Push Fold Nash Equilibrium

S

StealTheButton

Rock Star
Joined
Dec 22, 2019
Total posts
229
I have been reading and studying this game theory and I think that for my particular niche of the poker world it makes little sense. I have been a successful Sit n Go player and I find that for the tourneys, stakes, and the players I play against that it dictates play that is much too loose for me.

There are some regs that I have played with frequently with whom I am knowledgeable about their particular ranges and I can make decisions based on that.

This can be a long discussion, but say for example I am in the cutoff with 16bb and I'm dealt 44. I only see this being profitable to push against the tightest of nits. There are so many players that will even call you even with a hand like K5s, 67o, Q 10o, etc that this is much too dangerous. Not to mention just running into premium hands. Even shoving with AJo with 16bb I would not do. It just makes so much more sense to me to make a small, standard raise of 2.25x to 3x and go forward with post flop play in position.

If a player picks up that I am playing a little tight with my calling range I will adjust accordingly, or if a player likes to frequently come over the top and shove my late position raises I adjust my play as well.

I have not spent a lot of time in the higher buy in tourneys and sit and go's- I usually play 10- 20 dollar buy ins. I think that at higher stakes there may be players that are adhering to this chart/theory in which case it makes sense for the purpose of "equilibrium" to pay attention. What are other players takes on this?
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
10,280
Awards
1
If people call to wide, then you should adjust by showing tighter. But knowing the NASH equilibrium mean, that you know, what you are adjusting from rather than just guessing or basing your decisions on pure emotions like fear of busting. 16BB is a bit deep to open shove, so with that stack size it can certainly be fine to min-raise a hand like AJ and then simply fold a hand like 44. But you still need to know the equilibrium ranges, because you need to know, what you are going to do with AJ, if you get jammed on.
 
nuttea

nuttea

Visionary
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Total posts
504
Awards
2
I have been reading and studying this game theory and I think that for my particular niche of the poker world it makes little sense. I have been a successful Sit n Go player and I find that for the tourneys, stakes, and the players I play against that it dictates play that is much too loose for me.

There are some regs that I have played with frequently with whom I am knowledgeable about their particular ranges and I can make decisions based on that.

This can be a long discussion, but say for example I am in the cutoff with 16bb and I'm dealt 44. I only see this being profitable to push against the tightest of nits. There are so many players that will even call you even with a hand like K5s, 67o, Q 10o, etc that this is much too dangerous. Not to mention just running into premium hands. Even shoving with AJo with 16bb I would not do. It just makes so much more sense to me to make a small, standard raise of 2.25x to 3x and go forward with post flop play in position.

If a player picks up that I am playing a little tight with my calling range I will adjust accordingly, or if a player likes to frequently come over the top and shove my late position raises I adjust my play as well.

I have not spent a lot of time in the higher buy in tourneys and sit and go's- I usually play 10- 20 dollar buy ins. I think that at higher stakes there may be players that are adhering to this chart/theory in which case it makes sense for the purpose of "equilibrium" to pay attention. What are other players takes on this?
The most serious flaw in game theory, like most other economic models, is that it is based on the premise that humans are rational, selfish, and utility-maximizing subjects. Of course, we are social beings who work together and care for the well-being of others, often at a cost. Game theory cannot explain the fact that, depending on the social context and the participants, we can hit the Nash equilibrium in some scenarios but not others.
 
S

StealTheButton

Rock Star
Joined
Dec 22, 2019
Total posts
229
If people call to wide, then you should adjust by showing tighter. But knowing the NASH equilibrium mean, that you know, what you are adjusting from rather than just guessing or basing your decisions on pure emotions like fear of busting. 16BB is a bit deep to open shove, so with that stack size it can certainly be fine to min-raise a hand like AJ and then simply fold a hand like 44. But you still need to know the equilibrium ranges, because you need to know, what you are going to do with AJ, if you get jammed on.


Where can I read more in depth about this? I rely on pot odds and perception of player more than anything else in this situation. This certainly complicates things. Makes my head hurt, lol.
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
10,280
Awards
1
Where can I read more in depth about this? I rely on pot odds and perception of player more than anything else in this situation. This certainly complicates things. Makes my head hurt, lol.

I use ICMizer to analyse push-fold spots. You can change (lock) one or more opponents ranges, if you think, people play different from the equilibrium ranges. If for instance you want to know which hands to open jam from HJ with 12BB, but you think, you have some calling stations behind, you start by calculating the NASH equilibrium. Then you change the calling ranges to something, you believe is more realistic, and do the calculation again. The result will now be a narrower range of hands, which it is profitable to open jam.

Note however that ICMizer can not tell you, if open jamming or min-raising is most profitable. It can only tell you, if open jamming is profitable, and if that is the case, then folding is obviously to tight. Open jamming for 16BB is something, I pretty much only do blind vs. blind or in situations, where I am a middling stack near the bubble and dont want to open up the door for big stacks to rejam on me.

As for instructional material, Collin Moshman and Katie Dozier have made some good videos for Cardschat about push-fold poker both as part of the 30-day course and some stand-alone videos. You can find them on CCs Youtube channel.
 
Luvepoker

Luvepoker

Lost in the twilight zone
Community Guide
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Total posts
3,599
Awards
21
US
You sound not take anything to be just fact. You should look at it as a guide. Its not about the hands you are pushing but its also about the players to follow you. Taking your pocket 4's and put you in the small blind it would be an easy push. Problem is the player behind you is a calling station who calls over 50% of the time. He fold 32o that your beating but if he is calling with 67s your in a flip for your life. What maybe a easy push just may be an easy fold now.
 
theANMATOR

theANMATOR

Legend
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Total posts
1,250
Awards
1
The most serious flaw in game theory, like most other economic models, is that it is based on the premise that humans are rational, selfish, and utility-maximizing subjects. Of course, we are social beings who work together and care for the well-being of others, often at a cost. Game theory cannot explain the fact that, depending on the social context and the participants, we can hit the Nash equilibrium in some scenarios but not others.

Very interesting and thoughtful post. I'd also add another just as meaningful flaw is the fact game theory says this/that decision will be unexploitable and therefore profitable over a lifetime of play. Players don't realize that this doesn't mean it's going to be a profitable play this time - or for that matter - the next 20 times.

Also - fold 44 pre when short stacked unless limped into when sitting in the bb, or in the rare instance you have extremely TIGHT NITTY players in the blinds. :) At that point - your making an exploitable play, not a GTO decision.
 
Folding in Poker
Top