my opinion from PT/PAHUD to simply being observant and taking notes. I'm looking for players that call down light or can't be bluffed. I take notes about what players limp / min-raise from EP/UTG, if they are calling raises light. What kind of hands do they openshove from EP-MP for 20+ BBs or overshove the flop for 3+ times the pot.
When it comes to cash games there is nothing better than PT/PAHUD. Blinds stay the same, people play (almost always) the same, there is no bubble where people play completely different and so on...
Re: How many successful MTT players use HUD's/PT in realtime
I used PT/PAHUD a lot. But I don't have the feeling that it helped me that much.
Usually in those large field MTTs you are rarely running into the same players twice. Also, once you have some stats on them, the table breaks.
The other thing I dislike about PT/PAHUD in tournaments is the dynamic of the table. People play differently when they have a bigstack/smallstack. If I have a nice stack and there are no super-shortstacks at my table, I raise like hell.
If half the table has 10xBB or less I even tighten up with a bigstack.
There is also M, Q, streak, tilt factor etc. you could be watching to make this a very useable amount of information from a poker calculator like Tournament Indicator.
What if you play the rebuy hour with a player and 2 weeks later you meet him at the final table only to label him as a maniac according to his stats?
When it comes to MTTs I've changed my opinion from PT/PAHUD to simply being observant and taking notes. I'm looking for players that call down light or can't be bluffed. I take notes about what players limp / min-raise from EP/UTG, if they are calling raises light. What kind of hands do they openshove from EP-MP for 20+ BBs or overshove the flop for 3+ times the pot.
When it comes to cash games there is nothing better than PT/PAHUD. Blinds stay the same, people play (almost always) the same, there is no bubble where people play completely different and so on...
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
ICM Calculations in Poker Tournaments
Thoughts from the forum in calculating ICM and what to do about it in sit and go tournaments and multi-table tournaments. Phadraeus writes:
Firstly, I have learned that push/fold is not an easy formula. Rather it is a question of judgement and feel, based on the following factors:
M;
Q;
ICM and tournament equity;
Position;
Profiling
tournament type (MTT v STT)
and blind speed (turbo or regular)
A yellow M and very low Q with fast blinds might justify pushing from an M of 12. However mostly, I would think that pushing with that large a stack will be premature.
Mzone is basically a system of risk management. The lower your M, the wider your risk window needs to be opened...that's pretty straight forward...
Now, in a STT (S&G) you also need to balance Mzone with ICM (Independent Chip Model). *Most* STTs involve most or all players being in orange and red Mzone at the end of the tournament. If you are pushing a wide range from yellow M when most of the other players have similar stack sizes, then IMHO you are probably not playing a correct ICM strategy.
In STTs, the push fold mode is partly about M, and partly about what leverage you will have for flop play (and the two are very much inter-related). However, a low M does not necessarily mean that your tournament equity is low. Low M and high tournament equity (i.e on the bubble with 4 players having similar stack sizes) is a time for more conservative play than pure Mzone strategy would suggest. In this case there are two ways of cashing. One by doubling up with the best hand and, Two, by allowing someone else to make a fatal mistake.
Remember that part of ICM strategy is that you profit by staying out of hands where your opponents are playing too loose. This is just another calculation in poker you must keep in mind.
The other functional aspect of the M strategy is post flop play flexibility. With an M of 12, you mostly have enough chips to make a 3xBB raise, manuevre post flop, make meaningful plays and/or get out of the hand and wait for a better spot.
However, with an M of say 5, any pre-flop raise is mostly going to leave you pot committed and/or having not enough chips after you pre-flop raise to put to any meaningful use. Accordingly, you are better off shoving and getting the maximum leverage possible from your stack.
My personal preference for this range in a STT (normal blind speed) is when my M gets to 6.
If blinds are say 100/200 then a 6M stack is 1800. If I raise pre-flop I will be raising 600 (3XBB). If there is a caller to put me into flop play, then the pot will be 1500 compared to my remaining stack of 1200. I therefore do not have enough chips to manoeuvre with relative to the pot size and since the pot is larger than my stack I am pretty well committed to it. Thirdly, if I fold post flop I will be down to an M of 4, where after I have considerable less fold equity for future shoves.
If I double up from an M of 6, I am mostly in the top 3 in a STT (unless I got to an M of 6 due to an early large loss). If I double up from an M of 4 comfort levels are not nearly so great.
So for all those reasons, an M of 6 is my preferred trigger point for STT normal blind speed.
