Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Thanks?
Thanks?
N
Nocturnal
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Well either you were trolling or you have a complete lack of understanding about ICM in general.
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Care to elaborate on how I have no understanding of ICM? When I say "profitable" I mean $ profitable not chip profitable. ICM as a concept is literally looking at a situation that involves chips and attempting to evaluate it in terms of dollar-values.
Aleksei
Legend
Silver Level
What do you mean 2/3 pot? A button minraise preflop is full pot.
Also, you can usually snap fold to a huge flop overshove like that because there's no way to balance it. He cannot possibly have enough air in his range to make calling profitable. KQo is still a value 3bet pre.
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Preflop in a HU match there is 1.5 bb in the pot. Completing would mean there are 2 bb in the pot, so raising pot would be 2 bb on top of what a complete would be. Potting it would be a raise to 3 bb. Half-potting it would be a raise to 2 bb - a min-raise...
Aleksei
Legend
Silver Level
I don't even think in those terms. I just go like minraise/3x/4x/etc. Also, a few pointers about HU:
1) Don't limp in HU cash. Like, ever. You gain no initiative and no immediate FE, so that you frequently have to fold when you miss and you're burning cash. Plus initiative can be had for just 1 extra BB so it's totally pointless. Limping in HUSNGs is fine, if you're down to like M<10 so that even a minraise is gonna get shoved over. Don't make it a habit in any other format though.
2) Personally I recommend minraising vs a thinking opponent, lags, and most normal opponents. It gives you immediately good odds to take it down, so that Villain is effectively forced to play a very very wide range or else just let you print money by minraising every button and folding every flop (which pot odds-wise, you can do if he's folding more than half the time), plus when villain is 3betting maniacally it lets you get away from the bottom of your range for cheap.
3xing is usually done by people seeking a more balanced all-or-nothing-from-the-beginning approach. You can play like that if you want, but it forces you to open-fold a lot more buttons because you're usually gonna get 3bet, you'll run into much tighter ranges, and it's very difficult to autoprofit from a 3x. I will 3x exploitatively against big whales that just flat OOP a ton and 3bet almost never, so that I give myself more $$$ to take down post. If they don't adjust after a while I move up to 4x and 5x and up until I find a sizing they actually take notice of, then back off a tad.
3) You should open really wide, but it's rarely a good idea to open every button, nor is it really unprofitable to open the button tighter (you're blinded every time, but you're just burning half a blind when you open-fold so as long as you're opening more than half of buttons you're rarely gonna run into balance problems). At minimum, you need to back off your button when someone 3bets, because a 3bet forces you to fold the bottom of your range so that open-raising any two (even just minraising) IS burning money. My general rule is that you should open-fold at least as much of your range as villain is 3betting (so, if he's 3betting a normal 20% range you open 80%, if he's 3betting maniacally at like 35%, you can back off to 65%, and if he's 3betting none at all you open every button).
You can also back off your button further, exploitatively, if he's not retreating from his BB to adjust, because it heightens your postflop advantage and you can profit (if he's adequately adjusting by defending less, you have no increased advantage and are just diminishing your own opportunities to use skill to profit postflop).
1) Don't limp in HU cash. Like, ever. You gain no initiative and no immediate FE, so that you frequently have to fold when you miss and you're burning cash. Plus initiative can be had for just 1 extra BB so it's totally pointless. Limping in HUSNGs is fine, if you're down to like M<10 so that even a minraise is gonna get shoved over. Don't make it a habit in any other format though.
2) Personally I recommend minraising vs a thinking opponent, lags, and most normal opponents. It gives you immediately good odds to take it down, so that Villain is effectively forced to play a very very wide range or else just let you print money by minraising every button and folding every flop (which pot odds-wise, you can do if he's folding more than half the time), plus when villain is 3betting maniacally it lets you get away from the bottom of your range for cheap.
