HOME

SEARCH

SIGN_IN

"martin" New User martinchaide@hotmail.com Sep 14, 2006, 11:27 AM Post #1 of 14(494 views) Shortcut Mathematical advice needed Can't Post hello If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is +EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in advance No Karma

"eleaticus" New User eleaticus@bellsouth.net Sep 14, 2006, 7:26 PM Post #2 of 14(492 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1158247667.625017.289020@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > hello > > If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is > +EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By > example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an > algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole > life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in > advance Even assuming you mean pushing allin, it can't really be done, martin. Not even against just one possible caller unless you know him/her thoroughly, and then the true/exact formula would be fairly complicated even on the surface. Will you be called with 77? AJo? etc. You have to assume there is some range of hands that one possible caller might call with. More than one possible caller? No way. The best approach is a bunch of simulations for each of the hands you would go allin with. AA against every hand someone might call with, one at a time, played to the end. Ditto KK etc down to the least hand you would consider acting with this way. Then, you could take the each of the hands a given player might call with, adjust for the hand's natural frequency given your hand, etc. But note what you'd have to do versus both blinds to do an 'exact' simulation. Your AA not only changes the likelihood that the 'first' player has certain hands, but that player's hand changes the likelihood of what the second player might have. And you'd need - for 'exactness' - to pair each hand the first might call with, with each hand the second might call with, and run your AA against every one of those pairs. Given that, a formula/table c/would follow. -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net No Karma

"eleaticus" New User eleaticus@bellsouth.net Sep 14, 2006, 7:30 PM Post #3 of 14(492 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:yylOg.8644$tR2.633@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1158247667.625017.289020@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > hello > > > > If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is > > +EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By > > example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an > > algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole > > life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in > > advance > > > Even assuming you mean pushing allin, it can't really be done, martin. > > Not even against just one possible caller unless you know him/her > thoroughly, and then the true/exact formula would be fairly complicated even > on the surface. > > Will you be called with 77? AJo? etc. > > You have to assume there is some range of hands that one possible caller > might call with. > > More than one possible caller? No way. > > The best approach is a bunch of simulations for each of the hands you would > go allin with. > > AA against every hand someone might call with, one at a time, played to the > end. > Ditto KK > etc > down to the least hand you would consider acting with this way. Well, yes, these you could calculate. > > Then, you could take the each of the hands a given player might call with, > adjust for the hand's natural frequency given your hand, etc. > > But note what you'd have to do versus both blinds to do an 'exact' > simulation. > > Your AA not only changes the likelihood that the 'first' player has certain > hands, but that player's hand changes the likelihood of what the second > player might have. > > And you'd need - for 'exactness' - to pair each hand the first might call > with, with each hand the second might call with, and run your AA against > every one of those pairs. > > Given that, a formula/table c/would follow. > > -- > eleaticus > ee-lee-AT-i-cus > eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > No Karma

Dr Zen New User freddyvessant@gmail.com Sep 14, 2006, 7:49 PM Post #4 of 14(492 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post On 14 Sep 2006 08:27:47 -0700, "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> wrote: >hello > >If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is >+EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By >example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an >algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole >life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in >advance This is one way: http://sharnett.bol.ucla.edu/ICM/info.html Follow the links. In a nutshell, you figure out what your "tournament equity" is (how likely you are to win the tournament, which is a function of your stack size against equally skilled players) and then work out what you have to gain and what you have to lose by pushing, and how that compares with where you you will stand if you just fold. An ICM calculator will do the maths for you if you feed it with hand equities from PokerStove. In basic terms, what you stand to win is something like likelihood of opponent(s) folding (you win blinds) x blinds + likelihood of opponent(s) calling x you win - likelihood of opponents calling x you lose. If your chip stack after this calculation is better than it is after you fold, pushing is +EV. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic story. -- Dr Zen King of the wild pixels. http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

