Midlife Crisis? What Midlife Crisis?

3 stacks higher but AI EV doesn't tell you that much when 100bb or more deep. I mean, the money rarely goes AI before the river. Take one of my lateste hands for example.

Ofc I'm not folding any river after I commit myself on the turn, but what can you do if they like calling with less than half pot behind after getting raised?

Grabbed by Holdem Manager
NL Holdem $0.50(BB) Replayer
SB ($58.20)
BB ($20)
Hero ($53.50)
UTG+1 ($17.60)
UTG+2 ($67)
MP1 ($159)
MP2 ($124)
CO ($22.75)
BTN ($110)

Dealt to Hero 9♥ 9♣

Hero raises to $2, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, SB calls $1.75, fold

FLOP ($4.50) 8♦ 6♥ 7♥

SB bets $3, Hero calls $3

TURN ($10.50) 8♦ 6♥ 7♥ T♣

SB bets $7, Hero raises to $21, SB calls $14

RIVER ($52.50) 8♦ 6♥ 7♥ T♣ J♥

SB bets $32.20 (AI), Hero calls $27.50 (AI)

Hero shows 9♥ 9♣
(Pre 53%, Flop 51.8%, Turn 79.5%)

SB shows K♥ A♥
(Pre 47%, Flop 48.2%, Turn 20.5%)

SB wins $104

Point taken, but I do find that, after a session, if I'm thinking 'Well, I ran like shit there!', my AI EV line is way above my green line, and the opposite if I'm thinking 'I'm such a luckbox'.

In that case, can I suggest that you stop looking at graphs with an Allin EV line on them? Either that or drink infeasible amounts of alcohol. ♠_cool:

Short term DOESN'T MATTER! (and that statement also applies to infeasible amounts of alcohol FWIW).

I've always found the AI EV line to be horribly misrepresentative. As Manu said, when you get 3/4 of your stack in with a set and the river brings a flush for your opponent, obviously you can't fold the remaining 1/4 of your stack, but hell that isn't great luck ♦

Originally posted by Waiboy
In that case, can I suggest that you stop looking at graphs with an Allin EV line on them? Either that or drink infeasible amounts of alcohol. ♠_cool:

I think I'll try both.

Originally posted by jbpatzer

Originally posted by Waiboy
In that case, can I suggest that you stop looking at graphs with an Allin EV line on them? Either that or drink infeasible amounts of alcohol. ♠_cool:

I think I'll try both.

My work here is done.

What a refreshing blog!

10ish years your junior but I 'started' early so have a 10 and a 6 year old to contend with.

Interesting 'old-school' gaming background - I think there is a strong affinity to all strategy games which leads to the appreciation and interest in Poker.

For my generation it was the dawn of the Atari consoles, along with hand held single-game devices such as Donkey kong and Tetris et al. For the nerdier among us (myself included) this led to RRP games such as D&D which progressed on to user-group based (pre-graphic) internet roleplaying.

I agree that there is a 'disadvantage' to being older and having more responsibilities in comparison to the younger players who can afford to be a little bit more 'carefree' and manage an 'all-nighter' without it leaving them a zombie for the rest of the week, but conversely I think age and experience brings a different type of wisdom to the game - a different appreciation of risk, an ability to manage time better (thus a more productive hour, be it on the tables or improving strategy), a different capacity to learn (and to seek out the 'right' information) and a better appreciation of finances which all leads back to strategy....

Good luck with your poker career, and I for one would be interested in a regular update of your progression. Lastly, why not combine the need to publish academic articles with your hobby and explore the mathematics behind Poker, or hook up with another academic from a different department and look at the history of, or the impact on a changing society etc etc.

Sanseng

Originally posted by Sanseng
What a refreshing blog!

why not combine the need to publish academic articles with your hobby and explore the mathematics behind Poker

Glad you like it.

And funny you should mention that. I've spent this lunchtime looking at a simple 3bet/4bet/5bet game (UTG raises, Button 3bets a polarized range, UTG 4bets value+some bluffcatchers, button shoves a polarized range, UTG calls value + some bluffcatchers). Unless I've buggered it up (which is quite likely obv) I think I've shown that the unexploitable Nash equilibrium is for UTG and button to only do this with value hands (any bluffing at all is exploitable). Not sure I believe this, so I will check it over and report back with the details and the underlying assumptions. It is reassuring though as I'm currently only 3betting for value on rush NL10. This fancy polarized range stuff is strictly for you NL100 chaps only!

Originally posted by jbpatzer
And funny you should mention that. I've spent this lunchtime looking at a simple 3bet/4bet/5bet game (UTG raises, Button 3bets a polarized range, UTG 4bets value+some bluffcatchers, button shoves a polarized range, UTG calls value + some bluffcatchers). Unless I've buggered it up (which is quite likely obv) I think I've shown that the unexploitable Nash equilibrium is for UTG and button to only do this with value hands (any bluffing at all is exploitable). Not sure I believe this, so I will check it over and report back with the details and the underlying assumptions. It is reassuring though as I'm currently only 3betting for value on rush NL10. This fancy polarized range stuff is strictly for you NL100 chaps only!

Hi. Cool to see you're doing some poker math again!

If someone finally shoves in a game where calling isn't allowed he'd better not be polarized but he should take the best hands he has available in his range to get his needed shove% (to not be exploitable) for maximizing his equity in case he gets called.
But concerning the other ranges, I'd be surprised if they hadn't any raise/fold, 3bet/fold or 4bet/fold ranges at all. From a perspective of information: if BU knows UTGs openraising range quite well, he knows exactly his 4betting and 4bet/broke ranges and doesn't have to estimate fold equity (he knows it's zero). It wouldn't make a difference at all if UTG just openshoved his whole openraisingrange. This does not seem to be somewhere near the GTO strategy for 100BB stacks ;). I'd expect to see optimal folding/calling frequencies depending on the pot- and betsizes (like it is the case in easy river bluff/call games as well).

And funny you should mention that. I've spent this lunchtime looking at a simple 3bet/4bet/5bet game (UTG raises, Button 3bets a polarized range, UTG 4bets value+some bluffcatchers, button shoves a polarized range, UTG calls value + some bluffcatchers). Unless I've buggered it up (which is quite likely obv) I think I've shown that the unexploitable Nash equilibrium is for UTG and button to only do this with value hands (any bluffing at all is exploitable). Not sure I believe this, so I will check it over and report back with the details and the underlying assumptions. It is reassuring though as I'm currently only 3betting for value on rush NL10. This fancy polarized range stuff is strictly for you NL100 chaps only!

Do they end up shoving AA only then? ( and folding anything else?)

Originally posted by argentina71

And funny you should mention that. I've spent this lunchtime looking at a simple 3bet/4bet/5bet game (UTG raises, Button 3bets a polarized range, UTG 4bets value+some bluffcatchers, button shoves a polarized range, UTG calls value + some bluffcatchers). Unless I've buggered it up (which is quite likely obv) I think I've shown that the unexploitable Nash equilibrium is for UTG and button to only do this with value hands (any bluffing at all is exploitable). Not sure I believe this, so I will check it over and report back with the details and the underlying assumptions. It is reassuring though as I'm currently only 3betting for value on rush NL10. This fancy polarized range stuff is strictly for you NL100 chaps only!

Do they end up shoving AA only then? ( and folding anything else?)

Yep. I'll post something soon on my assumptions, and we can start to pick it apart and put it back together again.

Yep. I'll post something soon on my assumptions, and we can start to pick it apart and put it back together again.

Nice. That is what I think it happens with some players at microstakes. However, when you find that, then you can exploit that by adjusting and 4betting a wide range. By the time they find out you can switch again. Is there Nash equilibrium in this case? (I mean, what initially looks like the optimal strategy seems to be exploitable).

(Sorry, getting impatient - Don't bother answering if you think it is better to discuss it once you post, I will wait for your post with your assumptions in that case to discuss it further)

I started a new thread called the 3bet/4bet/5bet/shove game to stop silting my blog up with maths. Details are in there. I found that I had gone wrong (I might still have gone wrong!) and that, although UTG needs to go with value only, the button can bluff and in fact win the game for 2.5bb (position!).

And in case anyone missed it earlier, the efforts of muebarek, pzhon, nibbana and me on SnGs are in the Alternatives to ICM thread. We concluded that ICM is a pretty darn good model!

Watched Shutter Island with mrsjb last night (Very good. Reminded me of Memento, one of my all time favourite films. Has Leonardo DiCaprio ever made a bad film? I can't think of one off the top of my head.), so tonight I can have an MTT night (sorry TT). I'm going to play the Silver Iron Man Freeroll at 8.40, the $24 super stack with early antes at 9.00 (step 3 ticket ) , the $2 deepstack at 9.20 and the $1 regular MTT at 9.05. Last of the big spenders.

Agreed, excellent film and I also love almost every film Leo DiCaprio is in ♠_cool: Well, except Titanic

Only one bad I can recall from DiCaprio was Romeo and Juliet and that one was made bo be boring,all the rest vary from good to very good movies.
DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Robert Deniro and Russell Crowe are the best hollywood actors imo.

Edit to Wriggles: you havnet seen Romeo and Julliet then.
Titanic was very good also, just the story is bit too romantic and girly, but act the way he acted there were impressive imo

Shipp those MTTs.

I don't know why, but I just don't believe DiCaprio. Something always eats away at my suspension of disbelief when he's on screen and I can see he's acting (if that makes any sense to anyone else). He's more or less always in good films though.

$1 MTT: Earlyish exit. Got it in good. Lost to runner runner flush.
$2 MTT: Earlyish exit. Got it in v bad. Flopped trips. Lost to runner runner flush.
$24 MTT: Managed to double my stack. Then got it in with a smaller pair than the other guy twice in a row.
Silver IronMan Freeroll: 70/2000 for $30. Ran 77 into AA.

I found that, after playing all this SH cash, the early stages seemed really soft and I managed to pretty much double my stack by winning small pots. But once we got down to mid/small stacks, particularly once the antes kicked in, I was much less comfortable.

So, four hours play, $3 profit.

Originally posted by jbpatzer
So, four hours play, $3 profit.

+ rakeback!

i have not seen a bad movie with edward norton in it. christian bale is also very good (couple of exceptions with his ones though)