3xing is usually done by people seeking a more balanced all-or-nothing-from-the-beginning approach. You can play like that if you want, but it forces you to open-fold a lot more buttons because you're usually gonna get 3bet, you'll run into much tighter ranges, and it's very difficult to autoprofit from a 3x. I will 3x exploitatively against big whales that just flat OOP a ton and 3bet almost never, so that I give myself more $$$ to take down post. If they don't adjust after a while I move up to 4x and 5x and up until I find a sizing they actually take notice of, then back off a tad.
3) You should open really wide, but it's rarely a good idea to open every button, nor is it really unprofitable to open the button tighter (you're blinded every time, but you're just burning half a blind when you open-fold so as long as you're opening more than half of buttons you're rarely gonna run into balance problems). At minimum, you need to back off your button when someone 3bets, because a 3bet forces you to fold the bottom of your range so that open-raising any two (even just minraising) IS burning money. My general rule is that you should open-fold at least as much of your range as villain is 3betting (so, if he's 3betting a normal 20% range you open 80%, if he's 3betting maniacally at like 35%, you can back off to 65%, and if he's 3betting none at all you open every button).
You can also back off your button further, exploitatively, if he's not retreating from his BB to adjust, because it heightens your postflop advantage and you can profit (if he's adequately adjusting by defending less, you have no increased advantage and are just diminishing your own opportunities to use skill to profit postflop).
Last edited:
N
Nocturnal
Rising Star
Bronze Level
So why mention the big pay jump from 1st to 2nd like that is somehow relevant to how we play? That suggests you think it is different to if the pay jump was small. that you think that somehow cev /= $ev. You don't need to explain ICM to me though, I'm fully aware of what it is, not that this means it's relevant being mentioned itt. How many people in HUSnGs tell people that they need to conceptually understand ICM and that will give them a framework for doing well? Why do coaches not say that line? The reason is that it is a completely retarded thing to say. Either you fully understand but were being deliberately obtuse (so chose to mention big pay jump and suggest conceptually understanding ICM was important despite both of those things not being relevant) or you did not understand and your response was naïve and stupid and you are now trying to cover up your lack of knowledge. So you can choose, either naïve, stupid and a liar or awkward and deliberately misleading. Which is it?
Jblocher1
Legend
Silver Level
Chill bro, we are all friends here. No need to start accusing him of not knowing what he's talking about. If you give him a chance to explain himself I'm sure everything will make sense in the end. Don't be rude like that In my thread. Thank u
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
First of all. Don't be an ass. It's not a good start when in your first 4 posts you've managed to unnecessarily call someone stupid and/or a liar.
Also, in response to your very well-thought-out post, I have to say this: You must not have read the thread very carefully, because at the time of my post, it was still unclear whether OP was talking about HU at the end of an MTT or in a HU SnG.
Next, pay jumps are extremely important to ICM in MTTs. Take an extreme example. Let's say you and I just got to HU in an MTT where the top two get equal payouts, such as in a satellite tournament that pays seats to the top two finishers. But you are forced to play to the end. Would you say that chipEV = $EV?? If so I have to from this point on disregard your opinion on everything ICM-related. Now instead let's say you and I have just made it to HU play at the main event and we are sitting 100 bb deep. Let's say hypothetically that you are open-shoving every hand - your range is ATC, 100%. The greatest +chipEV play for me to make would be to call with the top 49% of hands. But that's hardly going to be the most $EV play. To give myself the absolute best chance of taking the chip lead and then winning, I would want to call with a relatively narrow range, since stack sizes are deep and I can get away with it. I'd try to stay away from 60-40 and/or flipping types of spots.
One last thing. I've shown you an inordinate amount of respect given what you've said to me in your previous post and the fact that you're a brand new poster, rather than a well-known CC member. I ask that at the very least you attempt to reply in a way that is less abrasive, even if you don't agree with what I've said.