Dr Zen New User freddyvessant@gmail.com Sep 14, 2006, 8:24 PM Post #5 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:26:30 -0500, "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >"martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1158247667.625017.289020@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> hello >> >> If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is >> +EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By >> example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an >> algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole >> life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in >> advance > > >Even assuming you mean pushing allin, it can't really be done, martin. > You are now going to make a very long post that says "poker is a game of incomplete information". Well yes. Let's assume the OP already knows that though. >Not even against just one possible caller unless you know him/her >thoroughly, and then the true/exact formula would be fairly complicated even >on the surface. Yes, but that doesn't mean he can't make some sort of calculation. It's rather like in limit. You raise before the flop, another guy threebets. You have to put him on a range of hands. You can't know what he has exactly, unless he only threebets with one hand. So you put him on a reasonable range and make your decisions based on that. When the flop comes AK7 and he bets out, you can work out what your equity is if you hold QQ. It's not an absolute figure, not what your equity *is*. It's what your equity will tend to be in the long run. You do the same with push decisions in NL. > >Will you be called with 77? AJo? etc. You just assume a likelihood based on what you know, just as you do in any other spot. >You have to assume there is some range of hands that one possible caller >might call with. > >More than one possible caller? No way. This is just wrong. You can calculate it for a bunch of callers. It's not easy though. > >The best approach is a bunch of simulations for each of the hands you would >go allin with. Well, okay. I guess that's what PokerStove does, after all. > >AA against every hand someone might call with, one at a time, played to the >end. >Ditto KK >etc >down to the least hand you would consider acting with this way. > >Then, you could take the each of the hands a given player might call with, >adjust for the hand's natural frequency given your hand, etc. > >But note what you'd have to do versus both blinds to do an 'exact' >simulation. Only if you wanted an *exact* answer. >Your AA not only changes the likelihood that the 'first' player has certain >hands, but that player's hand changes the likelihood of what the second >player might have. Yes, but a calculator like PokerStove takes that into consideration. >And you'd need - for 'exactness' - to pair each hand the first might call >with, with each hand the second might call with, and run your AA against >every one of those pairs. Yes, but an ICM calculator will not make the mistake of doublecounting cards. > >Given that, a formula/table c/would follow. Yes. So basically you're saying it can't be done but this is how you do it? Erm, yes. This is how you do it. -- Dr Zen King of the wild pixels. http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

"eleaticus" New User eleaticus@bellsouth.net Sep 14, 2006, 9:21 PM Post #6 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post "Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b7sjg2996vrdh6pvcvmci7hhng8l2p5eda@4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:26:30 -0500, "eleaticus" > <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >"martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1158247667.625017.289020@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > >> hello > >> > >> If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is > >> +EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By > >> example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an > >> algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole > >> life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in > >> advance > > > > > >Even assuming you mean pushing allin, it can't really be done, martin. > > > > You are now going to make a very long post that says "poker is a game > of incomplete information". Well yes. Let's assume the OP already > knows that though. > > >Not even against just one possible caller unless you know him/her > >thoroughly, and then the true/exact formula would be fairly complicated even > >on the surface. > > > Yes, but that doesn't mean he can't make some sort of calculation. > > It's rather like in limit. You raise before the flop, another guy > threebets. > > You have to put him on a range of hands. You can't know what he has > exactly, unless he only threebets with one hand. > > So you put him on a reasonable range and make your decisions based on > that. > > When the flop comes AK7 and he bets out, you can work out what your > equity is if you hold QQ. It's not an absolute figure, not what your > equity *is*. It's what your equity will tend to be in the long run. > > You do the same with push decisions in NL. > > > > >Will you be called with 77? AJo? etc. > > You just assume a likelihood based on what you know, just as you do in > any other spot. > > >You have to assume there is some range of hands that one possible caller > >might call with. > > > >More than one possible caller? No way. > > This is just wrong. You can calculate it for a bunch of callers. It's > not easy though. Sure, just assume a bunch of things that won't be anywhere near right. > > > > >The best approach is a bunch of simulations for each of the hands you would > >go allin with. > > Well, okay. I guess that's what PokerStove does, after all. > > > > >AA against every hand someone might call with, one at a time, played to the > >end. > >Ditto KK > >etc > >down to the least hand you would consider acting with this way. > > > >Then, you could take the each of the hands a given player might call with, > >adjust for the hand's natural frequency given your hand, etc. > > > >But note what you'd have to do versus both blinds to do an 'exact' > >simulation. > > > Only if you wanted an *exact* answer. > > >Your AA not only changes the likelihood that the 'first' player has certain > >hands, but that player's hand changes the likelihood of what the second > >player might have. > > Yes, but a calculator like PokerStove takes that into consideration. > > >And you'd need - for 'exactness' - to pair each hand the first might call > >with, with each hand the second might call with, and run your AA against > >every one of those pairs. > > Yes, but an ICM calculator will not make the mistake of doublecounting > cards. You read with animus and no understanding if you think anything I said there included double counting. > > > > > >Given that, a formula/table c/would follow. > > Yes. > > So basically you're saying it can't be done but this is how you do it? > Erm, yes. This is how you do it. BTW, you are at essence saying I was wrong, so where is the formula martin requested? hmmmmMMMM? -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > Dr Zen > King of the wild pixels. > http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

