Dan,
I expect people play Ax suited in early positions when the stacks are deep. That comes from my cash game roots. I know that a lot of guys playing tournaments online have had to play more of a short stack strategy. But yes, you are reading my chart correctly. It is basically my pot entering strategy for limit hold'em.
I agree with you that a bunch of small edges add up to a big one. It's a mathematical mistake people often make when they justify passive play where they pass up a small edge because it's only, let's say, 5%, but they don't realize it's all these 5% edges that add (or is it multiply) to a big edge. I was just pointing out that selectively it's often right not to bust yourself on a small edge.
Justin,
I'm totally in favor of doing the mathematics to get a ballpark idea. But that's what it is. We have people who think this is the answer to the question of how to play poker, and it's not. They actually hurt their play with their mathematical solutions, which are imprecise anyway, and miss some big gains. I played with a well-known player who justified a terrible shove by coming up with a pokerstove calculation showing it was +EV. He should have made a normal raise and played postflop against a weak player.
My algorithm is probably a closer approximation than the pokerstove assumptions, but my premise is that exactness is not attainable nor more important than the other considerations I brought up.
Todd,
This is why computers are a long way from beating weak players as effectively as good players can. Nash equilibrium will give you small edges against all players, where a good player can cater to specific inadequacies of each opponent.
Barry
|