Now, between and M of 6 (my pushing trigger) and an M of 9, there are more than 2 blind levels of folding time. That means if instead of pushing at an M of 9, if you played very tight and folded, waiting for a big hand, you would see between 20 and 30 additional hands before you pulled the trigger. Given that there are 1326 possible hands, seeing an additional 25 hands gives you opportunity to improve your pushing range by around 2%. Might not sound like much, but since a double up from an M of 6 will still put you back in contention for a win, it is pretty well a free 2% (2% is also the margin by which a PP beats over-cards - so it is frequently a percentage that we rely on).
However if you are playing turbos, then instead of 20 to 30 additional hands, you may only see 10 to 15. Now your percentage edge gained by folding is not as great. Also, because turbos force looser play and more frequent all-in moves, you need a larger stack than normal to retain any meaningful fold equity.
Accordingly, pushing with a much higher Mzone strategy seems appropriate for turbo STTs (M=9 to 12) would seem appropriate to me.
Now, for MTTs....
Here, things change quite alot, mostly due to the antes. Before the antes, I tends to adopte the same push/fold approach as Sit and gos (i.e M of 6 = trigger time). (and again, this is also Q dependent - very low table Q an M of 8 may mean you may have very little fold equity depending on stack sizes around you)
However after the antes start, your M drops considerably without a corresponding drop in stack size. This means that you retain significant fold equity well into the red Mzone. Consequently, you can afford to be more selective with your pushes in MTTs and I generally start pulling the trigger with an M of 5 or less. A higher M than that actually gives you opportunity for a significantly greater range of plays, including re-shoves, stop and goes and all-in continuation bets.
I also mentioned position above. This is a difficult and curly part of the whole equation. According to Harrington HOH v2 (which is really mostly applicable to MTTs) position does not matter much for inflection point play (i.e pushing from red Mzone). The reason is that in EP, you are under more deparation to make a move before the blinds swallow a big chunk of your stack. So you are pushing a similar range from EP and LP, just for different reasons.
However in STTs, position is a much more significant factor. First in Vigorish is still king, however ICM considerations demand that position is properly played. Again, because chip values are non-linear near the bubble, ICM is critical. Fundamental to ICM is the fact that if your oponent plays too loose, they hurt themselves, but they hurt you too. The players who benefit (with +ve EV) are the ones sitting back and watching the all-in clash.
In my experience, most players do not play the bubble correctly. When blind pressure is high, most people call a shove with way too wide a range. The sklansky gap concept seems to go out the window and all-in shoves frequently get called by Ax suited, A9+ off-suit, KQ, KJ, QT and any pocket pair. Because of all of that loose play, I tend to prefer to push through as few oponents as possible, meaning I still want genuine strength to push from EP on the bubble, irrespective of M (provided I have meaningful tournament equity in ICM terms).
Lastly, I mentioned profiling. The nightmare situation here is when you have a moster stack loose player on your left. Now you have very little fold equity and pushing from an M of 6 or 12 is not the issue. Rather this issue is that you need solid hand strength to push because you player profiling means you have negligable fold equity.
Similarly, pushing and re-shoving into medium sized stacks is much more important than M trigger points alone. For example, I might re-shove a marginal hand into a medium stack from an M of 12, but I would not push the same hand into a monster stack from an M of 7.
So, that turned into a pretty long post. That is just my thoughts on it anyway. Hope it assists and I'm sure others will have clearer insights...
(Calling out for a post from Raziel on this because his turbo ICM play is probably the best of the forum)
Firstly, I have learned that push/fold is not an easy formula. Rather it is a question of judgement and feel, based on the following factors:
M;
Q;
ICM and tournament equity;
Position;
Profiling
tournament type (MTT v STT)
and blind speed (turbo or regular)
A yellow M and very low Q with fast blinds might justify pushing from an M of 12. However mostly, I would think that pushing with that large a stack will be premature.
Mzone is basically a system of risk management. The lower your M, the wider your risk window needs to be opened...that's pretty straight forward...
Now, in a STT (S&G) you also need to balance Mzone with ICM (Independent Chip Model). *Most* STTs involve most or all players being in orange and red Mzone at the end of the tournament. If you are pushing a wide range from yellow M when most of the other players have similar stack sizes, then IMHO you are probably not playing a correct ICM strategy.
In STTs, the push fold mode is partly about M, and partly about what leverage you will have for flop play (and the two are very much inter-related). However, a low M does not necessarily mean that your tournament equity is low. Low M and high tournament equity (i.e on the bubble with 4 players having similar stack sizes) is a time for more conservative play than pure Mzone strategy would suggest. In this case there are two ways of cashing. One by doubling up with the best hand and, Two, by allowing someone else to make a fatal mistake.
