SPR "debunked"?

jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
I read that on another site somewhere recently, can't recall where. Anyone know anything about this?


  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You don't give us much info to work with haha. Hopefully a redchipper will have read it, see your post and give us a link *finger crossed*
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 530 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019
    Found an article about how the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve has less of an application in the modern energy environment. Was this what you meant? :)

    In all seriousness, I have not come across anything like this.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,337 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's hard to debunk a ratio, but the point was likely the following:
    -Stacks are often misused in weak strategies and have been since forever
    -solves have turned weak players, who got caught in SPR disasters, around, as
    -easily employable optimal strategies handle stacks really well
    -ergo, someone offers the opinion that SPR is unimportant.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @persuadeo : do you habe the source as well? Thx in advance
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,337 ✭✭✭✭✭
    no, but I hear it from time to time, and the reasoning runs along these lines.

    I'm not scouring the internet to find someone who is wrong.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think the context was not SPR per se (you're correct persuadeo, a ratio can't be debunked, I've made this argument before myself to people who were skeptical of SPRs.) I think it had to do more with the commitment thresholds and associated recommended actions at various SPRs.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,337 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sure, generalities like commitment thresholds are imprecise and make assumptions. Ultimately much of what we think about are crutches because we are not supercomputers. The solver, for instance, doesn't "think" about ideas like value bets, bluffs, balance, pot control, sprs, or any of our long list of useful simplifications, but only EV.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I found the location. As far as I can guess, I suppose what they were implying was that a solver would not necessarily play the way described in the examples for stack off decisions they way they recommended in Professional No Limit Holdem v. 1.

  • EazzyEazzy Red Chipper Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭✭
    Ive argued before that there is math behind SPR...its not god given ratio's or even Ed Miller given ratios to commit.

    I one point I worked out a formula to determine what equity will produce what spr and posted it here a long time ago....it turns out its easier to do it backwards and very obvious.

    The ration is 4 to 1 you have 4 the pots 1 the villain has 4 if you get all in you need equity of 4/9 or about 44% equity...

    If you bet pot and get shoved on then final pot is still 9 but now you only have to call 3 so is 3/9.... or about 33% equity...

    Understand equity away from the table....my top pair against flush draw with over card sets and 2 pair.....type thing....

    Match it to the SPR...away from the table...and you have a quick way to make a decision at the table.

    Buts thats all it is...the math can't be wrong...the assumption of ranges might be wrong....but the math is just math....as persuadeo says ratios can't be wrong.

    There may be short cuts that are better...I have not really found one a like for doing my homework....to me what equity I need, what equity do I have..is still what I do.....

    I do understand there are other ways to skin a cat. GTO and frequency approaches are popular....look at where does my hand rank in all the hands I could have.....what frequency do I have to bet or call so I can't be exploited...but I argue these are not the best way to maximize ev...in games where you can estimate equity well...(in fact I used to rant against it every now in then in this forum)
  • ROI RUINERROI RUINER Red Chipper Posts: 221 ✭✭
    edited August 2019
    SPR is simply a metric. All these people saying it’s debunked (being said on 2+2) are really over thinking it. Either you use SPR to make decisions or you don’t.

    Trying to equate it to pot odds or win odds or EV is showing a misunderstanding of what it is.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Lagtard wrote: »
    SPR is simply a metric. All these people saying it’s debunked (being said on 2+2) are really over thinking it.

    One person there said "SPR has been debunked " which as you said is nonsense and makes no sense. But he was responding to the first person who said "SPR stack-off thresholds are not supported by game theory and the mathematics "supporting" them are unsound".

    To be fair that's a different thing. I'm assuming what he means by stack-off thresholds as recommended in Professional No Limit Holdem. And maybe he's right about that. But if he means something else, then maybe that is nonsense too.

  • CoffeeAt3AMCoffeeAt3AM Hudson Valley, NYRed Chipper Posts: 882 ✭✭✭
    When was it bunked?
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    In Professional No Limit Holdem, of course.
  • CoffeeAt3AMCoffeeAt3AM Hudson Valley, NYRed Chipper Posts: 882 ✭✭✭
    Interesting read.
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 790 ✭✭✭
    I believe SPR is a very important to a game theoretic approach - MDF implies a stack-off range that is a function of the stack to pot ratio. That range is also a function of the board texture so there is no simple mapping between hand strength and SPR, which I guess is the original point.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yeah, I mean directly or indirectly solvers must in some way take SPR into account in the algorithm. It's probably not called SPR but still the relation of the stack size to the pot size has to be accounted for in one way or another when it makes its decision.

Leave a Comment

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