Whether to use nash equilibrium at 20BB

P

pat3392

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Total posts
565
Chips
0
I've just incorporated the nash equilibrium into my HU game and found it a little silly that I would play K7o reasonably aggressively, then all of a sudden fold it when I've reached 20BB effective stacks.

I think folding K7o at 20BB is too passive. Doing my normal min-raise with these sort of hands then pushing all the 20+ hands is -EV because an observant player would realise I'm raising my weakish hands(hopefully that makes sense)

I'm thinking I can one of two things:

Ignore the nash equilibrium when at 20BB, start following it's advice at 15/13BB. So NO pushing from the SB until at 15/13BB

I think this is the better idea of the two. When at 20BB start pushing hands wider than the nash equilibrium suggests; I think this works because people at the micro/low stakes games(where I play) call pushes much tighter than they should, particularly for the first few pushes they are going to give me the benefit of the doubt. By the time they are catching on to the fact I'm pushing wide the stacks should be around when the nash equilibrium advices.

If this is a good idea, how much wider should I push than the nash equilibrium advices? I'm thinking about 33%, more or less depending on the opponent and reduce the percentage by 2% after every push.

For example, K7o=16.1
16.1* 4/3=21.5, so that's a push

Now a few hands later I get K7o again. I've pushed 4 times so far, so instead of raising the percentage by 33% I'll raise it by 25% (33-4*2=25)
16.1*5/4= 20.125, so still a push


I'll probably push 10% more than the nash equilibrium suggests regardless of how many times I've pushed, more so if the player is being nitty.

What are people's thoughts on this?
 
W

WiZZiM

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Total posts
5,008
Chips
0
Yeah well i mean nash is really going to be optimal vs a very good player, it's kind of a defensive play that helps so you cannot be exploited. I find in turbo SNG's it's easier to just stick to the chart, but against some opponants as you mention, i will open up, and against some, i may go tighter than the chart suggests (mostly for calling ranges vs particular players). SO yeah it's really just a guide, and if your facing off vs a very good player, i suggest you just stick to the chart. If your both playing nash, and your shoving wider than it suggests, you are now being exploited.

As for that other mumbo jumbo, if you ever want to add tables, it's probably adviseable to not look so much into your heads up game, stick to the nash, and of course adjust to opponants who are not playing optimally.

But yes as you mention also, i rarely ship a 20BB stack in preflop heads up, i will generally try to raise, but it's also unusual to be at 20 BB stacks in turbos, but anything near 15bb's i will generally start shipping it.

You really wouldnt want to be shoving too much wider than it suggests at 20bb's, it's just risking too much, when we have more optimal ways to play.


Anyways, im babbling and making little sense, so im going to shutup now.
 
P

pat3392

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Total posts
565
Chips
0
Yeah well i mean nash is really going to be optimal vs a very good player, it's kind of a defensive play that helps so you cannot be exploited. I find in turbo SNG's it's easier to just stick to the chart, but against some opponants as you mention, i will open up, and against some, i may go tighter than the chart suggests (mostly for calling ranges vs particular players). SO yeah it's really just a guide, and if your facing off vs a very good player, i suggest you just stick to the chart. If your both playing nash, and your shoving wider than it suggests, you are now being exploited.

As for that other mumbo jumbo, if you ever want to add tables, it's probably adviseable to not look so much into your heads up game, stick to the nash, and of course adjust to opponants who are not playing optimally.

But yes as you mention also, i rarely ship a 20BB stack in preflop heads up, i will generally try to raise, but it's also unusual to be at 20 BB stacks in turbos, but anything near 15bb's i will generally start shipping it.

You really wouldnt want to be shoving too much wider than it suggests at 20bb's, it's just risking too much, when we have more optimal ways to play.


Anyways, im babbling and making little sense, so im going to shutup now.

You've got a negative/inaccurate view of your explaining ability, you made perfect sense(and you usually do, even if you say otherwise)

It's probably not the best idea profit wise to play the HU games, but from satisfaction wise they are definitely good + they have helped my post flop play extraordinarily(I used to have this silly belief that everyone always had a big hand, but at the same time they where always trying to bully me around with garbage, a confused, scared poker player I was)
 
T

The_Pup

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Total posts
254
Chips
0
Nash involves an idealised form of the game where both players have only two options - shove or fold. Therefore, it does not necessarily apply to the real world where other plays are possible. Nash states that this idealised game is in equilibrium because the strategy of following the charts is not expoitable; that is to say, if one player diverges from the strategy they will not gain an advantage.

