\n这篇文章是讨论为了能够在翻牌轮得到策略优势从而放弃翻牌前的底池赢率的打法在何种程度上是值得的问题。<\/p>
<\/p>
对于此种情况的典型例子可以在HPFAP中找到，见第40页<\/p>
<\/p>
引：<\/b><\/p>
Let's suppose you have AKo in the BB and one or two aggressive players have called from an early position. Your best play is usually (but not always) to just call and (perhaps) try for a check-raise later<\/p>
<\/p>
这里由Sklansky推荐的游戏方式是一个很大的错误。一个由Pokerstove 给出的赢率分析如下：<\/p>
<\/p>
引：<\/b><\/p>
出自Quelle: PokerStove<\/i>
\nequity (%) win (%) \/ tie (%) <\/p>
Hand 1: 38.7700 % [ 00.38 00.01 ] { AKo }
\nHand 2: 30.6090 % [ 00.30 00.01 ] { TT-55, ATs-A6s, KJs-K9s, QJs-QTs, JTs }
\nHand 3: 30.6210 % [ 00.30 00.01 ] { TT-55, ATs-A6s, KJs-K9s, QJs-QTs, JTs }<\/p>
<\/p>
我们这里对抗两个对手有一个为8%的赢率优势。如果我们加注，会有另外3个BB进入到底池中，而其中属于我们的占38%。这样一个加注这里根据赢率来看就增高了我们的期待值0.14SB。这个加注本身已经和一手象99这样的好牌的价值相当了。<\/p>
<\/p>
对这样一个计算标准的理由是，玩家可以通过翻牌后的决策将翻牌前送出去的赢率在夺回来，因为由于底池很小的原因是可以很好地采用保护的，也就是让对手处于有利位置不是采取弃牌就是必须得采用一个很差的跟注。通过一个翻牌前的加注我们就可以让对手在翻牌后自动地采用正确的跟注，因为底池已经很大了。<\/p>
<\/p>
但这里意味着，一个对手的好的跟注对我们肯定是不好的。尽管有70%的优秀的玩家都相信这一点，但其实这是错的。<\/p>
<\/p>
小盲注对抗大盲注。你们想象一下，我们在翻牌轮单挑，对手持有一个在转牌轮有25%的概率可以凑成的听型牌。让我们继续假设，我们知道对手的牌面，他也知道我们的。我们这里只关心的是数学上最完美的游戏打法。<\/p>
<\/p>
我们来区别两种不同的情况：<\/p>
<\/p>
a) 我们在翻牌前观察了。底池是2SB<\/p>
b) 我们在翻牌前加注了，底池是4SB<\/p>
<\/p>
情况a) 他观察，我们押注，他弃牌。概率：100%，利润= +2SB<\/p>
<\/p>
情况b)<\/p>
翻牌轮：观察，押注，跟注。底池是6SB<\/p>
<\/p>
转牌轮：他的听型牌出现了：押注，弃牌<\/p>
概率：25%，附加利润 -1 SB<\/p>
<\/p>
转牌轮，他的听型牌未出现：观察，押注，跟注底池10SB<\/p>
河牌论，他的听型牌出现了：押注，弃牌<\/p>
概率：18.75%，附加利润 -3SB<\/p>
<\/p>
转牌轮，他的听型牌未出现：观察，押注，跟注<\/p>
河牌论，他的听型牌未出现：观察，押注，弃牌<\/p>
概率：56.25%，， 附加利润 +7 SB<\/p>
<\/p>
总计：<\/p>
翻牌后利润在未加注过的底池：2SB<\/p>
翻牌后利润在加注过的底池：+3.9375 - 0.5625-0.25 = 3.125SB<\/p>
<\/p>
现在我们当然在翻牌前一个加注过的底池中多投入了一个SB。即使是我们也考虑到这一点，我们在一个加注过的底池中还是比在未加注过的底池中多得到0.125SB的附加利润。<\/p>
<\/p>
这个效果是这样形成的，对手由于底池大小的原因被迫用一个底池赢率比较弱的牌面跟注了。通过底池的大额度他被迫与底池捆绑在一起。因为如果我们那时候已经有了一个赢率优势，我们翻牌前只是加注，那么就会经常发生我们将对手辖制在底池中，而不是他将我们束缚在底池中。这样翻牌前的赢率就很明显的反应到了翻牌后的赢率上。这个效果的大小是不能被忽视的。Sklansky的说法，也就是，在松的游戏中持有AQo处于大盲注位置是不应该加注的说法是完全错误的，并且是一个很致命的错误。<\/p>
<\/p>
这个话题是由我们的有限游戏专家Izmet Fekali 在下面的文章中阐述的。结论在此，翻牌前的决策几乎都是取决于你们的底池赢率。如果你们的底池赢率比平均值高，那么在翻牌前尽可能的多投钱到底池中几乎总是正确的。事实上是，你们的对手通过翻牌后数学上正确的跟注来诱导对手，这也就是对你们在大多数情况下的另外的利润收获！<\/p>
<\/p>
简而言之：翻牌前的策略几乎都针对的是底池赢率。如果你们的底池赢率高于对手，那么就可以通过底池的扩大来迫使对手让他们在翻牌后更久的待在底池中，这样你们就得到了附加的利润。<\/b><\/p>
<\/b><\/p>
这里就是上面谈到的文章原文：<\/p>
<\/p>
引：<\/b><\/p>
<\/p>
来自：Izment Fekalis 的网页<\/p>
<\/p>
>Dear Izmet, 6-12 hold'em
\n>
\n>I'm in the big blind last night at the Normandie, where they have
\n>no small blind. About 5 callers and a regular 10-20 thru 20-40
\n>player(whose regular game broke)raises on the button. I have A-Q
\n>both diamonds, I called. Would 3 betting have been best, in regards
\n>to what you refer to as the EV(estimated value?).
