

Optimal sizing on wet flops: texture based betting  Page 4 

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

Smuft Canada. Jan 28 2015 13:06. Posts 633   
This thread is a train wreck.
If you're reading through this thread and trying to learn something about poker by reading people's posts  look away, you're wasting your time. 



Romm3l Germany. Jan 28 2015 13:24. Posts 285   
 On January 28 2015 12:06 Smuft wrote:
This thread is a train wreck.
If you're reading through this thread and trying to learn something about poker by reading people's posts  look away, you're wasting your time. 
yes.. but this applies to ur posts too unfortunately. im trying to make some sense of it by challenging the bad posts. if you think anything i've said is incorrect i'd love to hear it too. 



Smuft Canada. Jan 28 2015 14:31. Posts 633   
 On January 27 2015 11:49 Romm3l wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 26 2015 23:40 Smuft wrote:
I created some turn ranges to input into GTORB turn solver to illustrate.
Scenario:
BTN opens min, BB calls
(BTN opens 55%, BB cold calls 51%)
Flop: Th8h2d
BTN bets 50% pot, BB calls
(I have BTN betting 65% of his flop range, with a reasonably balanced check back range, and for simplicity BB only defends by calling)
Turn: Js
1 bet size of 50% pot: (EV of 4.11)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...4d2ecbaef47e3e2fc542c27d186/root_v=30
1 bet size of 100% pot: (EV of 4.11)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...691e951e288b2a5ce3da3521bd5/root_v=30
So the EV of betting 50% pot or 100% pot are identical.
What happens if we use a strategy with 2 bet sizes?
2 bet sizes of 50% pot and 125% pot: (EV of 4.12)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...5b595fb4a72c34858435b4267f0/root_v=30
So you gained 0.01bb/hand if you somehow manage to be able to perfectly execute a 2 sizing strategy

Keep in mind that this is on the turn where sizing should matter a bit more than the flop (going with the assumption that in general the more play there is left (stack depth, range width), the less bet sizing will effect EV). This seems to be true because when you play with river sizing, they effect the EV more than turn sizing, and when you play with sizing in 3 and 4 bet pots, they effect the EV more than SRPs.

your method is wrong. you have looked at the value of a subgame starting from the turn under different betting regimes and found sizing doesnt matter from the turn. we are interested in solving for optimal flop sizing (which i suspect should be bigger on wet flops than dry). unfortunately I don't think commercially available solving software nowadays can solve from flops yet?

Maybe you didn't read the bolded part carefully enough before commenting. Given the complexity of the language used in some of your posts I'd expect you to read more carefully before commenting. (not everyone has studied advanced logic or read the signal and the noise)
In any case, I could have been much more clear so here it goes again:
Quick recap:
1. I suggest in some of my previous posts that the EV difference between any reasonable cbet size on the flop in a SRP is negligible
2. I used the GTORB Turn solver to show that EV of different betting sizes on the turn are negligible (I only showed 1 scenario but of the 50 or scenarios I've looked at, I've never seen a significant EV difference)
3. In the bolded above I show my reasoning for why I think that if the EV of different bet sizes on the turn is negligible then the EV of different bet sizes on the flop is even more negligible
To restate the bolded:
General assumption: The more streets there are left to act, the deeper the stacks, and the wider the ranges, the less bet sizing has an effect on EV
I came to this assumption because I have observed the EV of different bet sizes effect the river more than the turn, 4 bet pots more than 3 bet pots, and 3 bet pots more than SRPs.
Given these observations, it would be very strange for a 3/4 pot bet on the flop vs a 1/2 pot bet on the flop to suddenly yield a significant difference in EV.