"eleaticus" New User eleaticus@bellsouth.net Sep 14, 2006, 9:26 PM Post #7 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post "Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message news:19qjg2pp65ochd08ktfhf192jgrke00dkm@4ax.com... > On 14 Sep 2006 08:27:47 -0700, "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >hello > > > >If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is > >+EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By > >example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an > >algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole > >life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in > >advance > > > This is one way: > > http://sharnett.bol.ucla.edu/ICM/info.html > > Follow the links. > > In a nutshell, you figure out what your "tournament equity" is (how > likely you are to win the tournament, which is a function of your > stack size against equally skilled players) and then work out what you > have to gain and what you have to lose by pushing, and how that > compares with where you you will stand if you just fold. An ICM > calculator will do the maths for you if you feed it with hand equities > from PokerStove. > > In basic terms, what you stand to win is something like likelihood of > opponent(s) folding (you win blinds) x blinds + likelihood of > opponent(s) calling x you win - likelihood of opponents calling x you > lose. If your chip stack after this calculation is better than it is > after you fold, pushing is +EV. Which is a simpler version of the formula I first wrote and then deleted because it contributes nothing. Not to mention your casually ridiculous formula left out the payouts for two of the terms, and ... But, even-then-mainly, the two terms that miss the payoffs are comprised of 'many' terms, each dependent on everyone else's hand. > > It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic story. lol -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > -- > > Dr Zen > King of the wild pixels. > http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

Dr Zen New User freddyvessant@gmail.com Sep 14, 2006, 10:22 PM Post #8 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:21:49 -0500, "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:b7sjg2996vrdh6pvcvmci7hhng8l2p5eda@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:26:30 -0500, "eleaticus" >> <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >"martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:1158247667.625017.289020@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> >> hello >> >> >> >> If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is >> >> +EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By >> >> example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an >> >> algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole >> >> life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in >> >> advance >> > >> > >> >Even assuming you mean pushing allin, it can't really be done, martin. >> > >> >> You are now going to make a very long post that says "poker is a game >> of incomplete information". Well yes. Let's assume the OP already >> knows that though. >> >> >Not even against just one possible caller unless you know him/her >> >thoroughly, and then the true/exact formula would be fairly complicated >even >> >on the surface. >> >> >> Yes, but that doesn't mean he can't make some sort of calculation. >> >> It's rather like in limit. You raise before the flop, another guy >> threebets. >> >> You have to put him on a range of hands. You can't know what he has >> exactly, unless he only threebets with one hand. >> >> So you put him on a reasonable range and make your decisions based on >> that. >> >> When the flop comes AK7 and he bets out, you can work out what your >> equity is if you hold QQ. It's not an absolute figure, not what your >> equity *is*. It's what your equity will tend to be in the long run. >> >> You do the same with push decisions in NL. >> >> > >> >Will you be called with 77? AJo? etc. >> >> You just assume a likelihood based on what you know, just as you do in >> any other spot. >> >> >You have to assume there is some range of hands that one possible caller >> >might call with. >> > >> >More than one possible caller? No way. >> >> This is just wrong. You can calculate it for a bunch of callers. It's >> not easy though. > >Sure, just assume a bunch of things that won't be anywhere near right. Welcome to poker. >> >> > >> >The best approach is a bunch of simulations for each of the hands you >would >> >go allin with. >> >> Well, okay. I guess that's what PokerStove does, after all. >> >> > >> >AA against every hand someone might call with, one at a time, played to >the >> >end. >> >Ditto KK >> >etc >> >down to the least hand you would consider acting with this way. >> > >> >Then, you could take the each of the hands a given player might call >with, >> >adjust for the hand's natural frequency given your hand, etc. >> > >> >But note what you'd have to do versus both blinds to do an 'exact' >> >simulation. >> >> >> Only if you wanted an *exact* answer. >> >> >Your AA not only changes the likelihood that the 'first' player has >certain >> >hands, but that player's hand changes the likelihood of what the second >> >player might have. >> >> Yes, but a calculator like PokerStove takes that into consideration. >> >> >And you'd need - for 'exactness' - to pair each hand the first might call >> >with, with each hand the second might call with, and run your AA against >> >every one of those pairs. >> >> Yes, but an ICM calculator will not make the mistake of doublecounting >> cards. > >You read with animus and no understanding if you think anything I said there >included double counting. I don't have any animus whatsoever. I'm simply pointing out that an ICM calculator will take into account each range. > >> >> >> > >> >Given that, a formula/table c/would follow. >> >> Yes. >> >> So basically you're saying it can't be done but this is how you do it? >> Erm, yes. This is how you do it. > >BTW, you are at essence saying I was wrong, so where is the formula martin >requested? I gave it in my other post. It has a lot of xs and ys, so to speak. > >hmmmmMMMM? if x+y-z>w, EV>0. You're welcome. -- Dr Zen King of the wild pixels. http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

