RedJoker - Game Theory

[WaterBear]

@Vitas

Now your link does work. Cheers.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by WaterBear

@Vitas

Your link doesn't work. RedJoker's does though so no real harm done.

There's been extensive testing done on those links, everything except the .zip file works.

Originally Posted by WaterBear

@RedJoker

Great video - would like to see more GTO videos from you. MoP is a really excellent poker read for the mathmatically inclined. But honestly I am not very interested in a series basicly walking through a book I have studied quite a bit. I think it would be much more interesting with new material and ideas (I know this is really hard work and probably too time consuming to make it worthwhile for you). Anyways, thanks for the video.

Thanks. Yeah, it wouldn't be aimed at people who've already studied the book.

[Xeta23]

Thanks for explaining.
Fwiw, I would be interested in videos about MoP too.

Edit: I just read WaterBear's post and I think he's right. But you could make videos that kinda make use of MoP to try to solve real life poker situations (nlh or plo). Kind of like this video I guess.

[Rajmaster]

Is there a way in the spreadsheet to narrow X's calling 3b oop range, since to model it more realistically, calling 1/3 of the hands you are opening (so about 8% of total hands - and that is not even the top 8%) OOP is just not going to end well

[lingdog1985]

Really really nice vid Phillip, ty. i wd b interested to see a vid series on the optimal play chapter in MOP.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by Rajmaster

Is there a way in the spreadsheet to narrow X's calling 3b oop range, since to model it more realistically, calling 1/3 of the hands you are opening (so about 8% of total hands - and that is not even the top 8%) OOP is just not going to end well

Yeah, you can change cell C15. By increasing the amount of equity you assume X has (decreasing the value of cell C15), you'll reduce the size of the calling range. It seems counter intuitive that assuming a higher expectation will reduce how often you call but it's a common result in game theory that the higher the EV of an option/line, the less you take it. There's an example of this on page 106 of MOP.

Alternatively, you could create a different model which assumes no 3bet calling range and solve that.

Originally Posted by lingdog1985

Really really nice vid Phillip, ty. i wd b interested to see a vid series on the optimal play chapter in MOP.

Thanks, glad you liked it.

[Rajmaster]

Originally Posted by RedJoker

Yeah, you can change cell C15. By increasing the amount of equity you assume X has (decreasing the value of cell C15), you'll reduce the size of the calling range. It seems counter intuitive that assuming a higher expectation will reduce how often you call but it's a common result in game theory that the higher the EV of an option/line, the less you take it. There's an example of this on page 106 of MOP.

yeh but that doesn't increase X1 and the 4b/fold range at all (and hence any other ranges)
I was more concerned with reducing X's calling 3b range while still widening his 4b-value and 4b:bluff range to make it more realistic

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by Rajmaster

yeh but that doesn't increase X1 and the 4b/fold range at all (and hence any other ranges)
I was more concerned with reducing X's calling 3b range while still widening his 4b-value and 4b:bluff range to make it more realistic

Ah, o.k. If you increase cell C22 slightly, which is the equity assumuption for the hand Y1 vs. the range 0-X1 it'll tighten the calling range. I chose 30% based on:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 71.849% 70.71% 01.14% 435898404 6998250.00 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 28.151% 27.02% 01.14% 166534536 6998250.00 { AQo }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 66.832% 66.63% 00.20% 273837216 811740.00 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 33.168% 32.97% 00.20% 135492264 811740.00 { 99 }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 70.469% 69.36% 01.10% 142527048 2269746.00 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 29.531% 28.43% 01.10% 58409940 2269746.00 { AJs }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 70.670% 70.24% 00.43% 144321864 889020.00 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 29.330% 28.90% 00.43% 59376576 889020.00 { KQs }

but if you widen the 4bet/call range than an assumption of 32% - 33% might be reasonable:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 66.963% 66.77% 00.20% 342971688 1009050.00 { TT+, AQs+, AKo }
Hand 1: 33.037% 32.84% 00.20% 168701412 1009050.00 { 88 }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 67.995% 66.91% 01.08% 178733520 2894472.00 { TT+, AQs+, AKo }
Hand 1: 32.005% 30.92% 01.08% 82596960 2894472.00 { AJs }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 68.116% 67.71% 00.41% 180860688 1090542.00 { TT+, AQs+, AKo }
Hand 1: 31.884% 31.48% 00.41% 84077652 1090542.00 { KQs }

Alternatively, you can assume that X never calls and solve the resulting problem which is pretty straight forward. To make Y indifferent to 3bet bluffing we need the EV of a 3bet to be equal to 0:

(Z% x 4.5bb) + (1-Z%) x -10 = 0

Z% = 0.6896

So X needs to 4bet 1 - 0.6896 = 31.03% of the time. Using the 0.8096:1 ratio we get that the 4bet value range must be (1 * 31.03%)/1.8096 = 17.15% of the opening range. This would be the maximum the 4bet/calling range could get to.

There are a couple of adjustments we could make to this. The first is the 4bet value:bluff ratio which, as discussed in the video, may be a little high. Widening the range, as we saw, will reduce the expectation for SCs and PPs but increase it for suited aces so we may want to reduce the ratio slightly. This increases the amount of 4bet value hands needed. Another adjustment is that, with blinds still to act, we don't actually need to make villain indifferent to 3bet bluffing by ourselves. The blinds will have both value and bluff 4bet ranges which will help us out and make us less exploitable. Because of this we can reduce the 4bet value range slightly.

[StnBuddha]

Red Joker,

Thanks for making the video. It was very interesting, and I would like to add that a series on the chapters covering optimal play, in MOP, would be greatly welcomed. Please find a way to make it happen .......