The problem with 45s is it's in horrible shape against plenty of pairs that QJ is flipping against (44-TT) - overall it has less equity against a calling range then QJo does. We can only have so many hands in our "bluff shoving range" too otherwise we start getting less respect from our shoves and get called too wide. Posted by F_Ivanovic
I absolutely agree with you and I'm playing devils advocate by suggesting 45s but if we're jamming qjo with the expectation of folding out kq and kj, shouldn't we also be jamming hands like jto, t9s and 89s? These have similar equity vs the expected calling range. Also whilst Aq and aj are gonna call hands like a9 and a8 may not.
Hi Epoker, thanks for pointing this site out, very useful as a baseline.
You would also of course have to adjust slightly according to the stage of the tournament, stack sizes, ICM factors and playing styles, but very useful as a guide nonetheless.
Would be interested to know where they get there data from? Ie, opinions of pros, through simulations etc. If it's based on simulations against perceived calling ranges that would be quite valuable.
OK, so there are charts around suggesting what we should shove with, with X BB's from the relative positions.
However, does anyone know where to find some charts showing what we should call shoves with for X BB's in the various position combinations.
The good thing for me about helping Danny out has been, that I've got to learn stuff too!
Plus the way he's improving, I'll be going to him for advice soon! :=)
Good luck at the tables all, and thanks for the thought provoking input.
Cheers,
Graham
P.S. I thought it was pretty straight forward stuff, this shoving lark, but as I often find out, there's always a bit more to it than meets the eye. :=)
P.P.S. Sorry for all the posts, keep thinking of something else.
I'm not fond of shoving. My preferred play here would be to try and see some cards with the A3o. If I was lucky and the flop showed two cards to match my suited ace, I'd shove then. Sure I've only got 3 cards of the flush, but holding the ace reps a nut flush draw. Sure, it's a risky play. Even if a hadn't hit the flop, I'd then try to rep another flush draw, without holding any pocket cards. Shoving after the flop might give my hand some credibility.
Naturally, there are a lot of other variables that need taking into account, but given the choice, I'd always prefer to risk it on an A.
Please bear in mind, my last tourney win was £0.44 in a freeroll.
Just been reading a bit more about this Nash thingy. IMO Sky players play tighter than the Nash guidelines, both for shove ranges and ranges for calling a shove. Which in theory means we can optimally shove wider than they suggest! I think that concept might make Danny feel quite unwell Posted by StayOrGo
I just had a look at the what we can profitably shove with on 10bb and can't believe how wide it recommends. Would be useful to see the suggested Nash calling range which allows this to be profitable. Seems crazy we can jam 5 high off 10 bb and expect to make money in the long run. Think it has to be very opponent dependent but very interesting. Your probably right about calling ranges being tighter than Nash although I don't know the calling ranges, so we might be able to shove almost any two cards.
The point of nash shoving ranges is that they're unexploitable. If you stick to those ranges, there is no range a villian can call with that will stop our shove being +EV.
It doesn't mean they are always optimal, there are often more +EV options, especially on Sky (no antes) but the Nash charts as I say will always be +EV shoves if you stick to them.
Fwiw, I think QJo is an easy fold, A3o is close imo depending on who is behind but shoving can never be bad. Unless there are major ICM considerations then being ITM or not ITM shouldn't affect your decisions really. If you have 6xbb and someone has 2xbb and it's the stone bubble of the roller, then yeah it makes a ton of sense to be vvv tight because we are vv likely to cash by folding, and giving average stacks in roller, doubling our 6xbb won't have that huge an impact on our chances of winning anyway, it certainly won't double what we'd expect to win in terms of £££ but these are rare occasion.
Most of the time the bubble the only things to consider around these stages are how people's ranges change and how we can adjust to try and take advantage of it. I.E. people tend to be tighter on the bubble, and people tend to loosen up considerably just after the bubble bursts because payjumps are very small, they've locked up a cash and wanna spin and go ftw. So just after the bubble jamming A3o is probably not ideal because people will call us a lot lighter than they would on the stone bubble.
The point of nash shoving ranges is that they're unexploitable. If you stick to those ranges, there is no range a villian can call with that will stop our shove being +ev Posted by Lambert180
If we're vs a villain who's calling 90% of the time, shoving the bottom end of the Nash shoving range can no longer be profitable and we should adjust by shoving tighter even if it's still profitable shoving the nash range itself. Think its interesting that regardless of villains calling range we can use nash and make money long term
In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : If we're vs a villain who's calling 90% of the time, shoving the bottom end of the Nash shoving range can no longer be profitable and we should adjust by shoving tighter even if it's still profitable shoving the nash range itself. Think its interesting that regardless of villains calling range we can use nash and make money long term Posted by FeelGroggy
No that's not true.
The entire point of Nash is that it's impossible to exploit. We are shoving a range that is +EV and there's no range you con construct to stop it being +EV. If they tighten up we get folds more often to add to our overall EV and if they call too much it just makes our equity better.
To take your example, say we assume we have 10bb, and someone is calling 90%...
In that spot we have 55% equity with our range v theirs, we also get folds 10% of the time.
It's impossible to come up with a range that'll make nash shoving ranges not +EV, that's the whole point of them. Like I said, it's not always optimal but is always +EV
Yeah as Lambert says Nash is unexploitable and +ev but is not necessarily the most ev line to take. Also, the thing you have to remember with Nash is that you can only play shove or fold and that for it to work you need to be jamming your AA along with your 54s. If you are m-r your AA (and some other hands) then it becomes no longer profitable to jam lots of small-mid suited connectors.
In regards to suitedness making such a massive difference - depending on the suited connector but they seem to average about 3.5% equity more (I tried for 10% and 20% range and both gave suited connectors about 3.5% more equity) - this is also more than I thought but it's not just the added equity that's important but as said before it's about our whole range. There's only 4/16 combos of each hand that are suited, the other 12 being off suited. These suited connectors help balance our range and it's what make them +ev shoves. If they are being called too wide that also means you are getting called wide when you have value hands like QQ+
@FeelGroggy: Again, regarding these hands then yes, we can also jam these hands. But the key is not to jam them every time because then we will be too wide in our shoving range. If you haven't been active and think you can get away with a shove - then go for it. But if you have been on a card rush and been active then it's probably not the best idea to be shoving with JTo or T9s UTG.
In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : No that's not true. The entire point of Nash is that it's impossible to exploit. We are shoving a range that is +EV and there's no range you con construct to stop it being +EV. If they tighten up we get folds more often to add to our overall EV and if they call too much it just makes our equity better. To take your example, say we assume we have 10bb, and someone is calling 90%... Nash shoving 10bb 22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J3s+,T4s+,95s+,84s+,74s+,64s+,54s, A2o+,K2o+,Q7o+,J8o+,T8o+,97o+,87o Calling 90% 22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J2s+,T2s+,92s+,82s+,72s+,62s+,52s+,42s+, 32s,A2o+,K2o+,Q2o+,J2o+,T2o+,93o+,84o+,74o+,64o+,53o+ In that spot we have 55% equity with our range v theirs, we also get folds 10% of the time. It's impossible to come up with a range that'll make nash shoving ranges not +EV, that's the whole point of them. Like I said, it's not always optimal but is always +EV Posted by Lambert180
Hi Lambert and Danny,
From my limited understanding the basis of Nash is when ALL players are playing optimally. However lets use the SB, BB scenario where the BB calls 90% of the time.
Clearly our friend in the BB is not playing optimally, therefor ranges have to be adjusted and one should not shove so wide from the SB. So I tend to lean towards Danny's view here.
Whilst the principle of Nash is that it's unexploitable, and you will ultimately be +EV over time, against our villain in the BB, you will be even greater +EV, by tightening up a bit imo.
In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : I just had a look at the what we can profitably shove with on 10bb and can't believe how wide it recommends. Would be useful to see the suggested Nash calling range which allows this to be profitable. Seems crazy we can jam 5 high off 10 bb and expect to make money in the long run. Think it has to be very opponent dependent but very interesting. Your probably right about calling ranges being tighter than Nash although I don't know the calling ranges, so we might be able to shove almost any two cards. Posted by FeelGroggy
Hi Danny, interestingly I just read that if players are not playing optimally, you should tighten up your range by 5% in ALL cases. This confused me at first, as I thought if players were too tight, then surely you widen the range, however I was wrong about this. :=(
I think the reason behind it is that even though they are calling less, when they do call, they will likely have you crushed, so the equity going to flop is clearly less against tighter players and this apparently is a bigger factor than the additional fold equity.
So any major anomalies to optimal play from your opponents. "according to what I have read", should result in tightening up, and 5% tighter is the recommended amount
So, some good news for you my friend! No need to shove 23o in the SB :=)
Cheers,
Graham.
P.S. Tis great, this shared learning to help us all improve our games!
In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : Hi Lambert and Danny, From my limited understanding the basis of Nash is when ALL players are playing optimally. However lets use the SB, BB scenario where the BB calls 90% of the time. Clearly our friend in the BB is not playing optimally, therefor ranges have to be adjusted and one should not shove so wide from the SB. So I tend to lean towards Danny's view here. Whilst the principle of Nash is that it's unexploitable, and you will ultimately be +EV over time, against our villain in the BB, you will be even greater +EV, by tightening up a bit imo. Interested in your thoughts. Cheers, Graham Posted by StayOrGo
Yeah definitely, this is what I said. Sticking to nash charts is guaranteed to be +EV but it's not always optimal/the most +EV play. Just like open jamming 100xbb w/ AA is +EV, but that doesnt mean it's the best way to play it.
In Response to Re: FeelGroggy's rise and Poker question. : Yeah definitely, this is what I said. Sticking to nash charts is guaranteed to be +EV but it's not always optimal/the most +EV play. Just like open jamming 100xbb w/ AA is +EV, but that doesnt mean it's the best way to play it. Posted by Lambert180
Nash seems to be poorly understood by most, but it's utterly fascinating.
First up, Nash Equilibrium, as such, was not designed for poker at all, it's uses & benefits are much, much, wider, poker is bit a very small & minor use for it. In theory, it can be applied to any hostile situation where the opposing sides do not, or cannot, play perfect strategy. If both sides can play perfect strategy, Nash Equilibrium is of no use.
Nash seems to be poorly understood by most, but it's utterly fascinating. First up, Nash Equilibrium, as such, was not designed for poker at all, it's uses & benefits are much, much, wider, poker is bit a very small & minor use for it. In theory, it can be applied to any hostile situation where the opposing sides do not, or cannot, play perfect strategy. If both sides can play perfect strategy, Nash Equilibrium is of no use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium John Nash was an extraordinary man. He became mentally ill, but later recovered. The film " A Beautiful Mind " was based on John's life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_ (film) Tragically, John & his wife were both killed in a car crash just 6 weeks ago in New Jersey. Poker players bandy his name around willy-nilly, but very few know much about the great man himself, & the wider uses of his theory. Posted by Tikay10
Thanks for this TK. It's good for people to know this.
As you alluded to, it appears, poker players quote Nash Equilibrium a lot, so one does need to ensure that it is not just, "Their personal opinion and quoting Nash to give it substance"
However, regarding this thread, it does appear that there are simulations that back up the valid use of the great man's name, regarding this poker scenario.
I watched "A Beautiful Mind" a few years ago, where John Nash was played by Russell Crowe. Great film!
I didn't know about the recent car accident, how tragic. As you say, a great man! Much respect.
Just had a thought, do you think these same ranges would be valid, if you were the "Big Stack", say 50BB or more, and the stacks of the remaining player/s to act, were say 8 or 10BB's.
Interested in peoples thought on this.
In theory, we could have four versions of the above question for each position, although unlikely to have more than 3 players to your left all with < 10BB. So I think we should just consider CUT-OFF, BUTTON and SMALL BLIND for the scenarios below:
1) Mid stages of the tournament, still way off the money 2) On the bubble 3) In the money but long way off final table 4) Final table
Comments
You would also of course have to adjust slightly according to the stage of the tournament, stack sizes, ICM factors and playing styles, but very useful as a guide nonetheless.
Would be interested to know where they get there data from? Ie, opinions of pros, through simulations etc. If it's based on simulations against perceived calling ranges that would be quite valuable.
Any idea where there data comes from?
Thanks again!
Graham
They use "Nash Equilibrium Stategy"
Although it must be a more basic version of it as Nash takes payout structures into consideration too.
Interesting site though.
http://www.icmpoker.com/en/blog/nash-calculator-and-nash-equilibrium-strategy-in-poker/
Cheers,
Graham
IMO Sky players play tighter than the Nash guidelines, both for shove ranges and ranges for calling a shove.
Which in theory means we can optimally shove wider than they suggest!
I think that concept might make Danny feel quite unwell, particularly when in the Small Blind :=)
One thing that did surprise me a bit was just how much the suited-ness affected the ranges!
I would say, when comparing to Nash, that I shove too wide when they're not suited and not wide enough when they are. Anyone else have views on this?
Food for thought.
Cheers,
Graham
OK, so there are charts around suggesting what we should shove with, with X BB's from the relative positions.
However, does anyone know where to find some charts showing what we should call shoves with for X BB's in the various position combinations.
The good thing for me about helping Danny out has been, that I've got to learn stuff too!
Plus the way he's improving, I'll be going to him for advice soon! :=)
Good luck at the tables all, and thanks for the thought provoking input.
Cheers,
Graham
P.S. I thought it was pretty straight forward stuff, this shoving lark, but as I often find out, there's always a bit more to it than meets the eye. :=)
P.P.S. Sorry for all the posts, keep thinking of something else.
Naturally, there are a lot of other variables that need taking into account, but given the choice, I'd always prefer to risk it on an A.
Please bear in mind, my last tourney win was £0.44 in a freeroll.
I just had a look at the what we can profitably shove with on 10bb and can't believe how wide it recommends. Would be useful to see the suggested Nash calling range which allows this to be profitable. Seems crazy we can jam 5 high off 10 bb and expect to make money in the long run. Think it has to be very opponent dependent but very interesting. Your probably right about calling ranges being tighter than Nash although I don't know the calling ranges, so we might be able to shove almost any two cards.
22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J2s+,T2s+,92s+,82s+,72s+,62s+,52s+,42s+,
From my limited understanding the basis of Nash is when ALL players are playing optimally. However lets use the SB, BB scenario where the BB calls 90% of the time.
Clearly our friend in the BB is not playing optimally, therefor ranges have to be adjusted and one should not shove so wide from the SB. So I tend to lean towards Danny's view here.
Whilst the principle of Nash is that it's unexploitable, and you will ultimately be +EV over time, against our villain in the BB, you will be even greater +EV, by tightening up a bit imo.
Interested in your thoughts.
Cheers,
Graham
I think the reason behind it is that even though they are calling less, when they do call, they will likely have you crushed, so the equity going to flop is clearly less against tighter players and this apparently is a bigger factor than the additional fold equity.
So any major anomalies to optimal play from your opponents. "according to what I have read", should result in tightening up, and 5% tighter is the recommended amount
So, some good news for you my friend! No need to shove 23o in the SB :=)
Cheers,
Graham.
P.S. Tis great, this shared learning to help us all improve our games!
Nash seems to be poorly understood by most, but it's utterly fascinating.
First up, Nash Equilibrium, as such, was not designed for poker at all, it's uses & benefits are much, much, wider, poker is bit a very small & minor use for it. In theory, it can be applied to any hostile situation where the opposing sides do not, or cannot, play perfect strategy. If both sides can play perfect strategy, Nash Equilibrium is of no use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
John Nash was an extraordinary man. He became mentally ill, but later recovered. The film "A Beautiful Mind" was based on John's life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_(film)
Tragically, John & his wife were both killed in a car crash just 6 weeks ago in New Jersey.
Poker players bandy his name around willy-nilly, but very few know much about the great man himself, & the wider uses of his theory.
As you alluded to, it appears, poker players quote Nash Equilibrium a lot, so one does need to ensure that it is not just, "Their personal opinion and quoting Nash to give it substance"
However, regarding this thread, it does appear that there are simulations that back up the valid use of the great man's name, regarding this poker scenario.
I watched "A Beautiful Mind" a few years ago, where John Nash was played by Russell Crowe. Great film!
I didn't know about the recent car accident, how tragic. As you say, a great man! Much respect.
May he and his wife RIP.
Interested in peoples thought on this.
In theory, we could have four versions of the above question for each position, although unlikely to have more than 3 players to your left all with < 10BB. So I think we should just consider CUT-OFF, BUTTON and SMALL BLIND for the scenarios below:
1) Mid stages of the tournament, still way off the money
2) On the bubble
3) In the money but long way off final table
4) Final table
Feel free to input!
Cheers,
Graham