Dr Zen New User freddyvessant@gmail.com Sep 14, 2006, 10:32 PM Post #9 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:26:32 -0500, "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:19qjg2pp65ochd08ktfhf192jgrke00dkm@4ax.com... >> On 14 Sep 2006 08:27:47 -0700, "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >hello >> > >> >If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is >> >+EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By >> >example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an >> >algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole >> >life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in >> >advance >> >> >> This is one way: >> >> http://sharnett.bol.ucla.edu/ICM/info.html >> >> Follow the links. >> >> In a nutshell, you figure out what your "tournament equity" is (how >> likely you are to win the tournament, which is a function of your >> stack size against equally skilled players) and then work out what you >> have to gain and what you have to lose by pushing, and how that >> compares with where you you will stand if you just fold. An ICM >> calculator will do the maths for you if you feed it with hand equities >> from PokerStove. >> >> In basic terms, what you stand to win is something like likelihood of >> opponent(s) folding (you win blinds) x blinds + likelihood of >> opponent(s) calling x you win - likelihood of opponents calling x you >> lose. If your chip stack after this calculation is better than it is >> after you fold, pushing is +EV. > >Which is a simpler version of the formula I first wrote and then deleted >because it contributes nothing. > Yes, of course it is. >Not to mention your casually ridiculous formula left out the payouts for two >of the terms, and ... The payout is obvious enough. I elided it so as not to make it an enormously long thing. Yes, it's complicated. That's why there's a tool to work it out with. > >But, even-then-mainly, the two terms that miss the payoffs are comprised of >'many' terms, each dependent on everyone else's hand. No, the payoff is either your stack or theirs, depending whose is biggest. It does not depend on their hand. Are you not clear on what EV is a measure of? > >> >> It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic story. > >lol You know, an ICM calculation is such an elementary idea that even a pumped-up prick like you could grasp it with a bit of effort. -- Dr Zen King of the wild pixels. http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