  
Ehh this thread is more useful than most and only because you made some people aware of that GTORB program. 



dogmeat Czech Republic. Jan 28 2015 18:23. Posts 6374   
 On January 28 2015 12:02 Romm3l wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote:
one does not bet small on the flop im 3b pot b/c he worries about effectiveness of c/r's but b/c theory suggests betting equal fractions of the pot on all streets is the best strategy w/ polarized range 
that's an interesting result as well and i'd love to hear where you got it from.
however your argument is circular and empty: you are saying 'x is suboptimal not for a reason y, but because z is optimal and x is not z' which simplifies to 'x is suboptimal because it is not optimal'  no shit.
remember optimal strategy is defined as the strategy that minimises the expectation of a perfectly adapting opponent. try to think why minbet, and why 4x pot shove are each suboptimal betsizes in our spot (4x spr, ip on flop, villain checks). why does overbet shoving, or betting min make life easier for our opponent and fail to minimise his expectation? once you arrive at better answers to these questions than 'it is suboptimal because it is suboptimal', think again about why fullpot might not be optimal and consider again my argument that the crai option becomes too good (he gets good odds on it, and it forces you to bluff cb/fold less often and miss profitable spots, for example).

mathematics of poker by bill chen
anyway optimal strategy maximases your ev
and your argument is completely invalid, you can have balanced PSB range in your example, but its not gto b/c gto play maximases your ev, which is achieved by betting equal fractions of the pot over 3 streets (which allows highest bluff:value ratio), c/r is not an issue at all 




cariadon Estonia. Jan 28 2015 18:42. Posts 4015   
you should always bet potato tree because Harry Potter magic and everyone is wrong
edit: anyone heard of the new poker program called "Fgators" ? it does the opposite of GTO and will revolutionise poker 

 Last edit: 28/01/2015 18:45 

  
 On January 28 2015 16:20 traxamillion wrote:
Ehh this thread is more useful than most and only because you made some people aware of that GTORB program. 
Agreed, this alone made this thread very valuable for me. Also, though there are obviously differences of opinion and confusion, I've liked the other stuff people have written too. 



Smuft Canada. Jan 28 2015 23:15. Posts 633   
 On January 28 2015 17:23 dogmeat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 28 2015 12:02 Romm3l wrote:
 On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote:
one does not bet small on the flop im 3b pot b/c he worries about effectiveness of c/r's but b/c theory suggests betting equal fractions of the pot on all streets is the best strategy w/ polarized range 
that's an interesting result as well and i'd love to hear where you got it from.
however your argument is circular and empty: you are saying 'x is suboptimal not for a reason y, but because z is optimal and x is not z' which simplifies to 'x is suboptimal because it is not optimal'  no shit.
remember optimal strategy is defined as the strategy that minimises the expectation of a perfectly adapting opponent. try to think why minbet, and why 4x pot shove are each suboptimal betsizes in our spot (4x spr, ip on flop, villain checks). why does overbet shoving, or betting min make life easier for our opponent and fail to minimise his expectation? once you arrive at better answers to these questions than 'it is suboptimal because it is suboptimal', think again about why fullpot might not be optimal and consider again my argument that the crai option becomes too good (he gets good odds on it, and it forces you to bluff cb/fold less often and miss profitable spots, for example).