N
Nocturnal
Rising Star
Bronze Level
In your thread? I don't see why that would be relevant. Either you take issue with my abrasive tone or you don't. Are you taking issue with it because it is in some thread that you are arbitrarily defining as your own? It would be fine if I posted this anywhere else then? Also I believe if anybody could claims rights to this thread it would be the cc owner. Come on now, at least think things through before you try and form a response. Why would my manner of writing even be bad anyway? Are you now claiming that the way to respond to people is absolutely objective? If so I'd like you to link me to any journal that even comes close to saying there is an objective way of writing responses. What if I think trying to be polite is bad, should my response to you have been as simple as 'don't answer politely in a thread I have posted in '. That is as much as a meaningless sentence as the one you provided me with. Luckily for you I have chosen to go along with your subjective view of correct writing tones and answered in a polite tone, which seems to be the one you have deemed as correct (I imagine because other people have told you that is the correct tone, I am seriously doubting you have had any rational thought and arrived at any conclusions about the subjectivity of any issue by yourself). You are welcome.Chill bro, we are all friends h?ere. No need to start accusing him of not knowing what he's talking about. If you give him a chance to explain himself I'm sure everything will make sense in the end. Don't be rude like that In my thread. Thank u
You are inferring that I called you stupid and/or a liar. Maybe there was a 3rd option other than those two I was missing. I doubt it though, I don't miss much,.
Maybe it was unclear to you what part of an MTT this thread had been referring to. I would hope to everyone else it was blatently clear though. Lack of being able to interpret is not really a defence though. If I go past a 'Police line - do not cross' sign can I use a lacking ability to interpret things as an excuse? The answer is no. I mean if you have such difficulty extracting simple meaning from English then maybe you should find a means of communicating that is more able to meet your needs.
In a tournament where you make top two, both get equal payouts but you have to play till the end, obviously not say cev = $ev. Clearly the highest $ev choice is to lose as quickly as possible (so I can reg more tourneys, although this is under the presumption that you are +ev in any given field. of course) and the highest cev choice remains the same. Not sure why this needs to be brought up as some sort of saving point though, I have already explained that I fully understand ICM (and have even made steps towards designing a less flawed model)
To the 2nd part of that paragraph. I'm not exactly sure whether you think this is demonstrating some form of knowledge of anything. Well whatever you think, I can tell you that it absolutely does not demonstrate knowledge. If anything it suggests an absolutely fundamental flaw in your knowledge. In fact I'm not sure how there were 3 posts since that with nobody having an urge to correct the fallacies contained in it. Maybe I am overestimating people though. Studies have shown that when you find a task easy you tend to vastly overestimate other peoples abilities. ie if somebody finds languages easy and I do not, they may fail to understand why. You can see this in every day life, people question how somebody can not do what they think is an extremely simple task, it's a very naïve outlook on things and I have even noted myself doing it. I put it down just to the standard social convention in a lot of situations though. I am not genuinely questioning why they fail to do a task, I am using it as a time filling piece whilst I converse in a group. Anyway, I digress. My point is that in a HU game cev unequivocally equals $ev. I will try and explain in a way that you can understand why your argument is wrong. You know your opponent will shove 100% is what you are saying. You therefore know his entire strategy. You can perfectly counter this strategy by devising a range where you make the most possible money. Any deviation from that range you lose money/chips. The two are still interchangeable at this point. You have an optimal response to this. However where you have got confused is you looked at cev in a vacuum and $ev in a strategy v strategy sense. In an vacuum, you play one hand and opponent open shoves, you will call with a range different from if his strategy entirely consisted of open shoving and you got to play the game out. This does not mean that there is some disparity between cev and $ev, it just means that what the correct range is differs in different systems (ie vacuum v game). If I am playing the wsop HU for the main event and 1st hand of HU my opponent jams for 100bb eff. my response is the exact same as the first hand of a 100bb HUSnG or if they jam or a 100bb cash game if they jam (Although rake probably changes this range slightly and I am putting $/hr considerations aside for these hypotheticals and purely looking at the cev/$ev of each situation ie presuming it is a one off)
Finally, as to your final point. I ask in the least that you reply is a way that is way more abrasive as I have shown you an inordinate amount of respect given your lack of knowledge, even if you don't agree with what I said.