"eleaticus" New User eleaticus@bellsouth.net Sep 14, 2006, 11:14 PM Post #10 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post "Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dk3kg292egmnie4s68kn6n4iknio0l7a4d@4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:26:32 -0500, "eleaticus" > <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:19qjg2pp65ochd08ktfhf192jgrke00dkm@4ax.com... > >> On 14 Sep 2006 08:27:47 -0700, "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >hello > >> > > >> >If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is > >> >+EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By > >> >example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an > >> >algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole > >> >life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in > >> >advance > >> > >> > >> This is one way: > >> > >> http://sharnett.bol.ucla.edu/ICM/info.html > >> > >> Follow the links. > >> > >> In a nutshell, you figure out what your "tournament equity" is (how > >> likely you are to win the tournament, which is a function of your > >> stack size against equally skilled players) and then work out what you > >> have to gain and what you have to lose by pushing, and how that > >> compares with where you you will stand if you just fold. An ICM > >> calculator will do the maths for you if you feed it with hand equities > >> from PokerStove. > >> > >> In basic terms, what you stand to win is something like likelihood of > >> opponent(s) folding (you win blinds) x blinds + likelihood of > >> opponent(s) calling x you win - likelihood of opponents calling x you > >> lose. If your chip stack after this calculation is better than it is > >> after you fold, pushing is +EV. > > > >Which is a simpler version of the formula I first wrote and then deleted > >because it contributes nothing. > > > > Yes, of course it is. > > > >Not to mention your casually ridiculous formula left out the payouts for two > >of the terms, and ... > > The payout is obvious enough. I elided it so as not to make it an > enormously long thing. > > Yes, it's complicated. That's why there's a tool to work it out with. > > > > > >But, even-then-mainly, the two terms that miss the payoffs are comprised of > >'many' terms, each dependent on everyone else's hand. > > No, the payoff is either your stack or theirs, depending whose is > biggest. > > It does not depend on their hand. Are you not clear on what EV is a > measure of? It's an uninteresting mystery as to whether you could say something interesting if you could read well. I did NOT say or even hint that the payoff depended on anyone's hand. > > > > >> > >> It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic story. > > > >lol > > You know, an ICM calculation is such an elementary idea that even a > pumped-up prick like you could grasp it with a bit of effort. You are saying that the computational program you mention lets you specify the hands that each of more than player might call with? LOL (I suppose). -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net > > -- > > Dr Zen > King of the wild pixels. > http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

Dr Zen New User freddyvessant@gmail.com Sep 14, 2006, 11:37 PM Post #11 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:14:15 -0500, "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:dk3kg292egmnie4s68kn6n4iknio0l7a4d@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:26:32 -0500, "eleaticus" >> <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:19qjg2pp65ochd08ktfhf192jgrke00dkm@4ax.com... >> >> On 14 Sep 2006 08:27:47 -0700, "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >hello >> >> > >> >> >If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is >> >> >+EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By >> >> >example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an >> >> >algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole >> >> >life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm >in >> >> >advance >> >> >> >> >> >> This is one way: >> >> >> >> http://sharnett.bol.ucla.edu/ICM/info.html >> >> >> >> Follow the links. >> >> >> >> In a nutshell, you figure out what your "tournament equity" is (how >> >> likely you are to win the tournament, which is a function of your >> >> stack size against equally skilled players) and then work out what you >> >> have to gain and what you have to lose by pushing, and how that >> >> compares with where you you will stand if you just fold. An ICM >> >> calculator will do the maths for you if you feed it with hand equities >> >> from PokerStove. >> >> >> >> In basic terms, what you stand to win is something like likelihood of >> >> opponent(s) folding (you win blinds) x blinds + likelihood of >> >> opponent(s) calling x you win - likelihood of opponents calling x you >> >> lose. If your chip stack after this calculation is better than it is >> >> after you fold, pushing is +EV. >> > >> >Which is a simpler version of the formula I first wrote and then deleted >> >because it contributes nothing. >> > >> >> Yes, of course it is. >> >> >> >Not to mention your casually ridiculous formula left out the payouts for >two >> >of the terms, and ... >> >> The payout is obvious enough. I elided it so as not to make it an >> enormously long thing. >> >> Yes, it's complicated. That's why there's a tool to work it out with. >> >> >> > >> >But, even-then-mainly, the two terms that miss the payoffs are comprised >of >> >'many' terms, each dependent on everyone else's hand. >> >> No, the payoff is either your stack or theirs, depending whose is >> biggest. >> >> It does not depend on their hand. Are you not clear on what EV is a >> measure of? > >It's an uninteresting mystery as to whether you could say something >interesting if you could read well. I did NOT say or even hint that the >payoff depended on anyone's hand. > I'm going to have to invite you to fuck off. You said the "payoffs are comprised [sic] of many terms, each dependent [sic] on everyone else's hand" Which is precisely what you now say you did NOT say. You have a choice. Either you can say "I got it wrong" or you can say "I didn't write clearly enough and it's rude to suggest you cannot read well" (which you had a fucking cheek to suggest given how egregiously you write) or you can simply bluster and bullshit until we're both sick of it. Or accept my invitation and fuck off. >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic story. >> > >> >lol >> >> You know, an ICM calculation is such an elementary idea that even a >> pumped-up prick like you could grasp it with a bit of effort. > >You are saying that the computational program you mention lets you specify >the hands that each of more than player >might call with? You aren't familiar with PokerStove? > >LOL (I suppose). ITYMTS eeyore. -- Dr Zen King of the wild pixels. http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

