Yeah never judge a call by the results. You are calling v a range, and its your expectation v the range that matters. if you come up against the top of his range, unlucky innit.
Icimizer offer 5 free calcs a day, plug some stacks and ranges in and see where the borders are.
88 looks like its a call v most competent opponents. and lots of players will minraise AA and KK anyway.
i dont know what the dym population does at these depths, but the above should help formulate appropriate ranges for similar situations you come across.
a good benchmark is the 34% equilibrium shoving range. if we think villain is shoving wider then we can call wider than the suggested nash range, if he minraises QQ+ we can call wider. if he shoves tighter we can fold a couple more Ax and PPs.
its a great tool. that post took 10 minutes tops. you get 5 free calcs a day. my subscription has expired now [i use a heads up specific tool now] but the above was all done using the free calcs.
it has limitations but for solving PUSH/FOLD situations its great
So where do we draw the line then? If 22 is a fold and 88 is a call what are the worst cards we can/should call with? You can't argue with the stats there dev, teddy has made it pretty clear that 22 is in worse shape than 88 against most shoving ranges. Posted by waller02
not v 2 overs it isn't, which is my point here that you all are missing & imo our opponents most likely range.
if we run in to a higher pair, that's tuff that's the risk we take here.
it's all about notes on players too & going with your gut feelings sometimes.
most players on the bubble play way too tight & passively by folding way too often.
sometimes as here if you take the risk you might get that reward, by folding you will never know.
you can call with almost any 2 if it's to knock a player out & cash, & with those 1100 chips as plan b
I don't care what hhy Teddy or anyone else thinks, I play my own way. if you choose to play like timid little lambs that's up to you... baaah baaah. -:)
not v 2 overs it isn't, which is my point here that you all are missing & imo our opponents most likely range.
22 performs worse against two-overcards to 88 than does 88. villains WILL be shoving pairs along with their two-overs-to-88. 22 is a massive dog v that range. 88 isnt.
you can play how you want dev, but dont give out bad and incorrect advice such as "22 performs the same v shoving ranges as 88' as that is clearly and demonstrably untrue.
there is nothing weak or lamb like about making good folds, dev. its all about making money.
-----
i can see how you can be a winning player by employing the strategy of 'calling with 22 and having a back up of 1100 chips] lets look at some maths here:
22 agaisnt a range of 22-JJ and any two overs to 88 has about 40% equity.
when we call we guarentee ourselves a winrate:
e +[ [1-e]*es]
e = equity v shoving range
es = % of times we win as the new short stack
the 1-e term simply gives us the % of how often we find ourselves as the short stack. the short stack cannot expect to win more than 50% of the time as there are 4 players and he is at a chip disadvantage. lets assume that the shortie needs to win a 40/60 flip, and then cashes 75% of the time after doing so. He can therefore expect to cash 30% of the time. reasonable? so plugging numbers in:
Edited numbers...
.4+[.6*.4] = 58% winrate
ok so we just beat rake.
lets be more optimistic and call with a hand with 50% equity
.5+[.5*.2] = 65% winrate
great we have just smashed the rake and are a winning player. BOOM!
expcept that if we had folded we would expect to cash at least 75% of the time and more like 80%. that REALLY beats the rake.
moreover lets look at the winrates of the other players not involved in the hand. given you have 40% equity they have a win rate of:
.4+[.6*.75] = 85%
and when you have 50% equity:
.5+[.5*.75] = 87.5%
wow!
whilst you have found a winning strat, you are not maximising you winnings. furthermore having you employ this strat of "call with junk and have a shart-stack as back up" strategy means that having you on their table is GREAT for the other regs. having you on their table on the bubble boosts the other regs winrates by a huge margin.
having you on the bubble v a shortstack means they can sit back, let you do all the donkey work, take all the risk and watch you share the reward with them. you get a 60% winrate and beat the rake - they get a 90% winrate and all the girls.
