何時進行讓對手陷入困境的-EV比賽


1

場景:9手SNG進行中,大多數玩家都非常有規律(沒有魚,沒有專業人士)。

我加註66 UTG + 2,並被HJ叫。i CBet翻牌,繼續在每條街上轉2/3底池,HJ都跟注。

董事會是Qh Ts 6h Qc 9h

我將HJ放到Q上,因為他不太可能繼續在成對的棋盤上抽籤。我在轉牌圈下注,HJ下注2/3,剩下約1/2。我考慮了乾擾,但一意孤行。我的理由是,在所有平局都擊中的情況下,單單進行Q次旅行就不會造成卡紙,因為我可以有任何順子,同花或全滿。通過乾擾,我很可能只會被更好的牌(QT,Q9,TT)打敗。

假設我的思維過程是正確的(我知道可能不是),桌上的一些玩家確實說我應該在那兒塞66,因為我會將Qx置於困境。問題是,即使其-EV(例如,較差的棄牌,較好的跟注),將人置於困境也有價值嗎?

在高額買入賽中也有類似的情況(我認為),Pratyush用66s叫開位置,翻牌圈後退,然後在A T 7 3 2彩虹板上開火。他向河上開火,並被T牌跟注,這是他對對手的攻擊。他的理由是他不希望T在河上做出輕鬆的決定,即使T幾乎總是跟注。

(很抱歉,手上的細節很少,因為它們只是示例,因為關注問題的重點是使對手陷入困境)

0

The problem here is that, if you think Qx is going to fold, then the spot does not appear tough to you! If you think only better hands will call your bet and only worse hands will fold, then you should not be making that bet! Why would you otherwise?

We could discuss, though, whether your assumption that he has Qx is always right, and whether or not it's true that Qx is only folding, but that's a different story


2

Never.

Your objective is to select the line with the highest EV. Full stop.

If you have strong reasons to believe that your particular opponent will make specific types of mistakes under certain lines and board runouts, then you can think about making exploitative adjustments.

Most (approximate) GTO solutions play a large fraction of hands with a mixed strategy. So, for example, if you know that your opponent tends to overfold on certain rivers, this will tend to break the degeneracy in favour of particular actions -- your exploitative solution is to select only one action instead of playing the mixed strategy.

But in this case, the exploit is the new highest EV line.

So, in general, first determine your best guess as to the approximate GTO solution for hand and action to this point. Then, if and only if you have strong reason to believe in specific deviations from optimality of either the player pool in general, or this opponent in particular, do you work out the best exploitative adjustment to make.

I think most players overdo this last step -- they tend to overgeneralize from very small sample sizes and go out of their way to "exploit" opponents who may not be deviating from optimality as much as they might think. But that might just be the Bayesian in me talking ...

Aside: Confining your exploitative adjustments to only those hands played with a mixed strategy also helps to camouflage what you're doing -- your opponent will need a large sample to detect that you are playing certain lines more frequently than you "should".