"eleaticus" New User eleaticus@bellsouth.net Sep 15, 2006, 12:23 AM Post #12 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post "Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message news:nf7kg2lpoj4nrnc5eha5g34us9ta9k2rgo@4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:14:15 -0500, "eleaticus" > <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:dk3kg292egmnie4s68kn6n4iknio0l7a4d@4ax.com... > >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:26:32 -0500, "eleaticus" > >> <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> > >> >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >news:19qjg2pp65ochd08ktfhf192jgrke00dkm@4ax.com... > >> >> On 14 Sep 2006 08:27:47 -0700, "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >hello > >> >> > > >> >> >If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is > >> >> >+EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By > >> >> >example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an > >> >> >algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole > >> >> >life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm > >in > >> >> >advance > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> This is one way: > >> >> > >> >> http://sharnett.bol.ucla.edu/ICM/info.html > >> >> > >> >> Follow the links. > >> >> > >> >> In a nutshell, you figure out what your "tournament equity" is (how > >> >> likely you are to win the tournament, which is a function of your > >> >> stack size against equally skilled players) and then work out what you > >> >> have to gain and what you have to lose by pushing, and how that > >> >> compares with where you you will stand if you just fold. An ICM > >> >> calculator will do the maths for you if you feed it with hand equities > >> >> from PokerStove. > >> >> > >> >> In basic terms, what you stand to win is something like likelihood of > >> >> opponent(s) folding (you win blinds) x blinds + likelihood of > >> >> opponent(s) calling x you win - likelihood of opponents calling x you > >> >> lose. If your chip stack after this calculation is better than it is > >> >> after you fold, pushing is +EV. > >> > > >> >Which is a simpler version of the formula I first wrote and then deleted > >> >because it contributes nothing. > >> > > >> > >> Yes, of course it is. > >> > >> > >> >Not to mention your casually ridiculous formula left out the payouts for > >two > >> >of the terms, and ... > >> > >> The payout is obvious enough. I elided it so as not to make it an > >> enormously long thing. > >> > >> Yes, it's complicated. That's why there's a tool to work it out with. > >> > >> > >> > > >> >But, even-then-mainly, the two terms that miss the payoffs are comprised > >of > >> >'many' terms, each dependent on everyone else's hand. > >> > >> No, the payoff is either your stack or theirs, depending whose is > >> biggest. > >> > >> It does not depend on their hand. Are you not clear on what EV is a > >> measure of? > > > >It's an uninteresting mystery as to whether you could say something > >interesting if you could read well. I did NOT say or even hint that the > >payoff depended on anyone's hand. > > > > I'm going to have to invite you to fuck off. You said the "payoffs are > comprised [sic] of many terms, each dependent [sic] on everyone else's > hand" > > Which is precisely what you now say you did NOT say. liar. I said: "But, even-then-mainly, the two terms that miss the payoffs are comprised of 'many' terms, each dependent on everyone else's hand." The two TERMS are comprised ... > > You have a choice. Either you can say "I got it wrong" or you can say > "I didn't write clearly enough and it's rude to suggest you cannot > read well" (which you had a fucking cheek to suggest given how > egregiously you write) or you can simply bluster and bullshit until > we're both sick of it. Or accept my invitation and fuck off. lol -- eleaticus ee-lee-AT-i-cus eleaticus@bellsouth.net No Karma