Hi Dev Verus two overs you are in worse shape, my previous point as you can be counterfieted Lets say we are against AK What if the board runs out 44J55 Your 22 is no good then Even 44442 your 2 kicker not good, There is so many different sceniros why 88 plays around 5% better (maybe more) than 22. These can be the decisions that increase your roi by 1% which is huge in dyms. Posted by stuarty117
I get what you & the others are saying Stuart, really I do.
but we are not putting our own life on the line here we still have a playable stack behind, just. we are going for the Win here, the KO punch if you like.
we can wait for a better spot it's true but then again we are possibly wasting an opportunity here.
on the bubble it's all about 'risk & reward' & by taking the odd risk here & there you are increasing your chances of winning not reducing them...imo.
I'm not saying that I would call here with 88 or 22 I'm saying you could.
yes you have to play tight for most of the game but there comes a time to attack.
yes knowing the odds is important, granted, but there is so much more to dym's than that, imo.
if it was all about the odds & everyone played perfectly then we would all simply end up level & losing out to the rake.
anyway, we can talk about this until the sheep come home I've given my point of view on this situation which is really for the original poster. how he or anyone else uses it is up to them.
I play dym's I play my own game I win it's that simple. if you think i'm wrong here then so be it, I can't change that.
maybe I am but that doesn't matter to me, we all see the same things differently all the time.
it's like a painting, one likes it another doesn't, it's that simple.
as an artist...of sorts myself, lol maybe I am more creative in my play here on the bubble than many others, I don't know, which maybe counter reacts my earlier levels tight play, where many players get more creative there perhaps.
it's all very interesting though isn't it, & maybe some food for thought.
as I say, there is more to playing dym's than simply crunching numbers, or at least I think so.
those numbers are very rough, but yes when one player is at risk with 50% equity on the bubble the other two players not in the hand can expect to win around 85-90% of the times they get to that situation. it's the nut DYM spot:
2 players have already bust and another is 50/50 to bust and your chips are not at risk.
of course from start of game winrates will be more like 57%, but once you get to the bubble winrates will be much higher, non...
---
i'm not saying you dont make good folds, not sure where you got that from. i suck at DYMs you clearly do not. i find the math of the game interesting and i like solving situations. it helps me in my games.
hooowever... saying making laydowns is lamb like or passive aint good advice. i give out bad advice all the time. dont take anything i say as gospel, but please do correct me innit. dont be so defensive mate. i like you and you give out lots of great advice in the clinics. i can defo see why calling somewhat light v short stacks is good having run some basic numbers, esp if you are not putting a big% of your stack in the middle.
i'm not having a go mate. those numbers are very rough, but yes when one player is at risk with 50% equity on the bubble the other two players not in the hand can expect to win around 85-90% of the times they get to that situation. it's the nut DYM spot: 2 players have already bust and another is 50/50 to bust and your chips are not at risk. of course from start of game winrates will be more like 57%, but once you get to the bubble winrates will be much higher, non... --- i'm not saying you dont make good folds, not sure where you got that from. i suck at DYMs you clearly do not. i find the math of the game interesting and i like solving situations. it helps me in my games. hooowever... saying making laydowns is lamb like or passive aint good advice. i give out bad advice all the time. dont take anything i say as gospel, but please do correct me innit. dont be so defensive mate. i like you and you give out lots of great advice in the clinics. i can defo see why calling somewhat light v short stacks is good having run some basic numbers, esp if you are not putting a big% of your stack in the middle. all good, sir Posted by TeddyBloat
Apart from the maths lessons you've been posting, that's the 2nd best thing I've read
Teddy Teddy Teddy... it's all a game mate, none of this is life or death, like your posts are coming across as.
play a few thousand dym's like me then get back to me again & we can have a good old catch up...
Dev, you are coming across terribly in the thread. Smug, arrogant, saying things that are simply not true from a strat POV. And then you get super defensive.
You seem to think that because you are a winning DYM player, then you can do no wrong. This is clearly not the case, there is always scope to get better. I am a winning/profitable tournament player (believe it or not!) but there are plenty of hands and spots that I could play better, I certainly don't take the mantra that.... 'I'm profitable in my format of the game and thus my decisions are sound and correct' < this is how you come across.
He has put up various posts that have been good reading, and gone into depth about DYM end game. You should be grateful that he went to that effort, including using some of his free calculations on Icimizer. He didn't have to do that, or do anything in the thread. Teddy has effectively given you more learning tools yet he has said sorry to you? Crazy.