\n>
\n>Everybody but the raiser could have been holding almost any two
\n>touching cards(unsuited). And all the limpers would have called my
\n>re-raise, and then certainly a cap at that point from the button.
\n>
\n>I think the main reason I didn't re-raise was due to my horrible
\n>position, and then to a lessor extent, that I was somewhat intimidated
\n>by the higher limit player.
\n>
\n>Thanks for any help, Connie
\n>
\n>PS: I like the super-simplified explination for implied odds you
\n>provide at your site.<\/p>
\nThere are good arguments for calling only (as Jim suggests in his
\nreply). You have bad position for all betting rounds, but a good
\nchance to check-raise the button if the flop hits you, thus, narrowing
\nthe field easily. This is the standard play \"by the book,\" which
\nincreases chances to win the pot and enables you to get out cheaply
\nif the flop doesn't hit.<\/p>
It's a good, bulletproof, profitable strategy.<\/p>
See, if you make the pot too big, postflop play turns into a
\ncrap shoot and anything can happen. Most poker players hate that,
\nthey hate getting sucked out by freak draws that would have folded
\non the flop, hadn't the pot been so big. And that's exactly what
\nhappens often when a multiway pot gets blown up out of proportions.
\nThere are no guaranties, you can flop good and still lose big. You
\nhave little control of the play on the flop and beyond, and whatever
\nyour edge in postflop play was, it's gone through the window.
\nSwelled pots are a source of frustration. For a drunken, Rolex-wearing
\nGerman tourist with a miniskirt chick hanging on his shoulder, this
\nis fun. For a pro with a modest bankroll, big pots are toying with
\ndeath. You can see traces of sweat on his forehead and upper lip.
\nIt's a nightmare.<\/p>
But so what. If you have a bankroll, you should ram 'n jam on the
\nflop. Yes, the skill factor goes way down postflop, but you are
\nhaving way best of it now. Jamming is profitable.<\/p>
I assume Connie is talking about a typical California-stye game
\nwhere players are loose and trigger-happy. The limpers would surely
\nraise with AQ\/QQ or better, so we are safe to assume our only
\nconcern is the raiser on the button.<\/p>
This guy can have a wide range of cards, if he is a good player
\n(and even a wider one if he is a maniac). There are many hands that
\nshow profit with a raise against multiple limpers. The only hands
\nyou that can give you trouble are AA, KK, QQ and AK. Against these
\nhands, reraise with AQs is not such a good idea, as you are either
\ndominated (against KK, QQ and AK) or destroyed (against AA). But
\neven here, the five dupes in are covering for you with
\ntheir contributions (as a good chunk of their money is dead, since
\nthey have a relatively small chance of winning the pot). You are
\nnot in bad shape even when dominated.<\/p>
But against other possible hands the button could have
\n(Axs\/K9s\/98s\/77\/KJo or better), you are a happy camper. You will
\nmake a load of money even when against a better hand like JJ. But<\/p>
remember, you are increasing EV (drastically, I might add) here at
\nthe expense of higher variance. Reraise is a most profitable play,
\nyet you still might not want to do it. Profitability is not the
\nonly factor when judging a certain poker play. For some pros living
\nin the van by the river, variance is baaaaaaad. They prefer calling.<\/p>
How profitable is the reraise (and a subsequent cap if rereraised,
\nNevada style) with AQs?<\/p>
I ran a $10-20 Turbo sim for Connie with a player on the button
\nholding JJ and a player in the big blind with AQ (I did not bother
\nto set up the sim with a single blind like Connie's game, because
\nif the game is loose, the blind structure is not that important).
\nThe lineup was loose, with players that tend to go a bit too far
\npostflop. To put it simply, it was a fishy table, except for the
\ntwo test players. I used the same profile (optimized for playing
\nin loose games) for both the button (JJ) and the big blind (AQs).