Remember that part of ICM strategy is that you profit by staying out of hands where your opponents are playing too loose. This is just another calculation in poker you must keep in mind.
The other functional aspect of the M strategy is post flop play flexibility. With an M of 12, you mostly have enough chips to make a 3xBB raise, manuevre post flop, make meaningful plays and/or get out of the hand and wait for a better spot.
However, with an M of say 5, any pre-flop raise is mostly going to leave you pot committed and/or having not enough chips after you pre-flop raise to put to any meaningful use. Accordingly, you are better off shoving and getting the maximum leverage possible from your stack.
My personal preference for this range in a STT (normal blind speed) is when my M gets to 6.
If blinds are say 100/200 then a 6M stack is 1800. If I raise pre-flop I will be raising 600 (3XBB). If there is a caller to put me into flop play, then the pot will be 1500 compared to my remaining stack of 1200. I therefore do not have enough chips to manoeuvre with relative to the pot size and since the pot is larger than my stack I am pretty well committed to it. Thirdly, if I fold post flop I will be down to an M of 4, where after I have considerable less fold equity for future shoves.
If I double up from an M of 6, I am mostly in the top 3 in a STT (unless I got to an M of 6 due to an early large loss). If I double up from an M of 4 comfort levels are not nearly so great.
So for all those reasons, an M of 6 is my preferred trigger point for STT normal blind speed.
Now, between and M of 6 (my pushing trigger) and an M of 9, there are more than 2 blind levels of folding time. That means if instead of pushing at an M of 9, if you played very tight and folded, waiting for a big hand, you would see between 20 and 30 additional hands before you pulled the trigger. Given that there are 1326 possible hands, seeing an additional 25 hands gives you opportunity to improve your pushing range by around 2%. Might not sound like much, but since a double up from an M of 6 will still put you back in contention for a win, it is pretty well a free 2% (2% is also the margin by which a PP beats over-cards - so it is frequently a percentage that we rely on).
However if you are playing turbos, then instead of 20 to 30 additional hands, you may only see 10 to 15. Now your percentage edge gained by folding is not as great. Also, because turbos force looser play and more frequent all-in moves, you need a larger stack than normal to retain any meaningful fold equity.
Accordingly, pushing with a much higher Mzone strategy seems appropriate for turbo STTs (M=9 to 12) would seem appropriate to me.
Now, for MTTs....
Here, things change quite alot, mostly due to the antes. Before the antes, I tends to adopte the same push/fold approach as Sit and gos (i.e M of 6 = trigger time). (and again, this is also Q dependent - very low table Q an M of 8 may mean you may have very little fold equity depending on stack sizes around you)
However after the antes start, your M drops considerably without a corresponding drop in stack size. This means that you retain significant fold equity well into the red Mzone. Consequently, you can afford to be more selective with your pushes in MTTs and I generally start pulling the trigger with an M of 5 or less. A higher M than that actually gives you opportunity for a significantly greater range of plays, including re-shoves, stop and goes and all-in continuation bets.
I also mentioned position above. This is a difficult and curly part of the whole equation. According to Harrington HOH v2 (which is really mostly applicable to MTTs) position does not matter much for inflection point play (i.e pushing from red Mzone). The reason is that in EP, you are under more deparation to make a move before the blinds swallow a big chunk of your stack. So you are pushing a similar range from EP and LP, just for different reasons.
However in STTs, position is a much more significant factor. First in Vigorish is still king, however ICM considerations demand that position is properly played. Again, because chip values are non-linear near the bubble, ICM is critical. Fundamental to ICM is the fact that if your oponent plays too loose, they hurt themselves, but they hurt you too. The players who benefit (with +ve EV) are the ones sitting back and watching the all-in clash.
In my experience, most players do not play the bubble correctly. When blind pressure is high, most people call a shove with way too wide a range. The sklansky gap concept seems to go out the window and all-in shoves frequently get called by Ax suited, A9+ off-suit, KQ, KJ, QT and any pocket pair. Because of all of that loose play, I tend to prefer to push through as few oponents as possible, meaning I still want genuine strength to push from EP on the bubble, irrespective of M (provided I have meaningful tournament equity in ICM terms).
Lastly, I mentioned profiling. The nightmare situation here is when you have a moster stack loose player on your left. Now you have very little fold equity and pushing from an M of 6 or 12 is not the issue. Rather this issue is that you need solid hand strength to push because you player profiling means you have negligable fold equity.
Similarly, pushing and re-shoving into medium sized stacks is much more important than M trigger points alone. For example, I might re-shove a marginal hand into a medium stack from an M of 12, but I would not push the same hand into a monster stack from an M of 7.
