optimal stats for solid play - Page 2

On October 10 2008 00:31 Siro wrote: stop playing so many tables and learn how to actually play, then you wont ask these questions

but i like these many tables, yes?

revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats"

that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players

On October 10 2008 00:48 r3v wrote: The game-theoretic unexploitable strategy (in wich you can reveal your strategy to your opponent and he cannot exploit you and at best expect to breakeven by mirroring your strategy) is very very tight, maybe 16/14 in a 6max table. But against non-optimal opponents (wich is the case in the real world), you can exploit them (and thus be succeptible to exploitation yourself) bo playing looser than the game-theoretic equilibrium to exploit weak predictable players, that dont trap or bluff alot. However, there may be situations against very specific opponents in wich the most profitable way to exploit their strategy is to play even tighter than equilibrium stats (wich I assume is 16/14ish for VPIP/PFR stats). You can also read Mathmatics of Poker by Bill Chen for more information.

is this 'unexploitable strategy' even applicable to a game as complex as NL holdem, or plo? isn't this theory more for limit games?

On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats"

I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you?

On October 10 2008 01:38 LazyFisH wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats" I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you?

yes for image purposes maybe?

also if everyone at the table is playing the super unexploitable strategy, i'd go all in every hand! GADDAMAAARRTT!!

On October 10 2008 01:38 LazyFisH wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats" I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you?

i would quit and find another table. or keep trying to play exploitive 20+++++ vpip against better players, and get owned

On October 10 2008 01:39 tokeweed wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:38 LazyFisH wrote:   On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats" I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you? yes for image purposes maybe?

playing unexploitable has nothing to do with image or metagame or reads or history or flow or anything like that

On October 10 2008 01:59 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:39 tokeweed wrote:   On October 10 2008 01:38 LazyFisH wrote:   On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats" I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you? yes for image purposes maybe? playing unexploitable has nothing to do with image or metagame or reads or history or flow or anything like that

one question tho... is this 'unexploitable strategy' even applicable to a game as complex as NL holdem, or plo?

99/35

Think win without showdown at 6-max should be at least 40%, and shooting for 50%.

I just got Hold'Em Manager and this is a graph from yesterday:



With these stats:



Usually my W$WSF is around 50%. I think if you're at 25% you're way too low and you're not making enough moves on people their CB or you are not CBetting enough and you're getting run over when your CB gets raised and you fold. Try 3betting once in a while if you think they're FOS. Stuff like that can get that number up a lot.

Although I'm curious; this is the first time I use these kind of graphs and I see everyone with their non SD winnings being around breakeven or losing, while their showdown winnings are up a whole lot. Could this just be this session or is this a leak in my game? I go to showdown too often with shithands? Making too many dumb allin moves?

Meh could be just this session now that I think of it, I lost J9 against 89 on a J92 flop to a runner runner straight and I made one dumb allin move that I remembered running into the nuts. Question answered I guess.

On October 10 2008 00:31 Siro wrote: stop playing so many tables and learn how to actually play, then you wont ask these questions

10/4 FR gg

Only play AA/KK and small pps to hit a set then go all in on flop, i heard that's what Ferguson advised to be a solid winning player

limpcall any PP other than AA and if u hit set, shove flop, if not,fold it.

nice sample size there

On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote: that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players

No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other...
In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my
experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats..

Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money...
In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the
best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course,
hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive
strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with
David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game.

On October 10 2008 13:38 Baal wrote: nice sample size there

if your 1 tabling thats 8 months worth of hands

On October 10 2008 23:24 r3v wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote: that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other... In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats.. Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money... In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course, hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game.

ok say you play a tighter-optimal-defensive strategy. you'd still be c-betting some flops even if you don't hit right? then check/folding most turns, that is still exploitable as your opponents can float. then let's say you stop c-betting flops you don't hit, this is still exploitable as your opponents can bet bet bet when you check.

i think the only way this can be optimal is when all the other players at the table are playing the same way but more passive than you.