\nThe results after 500000 runs with 5 or more opponents (at least
\n4 limpers + the button raiser):<\/p>
AQs calling a raise in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
\n---------------------------------------------
\nJJ, win rate: 28.0%, $ net per hand: $39.27
\nAQs, win rate: 26.1%, $ net per hand: $20.78<\/p>
\nAQs jamming preflop in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
\n---------------------------------------------
\nJJ, win rate: 30.0%, $ net per hand: $61.61
\nAQs, win rate: 27.2%, $ net per hand: $36.81<\/p>
\nAgainst JJ and four other opponents, AQs just flat called, tried
\nto keep the pot small and went for a check raise with top pair on
\nthe flop. With no hit, AQ called for one bet on the flop with two
\novercards (which is a pretty much correct play, given the size of
\nthe pot). It did quite ok, earning a big bet per hand.<\/p>
But, when AQs capped it preflop, it earned almost twice as much!
\nThe difference between calling and jamming was more than one and
\na half small bet. And that's a lot, baby! Note also the difference
\nyour jamming made to JJ's profits. The button should buy you a
\ndrink for making him $20 with your aggressive preflop play. You
\nboth profited, but the fish should think twice before entering a
\npot with trash again...<\/p>
Here's the same sim, but with QQ on the button. The situation seems
\nhopeless, but the fish covered the losses. Jamming with AQs against
\nQQ boosted profit per hand from $3.74 to $09.91. It's not that
\nmuch, considering the increased variance, but hey, I can use every
\ndollar...<\/p>
AQs calling a raise in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
\n---------------------------------------------
\nQQ, win rate: 31.5%, $ net per hand: $40.76
\nAQs, win rate: 19.6%, $ net per hand: $03.74<\/p>
\nAQs jamming preflop in the big blind min. 5 opponents:
\n---------------------------------------------
\nQQ, win rate: 33.7%, $ net per hand: $69.93
\nAQs, win rate: 20.7%, $ net per hand: $09.91<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
译文：<\/b><\/p>
<\/p>
亲爱的 Izmet, 6-12 hold'em<\/p>
<\/p>
我昨晚在Normandie 处于大盲注位置,在那里他们没有小盲注。大概5个跟注人，一个是经常玩10-20和20-40的玩家（经常不断的打断游戏）在庄家位置加注。我持有A-Q两张都是方块，采用了跟注，鉴于你谈道德Ev附加利润的问题，这里是否一个三次押注会是最好的？<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
除了加注人以外可能其他所有人都没有持有同花牌。所有的limper都会对我的续加注采用跟注，然后肯定庄家会对我加帽子。<\/p>
<\/p>
我认为自己没有采用加注的最主要的原因是由于我的位置很差，并且是对于一个庄家位置的玩家。我对高级别的玩家有点畏惧。<\/p>
<\/p>
多谢帮忙，Connie<\/p>
<\/p>
另：你的网页上提供的非常简化的对潜在成败比（implied odds）的解释我很喜欢。<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
对于只是跟注有一些很好的理由（正如Jim在他的回答中所建议的那样）。你在所有的下注圈都处于差的位置，但是如果翻牌轮凑到牌，你就庄家来说就有一个很不错的观察-加注的机会，但是要缩小战场。这是\"书本上\"的标准打法，这会提高你赢得底池的机会，并且能在没有凑成牌的时候将损失降到最低。<\/p>
<\/p>
这是一种很好的，牢固的并且有利可图的策略。<\/p>
<\/p>