You see how complaining about posting style can just be reversed and you are essentially just arguing that some random subjective thing that you have been taught is better than the way I think is best. I would rather we stay away from bickering over how one should/should not post though, it distracts from the point and we are never going to arrive at a conclusion at which style is best. At least I offer other people the courtesy of respecting the way they post until they attack my method though, I don't complain every time someone posts in a manner that people construe as rude and I expect the same back.
Why is who I am relevant? I could post a graph that would show greater profits that 99% of people, I could shows graphs where I have been losing at micro stakes for 10k game with -10% roi. Whichever side of the spectrum I am on I won't be posting a graph either way. I like to, for want of a better word, succinctly make my points and have people arrive at conclusions as to what I am posting is correct or not. I don't see how being someone with 2k posts or something would somehow give my points in a vacuum more weight.
Either try and provide some rational response as to why scrouge is right and I am not. A retard could probably form a response as valid as yours.
Last edited:
fletchdad
Jammin................
Loyaler
great and insightful
very informative and constructive post, really shows why anyone is dumb for not taking your word as gospel.....
see quote below this one....
@nocturnal:
Although it is clear you are a legend in your on mind, it is not clear to anyone if you are FOS or really do have a clue. I cant get through your wall of text in post #39 for 2 reasons.
1: it is a wall of text and hurts my eyes just looking at it.
2: You are an arrogant dick. This may or may not be true, but you sure come off as one. So wasting my time reading what you wrote is not appealing. It is also far from clear why I should bother. You have shown nothing yet to let me know you are someone worth listening to......
I hope you are not some HU guru, cause I will never get help from you after this post, but if you care about your image here at all, you better change your tone, cause we are a close nit community, and people who come in knowing it all better and having a tone as yours are not welcomed with open arms.. Hmmm, DUCY?
We love constructive critical conversations, and we really do love getting torn a new one by better players, as it is why we are here. To better out game. But when someone is as condescending as you have been so far, its like, there may be a sweet spot in the middle of all that shit, but who wants to wade through all that shit to find it?
Thinker_145
Visionary
Silver Level
I started playing $1 HUSNG and went on to an epic winning streak like winning 7 matches straight. I thought I am going to make a killing in this but as it turns out I was just being lucky. I eventually lost all my earnings and even went into a loss but after recovering it I decided to stop at break even.
I dont agree that HU requires more skill it is just so much luck its ridiculous. Its pretty much impossible to avoid a bad beat so you are always at the mercy of the cards. You have to often go all-in with just 60-40 odds which is really not much. Even if you dominated your opponent and have 90% of the chips, he can still be completely back in the match by just being lucky with 2 all-ins.
Recently there was this guy who went all-in in every single hand without exception. I could not for the life of me get decent cards and lost 20% of my chips in blinds. I then decide to call with AJ as I couldnt really wait for a big pair anymore and he had 34. He hit a pair and bam I got beat by a complete douche. And there are many players who go all in with any pair and any ace. In order to beat such players you also have to take risk or get really lucky no other way around it. Such players on the other hand get destroyed in 6 and 10 player SNG.
Alot of times you end up losing a pot on high card despite trying to bluff. Ofcourse you can take pots with ace/king high as well if you feel other is bluffing. But really its just this constant "guessing" nature of HU that I got completely fed up off.
I really would like to play a best of 5 HU format where winner takes all. A douche gets lucky far too easily in one game but far less likely for 3 games. Pot limit HU is not really the same thing.
