Ahhh no! Not more equity calculations!

I can’t stand it! Everything has become one long boring equity calculation. 

So we even have to think about equity in Nash push/ call spots blind vs button? I guess I knew that was going on in the background, but I thought with Nash ranges all that was taken care of!

So for example villain seems slightly tighter than Nash, I call slightly tighter; V seems a little wider, so I can call a little wider. 

I guess my central question can be summed up thus:

If we assume Button is John Nash and he is shoving on me 8 big blinds with a 12% ante his own Nash exact range…

Are you really calling off with q 4 suited?!

Edit: so the first thing I should have done is look at villains Nash range from the button with his stack, and if I decide he is shoving exactly according to Nash then the answer is “yes” to a call with q4s+.

As usual TPE gets me there answer wise…and you can’t imagine how delighted I am with this conclusion! It means I am about to collect a lot of money from my games which previously I had been leaving on the tables!

My calling ranges have been WAY too tight!

I did indeed look at the proposed range and call…and closed my eyes. When I looked up…

I only had 3 tables running instead of 4…

That was my pathetic attempt at humour. It is 6am here so give me a pass?

Villain had A 8 s and held.

But when I say my ranges have been WAY too tight to call… I really mean way way way too tight.

As an example…and please don’t cancel my membership when I tell you this, but prior to working with HRC and SnapShove, I would have been in the tank with K 8 s…

Just to give you a sense of how far out I have been. 

This is not to say that I thought K 8 s was behind his range. Just that I have always run with the strategy that it is always better to be shoving than calling.

Two things have come to my immediate attention since working with this software.

1) calling ranges are too tight.

2) I’m shoving way too wide with a short stack from EP.

I tell you something almo my good man, you are a man of many mysteries.

So the guy I consider asking first about all things poker math equity related doesn’t use a HUD and has never studied Nash. 

You know it is a little strange, because when I study 3 bet iso ranges I am usually very close. The spots I write down in game to study in HRC regarding shove/ iso spots are usually right on the margins…so I seem to have that down, not sure why I have been out for so long on my calls.

Do you use HRC even? Hold on…Probably that is a silly question!

Yes please it would make me feel a whole lot better. Please get on it right away. Thank you.

For sure you are right smallcat, hero will need to make adjustments to Nash shove or call spots depending on his read of villain. A hero Nash unexploitable range will only apply as as an unexploitable range if it is complemented by a villain Nash range. 

This is one of the reasons poker will never die until everyone not only learns their Nash shove/ call ranges (tons of work and/ or experience required), but also until everyone implements Nash. On that day, which will never come, push/ fold short stack Hold’em will be dead.

But fear not! Because this won’t ever happen. People just love gambling too much and playing poker and most have probably never heard of Nash anyway…well maybe in passing. Most recs I mean…I expect most regs at least know about Nash even if they haven’t studied it a lot… I would hope so anyway.

This is also why ICM calculators are only a guide. They might be able to “solve” push/ fold, but the solution is only good to hero so long as villain also uses it. And then, ironically, it is no good to anyone!

Nash is just a guide.

I am not sure how John Nash came up with his ranges. My guess is that he must have calculated the possibility of each combination of hands  falling from each consecutive position. And then came up with an average hand strength. Of course, it is possible to find yourself ahead or behind with your specific hand when compared to Nash. I guess Nash is just that…an average for the position in question.

Then again, what the hell do I know?

In fact that is an interesting question… we have chip ev and ICM calculators now…did John Nash compute his ranges manually? And how do they compare with a chip ev calculator output even?

My guess would be that there must be large errors in Nash’s original calculations, simply due to the complexity of the work involved.

It is even possible that Nash did no actual work whatsoever on poker…it would seem a little…hmm…? Intellectually indulgent and vain and trivial for a mathematical mind of Nash’s stature to devote much time to NLHE. 

I understand Nash equilibria are present and relevant in other areas of gaming and beyond, so perhaps the Nash calculators we see today are simply an adaptation of Nash’s work elsewhere on game theory. In fact this seems more likely to me. Maybe Matt or Andrew can shed some light on this?

Hey smallcat, I am not entirely sure I understand your question…which may be my fault.

I am one of the last people on these forums to ask about equity, if this is what your question relates to.

Maybe almo can help!

Yes so in the GTO section there is a thread about this. 

Nash ranges remain unexploitable regardless of anyone’s ranges, or knowledge about or ignorance of Nash ranges.

However, if villain is deviating from Nash significantly, it will be more +ev for hero to move to exploit than for hero to stick to Nash. The Nash ranges will remain unexploitable regardless, to be used vs a good reg who is also playing Nash, or against an unknown villain.

At least this is my current understanding.

Hey! We got there!

Hey Radriguez, you make some good points there. I do not get it either…if Nash says I can push ATC from the SB with a certain stack, how can it be +ev for the BB to call with a 100% range? Surely the top 50% of hands would be +ev vs an ATC shove?

For sure I also don’t understand how a 54s shove is unexploitable as a 10 BB shove vs a 150 BB stack. Seems extremely exploitable to me!

Also regarding SnapShove, I also wonder whether the ranges it gives to call from a particular position means I should iso-shove vs the players behind me. I expect this is the meaning. I can’t recall a situation I have looked at with HRC where it tells me to flat call vs a shove with players still to act behind me. I might be very wrong about that mind you. Also, SnapShove is only a chip ev calculator, not an ICM calculator.

Edit: I see almo is viewing…this can mean only one thing…

It all comes down to equity!

Btw The Lovecats by The Cure just came on the radio. Classic track by a kick ass band. They are top guys too… I used to go dragon boat racing with them for charity back in the day! Simon Gallup their bassist used to sit at the back of the boat beating out the rhythms on the drum that we all had to row the boat to! Halcyon days!

Radriguez said

“The more V deviates from Nash, the more the Nash player will profit”

I don’t think this is correct. 

In push/fold Nash is synonymous with GTO. A “GTO strategy” is the term we would use regarding post flop play.

Therefore, regardless of how far V deviates from Nash, we still guarantee ourselves at least 0 ev by utilising Nash ourselves. We cannot be exploited whilst utilising a Nash range is all.

But this certainly does not mean that the further V deviates from Nash the more we, as the Nash player, profits. 

If we discern a significant deviation from Nash in V, by far the most profitable line will be to move to exploit it.