正如你看到的，如果将底池堆砌的很大，在翻牌后的翻牌轮就会让你陷入很糟糕的境地，什么事情都会发生。大多数扑克玩家很讨厌自己持有弱的听型牌处于左右为难的境地，而这手牌本来是在底池还不大的翻牌轮可以弃牌的。而这正是经常发生在多元底池变得超出寻常的大的情况。对于你可能翻到好牌，但却同样输的很惨的情况这样已经没有什么保证了。你没有什么可以控制翻牌轮或者其他轮次的能力，尽管你在翻牌后的游戏中有优势，但是它已经不复存在了。巨大的底池是挫败感的源泉。对于那些醉酒，带着劳力士，并且肩上挂着绒边饰物的德国旅游者来说这是乐趣。但是对于一个扑克能手的资本来说，大底池是与死亡的游戏。你可以看到玩家额头和上眼皮上在冒汗，那是个噩梦。<\/p>
<\/p>
但就是这样的。如果你有资本，最好是玩到翻牌轮。是的，在翻牌后更需要技巧，但是你已经拥有了最好的方法。参与游戏是可以有利可图的。<\/p>
<\/p>
我假设Connie 谈到的是一个典型的加利福尼亚类型的游戏，也就是玩家打得很松，并乐趣十足。Limper们肯定会持有AQ\/QQ或者更好的牌采用加注。这样我们就可以安全的设想自己的担心是在庄家身上。<\/p>
<\/p>
这个玩家可能拥有的是一个比较宽的牌面组合。如果他是个很优秀的玩家（假如是一个Maniac也有一个很宽的牌面）对抗众多的limper用一个加注可以有很多牌都是有利润的。唯一能给你带来麻烦的牌面是AA,KK,QQ以及AK。对抗这些牌面，持AQs续加注并不是好的决策，你会被压倒（对抗KK,QQ,AK的时候）或者被毁灭（对抗AA的时候）但是即使是这样五个上当的人也会用他们的贡献来掩护你的（大部分他们的钱都变成了死钱，因为他们赢取底池的机会非常微小）。即使是你的牌被压倒，你也并非出于最差的情况。<\/p>
<\/p>
但是对手可能持有的其他牌面（Axs\/K9s\/98s\/77\/KJo或更好）你就该高兴了。即使是对抗象JJ这样的好牌，你也可以赚到一大笔。但是要记住，你这里提高EV是在大额的支出情况下。续加注是最有利可图的游戏，但是你可能不愿意这么做。如果裁定一个有保障扑克游戏，实现利润能力并非是唯一的因素。对于一些玩家来说他们是生活在河牌轮的底池中的。但是变化太差了。他们更喜欢跟注。<\/p>
<\/p>
一个持有AQs的续加注是多么有利可图呢（如果续加注后再有加注采用加帽子）？<\/p>
<\/p>
我为持有AQ的位于大盲注位置的Connie 用软件Turbo sim 来运行了10-20美元对抗一个持有JJ的庄家的游戏。（对于像Connie 这样的游戏，只有一个盲注对于运行软件并没有什么妨碍，因为这个游戏打得松，盲注结构不是很重要）。整体是打得很松的，玩家们倾向于在翻牌后玩的很深。简单来说，除了这两个单挑的玩家以外，这是一个鱼儿式的牌桌。对于庄家（JJ）和大盲注（AQs）我应用了同样的风格（在一个松的游戏中）。在一个多于5个对手的游戏中，运行了500000次以后结果是这样的（至少有4个limper+ 庄家加注人）：<\/p>
<\/p>
AQs跟注一个大盲注位置的加注，至少5个对手：<\/p>
<\/p>
---------------------------------------------
\nJJ, win rate: 28.0%, $ net per hand: $39.27
\nAQs, win rate: 26.1%, $ net per hand: $20.78<\/p>
<\/p>
AQs在翻牌前处于大盲注位置，至少5个对手：<\/p>
<\/p>
---------------------------------------------
\nJJ, win rate: 30.0%, $ net per hand: $61.61
\nAQs, win rate: 27.2%, $ net per hand: $36.81<\/p>
<\/p>
对抗JJ和其他四个对手，AQs就是一个简单的跟注，试图保持小底池，然后在翻牌轮持有对子的时候采用观察加注。如果没有凑成牌，AQ可以对于一个翻牌轮的押注采用跟注，因为是大单张（这可能对于底池大小来说是正确的游戏方式）。没有赢得一个BB是很不错的。<\/p>
<\/p>
但是如果AQs被翻牌前加了帽子，就会赢得双倍。跟注与加帽子的区别在于一个半小盲注的差额。这可是很多了，亲爱的!同样记下来对于JJ利润加帽子的区别。庄家该因为你的翻牌前激进游戏给他赚了20美元而买杯酒给你。你们两个都受益了，鱼儿们应该以后在持有垃圾牌进入底池前三思而后行了。<\/p>
<\/p>
这里是软件sim 提供的数据，但是针对的是持有QQ处于庄家位置。这种情况看起来毫无希望，但是鱼儿们来支付损失。持有AQs加帽子对抗QQ会让利润从3.74美元到9.91美元。不是很多，但是考虑到变化的增长，我可以利用每一个美元的。。。<\/p>
<\/p>
AQs在大盲注位置跟注一个加注，5个对手：<\/p>
<\/p>
---------------------------------------------
\nQQ, win rate: 31.5%, $ net per hand: $40.76
\nAQs, win rate: 19.6%, $ net per hand: $03.74<\/p>
<\/p>
AQs 位于大盲注在翻牌前加帽子，5个对手<\/p>
<\/p>
---------------------------------------------
\nQQ, win rate: 33.7%, $ net per hand: $69.93
\nAQs, win rate: 20.7%, $ net per hand: $09.91<\/p>
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
赢率 vs […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":""},"strategy_category":[155],"strategy_level":[13],"class_list":["post-21784","strategy","type-strategy","status-publish","hentry","strategy_category-fixed-limit-"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n