snowie not polarized range

star681star681 Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
i may be wrong but snowies pre flop ranges (from what i have seen so far) are not polarized (unless u count AsmallSuited 3bet , but other then that not polarized.

what does that say if anything about having a polarized range, extream poles.

it does merge its range pre, so I guess it chks off on that box. (not that it is perfect, but looking at this from a fixed variable of snowie plays perfect,,,just go with it......it chooses not to play the poles. hmmmm,,,,u would think espiacially since it only plays its self, and knows the ranges, it would polorize, taking advantage of knowing every combo the other it could have, then agin it uses form and not combos. why does it not polorize pre? what does that say about weather we should...i guess it might be table specgic
«1

Comments

  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    star681 wrote: »
    why does it not polorize pre? what does that say about weather we should...i guess it might be table specgic

    because it's database shows higher EV with more linear ranges

  • star681star681 Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
    therefore why polarize?
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 563 ✭✭✭
    The dataset its been exposed to hasnt incentivized it to do so (yet).
  • star681star681 Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2018
    Wiki_Leaks wrote: »
    The dataset its been exposed to hasnt incentivized it to do so (yet).

    While this is true you seem to be implying that Snowie is wrong 3Bing linear because somehow it hasn't trained enough or vs the right villains?

    If you look at what solver ranges, and most HSNL online players are doing - you will see that they are also 3B linear in most situations.
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 563 ✭✭✭
    My writing was imprecise and you caught me red handed :) . What I meant to convey was more along the lines of "all options are on the table." as far as betting polarized vs linear/merged.

    I've only really looked at formations involving the bb 3bet strategy, and like most GTO solutions its an insanely complicated mixed strategy of a lot of linear combinations but also includes quite a few polarized hands. however, in practice and at shallower stack depths that may or may not be the best strategy.

    I was certainly surprised by the amount of merged 3bets, even at lower stack depths from the bb. if you have researched the theory behind this I'm certainly intrigued.
  • star681star681 Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
    emmmm ....post flop skill edge combined with FoldEQ PRE?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Assuming you play perfectly and opponents are attempting an unexploitable defense it will always be more logical to push value at a higher price from any position. It's practically the definition of +ev.

    Which is why polarization is better from the blinds back here on earth.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Which is why polarization is better from the blinds back here on earth.

    Why?

    If solvers, DB review, MSNL+ players online are supporting 3Bing a linear range here on earth - I think you might want to reconsider.

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • star681star681 Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
    "from any postion" BOOM! .......and its PERSUADEO switches to southpaw , and blasts the poker world square in the nuts!111. that took balls. any FING POSTION, thats wbats up!111 one of the few,,, indeed
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    I just explained why.

    Assuming you play perfectly and opponents are attempting an unexploitable defense it will always be more logical to push value at a higher price from any position. It's practically the definition of +ev./quote]

    So we shouldn't push value as our #1 exploit in most player pools? I find many players call 3Bs too wide and don't 4B very aggressively therefore I think there can be many reasons to 3B linear or what I used to call 3B wide value.

    So to invert your statement - assuming nobody plays prefect it will always be more logical to not push value(polarize) - I just don't understand how you are explaining why you think we should polarize?

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭✭✭
    First of all who is this player We and why does he suck so much?

    You should play as linnearly as possible but most players should definitely not. The postflop implications of ending up oop with marginal value are very complex and the edges are too slim to tell people to just go down this road in good faith.
  • star681star681 Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
    on a seperate note.....about EV. when talking about EV i think people are talking about the EV of a hand. (a real concreate hand) .......lets say a table is mostly not showing down. then what is the term for finding +EV in a situation? is that just called FE?(fold equity)
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    First of all who is this player We and why does he suck so much?

    You should play as linnearly as possible but most players should definitely not. The postflop implications of ending up oop with marginal value are very complex and the edges are too slim to tell people to just go down this road in good faith.

    So this seems along the lines of 3B polarized so you will "know where you are at" with the bottom parts of your range and therefore make less mistakes. I might be swayed that there is some merit to polarizing for newer/weaker players.

    My interest these days is only on how to make my own game as strong as possible so I will keep 3Bing linear, and you can polarize and we can compare our databases this time next year(if you play online?). Maybe we can both learn something useful from each other.