mathematics of poker by bill chen
anyway optimal strategy maximases your ev
and your argument is completely invalid, you can have balanced PSB range in your example, but its not gto b/c gto play maximases your ev, which is achieved by betting equal fractions of the pot over 3 streets (which allows highest bluff:value ratio), c/r is not an issue at all 
I think what Romm3l is trying to say is your argument is "this play is the best because it is" instead of giving some solid reasoning. I have to agree with him. Your posts are often just random statements which is too bad because you probably have some decent reasoning / thoughts for how you came up with your ideas and could benefit yourself and others if you voiced them.
This wouldn't be so bad if your random statement was at least a correct random statement but it's not. I will try my best to explain below.
 On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote:
one does not bet small on the flop im 3b pot b/c he worries about effectiveness of c/r's but b/c theory suggests betting equal fractions of the pot on all streets is the best strategy w/ polarized range 
The theory you're referring to from "Mathematics of Poker" is illustrated in toy games that are somewhat similar to NLH but in the end are not the same at all.
The board canges in NLH but it does not change in the toy games used in MOP where geometric betting (betting equal fraction of the pot on all streets) is proven to be best for the polarized range.
The author suggests that geometric bet sizing should be used in some situations in NLH but he does not prove it. It's just his 2006 opinion. It was a very advanced opinion for it's time but poker has been much more deeply studied and analyzed now.
I have my own ideas for why I think this opinion is outdated and mostly wrong but it's not organized and way beyond the scope of a simple forum post so I'll give you a much cheaper but probably more credible argument:
Look at the best NLH players in the highest stakes games today, the standard cbet size on most flop textures in 3b pots is 1/3 pot. This is 9 years after MOP was written and most of these guys have read it, expanded on it, read more about game theory and done intense quantitative analysis on the game. Many of them will play stakes up to 200/400 against pretty much anyone in the world.
Why aren't they betting equal fractions of the pot in 3b pots? 

 Last edit: 28/01/2015 23:21 



Smuft Canada. Jan 28 2015 23:17. Posts 633   
 On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote:
anyway optimal strategy maximases your ev
and your argument is completely invalid, you can have balanced PSB range in your example, but its not gto b/c gto play maximases your ev, which is achieved by betting equal fractions of the pot over 3 streets (which allows highest bluff:value ratio), c/r is not an issue at all 
The bolded is also not true. The bigger the bet size, the more bluffs you can have so the bet size which allows the highest bluff:value ratio is a bet size of allin.




Baalim Mexico. Jan 29 2015 05:07. Posts 33968   
Smuft you are saying that in your experiments the size of the bet didnt make a big difference in EV but Im assuming it would make a big difference in your range (bluffing and value frequencies) to remain balanced. 

ExPokerStars Team Pro Online  

  
 On January 28 2015 22:15 Smuft wrote:
Why aren't they betting equal fractions of the pot in 3b pots? 
Sometimes they are
For example when stacks sizes are appropriate and the board is static enough like a monotone flop or a 3s3c3dXX board
As far as flop betsize decreasing over time in 3bet pots, just basic strategy says you don't have to bet as much on flop to get it in by riv as in single raise pots so those big pot cbets started disappearing. Small Cbet makes for a cheaper bluff that has to work less frequently.
Also structuring betting like this that promotes calls early then folds on the river by leaving as large a bluff size as possible on the end to maintain the highest bluff ratio.
Sometimes people think this is bad because they would prefer to bet more on the turn for example so they can win more when they bluff on the river. Only problem is that now villain has a much better price on his call too so you can't bluff at and win that pot as often. 

 Last edit: 29/01/2015 05:37 



dogmeat Czech Republic. Jan 29 2015 08:26. Posts 6374   
 On January 28 2015 22:17 Smuft wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote:
anyway optimal strategy maximases your ev
and your argument is completely invalid, you can have balanced PSB range in your example, but its not gto b/c gto play maximases your ev, which is achieved by betting equal fractions of the pot over 3 streets (which allows highest bluff:value ratio), c/r is not an issue at all 
The bolded is also not true. The bigger the bet size, the more bluffs you can have so the bet size which allows the highest bluff:value ratio is a bet size of allin.
 it is true for limited stack sizes like 3b pots w/ 100bbs pf,
also funny you say that when you previously stated betsizes doesnt matter lol, we are talking about multiple streets here, thats why ur experiment was retarded, did you at least try to compute ev for some rivers? i feel like you have no idea what you are talking about
as for your previous post: this concept is demonstrated for perfectly polarized range, but also applies to polarized range w/ bluffs having x% equity and valuehands having y%, bluff:value ratio decreases but concept is still valid 

