Tato stránka používá pro vylepšení služeb soubory cookies. Prohlížením stránky souhlasíte s používáním cookies. Pro více informací a změnu nastavení čtěte naši politiku cookies a soukromí. Zavřít

[NL25] 160bb, defend ATo v UTG

    • msnek
      msnek
      Bronz
      Registrace: 01.10.2008 Příspěvky: 972
      Jinak kdyby někoho zajímal opačný názor než má zeltn, tak tady z webu A od onoho 2nd top membera:

      "Lefort's "6-Max Concepts" series is very good and introduces the much talked-about R factor (the % of our pre flop equity we realize when we play post flop). At the time, solvers didn't exist and nobody could say what R actually was for various hands vs various ranges IP and OOP. Now we can compute it.
      What Lefort demonstrated with simple math was that we can play much more hands from BB than most are (or were) aware of. We're getting a good price, especially vs small open sizes and with the BB discount we don't need to realize all that much of our equity to have a +EV situation. For BB vs BU minraise Lefort estimated ~70% defense to be proper.
      However, there's an extreme difference between BU and EP opens. R for mediocre offsuit hands is not great, especially OOP vs tight ranges. Vs a 3bb UTG open you really can't play many offsuit hands profitably."
    • Zeltzn1
      Zeltzn1
      Bronz
      Registrace: 15.06.2013 Příspěvky: 1,631
      hej? vie to vypočítať? takže vlastne 2nd top member solvol postflop v pokri, ak to chápem správne..len tak zo zvedavosti, nepovedal, že ako to je schopný vypočítať?
    • msnek
      msnek
      Bronz
      Registrace: 01.10.2008 Příspěvky: 972
      Zeltzn1 původně napsal
      hej? vie to vypočítať? takže vlastne 2nd top member solvol postflop v pokri, ak to chápem správne..len tak zo zvedavosti, nepovedal, že ako to je schopný vypočítať?
      Vsak v tom svem postu zminuje soucasne solvery. Jinak jeste dodava:

      "Interesting to compare computation with empirical data. Pre flop simulations put AJo in range and ATo on the cusp vs 2.5bb with small stakes rake, playing vs a perfect player (Nash) with 16-17% open. Lower rake, post flop skill advantage (of which we have none vs Nash), and being selective with who you flat against could very well swing ATo to a playable hand. Exploitative play on the margins is a strong approach."

      A tady se k nasi diskuzi vraci v jinem vlakne tamniho fora:

      "Now I'm gonna catch some flak, but I'm feeling feisty today so here goes:
      Mapping out the region of hands to defend vs someone's RFI is a trivial exercise with preflop solvers, once you have a good grasp of that RFI. The fact that a problem can be solved with little effort should have consequences for how we as a community think about it when we discuss it.

      For example, the standard CO RFI is ~25%. The way to build a 25%'ish range is fairly obvious with small variations in the amount and type of the most speculative hands people put in it. So pick whatever 25% chart range you can find, build a defence against that, and it will be fine against any 25% range. You don't want perfect you want good and robust. If you want the best map (as in, near-unexploitable if that's what you're after), compute it with a solver.

      I'm not saying that this is something you must do with expensive software. What I am saying to you and everyone else is that the problem of finding good near-unexploitable BB defence ranges is solvable to a high degree of accuracy through computation, and that it's pointless to exchange hand-waving arguments about it when a very good solution can be found for those who invest in the tools (or buy a pack of computed solutions). Once you have the map of playable hands, build pre and post flop strategies based on it with proper exploitative adjustments where you can find them.

      Since these results are somewhat expensive and time-consuming to arrive at, don't expect anyone to post them for you. What you can do is accept that the problem is hard-but-solvable, and that anyone who pulls some advice out of a hat, advising you to play to this-or-that based on their experience or feel for whatever small stakes player pool they are a part of, can be assumed to be wrong in a lot of things (and biased by variance, small samples and the character of the games they play), and therefore they are best ignored.

      Don't waste time on listening to small stakes consensus talk, because a lot of it is so mind-blowingly wrong and/or irrelevant that it will do you more harm than good. Pay attention when someone shows you numbers (calculations or strong empirical evidence from a database), but ignore speculations. As much as you can, do something on your own, whether you do it by hand-calculations, use your own database results, or grit your teeth and buy a solver and learn to use it.

      Here's a recent thread that illustrates my point: 160bb, defend ATo v UTG

      Here we are starting with a good question (can we defend ATo BB vs UTG?) that was triggered by OP questioning someone's strong claim that it was a trivial defence. We ended up comparing computed results (Pio pre flop simulations) with a mid-stakes player's 2016 database results for that particular fringe hand."
    • 1
    • 2