Understanding the importance of Shania (theory post)

I think I'm surprised this hasnt occurred to you before.

I also think this is very cool.

Yeah look at ISF's easy guide to aggression, I realized this same thing awhile ago its pretty fucking awesome.

I just like Shania Twain!... Am, also a strictly limit player. I don't want to understand no limits. So, I'll be brief. I rarely bluff. Don't have to much. My cards stand on their merit. I do bluff sometimes, sure. Sometimes, by accident. I've stolen pots from players who just got scared and they folded. I accept gifts from above. Sometimes stone cold, with total trash. I don't know what "EV" is, exactly. Structured betting is just that. So many people x so many bets... I only play by actual people in a hand. I don't calculate implied odds either. Pardon my ignorance. Just passing through.... My favorite song by her is, The way you love me. Don't tell her husband, son, father or, other jealous forces.

Originally Posted by showboatlou

I just like Shania Twain!... Am, also a strictly limit player. I don't want to understand no limits. So, I'll be brief. I rarely bluff. Don't have to much. My cards stand on their merit. I do bluff sometimes, sure. Sometimes, by accident. I've stolen pots from players who just got scared and they folded. I accept gifts from above. Sometimes stone cold, with total trash. I don't know what "EV" is, exactly. Structured betting is just that. So many people x so many bets... I only play by actual people in a hand. I don't calculate implied odds either. Pardon my ignorance. Just passing through.... My favorite song by her is, The way you love me. Don't tell her husband, son, father or, other jealous forces.

so, you dont really care if you get better, or win money for that matter?

I think this is all just game theory and range balancing stuff, but it's nicely phrased. It makes me realised that showing up with a bluff where you would never have a made hand is bad for two reasons.

1) If villain can hand read he will call wide.
2) If villain calls we give up a huge amount of equity because our range is unbalanced and we've just offered villain a big chunk of equity. By unbalancing our range we've given opp the opportunity to exploit our mistake.

Limit strategy and no limit strategy are not the same. Stu Unger was not a good limit player. It's unusual for most to play both structures and be tops in both. Danny Negreanu and Jennifer Harmon come to mind as the exceptions. Some people just don't have both skills, myself particularly. I'm not going to stop playing poker just because I suck at no limit. A mans gotta know his limitations. I read limit poker strategy. I learn something new and better every day. What's the point of playing poker if, you don't win money? I don't play to socialize. Like I said; Just passing through. And Shania Twain has fine lucious hooters. Wanna argue about that?

Originally Posted by showboatlou

Limit strategy and no limit strategy are not the same. Stu Unger was not a good limit player. It's unusual for most to play both structures and be tops in both. Danny Negrianu and Jennifer Harmon come to mind as the exceptions. Some people just don't have both skills, myself particularly. I'm not going to stop playing poker just because I suck at no limit. A mans gotta know his limitations. I read limit poker strategy. I learn something new and better every day. What's the point of playing poker if, you don't win money? I don't play to socialize. Like I said; Just passing through. And Shania Twain has fine lucious hooters. Wanna argue about that?

i wasnt saying anything about nl vs limit, but EV and implied odds play a big a roll in each game. saying that you dont know about them is one thing, beause you can learn. saying you dont care says to me that you dont like winning as much as possible, regardless of the game.

I prefer to call Shania Melyssa or Erika.

But that's just personal preference.

I think I got reason to take up boxing again. Maybe, I can do without the one brain cell I got left.

I don't really get the awe of this discovery. Never bluff in a spot where you wouldn't have a made hand? Okay, never represent a good hand in a situation where your opponent knows that you couldn't have a good hand.

In other words, don't be utter shit at bluffing. Gotcha.

And why is it called Shania?

Originally Posted by bigslikk

I don't really get the awe of this discovery. Never bluff in a spot where you wouldn't have a made hand? Okay, never represent a good hand in a situation where your opponent knows that you couldn't have a good hand.

In other words, don't be utter shit at bluffing. Gotcha.

It's not really that. I mean it's fine to be utter shit bluffing if it's positive EV. The problem with utter shit bluffing is that it doesn't add any value to our Shania. Which means, our good hands get no added value.

My realization, really, was that you could look at this in a different way. Instead of thinking, ok i want to have bluffs in my range so my good hands get paid off more. It was, i want good hands in my range because it adds equity to my bluff, the bluff does not have to survive on it's own. And furthermore, that this added equity by having good hands added to your bluffing range, is easily calculable.

And why is it called Shania?

Some guy on 2 plus 2 made it up a longwhile ago, he decided to call the term Shania after Shania Twain. There's a link to it in ISF's blog i think.

http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/show...fpart=all&vc=1

here's the link to the shania post

In other words: make 'big moves' with completely polarized range (if I got it right)

I like the link. It's going to take a while for me to wrap my head around it.

If you have to show up with the nuts 30% of the time, and considering that you will have the nuts only a very small % of the time, does this just mean that you're gonna be bluffing very rarely/almost never then?

I think a bunch of you are missing the bigger picture with the OP. This isnt a thread about how to bluff, or balancing ranges, or any of that kind of thing. Its a post about one of the concepts Shania attempts to teach us, using a single situation as an example of how to apply that concept.

Think of it this way, at any point in time you could have a range of hands in the situation you're now in. Most people look at their exact hand and consider the most EV play with that hand over time. Instead, consider the most EV strategy with the range of hands you could have in that position, and implement based on that strategy. Now its possible (but unlikely) that the optimum strategy could be to play all your nut hands one way and all your medium hands a second way, and all your bluffs yet another way again. Its more likely that the optimum strategy includes some merging of plays accross the range you could have, but the point is to have a strategy that optimizes value across the range of hands you have, not just the play thats the most EV with the exact hand you have at the point in time.

im not that smart so i avoid having to understand theorems by just balancing everything i do (unless i believe otherwise is optimal)

when each decision we make we do with 100% of our range we are implementing many plus ev theorems that we may not even realize.

or actually saying 100% of our range actually isn't right. more like each decision we make we can have 100%, not that we make each decision with 100%. the latter is just unpractical and retarded

Originally Posted by Sheetah

In other words: make 'big moves' with completely polarized range (if I got it right)

kinda... its more like make sure you have both sides of the range so that they can benefit off eachother.

why the difference between great and good players at 3/6 and 5/10 may only be a couple of big bets per 100 hands

I lol'd

the percentage of the time you are getting yourself in a situation where there is money left to bet on the river, you are out of position, AND you have the nuts is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO low ... (unless you are a bad player--or a really really good one playing against another really good one) that this theorem seems kinda useless to me.

Originally Posted by Marshall28

the percentage of the time you are getting yourself in a situation where there is money left to bet on the river, you are out of position, AND you have the nuts is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO low ... (unless you are a bad player--or a really really good one playing against another really good one) that this theorem seems kinda useless to me.

you're attacking the example used to illustrate the theorem, not the theorem.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by Marshall28

the percentage of the time you are getting yourself in a situation where there is money left to bet on the river, you are out of position, AND you have the nuts is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO low ... (unless you are a bad player--or a really really good one playing against another really good one) that this theorem seems kinda useless to me.

you're attacking the example used to illustrate the theorem, not the theorem.

very well could be the case. ill try to give it a second look.

Originally Posted by Sheetah

In other words: make 'big moves' with completely polarized range (if I got it right)

no. its about how our equity must be analyzed over our range like bjsaust said. polarization is better than simply just monsters, but still far from optimal.

range polarization is, for the most part, a strategy that we use when we're not that good at hand reading. we either know when we're way ahead or way behind, but thats not that hard to figure out. when we balance our range we are making moves with hands that are slightly and slightly lower on the top end of our range, and we even get to the point where we may be valueowning ourselves and our hand is actually a bluff. but thats all right, it makes for us getting optimal value out of our entire range while protecting our bluffs and not bluffing too much like range polarization doesn't offer

Originally Posted by euphoricism

why the difference between great and good players at 3/6 and 5/10 may only be a couple of big bets per 100 hands

I lol'd

?

I still don't really get Shania. The idea is basically the same as being game theoretically optimal/unexploitable, right? I kinda thought the whole point was to figure out where/how the villain is unbalanced and then skew our own ranges (and thus upsetting Shania) to exploit that.

disclaimer: I'm tired as hell.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by Marshall28

the percentage of the time you are getting yourself in a situation where there is money left to bet on the river, you are out of position, AND you have the nuts is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO low ... (unless you are a bad player--or a really really good one playing against another really good one) that this theorem seems kinda useless to me.

you're attacking the example used to illustrate the theorem, not the theorem.

the particular example given is the only situation where this has any merit because if there are cards to come or remaining bets the dynamic changes. this is what i was telling u in AIM where it starts to get extremely tricky, JMAN type stuff, and very difficult to understand.

otherwise w/ the given example, the theorem still seems kinda useless to me since if bluffs are never in your range u are making yourself more exploitable.

The thing I really like about shania is that every time you read it you think you understand it, then when you re-read it again three months you realise you didn't really understand it in the first place....

Bjaust seems to get the point of my post.

The point of the post isn't the application i used, but the application is good because brings out a very good point. You're right Marshall, there is like almost no time where any decent player has gotten to the river, has the nuts, has money left behind to c/r, and is out of position. This is exactly why i used it to illustrate my point. In the hand, you have to rely purely on your fold equity in a vacuum to make c/r a good play, because you never have a nut hand here. However, if you have a nut hand 30% of the time you c/r, or even 20% or 10%, it adds significant equity to your bet (bluff). This is my point, having hands that will win in your range anytime you are bluffing increases the value of your ranges and furthermore lowers the amount of FE you need, which i absolutely awesome. Because with raising, you're usually going to have to have over 50% FE to make it a good bluff, and thats hard to have.

See my point now?

I'll add another hand that came up yesterday that illustrates my point again:

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $6 BB (6 handed) Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

SB ($180)
BB ($1067)
UTG ($735.75)
Hero ($594)
CO ($1385.50)
Button ($987.60)

Preflop: Hero is MP with K, A. UTG posts a blind of $6.
Hero raises to $21, CO calls $21, Button calls $21, 2 folds.

Flop: ($72) 5, 4, 2 (4 players)
Hero bets $55, CO calls $55, Button calls $55.

Turn: ($237) 8 (4 players)
Hero checks, CO checks, Button checks.

River: ($237) 9 (4 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $108, Button calls $108, Hero.

In this hand the CO is a loosish-aggressivish donk and the Button is a reg but a pretty tight. In the hand, i felt CO most likely had a missed draw turned bluff or a weak made hand and the button also had a weak made hand.

So when the action go back to me i considered a shove, and i think an old me would have. But lets analyze the situation in terms of What i outlined in the OP:

1) My shove is about pot sized, which means i need 50% FE looking at the hand in a vacuum.

2) I never show up with a nut hand here, ever. There is no added equity to my bet so i still need 50% FE.

3) donk could have played a strong hand weirdly, it's unlikely. But i expect him to fold one pair hands and missed draws most of the time.

4) i have bad image against tight reg, so he may hero call me. But i'd expect him to fold a decent amount.

Given this analysis (and yes it's not very descriptive but i don't care), it's hard to tell what to do, my FE is seems around 50%. I ended up folding.

Now if i happened to have 20% of nut hands in my range here (AND let me emphasize, i would never to this because against these players this is not the way to play a nut hand) clearly do this play because i really don't need that much FE (i don't know the calculations but i assume it would be around 15% or something like that). With this, you don't need to avoid using bluffs that need high FE on there own because you have this added equity (oh god i repeat this point so much but yeah).

P.S. ISF interviewed KingsofCards a while back, who is a very good HU and 6-max player. He said in the interview that he knew what his own range was every time he made an action. I think that was pretty cool, but more importantly now i see why he thought that this was important.

p.s.s. I feel like this post was basically the same as the OP, but maybe there's a little different explanation somewhere in it that may help you get it better. Keep asking questions if you're interested and i'll try to explain as well as possible.

Most of these examples are to help understand the theory. The theory is not meant to be a hard and fast rule but a thought process and a way to think about situations. Spend more time thinking about how the theory impacts our play and expand on it. This isn't as simple as how to play a certain line in a certain position with certain cards. There is no room for semantics in theory.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Most of these examples are to help understand the theory. The theory is not meant to be a hard and fast rule but a thought process and a way to think about situations. Spend more time thinking about how the theory impacts our play and expand on it. This isn't as simple as how to play a certain line in a certain position with certain cards. There is no room for semantics in theory.

thank you

Wow this is crazy I totally missed a lot of the point first time round. Awesome stuff Max (and also bjsaust )

Originally Posted by badgers

Wow this is crazy I totally missed a lot of the point first time round. Awesome stuff Max (and also bjsaust )

yay

a problem with this perspective of shania is that it may be that when we add our nut hands we may need less fe to make a bluff plus ev, but that doesn't mean it's the most plus ev. if the bluff is bad in isolation then it may simply bring down ev of our total range even if it's plus ev when combined with our range.

but if that's the case there's then meta and image aspects that affect the ev of our range later, and we can't calculate that.

my understanding of this concept is that when in scenarios where balancing is best, balancing is best and we needn't know why to exploit it.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

a problem with this perspective of shania is that it may be that when we add our nut hands we may need less fe to make a bluff plus ev, but that doesn't mean it's the most plus ev. if the bluff is bad in isolation then it may simply bring down ev of our total range even if it's plus ev when combined with our range.

but if that's the case there's then meta and image aspects that affect the ev of our range later, and we can't calculate that.

my understanding of this concept is that when in scenarios where balancing is best, balancing is best and we needn't know why to exploit it.

Yeah you're right. There's a bigger picture to this concept and it's that with every action you have a quest to find the most optimal range balance.

massimo ... i think your second example helped to explain what you were trying to say originally better. but this concept goes so deep that i think it's going to go over most people's heads. i actually think what you are talking about is g-bucks.

reference: http://www.bluffmagazine.com/onlinefeature/gbucks.asp

jman describes i believe the same idea u r talking about, and i mean, i understand what it's getting at, i just really think i am not at the stage of my game to employ it. and i think maybe only a handful of people on this forum actually do understand it on that level...maybe sauce, gabe, isf, nutsinho, alexos ... be curious to see what they have to say about it in terms of actual application.

New point that came to my head:

I didn't really understand what i was talking about in the OP because i wasn't thinking about the nut hands. Bluffing doesn't really get added equity from nut hands because conversely it takes away value from nut hands. Nut hands are obviously going to add value to your range because they always take down the pot whether or not someone calls for folds.

Now this is really confusing me and this came from a discussion with mcat:

In a given situation, you should either be bluffing or value betting 100% of the time to make the "optimal" play, depending on what your opponent is more likely to do. Balancing a range may still be profitable but it is less profitable then the optimal play. What balancing a range does is try to sway your opponent in a certain direction, so balancing a range will only be optimal when it significantly changes your opponents range to a point where he's making a much bigger mistake (ie, calling much more than he would have).

Does this sound right?

ranges are in constant flux and evolution. i think you're looking at it too complicatedly and just getting too deep.

this is the purpose of balancing ranges in a nutshell...

when we balance, our opposition loses no matter what adaptation they make. this is so because our bluffs are protected by our thin values. if they call us less then we bluff more, if they call us more then they're paying our thin values off with their 'bluff catchers' more. we profit more no matter what their response. when villain does same to us the battle then becomes about who can read ranges the best

Pardon the 5 card draw hands, but it's a simpler game that often illustrates concepts clearer.

PokerStars Game #16522848553: 5 Card Draw Limit ($2/$4) - 2008/04/06 - 03:53:06 (ET)
Table 'Perseus IV' 6-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: janvp ($58 in chips)
Seat 2: AKKILLEES ($29 in chips)
Seat 3: avuchna ($40 in chips)
Seat 4: Fnord ($140 in chips)
Seat 5: TINOSOSA ($34 in chips)
Seat 6: Z777 ($146.50 in chips)
Fnord: posts small blind $1
TINOSOSA: posts big blind $2
*** DEALING HANDS ***
Dealt to Fnord [3s 6h Td 2s 3h]
Z777: calls $2
janvp: folds
AKKILLEES: folds
avuchna: folds
Fnord: calls $1
TINOSOSA: checks
Fnord: discards 3 cards [6h Td 2s]
Dealt to Fnord [3s 3h] [4s Qc Jc]
TINOSOSA: discards 3 cards
Z777: discards 3 cards
Fnord: bets $4
TINOSOSA: calls $4
Z777: calls $4
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Fnord: shows [3s 4s Qc Jc 3h] (a pair of Threes)
TINOSOSA: shows [4c 8h Kh As Ad] (a pair of Aces)
Z777: shows [9d Ks 9c Kd 2d] (two pair, Kings and Nines)

PokerStars Game #16522942475: 5 Card Draw Limit ($2/$4) - 2008/04/06 - 04:02:32 (ET)
Table 'Perseus IV' 6-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: janvp ($49 in chips)
Seat 2: AKKILLEES ($24 in chips)
Seat 3: avuchna ($33 in chips)
Seat 4: Fnord ($167 in chips)
Seat 6: Gerhard61 ($79 in chips)
Fnord: posts small blind $1
Gerhard61: posts big blind $2
*** DEALING HANDS ***
Dealt to Fnord [Ac Tc 7h 2d As]
janvp: folds
AKKILLEES: raises $2 to $4
avuchna: folds
Fnord: calls $3
Gerhard61: calls $2
Fnord: discards 3 cards [Tc 7h 2d]
Dealt to Fnord [Ac As] [4s 5c Ad]
Gerhard61: discards 3 cards
AKKILLEES: discards 3 cards
Fnord: bets $4
Gerhard61: calls $4
AKKILLEES: folds

Both Shania hands.

Similar thoughts with my Pat hand range.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

when we balance, our opposition loses no matter what adaptation they make. this is so because our bluffs are protected by our thin values. if they call us less then we bluff more, if they call us more then they're paying our thin values off with their 'bluff catchers' more. we profit more no matter what their response. when villain does same to us the battle then becomes about who can read ranges the best

It's switching gears and being one step ahead.

If they're distrustful, we value bet thinner, more often and bluff less. If they're too trusting, we bluff more and don't make thin value bets.

If we know where they're at and they don't know where we're at at, we're winning with an exploitive strategy.

That said, against all but the most station of calling stations I don't abandon the bluff (I just do it a lot less.) If you get caught it discourages them from making the correct adjustment for several hands. However, against loose players they're less likely to have a calling hand at the end, hence it's easy to under-estimate your fold equity and hence overestimate the -EV cost of the play in isolation.

lol i am so lost

five hole cards??? what kinda superuser account does fnord have???

Edit: I wrote this after reading about half way down the thread. I now see that you realised this but ill leave it here anyway.

Its true that having nut hands in a range adds value to that range. That point seems pretty obvious. But the play still needs to be +EV in a vacuum before it becomes a good play.

e.g. If we have are in a spot where villain will call us with the top 60% of his range and we need 50% FE for a bluff then when we have a nut hand he will call 60% of the time, and when we have a bluff he will call 60% of the time.

The EV for shoving a nut hand is positive. The EV for shoving a bluff is negative. When we fold our bluff hands the EV for them becomes 0.

So when we play the whole range as a bluff our EV is the sum of the two which is less than if we just shoved the nuts and folded the bluffs. We have raised the value of our bluff range, and maybe even made it +EV. But it will never be enough to make it more +EV that just shoving the nuts and folding the bluffs.

You cant just look at what happens to the value of one half of our range (e.g. bluffs) and say that the value of the whole range has increased. I can see you using this as an excuse to bluff in spots where you will probably be called and thats just bad.

Originally Posted by Massimo

In a given situation, you should either be bluffing or value betting 100% of the time to make the "optimal" play, depending on what your opponent is more likely to do. Balancing a range may still be profitable but it is less profitable then the optimal play. What balancing a range does is try to sway your opponent in a certain direction, so balancing a range will only be optimal when it significantly changes your opponents range to a point where he's making a much bigger mistake (ie, calling much more than he would have).

Does this sound right?

yes

uhhh .. u guys are just getting into talking about different strategies/approaches/philosophies as to how to play the game. u really have broadened your original point and it seems to me like you aren't really getting anywhere. (not trying to sound pessimistic, just trying to keep u guys on point).

Originally Posted by Marshall28

uhhh .. u guys are just getting into talking about different strategies/approaches/philosophies as to how to play the game. u really have broadened your original point and it seems to me like you aren't really getting anywhere. (not trying to sound pessimistic, just trying to keep u guys on point).

Lol, this is so standard with brainstorming which this thread definitely is. Massimo, how about you reorganize this mess and rewrite the article worth a sticky!

Originally Posted by wufwugy

when we balance, our opposition loses no matter what adaptation they make. this is so because our bluffs are protected by our thin values. if they call us less then we bluff more, if they call us more then they're paying our thin values off with their 'bluff catchers' more. we profit more no matter what their response. when villain does same to us the battle then becomes about who can read ranges the best

how about when we value bet so thin that we dont even know if it's for value or a bluff, if we were to constantly do that (as well as play medium - strong made hands and draws this way) how could villain ever know how to interpret what were doing? i mean .. we wouldnt even know ... so how could he figure it out? how about that approach.

: )

Originally Posted by massimo

"In terms of calling bets, you only need to be right like 30% of the time to breakeven, so you're never gonna lose that much. There are only a few places you really lose a lot of money. Like when you call a bet when you're never winning ever."

kinda stupid question, but this is assuming we are always getting 2:1 on our call right? in reality i think we need to be right less because we almost always get better than 2:1 ona call. someone tell me if im wrong there, which i prolly am.

why would this be wrong? Almost always you are getting better than 2:1 if you're calling yes.

Getting good at poker is like that scene in the matrix where Neo suddenly sees that everyone is just a bunch of structured numbers and then he starts bending those numbers in really weird ways.