ban baal  Last edit: 29/01/2015 08:32 



Romm3l Germany. Jan 29 2015 10:00. Posts 285   
 On January 28 2015 13:31 Smuft wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 27 2015 11:49 Romm3l wrote:
 On January 26 2015 23:40 Smuft wrote:
I created some turn ranges to input into GTORB turn solver to illustrate.
Scenario:
BTN opens min, BB calls
(BTN opens 55%, BB cold calls 51%)
Flop: Th8h2d
BTN bets 50% pot, BB calls
(I have BTN betting 65% of his flop range, with a reasonably balanced check back range, and for simplicity BB only defends by calling)
Turn: Js
1 bet size of 50% pot: (EV of 4.11)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...4d2ecbaef47e3e2fc542c27d186/root_v=30
1 bet size of 100% pot: (EV of 4.11)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...691e951e288b2a5ce3da3521bd5/root_v=30
So the EV of betting 50% pot or 100% pot are identical.
What happens if we use a strategy with 2 bet sizes?
2 bet sizes of 50% pot and 125% pot: (EV of 4.12)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...5b595fb4a72c34858435b4267f0/root_v=30
So you gained 0.01bb/hand if you somehow manage to be able to perfectly execute a 2 sizing strategy

Keep in mind that this is on the turn where sizing should matter a bit more than the flop (going with the assumption that in general the more play there is left (stack depth, range width), the less bet sizing will effect EV). This seems to be true because when you play with river sizing, they effect the EV more than turn sizing, and when you play with sizing in 3 and 4 bet pots, they effect the EV more than SRPs.

your method is wrong. you have looked at the value of a subgame starting from the turn under different betting regimes and found sizing doesnt matter from the turn. we are interested in solving for optimal flop sizing (which i suspect should be bigger on wet flops than dry). unfortunately I don't think commercially available solving software nowadays can solve from flops yet?

Maybe you didn't read the bolded part carefully enough before commenting. Given the complexity of the language used in some of your posts I'd expect you to read more carefully before commenting. (not everyone has studied advanced logic or read the signal and the noise)
In any case, I could have been much more clear so here it goes again:
Quick recap:
1. I suggest in some of my previous posts that the EV difference between any reasonable cbet size on the flop in a SRP is negligible
2. I used the GTORB Turn solver to show that EV of different betting sizes on the turn are negligible (I only showed 1 scenario but of the 50 or scenarios I've looked at, I've never seen a significant EV difference)
3. In the bolded above I show my reasoning for why I think that if the EV of different bet sizes on the turn is negligible then the EV of different bet sizes on the flop is even more negligible
To restate the bolded:
General assumption: The more streets there are left to act, the deeper the stacks, and the wider the ranges, the less bet sizing has an effect on EV
I came to this assumption because I have observed the EV of different bet sizes effect the river more than the turn, 4 bet pots more than 3 bet pots, and 3 bet pots more than SRPs.
Given these observations, it would be very strange for a 3/4 pot bet on the flop vs a 1/2 pot bet on the flop to suddenly yield a significant difference in EV.

my sincere apologies, i totally missed that part of the post out of carelessness. now it's a much more interesting argument and i have to think about it some more to try and test if it makes sense, and thanks for explaining it better 



Romm3l Germany. Jan 29 2015 10:11. Posts 285   
 On January 28 2015 17:23 dogmeat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 28 2015 12:02 Romm3l wrote:
 On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote:
one does not bet small on the flop im 3b pot b/c he worries about effectiveness of c/r's but b/c theory suggests betting equal fractions of the pot on all streets is the best strategy w/ polarized range 
that's an interesting result as well and i'd love to hear where you got it from.
however your argument is circular and empty: you are saying 'x is suboptimal not for a reason y, but because z is optimal and x is not z' which simplifies to 'x is suboptimal because it is not optimal'  no shit.
remember optimal strategy is defined as the strategy that minimises the expectation of a perfectly adapting opponent. try to think why minbet, and why 4x pot shove are each suboptimal betsizes in our spot (4x spr, ip on flop, villain checks). why does overbet shoving, or betting min make life easier for our opponent and fail to minimise his expectation? once you arrive at better answers to these questions than 'it is suboptimal because it is suboptimal', think again about why fullpot might not be optimal and consider again my argument that the crai option becomes too good (he gets good odds on it, and it forces you to bluff cb/fold less often and miss profitable spots, for example).

