The Philosopher's Stone - April 2013 wrap-up

Originally posted by belthazorrrr
If you are in ATC as you should his call is good

Seriously?

Originally posted by MilanBurdych

Originally posted by belthazorrrr
If you are in ATC as you should his call is good

Seriously?

If I'm on ATC (as i am ofc), its over -1%

So, really, seriously, belthazorrrr

hahaha hes right Depends what model you use
But its very thin call still.

Deafult ICM:

Ben Roberts:

It wasnt suited, m8

Do you guys trust that Ben Roberts algorithm? It produces some strange results for me. Like 3 equal stacks on 6max bubble at t100, BTN Nash push is 22% and Roberts suggests 58% vs same Nash ranges

Originally posted by dydukas
Do you guys trust that Ben Roberts algorithm? It produces some strange results for me. Like 3 equal stacks on 6max bubble at t100, BTN Nash push is 22% and Roberts suggests 58% vs same Nash ranges

It depends heavily on how often blinds collide if you fold. For example, if you leave the blinds calling ranges the same, but adjust BB pushing range (if BU folds) from initial NASH 77% to 50% (but leaving the SB calling range intact), then BU profitable range is over 90%.

But do you guys use the Ben Roberts algorithm? I'd rather use HoldemResources FGS for smaller stacksizes. Here's an Ben Roberts article: http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/en-us/articles/ben-roberts-icm-model/

Yeh I know that but I leave the ranges all the same just alter the model and the results are vastly different.

Originally posted by dydukas
Yeh I know that but I leave the ranges all the same just alter the model and the results are vastly different.

Yeah, but changing the model does change the ranges anyway?

So with 5 bbs do you fold ace high cards? Gl

Originally posted by belthazorrrr
So with 5 bbs do you fold ace high cards? Gl

Good to see there are some nice money at hypers comin from u

Y i like donating

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas
Yeh I know that but I leave the ranges all the same just alter the model and the results are vastly different.

Yeah, but changing the model does change the ranges anyway?

No, the ranges are from Nash equilibrium. Just switching the models to see what I can push there

Originally posted by dydukas
Do you guys trust that Ben Roberts algorithm? It produces some strange results for me. Like 3 equal stacks on 6max bubble at t100, BTN Nash push is 22% and Roberts suggests 58% vs same Nash ranges

i rly like more BR range here, esp in hypers

Originally posted by dydukas

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas
Yeh I know that but I leave the ranges all the same just alter the model and the results are vastly different.

Yeah, but changing the model does change the ranges anyway?

No, the ranges are from Nash equilibrium. Just switching the models to see what I can push there

Just to understand you correctly: you take the Ben Roberts model's Nash equilibrium?

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas
Yeh I know that but I leave the ranges all the same just alter the model and the results are vastly different.

Yeah, but changing the model does change the ranges anyway?

No, the ranges are from Nash equilibrium. Just switching the models to see what I can push there

Just to understand you correctly: you take the Ben Roberts model's Nash equilibrium?

6max t100 equal stacks bubble

I take these calling/over pushing/over calling ranges and look at ICMizer what I can push from BTN profitably using both models.

And I agree with herek that BR seems more reasonable at hypers.

Originally posted by dydukas

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas
Yeh I know that but I leave the ranges all the same just alter the model and the results are vastly different.

Yeah, but changing the model does change the ranges anyway?

No, the ranges are from Nash equilibrium. Just switching the models to see what I can push there

Just to understand you correctly: you take the Ben Roberts model's Nash equilibrium?

6max t100 equal stacks bubble

I take these calling/over pushing/over calling ranges and look at ICMizer what I can push from BTN profitably using both models.

And I agree with herek that BR seems more reasonable at hypers.

So you take the ICM Nash ranges, lock all the ranges besides the BU, and calculate the BU range in Ben Roberts model (having locked all the other ranges taken from ICM Nash)?

And why is it more reasonable at hypers? It shouldn't make any difference. The only difference is the bigger chance of blind increase in the same orbit and since you dont input blind-level increase time, the models dont take into account that

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas

Originally posted by Luupainaja

Originally posted by dydukas
Yeh I know that but I leave the ranges all the same just alter the model and the results are vastly different.

Yeah, but changing the model does change the ranges anyway?

No, the ranges are from Nash equilibrium. Just switching the models to see what I can push there

Just to understand you correctly: you take the Ben Roberts model's Nash equilibrium?

6max t100 equal stacks bubble

I take these calling/over pushing/over calling ranges and look at ICMizer what I can push from BTN profitably using both models.

And I agree with herek that BR seems more reasonable at hypers.

So you take the ICM Nash ranges, lock all the ranges besides the BU, and calculate the BU range in Ben Roberts model (having locked all the other ranges taken from ICM Nash)?

And why is it more reasonable at hypers? It shouldn't make any difference. The only difference is the bigger chance of blind increase in the same orbit and since you dont input blind-level increase time, the models dont take into account that

Yes.

Yes, those are only algorithms to calculate ICM. Not really different models. I wonder why I get such different results. And yeah, because of the blind increase

Hi!

I have a good news and a bad news.

Good news - I made 26th in stars Earth division high orbit leaderboard last week, which is the highest place for me so far.

Bad news - this is my leg:

Bad landing in a basketball game last night. It was one fucking painful landing indeed! But all in all its not that bad as it felt. Some small fractions of the bone are loose, but no op needed, just a plaster casting for couple of weeks.

moar time for poker? how hypers are goin mate?

Originally posted by herekPL
moar time for poker? how hypers are goin mate?

Hi!

Hypers are sooo much fun! Dont know how i'm doing this month, i'm not looking at the results at all.

Only ev occasionally