I dont agree that HU requires more skill it is just so much luck its ridiculous. Its pretty much impossible to avoid a bad beat so you are always at the mercy of the cards. You have to often go all-in with just 60-40 odds which is really not much. Even if you dominated your opponent and have 90% of the chips, he can still be completely back in the match by just being lucky with 2 all-ins.
Recently there was this guy who went all-in in every single hand without exception. I could not for the life of me get decent cards and lost 20% of my chips in blinds. I then decide to call with AJ as I couldnt really wait for a big pair anymore and he had 34. He hit a pair and bam I got beat by a complete douche. And there are many players who go all in with any pair and any ace. In order to beat such players you also have to take risk or get really lucky no other way around it. Such players on the other hand get destroyed in 6 and 10 player SNG.
Alot of times you end up losing a pot on high card despite trying to bluff. Ofcourse you can take pots with ace/king high as well if you feel other is bluffing. But really its just this constant "guessing" nature of HU that I got completely fed up off.
I really would like to play a best of 5 HU format where winner takes all. A douche gets lucky far too easily in one game but far less likely for 3 games. Pot limit HU is not really the same thing.
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
A couple things in response:
I never suggested that the fact that I have 2k posts and that you have 4 (5 now) makes anything I post more or less correct than anything you post. (Which is irrelevant anyway, since you keep blathering on about how "correctness" is so vague.)
Next, it would be helpful if you'd post a link to a source rather than maintaining that you are right (again, "correctness" - hypocryisy? nawww). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Chip_Model and http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/tournament/icm/what/ and my own interpretation were what I used to develop my understanding of ICM and also the POINT of ICM (not just a definition but why it is useful).)
If my knowledge is flawed, then by all means, help me correct it. Your last post did little to explain anything of substance. Somehow I don't think your goal in posting is to help people though. It seems more that you enjoy feeling superior and putting down as many people as possible so that you will stand alone at the "top."
And a last point on posting "style" - also sometimes referred to as "etiquette" (but only in closed circles). I don't consider myself the leading expert on the "correct" way to post, since as you so aptly pointed out, the advantages of posting in one way or another are subjective on many levels. So, keeping that in mind, let me suggest that at CardsChat, we have a certain type of etiquette that dominates, and that it is unlikely you will thrive here if you continue to post in the manner that you have been.
That's not really my concern at all - just something to think about. While it's possible that you find nothing (subjectively) off-putting or rude in any of your own posts, I assure you that many others here will.
I'm not sure what your motivations are. If you get the most enjoyment out of posting the way you do in a short amount of time (before being banned for likely engaging in numerous argumentative discussions), then definitely keep going at full blast. Again, it doesn't really matter to me. But if you'd like to become part of this community, I'd suggest toning it back a little. Yes "toning it back" is a subjective phrase, but there is a common understanding for it's meaning, so save your bullcrap.
Cheers, wishing you the best (seriously), and I hope you make whatever choice is most +lifeEV for you.
C
Chemist
Legend
Silver Level
But it wouldn't be commercially viable to providers.
Having the chance to win keeps people coming back.
:thrasher: :thrasher: :thrasher:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think nocturnal made One good point somewhere, but I can't be bothered going back to it now. Five words from two thousand of dross is -ev for reading.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aleksei
Legend
Silver Level
Or regs.
See, that's what people don't get. Winning every game is psychologically satisfying, but if you did that the fish would never play you. That's why finding fishy action in HU cash is so damn difficult -- skill edges become really obvious really fast.
xdeucesx
Bar Master
Silver Level
It's because your a ****ing lemon coming into a thread like a dick trying to show up members because they are giving advice you don't agree with. Since your new around here, you clearly don't understand that this isn't 2+2 and every single thread isn't a dick waving contest. Show some respect and you'll get some, but coming in off the bat calling people "retards" is lame + using that word alone shows you got issues anyways.
Matt Vaughan
King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
A
A9ofHearts
Visionary
Silver Level