| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Jan 2007, 3:45pm Post subject: SAGE System for Heads Up Play |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 319
WPP: 206
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
Check out the SAGE system.
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15250
Basically it assigns point values to the hand you are dealt, and you either shove/don't shove based on the lowest stack's (which could be you OR the opp) chipcount to the blinds ratio and the points you hold. It seems to work well for me when the blinds have gotten huge and there is no more maneuverability for mind games.. What do you guys think? Have you seen it before? It only applies when the lowest stack is 7xBB or less. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Jan 2007, 4:33pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 2626
WPP: 120
Location: GO BUCKS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Jan 2007, 7:10pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 319
WPP: 206
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
Thanks.
Any discussion necessary or is this a straight-up solution to all HU games given the requirements? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Jan 2007, 7:16pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 2626
WPP: 120
Location: GO BUCKS!
|
|
| It is unbeatable in the long run. That doesn't mean that you will win each time you use it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Jan 2007, 7:17pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 319
WPP: 206
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
| So it's always +EV, and thus the correct play at all times given the starting requirements. Just wanted to make sure that nobody else does anything differently. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Jan 2007, 7:24pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 2626
WPP: 120
Location: GO BUCKS!
|
|
| Xioustic wrote: | | So it's always +EV, and thus the correct play at all times given the starting requirements. Just wanted to make sure that nobody else does anything differently. |
Exactly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Jan 2007, 7:32pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 319
WPP: 206
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
| Why is this play not written somewhere on this site, or not stickied somewhere? I mean, this is the answer to all things HU at the end of half or more of our SnGs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 3:42am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 1109
WPP: 137
|
|
| Quote: | | The system is designed to work when the ratio of the smaller stack to the big blind is less than about 10 to 1 - for example, when the big blind has climbed to 1,000 chips and one player has fewer than 10,000 remaining. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 4:02am Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 319
WPP: 206
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
| arkana wrote: | | Quote: | | The system is designed to work when the ratio of the smaller stack to the big blind is less than about 10 to 1 - for example, when the big blind has climbed to 1,000 chips and one player has fewer than 10,000 remaining. | |
Right, when the smallest stack ratio to the big blind is 7xBB or less this system comes into play. This requirement is fulfilled for more than half of the turbo SnG games and probably a bit less than half the normal SnG games by the time they both reach HU, making it some really good information to have under your belt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 4:18am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 1109
WPP: 137
|
|
| I wasn't trying to imply its not useful, just felt that it should be made clear that its only applicable for short stacks. I see you did actually include that in your OP, sorry I missed it originally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 9:57am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 950
WPP: 159
|
|
| Xioustic wrote: | | So it's always +EV, and thus the correct play at all times given the starting requirements. Just wanted to make sure that nobody else does anything differently. |
It is not always the correct play. It happens to mimick an equilibrium strategy whereby if your opponent deviates from it you will make money. However, If they are deviating from the strategy this does not mean equilibrium play is correct (although it will be +EV)
To see this imagine a graph of the line y=x. (You will probably have to draw this graph as you read). This line represents equilibrium strategy. I.e. the line where your opponent can do no better than you unless he also steps onto the line. But if he is way off the line in some direction then, whilst you make money from the line, there may be other more optimal points upon which to place yourself.
Now lets make this concrete with an example assuming the relative stack is 8xBB. You can work out your optimal pushing hands using SAGE or just looking them up on SNGPT. Now imagine, as I can't remember exactly, that if your opponent is playing optimally it is correct to shove K2+, Q6+ and all better hands. (please excuse the crudeness and inaccuracy of this example, it is merely for illustration.) But what if your opponent is not??
The usual situation is that your opponent is too tight HU. If this is the case, it will likely to be correct to push a far wider range. E.g. Q2+, J7+ and others. Interestingly and perhaps intuitively obviously you must call far tighter against this same opponent. Say you find optimally it is correct to call with K4+, A2+ then against this opponent it may be necessary to call tighter, say K9+, A2+. (again remember these ranges are not even complete and are at best just illustrations.)
Against a looser opponent the converse theory should apply.
So whilst you can't make mistakes with the strategy you can lose value and hence it is not always correct in the absolute sense of the word |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 Jan 2007, 4:10am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3121
WPP: 87
Location: Dublin
|
|
good stuff ginger.
you seem to be developing quite well on the forum, hope results are going well too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 Jan 2007, 4:29am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 950
WPP: 159
|
|
Cheers chief. ROI = ridiculously unmaintainable at the $6.50s but my shots at the $16s do not go well. My last 15-20 game shot saw me getting too many 2nds and having to move down.
| Da GOAT wrote: | good stuff ginger.
you seem to be developing quite well on the forum, hope results are going well too. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 Jan 2007, 5:23am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3121
WPP: 87
Location: Dublin
|
|
| gingerwizard wrote: | Cheers chief. ROI = ridiculously unmaintainable at the $6.50s but my shots at the $16s do not go well. My last 15-20 game shot saw me getting too many 2nds and having to move down.
| Da GOAT wrote: | good stuff ginger.
you seem to be developing quite well on the forum, hope results are going well too. | |
sure but post just the HU section of the HH's. HU isnt all push/fold for me, i have more 1st's than 2nd's. it just is basically experience in the end, i like to avoid BE spots or flips HU. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 31 Jan 2007, 5:40am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 950
WPP: 159
|
|
| no point mate. They were all pretty much variance jobs. JJvs33, AQvsT8 and that sort of thing. Pleased to get it all in and pissed at the outcome. We've all been there. If those 2 had have held up, my shot would have worked out much better, but thats fine. Happy to crush the $6.50s till i clear my Bonus. At least playing that way will give me a decent sample size. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