It is a bit like the game of noughts and crosses (or tic tac toe as it is also known). With best play on both sides the game always ends in a draw and the game is in equilibrium. The strategy is said to be unexploitable because it cannot be beaten by a change of strategy.

If our villain is following Nash then there is no better strategy than to follow Nash ourselves. If, on the other hand, our villain is following some other strategy then following Nash may not be the best strategy for us. Consider an extreme example where we know the villain will only play AA - it should be fairly obvious that we are folding everything in the BB to their shove and shoving just about everything from the SB.
 
A

arrytus

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Total posts
228
Chips
0
Nash involves an idealised form of the game where both players have only two options - shove or fold.
That's not how I think of Nash Eq. at all. Nor do I think it can be viewed as a positive apodictically: for example when someone is holding kk vs aa, perhaps both want the other to push and yet.... although the outcome is irrelevant I suppose.

and to the responder who said it isn't the best idea HU that seems only too obvious if each player can get the other to do his bidding then it seems both are at a disadvantage metaleptically, though intuitively i would assume there are theoretical tweeks which could circumvent this in a zero sum game because there will be- despite the misnomer- no equilibrium other than in strategic expectations. but what the hell do i know...
 
T

The_Pup

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Total posts
254
Chips
0
That's not how I think of Nash Eq. at all. Nor do I think it can be viewed as a positive apodictically: for example when someone is holding kk vs aa, perhaps both want the other to push and yet.... although the outcome is irrelevant I suppose.

and to the responder who said it isn't the best idea HU that seems only too obvious if each player can get the other to do his bidding then it seems both are at a disadvantage metaleptically, though intuitively i would assume there are theoretical tweeks which could circumvent this in a zero sum game because there will be- despite the misnomer- no equilibrium other than in strategic expectations. but what the hell do i know...

I don't understand what you are saying.
 
A

arrytus

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Total posts
228
Chips
0
The_Pup
holder.gif
vbmenu_register("postmenu_1559726", true);
Expert Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 212


Quote:
Originally Posted by arrytus
That's not how I think of Nash Eq. at all. Nor do I think it can be viewed as a positive apodictically: for example when someone is holding kk vs aa, perhaps both want the other to push and yet.... although the outcome is irrelevant I suppose.

and to the responder who said it isn't the best idea HU that seems only too obvious if each player can get the other to do his bidding then it seems both are at a disadvantage metaleptically, though intuitively i would assume there are theoretical tweeks which could circumvent this in a zero sum game because there will be- despite the misnomer- no equilibrium other than in strategic expectations. but what the hell do i know...


I don't understand what you are saying.

firstly i don't believe that you gave a good conception of the NQ [this is merely an opinion, you may certainly have enthymemes which justify it which i did not concieve]. and my second point is that nash doesn't always apply; there are a lot more theories out there.

basing our play on the optimal strategy of our expectations of our opponents play, when both succeed, is rather risible in HU.
 
C

cAPSLOCK

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Total posts
2,550
Chips
0
OK. I have to crash this thread to nominate you, arrytus as the newest CC member to use an overly arcane vocabulary while posting.

Yes, I said "arcane".

I have seen you use the words: apodictic, enthymemes, metaleptically, and abjure.

And look at this from right above:
basing our play on the optimal strategy of our expectations of our opponents play, when both succeed, is rather risible in HU.

Why use "risible" when here on a poker forum "lolworthy" is so much more appropriate?

:icon_joke
 
T

The_Pup

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Total posts
254
Chips
0
firstly i don't believe that you gave a good conception of the NQ [this is merely an opinion, you may certainly have enthymemes which justify it which i did not concieve]. and my second point is that nash doesn't always apply; there are a lot more theories out there.

basing our play on the optimal strategy of our expectations of our opponents play, when both succeed, is rather risible in HU.

OK. I think I am getting your point - are you using a translator?

Any game is in Nash Equilibrium when both players follow a strategy that is unexploitable; that is to say, if player A follows Nash and player B has some other strategy then player B will not be able to gain an advantage. However, having an unexploitable strategy is not the same as having the most +ve EV strategy. Since player B is not following Nash then player A has strategies better than Nash.

For example, with blinds at 20BB plus you get AA in the small blind. If you shove all in then there is no way the villain can exploit your play. But we probably won't do this as we are not getting good value for our hand - a better strategy might be a 3BB raise to get some action. However, in trying to get better value for our hand we have made ourselves exploitable - for example, if flop comes KK9 we are now bluffable.
 
Top