Cuteraven poker stuff

[CuteRaven]

Played some nanostakes (1€ buyin) SNG today. I played both HU and 5 handed. Ran much better than yesterday, and got back up to 30.23€. For those better than me at ICM, is this all-in too loose (as the biggest stack on the bubble of 1€ SNG)? I'm guessing it's probably way too loose in hindsight 🤣. Villain had QQ and called and won the hand. Villain was tightish passive.

Edit: This website is bugged and won't upload the images properly, so here's the hand:

I'm in big blind. Button folds (stack before blinds: 10.5 BB). SB limps (stack before blinds: 14.03 BB). I jam with J3o (stack before blinds: 16.84 BB). There is also a total of 0.32 BB in the pot from antes.

Edit number 2: I re-added the picture for context to show how it is bugged (when I open the picture in my operating system you see a poker table but on the Unibet community website it just shows a bunch of lines).

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by CuteRaven
Edit: trying to add the pic now

[P0kerM0nk]

Drag the picture in to your post or use the choose files link, sometimes it shows up but mostly it's underneath and you need to click the insert tag when you hover over the picture to insert the picture in to your post, random system I know.

[CuteRaven]

40 minutes ago, P0kerM0nk said:

Drag the picture in to your post or use the choose files link, sometimes it shows up but mostly it's underneath and you need to click the insert tag when you hover over the picture to insert the picture in to your post, random system I know.

Thanks, but that's not what my bug is, I'm able to add a picture, but the picture itself is completely bugged out (I readded it into the original post for context) 🤣

[Estzen]

@CuteRavenThanks for the output . So in terms of ICM, its pretty hard to say if something is correct or not without knowing all the other stacksizes, because thats whats it all about. One of the most important things in these situations is if and whom you cover with your stack. If its a HU hand with jamming J3 vs a SB limp, then there probably are better spots, but then again, if someone overfolds and is very tight, its not so bad if you are very shallow, cuz the guy over-folds anyway and almost everything starts to become +EV if he does so. Its not a combo we really would like to jam tho . At those HU matches(SNG 5-men with 2 ITM) since both are playng basically for the 1st place then there is not really much of an ICM to talk about. There would be more ICM to talk about if it would be 3 players ITM. Probably the biggest question in these SNG5s is how we need to be playng in the 3player bubble situations - because thats where biggest mistakes are made. 

[CuteRaven]

18 minutes ago, Estzen said:

 

@CuteRavenThanks for the output . So in terms of ICM, its pretty hard to say if something is correct or not without knowing all the other stacksizes, because thats whats it all about. One of the most important things in these situations is if and whom you cover with your stack. If its a HU hand with jamming J3 vs a SB limp, then there probably are better spots, but then again, if someone overfolds and is very tight, its not so bad if you are very shallow, cuz the guy over-folds anyway and almost everything starts to become +EV if he does so. Its not a combo we really would like to jam tho . At those HU matches(SNG 5-men with 2 ITM) since both are playng basically for the 1st place then there is not really much of an ICM to talk about. There would be more ICM to talk about if it would be 3 players ITM. Probably the biggest question in these SNG5s is how we need to be playng in the 3player bubble situations - because thats where biggest mistakes are made. 

 

Thanks! I am aware that there is no ICM in HU situations, or in any other situations with only one payout that is being played for. This particular hand was on the bubble (so it was 3 handed, and I cover both of the other players, but the stack sizes are pretty even for all three players). I was thinking that the small blind limper is meant to fold a lot because of the ICM dynamic (and that he might also jam instead of limp some of his stronger hands, though in this case he showed up with QQ). Of course if the small blind doesn't know about ICM and calls way too much, my jam with J3o is definately bad.

I guess some sort of ICM calculator would be needed to properly solve the situation, but i hindsight probably I would need to have a bigger lead in chips as the big stack, or the third player would have to be really short stacked to make this worth jamming.

[Andy-Relax]

Ran it in HRC and it 100% calls J3o vs limp but jamming is also profitable. 

SB limp range is 77-AA, offsuit non broadway and not really connected Kx, Qx, Jx, Tx and lower junk and some junk suited like 92 and 82.

[Stubbe-Unibet]

Nice to see you back and really happy to hear you're doing well! 