Dr Zen New User freddyvessant@gmail.com Sep 15, 2006, 12:30 AM Post #13 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:23:23 -0500, "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:nf7kg2lpoj4nrnc5eha5g34us9ta9k2rgo@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:14:15 -0500, "eleaticus" >> <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:dk3kg292egmnie4s68kn6n4iknio0l7a4d@4ax.com... >> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:26:32 -0500, "eleaticus" >> >> <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >"Dr Zen" <freddyvessant@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:19qjg2pp65ochd08ktfhf192jgrke00dkm@4ax.com... >> >> >> On 14 Sep 2006 08:27:47 -0700, "martin" <martinchaide@hotmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >hello >> >> >> > >> >> >> >If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is >> >> >> >+EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By >> >> >> >example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an >> >> >> >algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my >hole >> >> >> >life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. >tyvm >> >in >> >> >> >advance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This is one way: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://sharnett.bol.ucla.edu/ICM/info.html >> >> >> >> >> >> Follow the links. >> >> >> >> >> >> In a nutshell, you figure out what your "tournament equity" is (how >> >> >> likely you are to win the tournament, which is a function of your >> >> >> stack size against equally skilled players) and then work out what >you >> >> >> have to gain and what you have to lose by pushing, and how that >> >> >> compares with where you you will stand if you just fold. An ICM >> >> >> calculator will do the maths for you if you feed it with hand >equities >> >> >> from PokerStove. >> >> >> >> >> >> In basic terms, what you stand to win is something like likelihood >of >> >> >> opponent(s) folding (you win blinds) x blinds + likelihood of >> >> >> opponent(s) calling x you win - likelihood of opponents calling x >you >> >> >> lose. If your chip stack after this calculation is better than it is >> >> >> after you fold, pushing is +EV. >> >> > >> >> >Which is a simpler version of the formula I first wrote and then >deleted >> >> >because it contributes nothing. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Yes, of course it is. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Not to mention your casually ridiculous formula left out the payouts >for >> >two >> >> >of the terms, and ... >> >> >> >> The payout is obvious enough. I elided it so as not to make it an >> >> enormously long thing. >> >> >> >> Yes, it's complicated. That's why there's a tool to work it out with. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >But, even-then-mainly, the two terms that miss the payoffs are >comprised >> >of >> >> >'many' terms, each dependent on everyone else's hand. >> >> >> >> No, the payoff is either your stack or theirs, depending whose is >> >> biggest. >> >> >> >> It does not depend on their hand. Are you not clear on what EV is a >> >> measure of? >> > >> >It's an uninteresting mystery as to whether you could say something >> >interesting if you could read well. I did NOT say or even hint that the >> >payoff depended on anyone's hand. >> > >> >> I'm going to have to invite you to fuck off. You said the "payoffs are >> comprised [sic] of many terms, each dependent [sic] on everyone else's >> hand" >> >> Which is precisely what you now say you did NOT say. > >liar. > Bluster it is then. >I said: "But, even-then-mainly, the two terms that miss the payoffs are >comprised of >'many' terms, each dependent on everyone else's hand." > >The two TERMS are comprised ... Yawn. Yes, well done. But you said it in the context of a complaint that those 'terms' missed their payoffs. And so, blah. > > >> >> You have a choice. Either you can say "I got it wrong" or you can say >> "I didn't write clearly enough and it's rude to suggest you cannot >> read well" (which you had a fucking cheek to suggest given how >> egregiously you write) or you can simply bluster and bullshit until >> we're both sick of it. Or accept my invitation and fuck off. > >lol -- Dr Zen King of the wild pixels. http://gollyg.blogspot.com No Karma

Gary Carson New User garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu Sep 15, 2006, 7:49 PM Post #14 of 14(490 views) Shortcut Re: Mathematical advice needed [In reply to] Can't Post   On Sep 14 2006 10:27 AM, martin wrote: > hello > > If someone knows how to calculate if pushing a starting hand is > +EV(chips) when you are against more than one possible caller ( By > example you want to steal blinds) or even better someone knows an > algebraic formula to do so I will be infinitely grateful for my hole > life to that person provided he was so kind to explain it here. tyvm in > advance Dr. Zen is drunk.  Ignore his post, it might address what you wanted to ask, but it doesn't address what you asked. The algebraic formula is just EV=sum(x*p(x)), summed over all possible outcomes, where x is the value of the outcome and p(x) is the probability of the outcome. So, the first step is to just write down all possible outcomes (everybody folds, 1 caller, 2 callers, etc).  Then estimate the probability of each. You can get estimates of the value of different numbers of callers from pokerstove at http://www.pokerstove.com/ if you can estimate the range of hands the callers might have. Gary Carson http://www.garycarson.com _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

Home: Poker: rec.gambling.poker: