Originally posted by Kyyberi
The theory of EV line being flawed when you are pot committed but not all in is false. When you miss, it gives a bit of "false" information, but when you hit it evens out. For side pots, you can easily check it instead of wondering if it is. I would assume your EV line goes down too?
Pot-committed but not all-in is one scenario, but this is an example of the type of hand I'm more bothered about, as it isn't treated as an all-in within the EV calculation, presumably because there are two separate all-in points in the hand. However, I'd have expected it would be feasible for the result from my perspective to be recorded with my stats. (NB: it's the first hand of this type I encountered in the sample, so the direction of the difference isn't the issue. It's the fact that the All-In EV result isn't recorded as I'd expect it to be).
PokerStars - $0.25 PL Hi FAST (6 max) - Omaha Hi - 6 players
Hand converted by Holdem Manager 3BTN: $25.00 (100 bb)
Hero (SB): $12.50 (50 bb)
BB: $25.00 (100 bb)
UTG: $35.87 (143.5 bb)
MP: $25.00 (100 bb)
CO: $23.31 (93.2 bb)
Hero posts SB $0.10, BB posts $0.25Pre Flop: (pot: $0.35) Hero has T♦: 7♠: 5♦: 9♠:
UTG raises to $0.85, 2 folds, BTN raises to $2.90, Hero calls $2.80, fold, UTG raises to $11.85, BTN calls $8.95, Hero raises to $12.50 and is all-in, UTG calls $0.65, BTN calls $0.65Flop: ($37.75, 3 players) 3♠: 6♠: 5♣:
UTG bets $23.37 and is all-in, BTN calls $12.50 and is all-inTurn: ($62.75, 3 players) 5♠:
River: ($62.75, 3 players) K♠:
Results: $62.75 pot ($0.00 rake)
Final Board: 3♠: 6♠: 5♣: 5♠: K♠:UTG shows 3♥: A♣: K♥: A♠:: (Two Pair, Aces and Fives)
Main Pot: [$37.75]: (Pre 42%, Flop 4%, Turn 6%)
Side Pot: [$25.00]: (Pre 61%, Flop 4%, Turn 8%)BTN shows 4♦: 8♦: 7♥: J♥:: (Straight, Seven High)
Main Pot: [$37.75]: (Pre 21%, Flop 48%, Turn 0%)
Side Pot: [$25.00]: (Pre 40%, Flop 96%, Turn 92%)Hero shows T♦: 7♠: 5♦: 9♠:: (Flush, King High)
Main Pot: [$37.75]: (Pre 37%, Flop 48%, Turn 94%)BTN wins $24.60
Hero wins $36.15What I expect to be recorded here is the difference between my 37% pre-flop equity at the point I'm all-in vs the outcome of the hand (in this case I won). Below is how it actually appears in HM3.
There's no difference recorded at all, and no percentage is shown in the data table, unlike the hand shown below it.
Compared to NLHE, these scenarios are far more common playing PLO so there's a higher proportion of hands which are 'mis-recorded' in this way, which distorts the overall picture as I'd like to see it.
But, yes, to answer your question, my EV line isn't pretty
Yes. Should be very easy fold, as we shouldn't cold call 3bets unless it's very specific situation.
Originally posted by DamnG00d
Sorry to change the topic but arent we supposed to fold This hand pre?
Originally posted by Kyyberi
Yes. Should be very easy fold, as we shouldn't cold call 3bets unless it's very specific situation.
Probably not the best hand to use as an example of the All-In EV issue, but this was a very specific play based on the BTN, who's the player I have most hands on in my database (currently just over 5k), so there's a dynamic at play in our hands. There's a predictability to how he plays post-flop that gives me more leeway to play 'fit or fold', and a double suited, double gapper is just about a candidate for this, albeit it's at the marginal end of any such considerations (and probably a good example of the non-optimal loosening up of my range in the midst of a downswing that I've referenced earlier, so it's not a typical or standard part of my play by any means).
UTG is unknown, but when he re-raises and BTN calls I'm now expecting a high probability of facing two AAxx hands (I'm absolutely certain that BTN has AAxx, based on our history). I now expect to have a good amount of equity to make stacking off profitable from here.
As it turns out, I have a reasonable amount of equity, but I was astonished to see BTN's hand here, which is never a part of any range I have for him and, prior to this hand, I'd have said he was the opponent I could most reliably assign a range to.
I'm not trying to defend it, as such, and it was probably a bad example to use due to the likelihood that it would turn into a hand analysis example. In most circumstances I'm folding this, particularly as I generally look to avoid clashing with the BTN OOP too frequently. However, there was a very specific (no doubt tilt-affected) context to it at the time it was played.
Originally posted by Kyyberi
What is the reason for playing with 50bb stack?
Primarily bankroll management in the early part of the challenge (which started with $200 playing PLO10 and PLO25). It's essentially a way to get the rakeback benefits of a higher limit with lower risk, as the early part of the challenge is very much driven towards the rakeback and bonus monies funding the 'education' of rebuilding my entire thought process to adapt to the games today, rather than as they were 12 years ago.
It was also intended to provide damage limitation until I felt I was comfortable enough with my game at a full buy-in (and I still play a significant number of hands at full buy-in via this strategy).
In practical terms, having used it for a few months now, it's still the right approach for the challenge parameters I've set out. There's an obvious trade-off as the reduction in variance applies at both ends of the scale, so my winning sessions are restricted as well as the losing ones.
I originally expected there to be more upside than downside in this regard, but I've changed my view on this as there's a greater likelihood that opponents want to take a shot vs a 50BB stack than a 100BB one, so there's a greater need to get hands to hold up with lower fold equity available. The experience tells me that if I were dealt identical hands playing 50BB and 100BB stacks over a meaningful sample, I'd be rebuying more frequently in the 50BB stack game than in the 100BB game. Consequently, any advantage of buying in short and playing full stacks after doubling up is offset by the additional rebuys of playing with a 50BB stack to begin with.
Originally posted by Riffman117
[
What I expect to be recorded here is the difference between my 37% pre-flop equity at the point I'm all-in vs the outcome of the hand (in this case I won). Below is how it actually appears in HM3.
I think that HM2 actually records the hand in the way that you want to see it. HM3 chooses to partially ignore the hand because the all-in EV stat is often biased in multiway situations. eg. When one player is all-in PF and one of the remaining players fold on a subsequent street there is a natural bias to being shown stronger hands.
Originally posted by Nunki
I think that HM2 actually records the hand in the way that you want to see it. HM3 chooses to partially ignore the hand because the all-in EV stat is often biased in multiway situations. eg. When one player is all-in PF and one of the remaining players fold on a subsequent street there is a natural bias to being shown stronger hands.
Thanks. As someone who upgraded from HM2 to HM3 this might be why I expect the 'old' treatment to be adopted.
So yesterday was a day off from the bankroll challenge, as I played a live NLHE tournament, which was my first live poker since the pandemic began. I was happy with my play, but busted out on the final level of the day, so didn't get to return for day 2.
The break had come in the middle of a bit of a mini-revival of fortunes in recent days, where I've partly recovered the early February playing losses.
I'm conscious that the recent posts on this blog have been all been of the gloom and doom variety, so I wanted to take the opportunity to comment on the session I've just played, which was the 400 hand session (200 each at PLO10 and PLO25) to get a score on the daily leaderboards. For a session of that length, I think the summary of hands played is about as good as it's reasonable to expect from PLO cash games.
The hand summary is sorted by absolute size of the win/losses, which is the view I have available on-screen as I play the sessions. Normally there'd be a mix of red and green hands near the top (or more recently, a glut of red hands), but this session has the rarity of 4 all-in hands, each with 75%+ equity (unusual in itself), and all of which held up, including some played with a deep stack. The non-all in hands are also predominantly green. The biggest losing hand was one where I flopped sets of Queens and Fours but had to fold the river to a very obvious flush when the runout didn't pair. All of these were in the PLO25 game too, with the PLO10 game being less eventful, but still ending with a small profit.
If only I could run like this all the time!
The session also put a competitive score on the daily leaderboard which I expect will be good enough to earn a daily prize. All that can happen over the next 15 hours or so is that more people will post scores to drop me further down the list, so we'll see what tomorrow brings in terms of the final result. I won't even know the final place achieved as, for some reason, the PLO leaderboards only show on the Live tab, not the Completed ones, so I no longer get the luxury of seeing the final tables the following day. It's a frustrating glitch in the system since they've updated the format, but not something I've needed to worry about so far as I've been nowhere near a competitive score until today.
All in all, a rare opportunity to post some positivity into the blog, which I'm taking full advantage of while I can!
Based on the cash award of $25 I received this morning, my final place on the Daily Leaderboard yesterday was between 6th and 10th.
I must admit that I'm a little disappointed to have dropped so far, as the score I got has been sufficient to win previous leaderboards (based on a couple of occasions where the final leaderboards were visible).
When I registered the score I was initially in 2nd place. By mid-evening I was down to 3rd, which carries a $150 prize. I was hoping to hang on for a 3-figure prize but it looks like some good scores were achieved while the Superbowl was on to nudge me into the minor placings.
However, I can't complain too much. I'm happy to continue the run of at least one leaderboard prize in every month of the challenge so far, and anything won is helpful in achieving the bigger goals.
February mid-month update:
There's a little bit of optimism creeping back as we reach the mid-point of February. The first 9 days of the month brought 8 losing days out of 9 and a net loss of $426, some of which is documented in earlier posts.
Over the next 3 playing days, either side of a day off, I won $240 and felt like I'd shaken off the mental game struggles that the prolonged downswing going back into mid-January had established and I've been playing more solidly since then, in general terms. The real test of this came on Valentine's day when I managed to run $200 below EV over 1,700 hands of PLO25 played that day. The high volume played that day was because I knew my decision making was good and I felt 'in the zone' to an extent, despite the actual results repeatedly going against me. The real positive was that the day didn't bring the same triggers that have started to tilt me during the downswing, and I was able to reset and continue to make good post-flop decisions whilst pretty much laughing off seeing pots disappear in the wrong direction.
I had a similar 'mental win' in my final session yesterday where I'd quickly lost 5x50BB buy-ins in the first 100 or so hands, and was definitely showing signs of the old tilt rage by then. However, I stuck with it and ended up playing a fairly long session of 750 hands, with the resulting $12 win feeling like I'd hit the jackpot by the end of it. By the end of the session I'd been playing comfortably with a 400BB stack on one table for a prolonged period of time and, in general, I'm now much more comfortable playing stacks of this size at PLO25. This was a slightly unusual scenario too, as I had 400BB on one table and 150BB on the other one, yet the cumulative session result was close to break-even. Previously I'd have been inclined to shut down both tables in this scenario, so as not to re-open the original loss in the event of a big losing hand, but I've been much more content to continue playing due to the improved confidence in my own game.
So although the play result for the month to date is currently a $284 loss, the current direction of travel feels generally positive and a realistic goal for the remainder of the month would be to get this back to break-even by then. Given the start I had, I'd be delighted to achieve anything close to this.
On the bonus front I managed to get my 2nd Daily Leaderboard prize in 3 days yesterday, via another $25 cash on the PLO25 board. My score was actually higher than the one on Sunday, and achieved the same outcome. Both were in the 6,600's and it's becoming increasingly likely that a score over 6,700 is likely needed for the 'podium places' on the leaderboard. My single attempt at the PLO10 leaderboard yesterday was also initially in the prize positions, but I knew it wouldn't survive. My last check before bed showed it being in 21st place, so it probably got closer than I expected it to.
I also hit my first rakeback credit of the month yesterday, this one coming from the regular chest prizes after I hit the 37,500 points required at level 5. The chest prize was a little unusual this time as, instead of the expected $50 cash and 2,500 StarsCoins, I got $50 cash, 500 StarsCoins and a $20 Spin & Go ticket. It's obviously less immediately beneficial to the bankroll challenge, but has the potential to generate some upside if I can cash when I play it.
On the monthly rakeback challenge I've earned 1,728 of the 2,500 redemption points needed for the $200 rakeback credit, so still have this to come within the monthly results. I'd originally planned to go for the repeat cycle within the month too but this looks unlikely to be feasible without a massive increase in volume. To get close to it, I'd probably have to add more Zoom tables to each session. I'll assess this nearer the time once I know how many days are left after completing the first cycle. Gut feel is that it's not going to be feasible to attempt it this month, as it realistically needs regular PLO50 play to get there, which the bankroll can't yet sustain.
February cash results below:
February results summary:
Just for info, the Sportsbook free bet winnings relate to another daily promo that's currently running.
According to the blurb, it's supposed to relate to tournament play, but seems to also be being applied to cash games once a $3 rake target has been hit each day.
The end result is that I'm currently being credited with a $1 free sportsbook bet each day from Zoom hands played within the challenge. They expire within 24 hours so I'm using them for random punts, mostly on UK football matches. Any winnings are being added back into the bankroll within the bonus totals.
I'm not taking the betting too seriously, so some of the bets are obvious losers such as multi-game accas, but the odd one wins every now and then. To date, I've had $16.50 back in winnings from free bets.
Today's first session produced more of the short-term frustrations of running badly against EV, but the session itself provides a concise number of hand examples to illustrate this, as the damage was essentially done within 3 hands out of the 400 played. Rather than being a "woe is me" kind of moan about how unlucky I am there are a couple of worthwhile talking points within it, with one hand in particular being quite an eye-opener.
To begin with, here's the summary of the session in question (Eulalia is the PLO10 Zoom table, and Thyestes is the PLO25 one):
So overall, I ran $57.19 below EV, playing 50BB buy-ins ($5 and $12.50) at the two limits.
These two hands account for just over $10 each of the difference:
PokerStars - $0.25 PL Hi FAST (6 max) - Omaha Hi - 6 players
Hand converted by Holdem Manager 3
BTN: $90.94 (363.8 bb)
SB: $69.94 (279.8 bb)
Hero (BB): $12.50 (50 bb)
UTG: $25.00 (100 bb)
MP: $22.84 (91.4 bb)
CO: $35.45 (141.8 bb)
SB posts $0.10, Hero posts BB $0.25
Pre Flop: (pot: $0.35) Hero has 4♦: 5♥: A♦: A♠:
UTG raises to $0.85, 2 folds, BTN calls $0.85, fold, Hero raises to $3.50, UTG calls $2.65, BTN calls $2.65
Flop: ($10.60, 3 players) 3♦: 2♣: 7♥:
Hero bets $7.61, fold, BTN raises to $15.22, Hero calls $1.39 and is all-in
Turn: ($28.60, 2 players) 7♦:
River: ($28.60, 2 players) 3♥:
Results: $28.60 pot ($1.22 rake)
Final Board: 3♦: 2♣: 7♥: 7♦: 3♥:
Hero shows 4♦: 5♥: A♦: A♠:: (Two Pair, Aces and Sevens)
(Pre 60%, Flop 37%, Turn 0%)
BTN shows 7♣: 7♠: T♣: 9♥:: (Four of a Kind, Sevens)
(Pre 40%, Flop 63%, Turn 100%)
BTN wins $27.38
Fairly straightforward stuff. I've got draws to the wheel on the flop, so have some additional equity to backup the Aces for the OOP shove. Sod's Law that oppo has hit his set, which improves to quads.