    I am now reminded of old 2+2 thread where Balugawhale posed a question of weather we should prefer to 3B 76s or K7s(don't recall exact hands). He argued to 3B the K7s. There was some debate from other well know HSNL players of the time. Funny to think now many years later solvers now support his arguments.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    star681 wrote: »
    on a seperate note.....about EV. when talking about EV i think people are talking about the EV of a hand. (a real concreate hand) .......lets say a table is mostly not showing down. then what is the term for finding +EV in a situation? is that just called FE?(fold equity)


    EV includes both fold equity, and pot equity.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Yes he is/was a poker genius.

    Is he still playing?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • MidnightFoxMidnightFox Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2018
    @persuadeo
    I haven’t even thought about this.

    I remember Phil Galfond talked about this. In this video, he said that it’s harder for your opponents to play against when we are unpolarized, but he didn’t expressly state if it would be harder for us to play that way—I guess that’s the part I didn’t think about. He did say it was lower variance and thus would keep you in a tourney of weak players longer. I should have put it together. In general the video was kinda mysterious to me. For sure, I didn’t really get it.



    Now, you just stated that this is if our opponents are trying to play an unexploitable defense and we play very well, we should be unpolarized. This fits the video, because as I mentioned he says against weaker players you don’t need to bother being unpolarized.

    This seems like a pretty big leak that I haven’t really gotten this. When we do take this route, it will bring up allot more scenarios wherein we will be taking decent hands that could be showdown hands, and turning them into bluffs because of range considerations—or rather more denying equity with a decent hand and not loving a call if we get one(this reminds me of Janda who is assuming everyone is playing optimally); and inversely going for thinner value.
    :Jd :Tc
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    That video was from 5 years ago, and only represents his thoughts at that time.
  • MidnightFoxMidnightFox Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2018
    kenaces wrote: »
    That video was from 5 years ago, and only represents his thoughts at that time.
    His philosophy videos are that old(older), and they are still amazing.
    What about this advice is suppose to change after 5 years? Has he renounced polarization against easy players, and unpolarization against tough ones with thinner edges?(PLO works differently of course, which is his thing now)
    :Jd :Tc
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Assuming you play perfectly and opponents are attempting an unexploitable defense it will always be more logical to push value at a higher price from any position. It's practically the definition of +ev.

    Which is why polarization is better from the blinds back here on earth.

    1)Polar from the blinds because it is not a waste (of co or button),, attempt to end it pre and no big deal dropping to a 4bet. Is that inline w/ what your saying sir?

    2)" it will always be more logical to push value at a higher price from any position.",but "value" changes at each position, correct?

    What I am saying, among other things, is that playing out of the blinds suffers from the disadvantage of position (obviously). When you 3 bet linnearly you are in essence pushing marginal value. So you must play postflop ever more perfectly should you be going down this road. Or to restate, that is where the higher EV derives from, because when you are three betting linear correctly, you'll be pricing in opponents more, unlike the larger sizings a purely polarized range supports.
  • MidnightFoxMidnightFox Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
    @persuadeo
    Linear can be top-heavy and strong, or it can be wider and thus “merged”, right? In both cases they are the top-X% of hands/uncapped—they are just using a different scope to define it.

    Janda’s categories are Linear, Polarized, and Condensed(or capped), so merged would fall under Linear.

    So, let me see if I can get this right...
    Our bets, largest to smallest, fall into this order:
    1. Polarized
    2. Merged Unpolarized(broad linear)
    3. Strong linear


    :Jd :Tc
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭
    kenaces wrote: »
    That video was from 5 years ago, and only represents his thoughts at that time.
    His philosophy videos are that old(older), and they are still amazing.
    What about this advice is suppose to change after 5 years? Has he renounced polarization against easy players, and unpolarization against tough ones with thinner edges?(PLO works differently of course, which is his thing now)
    :Jd :Tc

    HSNL has change a lot in the last 5 years!

    I have no idea what PG thinks now or if he even plays much NLH. Just saying that some 5 minute youtube clip from 5 years ago isn't really worth much imo.
  • halakoo hulkhalakoo hulk Red Chipper Posts: 1
    I also have no knowledge that what PG thinks or How Much NLH does.
«1

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file