[Estzen]

5 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:

Ran it in HRC and it 100% calls J3o vs limp but jamming is also profitable. 

SB limp range is 77-AA, offsuit non broadway and not really connected Kx, Qx, Jx, Tx and lower junk and some junk suited like 92 and 82.

Thats pretty hard to believe. If its profitable, I'd assume its very marginal, so now knowing we are 3 handed with pretty even stacks, I would think thats it pretty bad choice to do. My yearly ICMizer just ended this month, I could check it out at some point just out of intrest, but how much $EV is it even making? Seems really bad. 

In terms of Equilibrium, how much is the assumed range adjusted cuz people certainly wont be calling nash there also. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Estzen
Equilbrium statement

[GR1ZZL3R]

Glad you're back and ready to go. 😀

 

[Andy-Relax]

1 hour ago, Estzen said:

Thats pretty hard to believe. If its profitable, I'd assume its very marginal, so now knowing we are 3 handed with pretty even stacks, I would think thats it pretty bad choice to do. My yearly ICMizer just ended this month, I could check it out at some point just out of intrest, but how much $EV is it even making? Seems really bad. 

In terms of Equilibrium, how much is the assumed range adjusted cuz people certainly wont be calling nash there also. 

It's run for 10k iterations and no range locking so maybe not the most accurate sim but I doubt it'll move that much over more iterations.

Not sure what range changes you'd want to make to suit population as I have no idea what a standard sb call % would be vs jam in €1 sngs 🙂

 

[Andy-Relax]

Ran it in Monte Carlo mode as well and it also likes J3o as a jam at nash.

[WuDu]

9 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:

Ran it in HRC and it 100% calls J3o vs limp but jamming is also profitable. 

SB limp range is 77-AA, offsuit non broadway and not really connected Kx, Qx, Jx, Tx and lower junk and some junk suited like 92 and 82.

Going AI with J3o in this situation is totally stupid, I might even call this move Brocky-esque. If you have to, maybe with J8o, J9o or JTo.

However  @CuteRaven mentioned that the SB was "tight-passive":

SB limps, Finncrisp-bro checks and sees a flop in position for free. Maybe even the turn and the river with a trash hand. What's not to like about that? Maybe he hits something or can try to bluff on the turn/river at a much lower risk.

In addition to that, there's always the chance at lower levels that you get a fun player who says: "I already spent 0,5 BB here with T8s, I cannot let go now." 😆

[Estzen]

So like, I asked before - Im well aware, that it runs many iterations, thats like basic. The bigger question is assinged ranges and Im still not convinced over it being $EV+ ... because chipEV and $EV are really two diffrent things. Many stuff can be chipEV where their not $EV.. 

[Andy-Relax]

37 minutes ago, Estzen said:

So like, I asked before - Im well aware, that it runs many iterations, thats like basic. The bigger question is assinged ranges and Im still not convinced over it being $EV+ ... because chipEV and $EV are really two diffrent things. Many stuff can be chipEV where their not $EV.. 

They're ICM sims, not chipEV ones. The $EV for J3o is shown in the first screenshot.

This is how HRC thinks SB should play it's range given the option of completing or shoving, what do you think needs adjusting and then I can re-run it. I have no idea if population €1 players are over-shoving, over folding, over completing or any combination so am just using the baseline of nash. Maybe the entire range is too wide?

[Estzen]

4 minutes ago, Andy-Unibet said:

They're ICM sims, not chipEV ones. The $EV for J3o is shown in the first screenshot.

This is how HRC thinks SB should play it's range given the option of completing or shoving, what do you think needs adjusting and then I can re-run it. I have no idea if population €1 players are over-shoving, over folding, over completing or any combination so am just using the baseline of nash. Maybe the entire range is too wide?

I ll check the stuff out after my games, its intresting enought 😄 

[CuteRaven]

@Andy-UnibetThanks for running it! Interesting that it is (theoretically) as profitable as it is and though J3o probably isn't a jam, it seems to be (theoretically) pretty close between jamming and checking.

Also really interesting that the optimal SB range is polarized like that. Makes sense in hindsight, you get to profitably limp in some trashy hands that can't reasonably jam if your limping range is protected by some really nutted stuff.