mathematics of poker by bill chen
anyway optimal strategy maximases your ev
and your argument is completely invalid, you can have balanced PSB range in your example, but its not gto b/c gto play maximases your ev, which is achieved by betting equal fractions of the pot over 3 streets (which allows highest bluff:value ratio), c/r is not an issue at all 
yes perfectly balanced play with the wrong betsize fails to minimise a perfect opponent's EV. im not disagreeing or arguing otherwise. im just trying to get you to think about why that is. why can perfectly balanced play with a fullpot, min or overshove betsize not do as well? (again, think of a better answer than "because it can't", or "because bill chen said so" ) 

 Last edit: 29/01/2015 10:11 



dogmeat Czech Republic. Jan 29 2015 15:28. Posts 6374   
 On January 28 2015 17:23 dogmeat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 28 2015 12:02 Romm3l wrote:
 On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote:
one does not bet small on the flop im 3b pot b/c he worries about effectiveness of c/r's but b/c theory suggests betting equal fractions of the pot on all streets is the best strategy w/ polarized range 
that's an interesting result as well and i'd love to hear where you got it from.
however your argument is circular and empty: you are saying 'x is suboptimal not for a reason y, but because z is optimal and x is not z' which simplifies to 'x is suboptimal because it is not optimal'  no shit.
remember optimal strategy is defined as the strategy that minimises the expectation of a perfectly adapting opponent. try to think why minbet, and why 4x pot shove are each suboptimal betsizes in our spot (4x spr, ip on flop, villain checks). why does overbet shoving, or betting min make life easier for our opponent and fail to minimise his expectation? once you arrive at better answers to these questions than 'it is suboptimal because it is suboptimal', think again about why fullpot might not be optimal and consider again my argument that the crai option becomes too good (he gets good odds on it, and it forces you to bluff cb/fold less often and miss profitable spots, for example).

mathematics of poker by bill chen
anyway optimal strategy maximases your ev
and your argument is completely invalid, you can have balanced PSB range in your example, but its not gto b/c gto play maximases your ev, which is achieved by betting equal fractions of the pot over 3 streets (which allows highest bluff:value ratio), c/r is not an issue at all 
read it once more, let it sink
and again, why the fck are you talking about 'minimising expectation'? 

ban baal  Last edit: 29/01/2015 15:39 



Romm3l Germany. Jan 29 2015 18:02. Posts 285   
because minimising a perfectly exploitive opponent's expectation is the strict definition of optimal play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax
why does that size allow highest bluff:value ratio? why do you have to bluff less if betting fullpot or shove? 



dogmeat Czech Republic. Jan 29 2015 18:49. Posts 6374   
 On January 29 2015 17:02 Romm3l wrote:
because minimising a perfectly exploitive opponent's expectation is the strict definition of optimal play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax
why does that size allow highest bluff:value ratio? why do you have to bluff less if betting fullpot or shove? 
its almost as if you wrote 'why 1+1 = 2?'... just math tbh 




dogmeat Czech Republic. Jan 29 2015 19:17. Posts 6374   




Smuft Canada. Jan 29 2015 22:00. Posts 633   
dogmeat, you have had some interesting points but it's so hard to understand what you are trying to say. Can you put some more effort into your posts? Try reading them when you're done and ask "could some random noob following this thread have a chance to understand what I'm trying to say?"




dogmeat Czech Republic. Jan 29 2015 22:24. Posts 6374   
hehe this conversation is going in circles: r0mm31 said 'ppl bet small to diminish flop c/rs" and now hes just trolling 


 


Poker Streams  
