| Archive for Tagpoker Forum A friendly place for winning poker players to share their strategy to making money playing poker. |
| TDoodle |
Sage and NashI googled them, what is a good site to read about them? There is so many out there |
||||||
| BetMagicMoney |
this site explains what they are 
http://justplaypoker.net/2009/07/nash-equilibrium-sage/ |
||||||
| dzikijohnny |
These should help
Finishing an opponent http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com...ads-up-sage-nash-chubukov-560408/ |
||||||
| TDoodle |
(two part) Question about SAGE:
for the 'R' it is the effective stack at the table that is used, correct? if yes.... then lets say the blinds are 50/100, SB has 600 then it is 6, if he has 500, then it is 5.....but if it is lets say 575, then you just round to 6? if it is 530, then you round to 5? More or less what I'm asking is, if the stack isn't exactly on, then you round the stack, less than 49 you round down, 50+, you round up? I hope I didn't make that too confusing. |
||||||
| icemanv6 |
I've never used SAGE, I just use NASH because I find it much much easier. | ||||||
| Wannawin |
ditch sage unless you want help with live games imo | ||||||
| Wannawin |
ditch sage unless you want help with live games imo | ||||||
| YATHINNK |
and even then, after using Nash enough you can pretty much remember the numbers anyway. |
||||||
| TDoodle |
SAGE seems easier to remember tho |
||||||
| BetMagicMoney |
sage is just a less acurate version of nash! its is a way of working out a rough nash push/fold for your ha on the fly, however if you grinding on a pc, just have the webpage up with the chart and use that as its much better! i prefer ROFL to nash/sage/chubicof as its much better imo | ||||||
| owzthat |
the thing with using these "unexploitable" push/fold methods is that the opponent has to be push/folding to the same spec as you. I wouldnt stick right to it rather look over it and see what sort of hands you should be pushing with what effective stack size to get a good idea and then change it tighter/looser depending on your opponents calling range. | ||||||
| butitwassooted |
|
||||||
| sausage |
As others have said you should never need to use Nash when playing online as you can have the Nash chart open or printed out.
BMM - wtf is ROFL? |
||||||
| BetMagicMoney |
its somthing that mersenneary over at HUSNG.com came up with. It stands for, Raise Open shove Fold Limp its a system that saids at low blinds some hands you do differrent things dephending on how your oppoent is reacting. its an exploitable stratagie rather than an inexbloitable strat |
||||||
| genher |
What does that mean?
Raise (min) Openshove Fold Limp It's a end game strategy designed by Mersenneary. In very short, he says that Nash is unexploitable but very UNoptimal. (in fact Nash is -EV in SB >7~8BB deep!!) If you are not playing Phil Ivy, why on earth would you want to play unexploitably? You should be playing optimally!! Also he disagrees that push fold are the only options when stacks are shallow. You should also have a min Raising range, an Openshoving range, a Folding range and a limping range : ROFL. Of course these ranges are opponent dependant. Mersenneary made 2 end game videos on HUSNG.com (can I say that here?) where he discusses the method in great length. Personally, I think this is a very intelligent and logical approach. Some o f the concepts might be a bit hard to grasp at first if you are a beginner or not too math inclined. (When they first calculated the Nash tables Bill Chen and Jerod Ankenman wrote that they could not find any advantage in min raising or limping shallow but I think their approach was very "equilibrium math orientated" and probably a bit too removed from real play. Nevertheless that could be an argument against the method.) |
||||||
| Brokerstar |
I thought it meant rolling on the floor laughing??!! I learn something new every day. 
Mers seems like a super smart guy and I only hear positive things about him so anything he says is surely worth looking into more. |
||||||
| sausage |
Oops typo, should read "As others have said you should never need to use Sage when playing online" |
||||||
| sausage |
Long time since I have been on husng.com. Definitely worth taking a closer look at Mers' ideas. I would say that it is pretty obvious to most serious HU players that Nash is often not going to be the most optimal line so there is nothing really new there. I have some doubts that Nash is -EV from the SB at approx > 7-8bb, but its fairly easy to check so I will work that one out for myself. |
||||||
| BetMagicMoney |
yer nash is -EV at <7-8BBs, though you have to point out that while it may be -EV its not as -EV as folding.
For example at @6BB 74s is a shove, while alot of people could look at that and with out doing any math work out in there head that its not going to be +EV, but the EV from it might be -0.2BBs, compare this to folding which is -0.5BBs (because we fold our small blind) clearly shoving is the better option as it loses you less if people are intrested i'll right an arcticle about ROFL and how to use it |
||||||
| forced |
please do.. |
||||||
| genher |
No, you're right, it's nothing new but he explains it very well and has given it a nice catchy title (ROFL). That said it might be new to a lot of people... |
||||||
| sausage |
The EV of folding will always be 0 as EV only takes into account future actions so for an action to be better than folding it must be +EV (you cannot take into account chips which are already committed). |
||||||
| sausage |
I have tested this just to make sure my initial impression was correct & I am now confident that this statement is not correct. Nash is +EV at 8bb deep, 12bb deep & 20bb deep & of course all the bb levels in between. I believe the confusion arises due to the chips already committed to the pot & possibly incorrect definitions of EV. You may well end up with less chips than you started the hand with by pushing a Nash range, but as long as the expected outcome is better than folding the action is +EV. As stated earlier in the thread by several people Nash is often not the most +EV line. However, I would argue that for 90%+ of winning players at the $10 or below HUSNG level sticking to Nash will be more profitable than trying to create your own optimal range v your specific opponent. ROFL may well help to define a better range, but not having seen it I can't really comment (other than Mers seems to be a very smart guy so I expect it to be good). |
||||||
| genher |
True and false. You can say that your EV of folding=O (and we usually do)But if you consider your EV from start of the hand then you can also say that folding SB is -0.5 and foding BB -1. The later makes it easier to compare strategies (for instance if you want to compare the EV of folding your BB compare to EV of calling). It is also a very commun method (card runnerEV uses it for instance). It doesn't really matter what method you use as long as you are consistent in your comparaison. |
||||||
| sausage |
You are correct in saying that it doesnt matter how we do this as long as we understand the definition we are using. The danger comes when someone reads that Nash is -EV at 7-8bb & then comes to the conclusion that this is not therefore a profitable strategy. In both poker and finance EV is calculated based upon future decisions and as posting a blind is a forced action & therefore in the past it cannot effect EV. If it helps to evaluate a strategy to include the SB in your calc then by all means use it, but folding will still always be 0 EV (using the correct definition of EV). CREV takes into account the blinds when looking at the overall gain/loss from a particular strategy. However, it correctly only looks at future actions when calculating the EV of a decision (i.e. it does not calculate "EV" taking into account the blinds) |
||||||
| BetMagicMoney |
very true, EV when done properlly shouldn' account for past actions, however when consdering a push fold if you don't conciderr your forced bet then your calculations for your stratagie becomes wrong.
So in this situation your looking and the profibility of an entire stratergie so you must conceridder the forced bet. |
||||||
| sausage |
Nope, the strategy is still either +EV or -EV, taking into account future actions. I believe you have CREV, test it out yourself. |
||||||
| genher |
In my mind, EV was the calculation of a set of events that includes random variables, in the long run. I didn't think past or future had anything to do with it. When you calculate EV, you often have variables and constants. Aren't past event just another constant? When you calculate a post flop EV with CREV you can include the pre flop action (past?) or not. Isn’t that the same thing?
I can't see why you can't evaluate the EV of a strategy as a whole!? why is that not “proper” EV? Anyhow, this argument is probably beside the point and you have a math background (I think??) so I could very probably be wrong. Nevermind… I don’t mean to pick on you sausage, but I also disagree with that statement:
Surely $10 players and under are playing a more suboptimal end-game that $200 players (on average obv). Therefore it’s even more important not to use Nash at the lower level because you can do much much better without it. ROFL is (I believe) just an attempt to systematize playing end-game more optimally than playing blindly a suboptimal Nash push/fold chart. Some of the ideas might take a bit of time to grasp for a beginner but most of it is quite simple and certainly not ground braking! Some of the ideas have been used by many good players for ages. Let’s take a simple example: You are in the SB w KQo, 8 BB deep, your opponent is aggressive and you have been playing a bit tightish. Compare both techniques: If you decide to play unexploitable Nash and open shove your KQ it’s easy, even for a beginner (I assume it’s what you mean by “$10 player and under"), to see why it would be much better (optimal) to limp or minraise. Notably, villain will sometimes shove over the top with hands that he would have folded to an openshove and that you beat. A fold bring the same result than the Nash chart and a call is likely to your advantage too. Obviously he’ll shove hands that beat you, but he would have call with them anyhow if you played Nash. I don’t believe it’s beyond anyone grasp?! It’s certainly easy to see why in that case playing blindly the Nash push/fold chart will do worst than ROFL. |
||||||
| nachtwacht |
I think you are making several errors here. First of all, by the time you are 8BB deep, Nash will have prevented you from playing tightish. Playing tightish by the time you get 8BB deep is probably an error in anyones book. But since it's just an example, lets forget about that nitpick. So we have KQ and we limp because we think this can give us more profit. As you allready stated, NASH is not optimal so nobody is saying that there are not better ways to play your KQ. However, to keep the discussion simple, what do we do with Q7o ? J7s ? Q4s ? We can not limp / call shove with those can we ? Fold ? We are going to give up a lot of blind money if we start folding those.... So what do we do ? For those we DO use Nash ? That will have us playing the following strategy: Anything we do not feel comfortable with - We play Nash Big hands - We limp hoping to be calling a shove Does that sound like a good strategy to anybody ? Be are basicaly playing our hands face up this way. Even at the $10 level 80% of people will pick up on that. Especialy since it is very common for people to play big hands weak to trap..... So another good reason for playing basic Nash is that nobody will know what you are shoving. Hence, unexploitable... unless you start changing it... then it will become very exploitable if you do it in the way you discribe. The power of Nash also lies in the fact that with very weak hands that you would otherwise not play you now pick up pots because people have a tendency to fold to much. That fact alone makes playing Nash +EV. |
||||||
| genher |
lol. Of course you have to balance your ranges. I assumed it was obvious.
Also you forgot the minraise option. Anyways, I was just explaining what ROFL was because someone asked. Anyone interested should get it directly from the coach at HUSNG who came up with it and not me. As I said this is a valid aproach that many winning players have been using for ages. Vs 90% of the players there is no need whatsoever to play unexploitably your just losing tons of value. |
||||||
| nachtwacht |
Options options, so many options.... literaly hundreds of options if we take post flop play into consideration.....
How nice is the simplisity of Nash.... |
||||||
| genher |
Playing the flop 8bb deep with 2 bb in the pot is simple. If anyone could just follow blindly a chart and make money at poker the game would have died ages ago. No secret magic formula to make money in this game...that's the beauty of it... sorry, to be hard, but following blindly a chart and expecting to print money is a lazy aproach. One point we all seem to agree on, is that it's more optimal to exploit your opponent than playing unexploitably. So I really can't understand the resistance to the concept of ROFL!? Also, he just hit me this afternoon: Nash IS not +EV. It simply cannot be by definition, otherwise it would not be an equilibrium 
|
||||||
| nachtwacht |
Yes, we all agree on that but we seem to disagree on the ability of Hero. I think that most Hero's will do just as well if not better and do it far more easy by following Nash than when they would by adapting to opponents. If Hero was good at adapting, he would easily surpass the $10 level.
Wich means you don't understand it
Nash is an equilibrium IF and only IF villain would also exactly play according to Nash. And thats where the value of simply playing Nash comes from. Villains don't play Nash so you automaticaly make a profit. You could make more... but the question is, how much, and how good would you need to be to be able to do that. |
||||||
| genher |
no it means you don't understand what I am talking about. Read previous posts! we were purely talking about the EV calculation of pushing nash from SB when 8BB deep. That has nothing to do with how villain plays. The "correct" play in poker is the one that bring the biggest +EV and not one that just bring any +EV result.
