DOCSLIB.ORG

We Consider a Standard Cbet in SRP (Single Raised Pot) 40-80% of Pot, and for 3BP (3 Bet Pot) 30-80% of Pot

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
We Consider a Standard Cbet in SRP (Single Raised Pot) 40-80% of Pot, and for 3BP (3 Bet Pot) 30-80% of Pot We consider a standard cbet in SRP (Single Raised Pot) 40-80% of pot, and for 3BP (3 Bet Pot) 30-80% of pot. For some definitions if someone bets 100% of pot, then the action is made, it will not qualify for the definition. This is because often it will skew the opportunities. For example, to be extreme, someone min bets then folds to a huge overbet all-in shove. I wouldn't want this to be included in a fold to flop raise definition because the person will fold nearly 100% of the time here, so it's not accurate. Any kind of action must be sized correctly in the definition for it to count as an opportunity. This will not give as many opportunities for sure, but they will be much more accurate, giving us a better read. In the popups at the tables you will notice some definitions are bold, green, or red. Bold means the definition is for a 3BP or higher. Green means this person is significantly lower than the average for this stat, and red means this person is significantly higher than average for this stat. This document is color-coded to show which popup each definition can be found in. If the definition is used for a badge it will not be in a popup. Badges are Bold (just for this document) Popup: Essential-3Bet, Essential-4-5Bet, Essential-RiverBet, Essential-CB, Essential-TurnCB, Essential-XR, Essential-FvR, Essential-FvCB, Essential-TurnFvCB, Essential-RivFvCB, Essential-RiverCB, Essential-PFR, Essential-Donk, Essential-VPIP, Essential- Steal, Essential-Foldto3Bet, Essential-vsHero, Essential-XFold, Essential-FvsSteal Definitions in smaller font in italics are available in NoteCaddy Edge Ultimate package. 3B_vsISO: 3bets vs. an isolation raise. Iso raise can be up to 6bb. (shows cardrange and spark) BBvsSB_3betRange: SB raises and the BB makes a 3Bet. (shows cardrange and spark) BLvsBtn_3betRange: Blind makes a standard-sized 3bet vs. a standard-sized Button open. (shows cardrange and spark) BLvsCO_3betRange: Blind makes a standard-sized 3bet vs. a standard-sized CO open. (shows cardrange and spark) BLvsEPMP_3betRange: Blind makes a standard-sized 3bet vs. a standard-sized EP or MP open. (shows cardrange and spark) BTNvsCO_3betRange: Button makes a standard-sized 3bet vs. a standard-sized CO open. (shows cardrange and spark) BTNvsEPMP_3betRange: Button makes a standard-sized 3bet vs. a standard-sized EP or MP open. (shows cardrange and spark) COvsEPMP_3betRange: CO makes a standard-sized 3bet vs. a standard-sized EP or MP open. (shows cardrange and spark) MPvsEP_3betRange: MP makes a standard-sized 3bet vs. a standard-sized EP open. (shows cardrange and spark) HM.3Bet-BBvSB: Big Blind makes a 3bet vs the Small Blind open raise. (Caddy Spark) HM.3Bet-BLvBN: One of the Blinds makes a 3bet vs. the Button open raise. (Caddy Spark) HM.3Bet-BLvCO: One of the Blinds makes a 3bet vs. the Cutoff open raise. (Caddy Spark) HM.3Bet-BLvEPMP: One of the Blinds makes a 3bet vs. the Early or Middle position open raise. (Caddy Spark) HM.3Bet-BNvCO: The Button makes a 3bet vs. the Cutoff open raise. (Caddy Spark) HM.3Bet-IPvEP: A player from in position makes a 3bet vs. Early position open raise. (Caddy Spark) HM.3Bet-IPvMP: A player from in position makes a 3bet vs. Middle position open raise. (Caddy Spark) HM.3Bet=22-66(different vs positions): Shows how often when 3betting that this person has 22-66. HM.3Bet=77-TT(different vs positions): Shows how often when 3betting that this person has 77-TT. HM.3Bet=Broadway(different vs positions): Shows how often when 3betting, that this person has Broadway cards. Broadway is defined as any two cards 10 or higher that aren't AK and aren't paired. HM.3Bet=JJ+AK(different vs positions): Shows how often when someone 3bets that this person has JJ+ or AK. HM.3Bet=SuitedConnector(different vs positions): Shows how often when 3betting, that this person has a suited connector. Suited Connector is defined as 63s-Q9s, 53s-J9s, 43s-T9s. HM.3Bet=WeakAces-Kings(different vs positions): Shows how often when 3bettings that this person has weak aces or weak kings. Weak Aces & Kings are defined as: A2-A9 and K2-K9 suited or unsuited. HM.SqueezeRange: Shows a spark graph for a preflop squeeze. Foldto4B_after_3BvsISO: Recipient 3bets vs. an isolation raiser, then folds to a 4bet. Min3B=JJ+AK: This is the % of time that a player makes a 3bet which is up to 2x the size of the last raise, and has JJ+, or AK. 4Bet_Betsize2x-2.5xWEAK: Recipient open raises, gets 3bet, then makes a 4bet 2-2.5x the 3bet(ex.3b is 9, 4b is 18-22.50). Recipient must fold to a 5bet preflop for this to count as a success. 4Bet_BetsizeGreaterThan2.5xWEAK: Same as above but 4bet is >2.5x. 4Bet_BetsizeLessThan2xWEAK: Same as above but 4bet is <2x. 4Bet_MoreThan50bbShoveWEAK: Recipient 4bet shoves and range is everything EXCEPT 99+,AQ+. Player starts the hand with 50+bb. (shows cardrange) 4Bet-{various positions}: Recipient opens and get 3bet, then makes any size 4bet. These are total, not range. 4BetTotal: Recipient makes a 4bet preflop. This is by total %, not 4bet Range like the HM2 stat. (shows cardrange and spark) 4BvsSQZ(opener): Opener 4bets vs. a squeeze. (shows cardrange) 5Bet-{various positions}: recipient 3bets, gets 4bet, then makes a 5bet. These are total, not range. BackRaise: Recipient cold calls initial raise, then gets squeezed. Initial raiser can call or fold, and recipient 4 bets. Recipient can have 20+bb. (shows cardrange and spark) Btn4BvsResteal: Button open raises and gets 3bet from one of the blinds. Then the button makes a 4bet. Button starts hand with 46+bb. Call4B_Range: Shows cardrange when someone calls a 4bet. Recipient must have atleast 46bb. (shows cardrange) Cold4Bet_Fv5Bet: Recipient makes a cold 4bet then folds to a 5bet. Fv4Bet_{all position vs position}: Recipient makes a 3bet, and folds to a 4bet. Fv5Bet_{all position vs positoin}: Recipient makes a 4bet and folds to a 5bet. HM.4BetRange(all position vs position): Shows the 4bet range, not the total frequency. HM.5BetRange(all position vs position): Shows the 5bet range, not the total frequency. HM.Cold4Bet: Player 4bets after there is a raise and 3bet by other players in front of him. The 3bet can't be all in. Bet_Check_BetVALUE: Recipient makes standard-sized bet on flop, checks turn, and bets at least 30% of pot on the River.. