No announcement yet.

Maximum Exploitative Strategy (MES) Question

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Maximum Exploitative Strategy (MES) Question

    JonathanLittle has recently tweeted a link to an extract from Michael Acevedo's new book Modern Poker Theory.

    Here is the link:

    In the extract it discusses a hypothetical poker game as follows:

    Game: HUSNG Players can only Push of Fold. HUNLH, blinds 0.5bb/1bb Effective Stacks = 15bb Preflop: Hero is in the SB. The GTO strategy is to push 45.7%.

    It goes on to summarise the adjustments that we should make to our shoving range based on villain's deviation from GTO. The bit that I don't understand is as follows:

    GTO Villain - Villain calls with 28.5% of hands - Our EV in this situation would be zero and we are in equilibrium with villain
    Villain is 10% loose - Villain calls with 31.4% of hands - We can now maximise our EV by changing our range to 37.6% of hands
    Villain is 25% loose - Villain calls with 35.6% of hands - We can now maximise our EV by changing our range to 35.1% of hands
    Villain is 100% loose - Villain calls with 57% of hands - We can now maximse our EV by changing our range to 37.9% of hands

    95% of poker players know that to counter an opponent who is too loose they need to tighten up their range. This holds true in the above figures as we move from a GTO villain to a villain who is 25% too wide i.e. we adjust from opening 45.7% of hands to 35.1% of hands. However, when we are against a villain who is 100% too wide then the range with which we should be shoving actually increases from what it was against a 25% loose opponent to 37.9%.

    This seems counter-intuitive to me and I do not understand the logic.

    Please can someone explain this to me?

  • #2
    Any ideas?

    (Sorry for the bump)


    • reeeeeeper
      reeeeeeper commented
      Editing a comment
      I think it has to do with equities vs various range compositions, but not sure so didn't answer.

  • #3
    I ran some examples in ICMIZER - perhaps this will provide more insight.

    I tried to upload several images however only limited to 5 so I picked most relevant ones.

    Scenario: heads up match with 10bb effective stacks.

    Villain calls with 9%

    We push any two. Makes perfect sense as we are almost never getting called, and when we do, we still have 32% equity (In Equilab 100% vs 9%)

    Villain calls with 25%

    Again we push any two, but this time when called we have 37% equity(In Equilab 100% vs 25%)

    Villain calls with 37%

    Now we see a huge difference - villain calls only 12% more, but we can only push 60% vs any two.We can still push a large amount, because when called we still have 45% equity (In Equilab 59% vs 37%)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	37 percent.PNG
Views:	19
Size:	257.7 KB
ID:	19634

    Villain calls with 51%

    Now we have a 52% vs 48% advantage when called. This seems like we are making an error as getting money in almost even yet pushing several percentage points tighter than 50%.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	50 percent.PNG
Views:	37
Size:	259.3 KB
ID:	19631

    Nash equilibrium

    Hero is pushing 14% more yet villain must tighten up by 13%. Nobody is being exploited.

    When called, hero has a 45% vs 55% disadvantage, however with the folds generated this makes for 0EV play.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	nash.PNG
Views:	19
Size:	260.2 KB
ID:	19635
    Villain calls with 63%

    Compared to when villain called with 51% range, we can only push 1% more hands.

    Now we have a 53% vs 47% advantage when called.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	63 percent.PNG
Views:	20
Size:	256.4 KB
ID:	19633

    Villain calls with 75%

    Hero can only push with 4% more hands (49%) when villain loosens up by 12%.

    Now we have a 55% vs 45% advantage when called.

    Villain calls with any two

    Here we have a 57% vs 43% advantage when called. Clearly not as good of a scenario for hero as when villain called with only 10% range, however still quite profitable.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	any two.PNG
Views:	20
Size:	262.4 KB
ID:	19632