this is not enough, you should be aiming to play another way if this means a bigger +EV. I am sure that $10 players and under also want to improve their abilities. I don't see how arguing for them to play suboptimally because it's easier will help them. You seem to think that $10 players are not smart enough to understand the (relatively) simple concept of ROFL. I disagree! In a nutshell, ROFL is simply, in end-game, asking yourself the question: could I do better by min raising or limping in that situation than by just push/folding Nash? Let's be honest here: how many people trully understand Nash equilibrium and game theory?? How many have any idea how this chart is constructed? I had a very respectable player as a HUSNG coach 1.5 years ago. This was the first thing he told me. Do you have a Nash chart? I answered yes. He said good...tear it off now you will play your opponent instead! The concept is not new... |
||||||
| sausage |
You are correct in your assertion that opponents at $10 and lower are likely to be playing more suboptimally than opponents at the $200 level in general therefore we have more to gain in theory by deviating from Nash & exploiting our opponents. However, as we are playing the $10 level ourselves and not the $200 level I would argue that the mistakes we make overall will more than compensate for any gain we make by choosing a theoretically more optimal line preflop. As I said earlier in the thread I have not seen ROFL so this may be a very useful strat to improve on Nash (note in my earlier post I refer to creating your own optimal range). Don't have the time or inclination to comment any further on how to calculate EV. |
||||||
| sausage |
To see why this is incorrect think about a game of poker where neither player posts a blind and both players have 100 chips. A random person walks past & donates 10000 chips to the pot. The optimal equilibrium strategy here for both players is clearly for the first to act to shove 100% of his range and the second player to call with 100% of his range. We have an equilibrium strategy where both players make massively +EV plays. This example also holds true for real life examples with realistic blinds and stack sizes. If you have CREV you can test it with that. If not you can also prove it using Excel. |
||||||
| nachtwacht |
This is exactly what I tried to say.... in a lot less words though
|
||||||
| genher |
Yes, my sentence was badly worded. You are correct, They both make a +EV play but none of them has an advantage on the other player! And this is the point I was trying to make. Lots of people are not aware that Nash does not give them an advantage! You guys are advising people to follow a strategy that give them an advantage if and only if their opponent happen to play badly (he forgot to print the chart or something?) vs a strategy that could exploit their weakness. I believe you should be trying to beat your opponent and not just wait for him to loose just because the former could potentially be more difficult. In regards to the argument of not trying to exploit your opponent because it might cost you more: if you don’t know what to do w your Q7o using a ROFL kind of approach nothing stops you, then, from using Nash. |
||||||
| nachtwacht |
And again, it DOES give you an advantage against your opponent. The only moment where Nash does not give you an advantage is when villain plays optimaly against you by using Nash for calling your shoves. Since nobody does, it therefore does give you an advantage. |
||||||
| genher |
exactly my point you build a strategy that work only if your opponent doesn't play well instead of building a strategy to beat him. The only thing your opponent has to do to neutralize your advantage is print the chart himself. easy...It's lazy and you're leaving tons of money on the table. GL |
||||||
| nachtwacht |
ok, so you follow Nash for calling shoves then ? No you don't. Why don't you ? (and why doesn't anybody, atleast not at the lower levels) Because you have no clue if your villain is realy using Nash to push or not. Because if you think he is, but he is not, you start calling way to wide.... So since villain is not playing his cards face up, and not giving you a notice that he is using Nash for pushing, you will not start calling using Nash, just like nobody does. So your argument makes no sence since nobody neutralizes it. And that is exactly why it is indeed a lazy way to play your endgame but there are very good reasons for doing so: nobody is arguing that it can be more profitable to deviate fron Nash but we are definetly having an argument about how much more profitabvle it is. I (and others) think it is (very) marginal, and the lower level you are playing, it gets more and more marginal. Depending on your own skill, it is likely more profitable to play Nash than your own way. I definetly think that all players playing the low and mid stakes will benifit more by focusing on other parts of their game to advance through the levels. There are many places where players can improve. If we can "forget" about the endgame for now, with the limited time most players have, they will have more time to focus on other area's untill they advance to a level where it will benifit to focus on their endgame. Anyway, it has been a fun argumentation. Lots of back and forth wich I like since many people often ask about Nash. Reading this thread they should be able to make their own conclusions. |
||||||
| genher |
Your statement is wrong DUCY? Clue: In a Nash equilibria the player losing value is the one deviating from the equilibrium strategy. |
||||||
| nachtwacht |
Wich is exactly what I am saying..... and is exactly the error every villain is making 99.9% of the time. Therefore, there is more than enough value in using Nash for your small blind game. |