Introduction to Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money
Hi Everyone:
Here's part of the Introduction to or upcoming book
Dude45 is right btw. 0EV means 0EV. What you do will change your frequencies and that will cause opponents to possibly change theirs
Additionally something can be 0EV but have ICM implications, also you can have 0EV but calling let’s you see their hand etc
Dude45 is right btw. 0EV means 0EV. What you do will change your frequencies and that will cause opponents to possibly change theirs
Additionally something can be 0EV but have ICM implications, also you can have 0EV but calling let’s you see their hand etc
No 0EV means you don't gain or lose EV either way and your play has the same EV as folding. So it does not matter what you do theoretically
dude45 is saying the opposite (and apparently you are too).
I'm glad you are agreeing with him though since you are making my point for me.
Expected Value does not have ICM integrated nor does it take into account seeing your villains hand nor does it take into account not showing villain your hand
EV is quantitative
The other stuff is qualitative
Edit: 0 EV means the EV of all of the actions are the same. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter what you do.
EV is not the guideline for what matters, it’s the guideline for quantitative value
Expected Value does not have ICM integrated nor does it take into account seeing your villains hand nor does it take into account not showing villain your handEV is quantitative The other stuff is qualitativeEdit: 0 EV means the EV of all of the actions are the same. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter what you do.EV is not the guideline for what matters, it̵
No, if a bluff catcher is 0EV then calling and folding are the same EV so it literally does not matter what you do. The fact that you are saying it matters show's you don't understand the concept.
Expected Value does not have ICM integrated nor does it take into account seeing your villains hand nor does it take into account not showing villain your handEV is quantitative The other stuff is qualitativeEdit: 0 EV means the EV of all of the actions are the same. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter what you do. EV is not the guideline for what matters, it’s the guideline
You talk about solvers and such, and then you continually post things that make no sense.
Hint: Solvers implement Counterfactual Regret Minimization. What regret are they trying to minimize? The regret of not taking the highest EV option. EV is all that matters.
Also, ICM is quantitative and has absolutely no meaning in cash games. At this point, you are just saying stuff.
You talk about solvers and such, and then you continually post things that make no sense.
Hint: Solvers implement Counterfactual Regret Minimization. What regret are they trying to minimize? The regret of not taking the highest EV option. EV is all that matters.
Also, ICM is quantitative and has absolutely no meaning in cash games. At this point, you are just saying stuff.
You can't make this stuff up.
We have two guys (dude45/Pointless Words) bashing a book that they haven't read while demonstrating they do not understand basic poker theory.
Live games will never die.
so how do you guys quantify things like seeing someones hand vs them not seeing yours etc?
Im glad you invented it.
ofc I can be wrong, doesnt mean I am tho
ICM is a conditional probability problem, and I did not invent conditional probability. But in 1986 I wrote an article for the old Poker Player Newspaper where I was addressing the question of whether it was right to rebuy and computed the value of the chip stacks after the rebuy was purchased and taking into account some specific payoffs, and what became known as ICM was how I approached the problem. That article then appeared in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics which was first published in 1987. And, it's still in the current expanded edition of this book as well as some other comments on ICM.
By the way, the name Independent Chip Model (ICM) did not come from me, and I don't know where it came from.
You can't make this stuff up.
We have two guys (dude45/Pointless Words) bashing a book that they haven't read while demonstrating they do not understand basic poker theory.
Live games will never die.
PW and dude getting absolutely torn up over the past few pages. We need a mercy rule. The level of self-own from those two is pretty impressive.
ICM is a conditional probability problem, and I did not invent conditional probability. But in 1986 I wrote an article for the old Poker Player Newspaper where I was addressing the question of whether it was right to rebuy and computed the value of the chip stacks after the rebuy was purchased and taking into account some specific payoffs, and what became known as ICM was how I
Sure, I feel like this was well discussed throughout super system and various 2p2 books from 2000 onward
Does ICM take into account the benefit of seeing your opponents cards
This may come off rude but it needs to be said.You can't trust your own judgement if you are making statements like the one below. You should defer to people who have been experts in the field for almost 50 years.
Sorry the only reason you would flat in the kk hand posted earlier in this thread is because you want to play multiway. Also it can be easily proven that while it may not matter for any one hand defaulting to any one action 100% does matter to your overall strategy
Sorry the only reason you would flat in the kk hand posted earlier in this thread is because you want to play multiway. Also it can be easily proven that while it may not matter for any one hand defaulting to any one action 100% does matter to your overall strategy
You're back and you've decided to double down on your faulty logic.
Nope that isn't correct in the context that we have been talking about throughout this thread.
If raising and calling were both 0EV then I could fold 100% of the time and I wouldn't lose any EV in my strategy.
Hit me!
You're back and you've decided to double down on your faulty logic. Nope that isn't correct in the context that we have been talking about throughout this thread. If raising and calling were both 0EV then I could fold 100% of the time and I wouldn't lose any EV in my strategy.Hit me!
Folding is -EV on average, as you are punished with -1.5bb/round. Add antes etc.
Try this run a solve next run the same solve but node lock all the 0ev hands to fold and see how much it effects the solvers overall strategy.
Are you trying to hypothesize that your opponent's frequencies will change if you change your own frequencies? Yeah of course dude45.
That's not what we are talking about.
Come on man, you have over 20k posts and you've been here since 2010 and your calculation is that folding is -15bb/100?
Redo the calculation and try again please.
Yes, blinds are punishing you. Poker is actually much about overcoming our trash card blind bets. With bigger pots the relative impact of the blinds diminishes. Every hand we fold is -0.15bb+ on average because of the blinds. Often profitable because we would lose even more if playing. So when we have it, we need to play it!
Yes, blinds are punishing you. The game of poker is actually much about overcoming our trash card blind bets. With bigger pots the relative impact of the blinds diminishes. Every hand we fold is -0.15bb+ on average because of the blinds. Often profitable because we would lose even more if playing. So when we have it, we need to play it!
Nope not correct, folding isn't -0.15bb
I need to use the Sklansky.....Do you see why?
Yes, blinds are punishing you. Poker is actually much about overcoming our trash card blind bets. With bigger pots the relative impact of the blinds diminishes. Every hand we fold is -0.15bb+ on average because of the blinds. Often profitable because we would lose even more if playing. So when we have it, we need to play it!
No
You can't lose something that's already lost.
