TPE Theory: Shortstack Play (Part 2)
[Total: 9 Average: 9.9/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
TPE Theory: Shortstack Play (Part 2)
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
bane_rakes_u
really like this series!
i think i may have to check out that program. Is it also good with icm calculations ? I am curently on a 600 games break even streak at 45m sngs and wanted to look at some number because i’m not sure if its me or just the variance 🙂
theginger45
Absolutely, it does ICM too. I’m sure you’ll see me use it for that in future series. Glad you enjoyed it!
SgtPokerPenguin
I’m pretty sure that the ev of raise factors in the times you call, adding the ev of raising and calling together doesn’t make sense. For example, if you were to apply the same logic you used with 22 heads up to AA then we would be making a profit of about 14bb. This is more than our opponent started the hand with. Also, the reason the ev of calling after raising is higher is calculators like this calculate ev of calling/shoving compared to folding considering the chips already in the pot (not ev from the start of the hand). Since we have already raised to 200 with 22, calling 800 to win 2k is going to appear more profitable than shoving 950 and getting called to win 2k, even if the opponents hand is the same, just because the pot odds are artificially different even though the ev of our stack after the play will be the same. Just something to be careful about.
Sorry for the long post, not trying to be critical! Have really enjoyed these videos so far, they have definitely opened my eyes to some areas of my short stack game that need more work.
theginger45
That’s actually a very good point about adding up the EVs. I sort of wish I could go back and take that part out now, since it’s obviously not correct. Thanks for the input. I get confused sometimes because HRC often displays things in less than helpful ways – for instance, sometimes a hand shows up in the list of hands to shove, even if it’s only supposed to be shoved like 7% of the time or something. I think it was more a misunderstanding of how to use HRC on my part than a misunderstanding of the concept. Thanks for clarifying!
kondor
Being a linux user I have used this program for a while (a lot of poker programs will not run on linux) , but did not realise how I could break the hands down into a raise/fold range.
kondor
Do you think that raise calling is better (caveat sometimes) because peoples shoving ranges are generally wider than their calling ranges? And because people do not tend to call correctly (too narrow) that a lot of players perceive (probably correctly) that their shoves will not be called often enough?
Sander037
At 22:00, if the SB is calling 100% it does not matter what the calling range of the BB is if SB folds since this never happens. So there is nothing wrong with your computation. Only decreasing the overcalling range of BB would give the expected result that you can shove wider.
Radriguez
I had a feeling charts were a bad idea. I have one I use for a super basic outline but it’s nice to have it explained why they are inaccurate. Stack size is too important. I’m assuming number of players left (ICM?) makes a difference too. Thx
bitdash
interesting to see min raise with 10bb stack is much better play than jamming for most hands that we choose to play, even if our opponent play with nash equilibrium. Previously I think we might have better EV by min raising, if opponent don’t play optimally.