So, that turned into a pretty long post. That is just my thoughts on it anyway. Hope it assists and I'm sure others will have clearer insights...
(Calling out for a post from Raziel on this because his turbo ICM play is probably the best of the forum)
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Understanding Poker Odds
I was in a hand in a 5/10 limit poker game a few years ago and I called from the button with J9os about after 5 players had limped. Then of course the big blind decides to be clever and min raises. Everyone, including me calls again. 14 bets, $72 in the pot to start the hand in the pot! The flop comes Q84 rainbow.
Gut shot. Man would I fell better if I was at least open-ended. Stupid to be in this hand I thought, bent on my tight aggressive style working out eventually. The small blind puts out a bet. Then 5 consecutive calls when it gets to me. Just another $5 to call... I should do it. I did it, now swelling the pot now $114. All I remember at that point was wondering what the hell they ALL had and how could so many players be that dumb.
It was painful to see the “brick-like” turn card of the 2 of clubs rounding out all four suits on the board. It didn’t stop the under-the-gun wanker from betting $10 now and sure enough NOBODY had folded when it came to me. That added $60 to the pot making it $174 while I pondered what to do. I have a gut shot draw to the nuts with no chance of an opponent outdrawing me to a flush. I needed a 10, but what are the odds of me hitting hit?
One community card left to show, 46 unseen cards, 4 unseen tens. Approximately a 9% chance of hitting the nuts or 11:1. I decided to fold, because I didn’t want to waste any more money and the session was going poorly for me so far, so I didn’t want it get worse here. The odds were so far fetched that my 10 would come, I figured I would just save it for a better spot.
Uhhh..... big mistake.
Of course, the river was a ten as I am sure you figured it out, but my mistake wasn’t because a ten did fall, my mistake was not properly assessing the odds situation. It really did NOT matter what came on the river, I should have been in the hand to see it regardless. My mistake was not fully understanding real poker odds.
It is $10 to call (with no chance of a re-raise behind me) a pot of $174. This is real math, from a real poker hand, using real poker probabilities and had I better understood at the time, I would have realized that sometimes it pays to draw to an inside straight.
The underlying benefit of seeing that huge pot go elsewhere due to my error, forced me to learn the odds of the game and re-evaluate my overall strategy. I can honestly say now, thanks in part to using poker calculators, whether tournament, ring or cash games, I am no longer ignorant of the odds in poker.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Poker Calculators for Bankrolling management
When Chris Ferguson blogged his Start from Zero Bankrolling Quest, he proved that it could be done. You can start an online poker bankroll from ZERO dollars. The fact that a Full Tilt pro with the reputation of Chris toiling in the penny tables went through the whole process not once, but twice building an account surplus of Ten grand shows that with due diligence and dedication to the task, you can probably do it too.
But only with a lot of self control that is. When playing online poker especially at a site like Full Tilt, that skill far more rare than you might think. Listen, if 75% of online players lose money, then not many of them know how to manage a poker bankroll. Itès not like the information isnèt out there either because it is.
So many players though end up playing above their skill level and even worse, above their bankroll that inevitably, these are the players that end up in that 75% cluster of money losing fish. Yes you are essentially a fish by playing above your bankroll. Chris Ferguson didn’t build his bankroll with magnificent bluffing, power all-in betting, and underground intimidation tactics. Are you kidding me? Have you ever played in the $1 sit and go tournaments? Strategies like thatare sure-fire ways to be searching for reload bonuses.
Chris Jesus Ferguson merely used fundamental poker skills to win as much as he could, but more importantly executed exceptional bankroll management with a strict set of rules that determined what his games of choice would be, and how far he would go in a hand or drawing situaiton.
Bankroll management is then, utterly important to your success online, and now there are software choices to help you keep track of that very aspect of your game. Personal Poker Pal is the latest in this market that with a variety of graphs, reports, and analysis tools can help keep your game moving up and build your bankroll the very best way – using OPM or other people’s money.
What a poker bankroll calculator can do for you is keep your skill set evenly matched with your bankroll. As your knowledge and understanding of the game improves, so then are you rewarded in your bankroll. It’s simple math really. If you jump too far up, you are penalized (eventually) for playing above your head and you take a hit.
However it is impossible to be consistently successful in the modern game without a detailed analysis of performance, highlighting the reasons for success or failure either in particular hands or over a session, with the aim of improving future results. There are many software tools on the market to assist the poker player, but at a price many players are unable (or unwilling) to pay.
You manage money everywhere else in your life don’t you? Unless you are just out having fun and you really don’t care about how much you spend on entertaining yourself playing online poker, then you need to start managing your poker bankroll, just like the pros.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)