I actually think you owe Teddy an apology, Dev. He has put up various posts that have been good reading, and gone into depth about DYM end game. You should be grateful that he went to that effort, including using some of his free calculations on Icimizer. He didn't have to do that, or do anything in the thread. Teddy has effectively given you more learning tools yet he has said sorry to you? Crazy. Posted by hhyftrftdr
It pains me to agree with you but you're right.
Dev, you seemed to take teddy's posts as some kind of personal attack at your game. It certainly wasn't that, he was posting advice which I had asked for. He even took the time to explain the maths behind the advice he was giving.
Advice like this is priceless imo and all that some of your remarks could achieve is to put ppl like teddy off giving any more help in the future. I know if I was teddy I certainly wouldn't feel like helping out anymore if that's the response I got
I am calling here all day long, his range is so wide at this stage that most the time your likely to be up agaisnt one over card, ofcourse your occasionally going to be up agaisnt a higher pair or two overs but majority of the time in my experiences your normal well ahead
sorry if i come across bad dev. not my intention squire. i wont take you up on a dym challenge as i wouldnt stand a chance mate. Posted by TeddyBloat
You didn't come across bad at allmate, you just had a different view to mine here, if anything it was me that came across that way, so apologies for that.
I'm not coming here to fall out with anyone just to give my points of view, that's all.
you had the maths on your side to back you up I had my dym head on, on my side.
Dev, you are coming across terribly in the thread. Smug, arrogant, saying things that are simply not true from a strat POV. And then you get super defensive. You seem to think that because you are a winning DYM player, then you can do no wrong. This is clearly not the case, there is always scope to get better. I am a winning/profitable tournament player (believe it or not!) but there are plenty of hands and spots that I could play better, I certainly don't take the mantra that.... 'I'm profitable in my format of the game and thus my decisions are sound and correct' < this is how you come across. Posted by hhyftrftdr
I'm giving my points of view hhy, if you teddy or anyone else don't like them or agree with them, so what, I don't give a toss.
waller o2 asked a question & I responded to it, what he or anyone else makes of it is their choice.
Teddy himself admits he can'y play dym's so is basically just giving us a maths lesson here, whereas I'm giving you my experience from thousands of bubble hand experience.
yes, I could be wrong here, so what if I am, it's hardly life or death.
I'm entitled to have my say regardless of what you all think of my play.
If people want to criticise it that's fine but if people start attacking my ideas & thought processes then of course I'm going to defend myself.
I'm only a low stakes dym player like many others & do pretty well. I don't think of myself as a 'god' or any thing of the sort, & of course I'm not always right, I'm just giving it to you as I see it.
Comments
against: 22+,A7s+,A8o+,K9+,Q9s+,QTo+,J9s+,JTo,T9s
a tight range
88 is a marginal call. 55 is basically break even. the results are posted below:
v a wider shoving range of: 22+,A2+,K5s+,K8o+,Q7s+,Q9o+,J7s+,J9o+,T7s+,T8o+,96s+,98o,85s+,87o,75s+,64s+,53s+,43s
88 becomes more clear and 33 is our marginal call.
results:
v any two cards:
finally as a refrence point and for those interested here is the nash equilibrium solution for this situation.
assuming the sb always folds then the button should shove:
22+,A2+,K4s+,KTo+,Q6s+,QTo+,J8s+,JTo,T7s+,T9o,97s+,87s [34%]
and we should call:
44+, A4s+, A7o+, KTs, KQo.
------
88 looks like its a call v most competent opponents. and lots of players will minraise AA and KK anyway.
i dont know what the dym population does at these depths, but the above should help formulate appropriate ranges for similar situations you come across.
a good benchmark is the 34% equilibrium shoving range. if we think villain is shoving wider then we can call wider than the suggested nash range, if he minraises QQ+ we can call wider. if he shoves tighter we can fold a couple more Ax and PPs.
its a great tool. that post took 10 minutes tops. you get 5 free calcs a day. my subscription has expired now [i use a heads up specific tool now] but the above was all done using the free calcs.
it has limitations but for solving PUSH/FOLD situations its great
22 performs worse against two-overcards to 88 than does 88. villains WILL be shoving pairs along with their two-overs-to-88. 22 is a massive dog v that range. 88 isnt.
you can play how you want dev, but dont give out bad and incorrect advice such as "22 performs the same v shoving ranges as 88' as that is clearly and demonstrably untrue.
there is nothing weak or lamb like about making good folds, dev. its all about making money.