PokerStars - $0.10 PL Hi FAST (6 max) - Omaha Hi - 6 players
Hand converted by Holdem Manager 3
BTN: $7.14 (71.4 bb)
SB: $37.77 (377.7 bb)
Hero (BB): $12.61 (126.1 bb)
UTG: $6.83 (68.3 bb)
MP: $10.34 (103.4 bb)
CO: $10.15 (101.5 bb)
SB posts $0.05, Hero posts BB $0.10
Pre Flop: (pot: $0.15) Hero has 8♦: 7♦: 5♦: 9♣:
UTG raises to $0.35, MP calls $0.35, 2 folds, SB calls $0.30, Hero calls $0.25
Flop: ($1.40, 4 players) 5♣: 6♦: 9♦:
SB checks, Hero checks, UTG bets $1.34, 2 folds, Hero raises to $5.36, UTG raises to $6.48 and is all-in, Hero calls $1.12
Turn: ($14.36, 2 players) 7♣:
River: ($14.36, 2 players) T♣:
Results: $14.36 pot ($0.61 rake)
Final Board: 5♣: 6♦: 9♦: 7♣: T♣:
Hero shows 8♦: 7♦: 5♦: 9♣:: (Straight, Ten High)
(Pre 47%, Flop 76%, Turn 68%)
UTG shows 2♣: A♦: 4♣: J♦:: (Flush, Ten High)
(Pre 53%, Flop 24%, Turn 33%)
UTG wins $13.75
This one was somewhat uglier on the run out as I successfully dodge the nut-flush draw he planned to hit, but didn't avoid his backdoor flush draw getting there.
The hand that did the most EV damage ($31.46) was one played with close to a full 100BB stack at PLO25, after I'd built up from the original 50BB starting stack:
PokerStars - $0.25 PL Hi FAST (6 max) - Omaha Hi - 6 players
Hand converted by Holdem Manager 3
BTN: $30.69 (122.8 bb)
SB: $24.11 (96.4 bb)
BB: $11.40 (45.6 bb)
UTG: $28.26 (113 bb)
MP: $26.30 (105.2 bb)
Hero (CO): $23.57 (94.3 bb)
SB posts $0.10, BB posts $0.25
Pre Flop: (pot: $0.35) Hero has K♠: A♥: A♠: 3♣:
fold, MP raises to $0.50, Hero raises to $1.85, fold, SB raises to $3.20, fold, MP calls $2.70, Hero raises to $13.05, SB calls $9.85, fold
Flop: ($29.55, 2 players) 5♥: 2♠: Q♣:
SB checks, Hero bets $10.52 and is all-in, SB calls $10.52
Turn: ($50.59, 2 players) K♦:
River: ($50.59, 2 players) T♠:
Results: $50.59 pot ($2.00 rake)
Final Board: 5♥: 2♠: Q♣: K♦: T♠:
SB shows 8♥: 9♥: T♦: 2♦:: (Two Pair, Tens and Twos)
(Pre 45%, Flop 35%, Turn 38%)
Hero shows K♠: A♥: A♠: 3♣:: (One Pair, Aces)
(Pre 55%, Flop 65%, Turn 63%)
SB wins $48.59
The flop here is pretty dry and I have a gutshot into the wheel and a backdoor nut-flush draw, so the flop shove is absolutely standard.
Having stopped shaking my head at what the SB had 4-bet then called a 5-bet with, I was really intrigued on reviewing the hand to see that he still ends up with circa 35% equity on the flop via pairing the deuce, so the final call is justified by pot odds at that point. It's one of those PLO hands where you have to look twice to see if you read the figures correctly as, when the hands are flipped over, you are simply sat there thinking "WTF?".
Looking back, it's a really good illustrative hand for those coming into PLO from NLHE to demonstrate the general point about equities running much closer. It still annoys the hell out of me to have lost it, but I can justify his flop play, at the very least.
The other general observation I wanted to make comes from looking at my EV graph over the last 3 days play, from the perspective of the bankroll challenge I'm attempting.
