| This is a discussion on River bet-sizing (blog spam) within the online poker forums, in the Cash Games section; FYI: http://fredrikpaulsson.blogspot.com/...with-nuts.html... |
| | ||||||
![]() |
| |
|
#1 | ||||
| ||||
| River bet-sizing (blog spam) |
| Play Texas Hold'em Online Poker | River bet-sizing (blog spam) | |
|
|
|
#3 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
You have a graph of y= profit and x = bet size. Surely you should have instead a graph of y= frequency of call x = bet size and the area of the rectangle under the intersection point the graph represents profit. The thing is that for your profit to be higher betting less than the amout his average hand would call, the shape of this graph would have to have a distinct kink in it at the point of the average call. I think the elastisity of calls does change above a certain threshold because when you bet large you create a potsize that so few hands can comfortably call but for you to justify betting less tan the average call amount, the shape of the graph preceding this point would have to be extremely steep. |
|
#4 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by distinct kink. But just to clarify what the simulation did: 1. Start with a bet-size of 80. 2. Create a random number between 80 and 120. 3. If the number is greater than the current bet-size, add the current bet-size to the current profit tally. 4. Loop from step 2 1000 times. 5. Print the profit. 6. Go back to 1 and increase the bet-size by 1. Step 2 is the key; this is where I invent a random opponent with a certain "calling treshold". Because it's random, I don't expect to see any distinct kinks anywhere. Why would there be? |
|
#5 | ||||
| ||||
| re: River bet-sizing (blog spam) poker Quote:
|
|
#6 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
I can see what you are saying, if we reduce the bet size we increase the number of calls. What is uncertain, from what you have said, is that this increases profit. profit being calls x betsize yes we increase calls but at a reduced betszise. Therefore the slop of the middle section of the line would have to be very steep (which it might be, but we haven't really established that). |
|
#8 | ||||
| ||||
| Untitled2.jpg (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26973&d=1269198264) So if the shape of the graph looks something like the first example then decreasing bet size increases profits However if the shape is more like the second the decreasing bet size decreases profits. So what we need to do is to establish the shape of the graph. |
|
#9 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
And honestly, I still have no idea why you think there will be a kink, even with a calling frequency plot. As I said in the original post (and implied in the description of the algorithm), the drop-off in calls is linear. No kink. Just a straight line to 0. |
|
#10 | ||||
| ||||
| re: River bet-sizing (blog spam) poker Quote:
Is the line elastic or in-elastic? This is what you havent really established. You are assuming an inelastic line, but havent really said why that is. |
|
#11 | ||||
| ||||
| I think I'm a little lost too. Is y profit, thereby including shoves over the bets, or just call frequency? And, is x bet size in dollars, or bet size relative to pot size? I guess unfortunately pot to stack ratio plays a part too, ie. if villian now has more than pot or less that pot remaining, but then maybe you always take that into consideration with the turn bet size. But if x is bet size relative to pot size, I'd love to know what x is on that scale. If the sweet spot is 40% to 75%, it would be nice to target that. Mind you, that sweet spot is going to vary by limits, and I don't know that I have enough data to try to plot that myself for my game. But as always, great post. |
|
#12 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#13 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#14 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#15 | ||||
| ||||
| re: River bet-sizing (blog spam) poker Quote:
This must mean that the slop of the line of call frequency is very steep (its easier to see this if you plot call frequency rather than profit). What is unclear is why this line is steep. |
|
#16 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Instead of thinking about one opponent as having an uncertain maximum calling amount within a certain range, think of having a large population of different opponents, who together span this range. What I've assumed in the model is that they're going to be somewhat uniformly distributed in this range. What this means it that for the range of bet sizes we choose, the calling frequency will go from 100% to 0%, linearly. When you speak of "elastic" and "inelastic" I'm assuming you're referring to economic theory of supply and demand, which is not a bad analogy for what we're doing here. But the problem, I think, is that you're "crossing the river to fetch the water" (to borrow a Swedish expression to which I don't know what the English equivalent is) when you want to look at call frequency ("demand") and bet size ("price") to try to deduce where the best profit lies, because the profit was plotted in the original graph. Since the original profit graph is implicitly built from the call frequency values, it's impossible for the other plot to give you a different conclusion. |
|
#17 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Everything you just wrote I agree / understand / think is correct. Elasticity is indeed an economic term, simply put its the responsiveness of the line to change. So in the case of betsize to call frequency the steep line will be very responsive to change, a small decrease in betsize will yield a large number of extra calls. A shallower (more horizontal taper) would be less responsive thus a decrease in bet size would again have an increase in call frequency but a small increase (one that most likely would lead to a reduction of profits). I am open minded to either scenario, I really couldn't tell you if its responsive or unresponsive; I don't know. You are telling me its responsive. OK why? I really think you plotting y = profit rather than y= call frequency has led to this confusion because its masking how many extra calls are required to show a greater profit when using a smaller bet size. |
|
#18 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For a range of bet-sizes ranging from A to B, the call frequency for a given bet-size X (A <= X <= B) will be (B-X) * 100 / (B-A). (I had an 11-month old crawling over my lap and keyboard while writing this, a caveat for typos is needed) |
|
#19 | ||||
| ||||
| I see what you are saying. I didn't really latch on to the normal distribution of calling ranges. In that case, call frequency should be very responsive to bet size prior to the average bet size and very unresponsive beyond that point. So I think you are indeed correct; thank you for your patience. |
| Similar Threads for: River bet-sizing (blog spam) > Texas Hold'em Poker | ||||
| Thread | Replies | Last Post | Forum | Thread Starter |
| Overbetting the River for Value | 8 | 16th March 2012 9:54 PM | Learning Poker | dooydoo |
| Comment on my last 10 hands? | 2 | 11th February 2012 1:40 PM | Tournament Poker | doomasiggy |
Number of Posts: 19
Number of Authors: 5