-----
i can see how you can be a winning player by employing the strategy of 'calling with 22 and having a back up of 1100 chips] lets look at some maths here:
22 agaisnt a range of 22-JJ and any two overs to 88 has about 40% equity.
when we call we guarentee ourselves a winrate:
e +[ [1-e]*es]
e = equity v shoving range
es = % of times we win as the new short stack
the 1-e term simply gives us the % of how often we find ourselves as the short stack. the short stack cannot expect to win more than 50% of the time as there are 4 players and he is at a chip disadvantage. lets assume that the shortie needs to win a 40/60 flip, and then cashes 75% of the time after doing so. He can therefore expect to cash 30% of the time. reasonable?
so plugging numbers in:
.4+[.6*.4] = 58% winrate
ok so we just beat rake.
lets be more optimistic and call with a hand with 50% equity
.5+[.5*.2] = 65% winrate
great we have just smashed the rake and are a winning player. BOOM!
expcept that if we had folded we would expect to cash at least 75% of the time and more like 80%. that REALLY beats the rake.
moreover lets look at the winrates of the other players not involved in the hand. given you have 40% equity they have a win rate of:
.4+[.6*.75] = 85%
and when you have 50% equity:
.5+[.5*.75] = 87.5%
wow!
whilst you have found a winning strat, you are not maximising you winnings. furthermore having you employ this strat of "call with junk and have a shart-stack as back up" strategy means that having you on their table is GREAT for the other regs. having you on their table on the bubble boosts the other regs winrates by a huge margin.
having you on the bubble v a shortstack means they can sit back, let you do all the donkey work, take all the risk and watch you share the reward with them. you get a 60% winrate and beat the rake - they get a 90% winrate and all the girls.
those numbers are very rough, but yes when one player is at risk with 50% equity on the bubble the other two players not in the hand can expect to win around 85-90% of the times they get to that situation. it's the nut DYM spot:
2 players have already bust and another is 50/50 to bust and your chips are not at risk.
of course from start of game winrates will be more like 57%, but once you get to the bubble winrates will be much higher, non...
---
i'm not saying you dont make good folds, not sure where you got that from. i suck at DYMs you clearly do not. i find the math of the game interesting and i like solving situations. it helps me in my games.
hooowever... saying making laydowns is lamb like or passive aint good advice. i give out bad advice all the time. dont take anything i say as gospel, but please do correct me innit. dont be so defensive mate. i like you and you give out lots of great advice in the clinics. i can defo see why calling somewhat light v short stacks is good having run some basic numbers, esp if you are not putting a big% of your stack in the middle.
all good, sir
not my intention squire.
i wont take you up on a dym challenge as i wouldnt stand a chance mate.
You seem to think that because you are a winning DYM player, then you can do no wrong. This is clearly not the case, there is always scope to get better. I am a winning/profitable tournament player (believe it or not!) but there are plenty of hands and spots that I could play better, I certainly don't take the mantra that.... 'I'm profitable in my format of the game and thus my decisions are sound and correct' < this is how you come across.
He has put up various posts that have been good reading, and gone into depth about DYM end game. You should be grateful that he went to that effort, including using some of his free calculations on Icimizer. He didn't have to do that, or do anything in the thread. Teddy has effectively given you more learning tools yet he has said sorry to you? Crazy.
Dev, you seemed to take teddy's posts as some kind of personal attack at your game. It certainly wasn't that, he was posting advice which I had asked for. He even took the time to explain the maths behind the advice he was giving.
Advice like this is priceless imo and all that some of your remarks could achieve is to put ppl like teddy off giving any more help in the future. I know if I was teddy I certainly wouldn't feel like helping out anymore if that's the response I got