I'm almost $300 down vs EV over the 4,500 hands played since Monday. That's nothing in terms of sample size, and nothing out of the ordinary in terms of an EV swing playing PLO. However, its also 1.5 times my starting bankroll for this challenge, being played at the same limits I started with (albeit there's a higher proportion of PLO25 in the mix compared to the starting play). Consequently, it's a really good demonstration of how high the risk of ruin is from the challenge, and how essential it is to have the backup of the rakeback earnings to make it remotely feasible.
In more positive news, I've just played the $20 Spin & Go Ticket that was part of the latest chest prize. I won the Spin & Go but the prize is another ticket, this time a $55 satellite ticket for the Sunday Million.
Looks like there's more work to be done until I can generate any bankroll cash from it.
Is this global "run like shit February"? I am down 25 buyins for February, EV is profitable. :f_frown::f_frown::f_frown:
Originally posted by Kyyberi
Is this global "run like shit February"? I am down 25 buyins for February, EV is profitable. :f_frown::f_frown::f_frown:
Someone, somewhere is getting all this -EV money. They should start a blog for balance.
I'm going to try a small experiment based on your earlier query about the 50BB buy-ins. I've amended this to 80BB for now, but with the rebuys kicking at 50BB. I'm intrigued as to whether this will positively impact results, while still trying to protect the bankroll to some extent.
The basic logic is that there's a better chance of the first double up taking me into a 150-160BB stack, rather than a 100BB one. There seems to be a distinct difference in how opponents react, and therefore fold equity, not just between the 50BB and 100BB stacks, but again at 150BB+ (probably on several further levels above this). It's nothing more than an observation, but you've got me thinking whether I'm giving myself too much work to do by starting at 50BB.
The 3rd hand in the earlier post was the final trigger to try this, although I've been considering making a change since your earlier post. The first double up gets me to 100BB, but this can easily drift down again into the 80BB range without another meaningful hand.
I'm intrigued as to whether this makes any noticeable difference and, if so, in what direction, once we've looked beyond any short-term fluctuations either way. There's some flexibility to potentially try with regard to buy-in and rebuy points, so I'll see how it goes (first instinct was to go for 75BB, but $18.75 starting stack looks seems a very odd choice, hence the round up).
Here's to EV changes all round in the immediate future!
Originally posted by Riffman117
Originally posted by Kyyberi
Is this global "run like shit February"? I am down 25 buyins for February, EV is profitable. :f_frown::f_frown::f_frown:Someone, somewhere is getting all this -EV money. They should start a blog for balance.
That would be "Game Theory Forum Optimization" or GTFO for short 
Another day and yet more of the same thing. I evened up the proportion of PLO10 and PLO25 games, as a 25:75 split towards PLO25 was too much of strain on the bankroll at this point. 600 hands of each played to maximise the leaderboard attempts, and the end result is a further $120 of below EV results to add to the list.
The outcome is that I'm now only $75 ahead of the original start point of the challenge, so we're essentially back to square one. The immediate challenge is now to get the remaining 360 points to clear the $200 rakeback chest (approximately 3,600 hands playing equal PLO10 and PLO25, although I may have to cut down the PLO25 volume if the bankroll shrinks further and ultimately drop it out completely). It feels like a bit of a race against time on current form. If we get below $200 then I may have to look at minimising variance via the cash-out option on a more consistent basis so that I replicate the EV result. It's a last resort option, and comes at a 1% cost for each pot, but I'd have been more than $400 better off if I'd been using in since Monday.
Obviously, there's also the scenario that results will start to run a bit better over this time, but that feels like an overly ambitious expectation at the moment! 
The worst case scenario is that we end up busto on the challenge, which isn't the end of the world. If so, I'll re-assess the parameters and start again on a new challenge. It may not seem like it from the content of the blog to date, but I am generally enjoying playing a consistent volume of poker once again. Overall I need to play better, far more than I need to run better, and getting through this experience, whatever the outcome, will certainly be a step in the right direction in that regard.