I wonder why HCR wants SB to limp-call with 77 but limp-fold with 88 (whenever SB limps instead of open jams 88). 88 has some reverse blockers to trashy parts of the BB jamming range? That pretty weird 😂.

I think realistically this player in SB is folding way more than that. My very rough guess is that SB limps or open jams about 50% at most, probably closer to 40%. And I don't think SB ever jams anything close to stuff like 54s or T6s. I also think SB probably calls a jam more than 3.8%. Maybe SB calls with something like a 10% range, hard to say. I'm not an expert either 😄. But no need to rerun it.

@WuDu Can't really say I disagree. Well, what can I say, I definitely tend towards being an aggro-donk when it comes to my leaks in game 🔥.

But yeah, especially when 90+% of players probably call jams too wide at these stakes, and when I (hopefully) should have a post-flop edge, just checking makes more sense in practice.

@Stubbe-Unibet@GR1ZZL3RThanks! Great to see you guys are still around too.

Probably won't play much or at all for the rest of the week. Finncrisp-bro is going to be enjoying Juhannus in the Finnish countryside. I'll return for some games next week at least!

[Estzen]

So Icmizing this  a bit, is pretty confusing 😄 

Maybe the ante sizing is wrong, I dont play SNGs regulary, and I dont remember what is the exact structure, but here are some ICMizings - and maybe the ante value is wrong - but IF there would be no ante then ranges would be just tighter.

So ... First of all the Equilibrium is very weird here- but maybe I didnt something wrong:

In anysense, jamming J3o seems super-punty. And if its not punty vs nash, then its very punty vs someone calling like 43%  

All numbers are in DollarEV. 

BB jam:

SB calls off with:

But now: I adjusted SBs calling off into something like this:

Then Our BB jamming range should be this:

[CuteRaven]

@EstzenI think the main difference between your sim and the one by Andy is that ICMizer assumes that SB is only capable of limping hands, which means that a lot of the relatively good hands that could be jams are included in the ICMizer limping range. Overall, this means that ICMizer gives SB a much stronger limping range than HRC, which makes jamming a lot worse for BB in the case of your ICMizer calculation. Also turning on FGS on ICMizer would probably have some effect on the ranges.

And looking at the SB calling off range that you readjusted: I don't think this villain (or most players) would limp call stuff like T7s, even at these stakes 😆.

I'm not trying to say that jamming J3o is particularly good, but your sim has some flaws IMO.

 

[Estzen]

10 hours ago, CuteRaven said:

@EstzenI think the main difference between your sim and the one by Andy is that ICMizer assumes that SB is only capable of limping hands, which means that a lot of the relatively good hands that could be jams are included in the ICMizer limping range. Overall, this means that ICMizer gives SB a much stronger limping range than HRC, which makes jamming a lot worse for BB in the case of your ICMizer calculation. Also turning on FGS on ICMizer would probably have some effect on the ranges.

And looking at the SB calling off range that you readjusted: I don't think this villain (or most players) would limp call stuff like T7s, even at these stakes 😆.

I'm not trying to say that jamming J3o is particularly good, but your sim has some flaws IMO.

 

Well, in $1 we can make the range even wider - so I would say that they for sure would call at some of the time T7s. Occasionally can be seen almost anything. $1 is really the ground zero of everything... Of course , the SB limping range point is a valid one, but we are also not seeing much of the excluding them from limping, and interms of monsters and specially the suited portion of those, are actually very valid to slowplay in shortstacks. So If I open ICMizer again, I could disinclude Axo and smaller pairs portion, but we it still wouldnt make J3o a jam Im pretty sure... 

[Estzen]

And like him limping QQ isnt a mistake. 

So I excluded EVERY Ax even the suited ones, and left out all PPs from 22 to 77s. Its still not a jam in any sense for BB. 

SB: adjusted with Excluding Ax complitely. 

And im not really surprised - because its a stone bubble. And like ... going all in with very wide range , you can - if you cover a lot of stack. The middle stack can be abused a lot ... but they more "equal" it is, the freaking tighter everyone needs to be. And if there are imbalances then usually, the 2nd stack needs to be tighter because he is basically winning vs the smaller stack and can outrun him. If the 3rd stack would be very small, the CL probably can go crazy, and 2nd stack needs to really nit it up and have a patrience run ... 

 

[Estzen]

Im not sure why I dont have the Qox portion and other ones, its a bit screwed, but doesnt really matter, because it just makes the limping range a bit stronger. 

[Andy-Relax]

*** Seated players ***

Seat 1: BB (4064.50)

Seat 2: BTN (2545)

Seat 4: SB  (3390.50)

*** Blinds and button ***

ante 25

small blind 120

big blind 240

That's from the HH if you want correct stacks 

I used my free ICMize for the day and got the same BB jam range as your first SS but the limp range is much bigger than what HRC outputs and weighted more to hands better than J3o which is why it's going to be a fold.

The difference between the two seems to be that HRC believes the SB limp range is much smaller and contains way more trash than ICMizer and that's why it's a call at one extreme and a fold at the other. A lot of the hands in the last limp range you posted are jams as far as HRC is concerned.

The only real way to get an approximation is to first decide what the real world SB limp range is and the shove range and then lock it in HRC and see what it spits out. I doubt players are limping 79% of hands as ICMizer suggests but I also don't think they're limping just 37% as HRC thinks and even if it is 37%, it's probably not the same hand combos.

 

[Estzen]

Andy. 

I think its pretty safe to say that its -Ev in any sense, or if it is +EV, its becomes very marginal, so its better excluded from the range and just check-it and play post. The CL can bet almost any checked board anyway, because the SB cannot really go much because of the 3rd 10bb stack. By just going min-bet everything would already be enought, probably 

You point out a very valid thing, it all comes down to what the SB is doing. I would say anything from 1s to 10eur games, people are much more passive on SB than they should. Probably the only valid players really in the scene are people who play 25s in these 5max ones as a reg. 

In $1 ones the understudiedness skyrockets the most. I think a good one would be to just look two kinds of scenarios. One with SB with very wide range calling off. and One with a tighter range call off. (We exclude jams because, in that scenario the SB was not jamming) We are dealing with a situation where, a (perceieved tight-passive) limps. Since usually in supermicros, the SB is almost like BB in their heads, so they have no understanding of the diffrences.

The 37% wasnt their limping range, the 37% was their call-off range. 

There are players who make it almost 90%+ and then there are super-nits who play like AT+ pairs "waiting their hands" thinking its "something they should do". 

I doubt that J3 is every making money there, but thats just my opinion. If someone wants, he can start doing it all days and look what hes sample size would do 🤣.. I guess . 

 

[Estzen]

I ll add a cool conclusion to here: 

So when the guy is overly tight - calling of only like 14% nit range: !!!

You can jam everything:

But if he is a non balaced impulsive caller who goes something like 43% calling you get this:

[Andy-Relax]

2 hours ago, Estzen said:

Andy. 

I think its pretty safe to say that its -Ev in any sense, or if it is +EV, its becomes very marginal..

I don't think it's safe to say it's -EV at all tbh. If villain is over-limping with bad hands then you're going to be fine jamming wide because you're going to get folds a lot more than the times they call. There is also the ICM pressure of having them covered, they have to call tighter if they're aware of it.

2 hours ago, Estzen said:

The 37% wasnt their limping range, the 37% was their call-off range. 

I was referring to this, where call is completing in the SB after BTN folds, not calling a BB shove after completing.

 

In your last sims you have SB locked at completing with 76% of their range? Is this based on the idea that the player will complete their entire range and never jam? That doesn't seem realistic to me as I'd imagine population shoves pairs, Ax and broadway combos at some frequency from the SB and these combos would be removed from the completing range. 

 

If we use this as an example of a player that basically just shoves their good hands and completes with speculative hands (with a small % trap with monsters), the BB response is to jam everything because with the exception of the small % time there is a monster under the bed, the SB can't call the hands in green on the bubble because hero now has all the purple hands in their range and dominate it.

You're also locking the SBs response to the jam but that's based on the massive limp range to start and that they're going to call it off with a big % of that range as well, both of which seems strange. If a player is going to limp/call a jam, would they not just jam in the first place? (with the exception of slow played monsters x% of the time).

Again, I've not played €1 SNGs in a long time and can't calculate the Unibet effect of the quality of the player pool but limp/jamming J6s or T7o doesn't sound like population on the bubble.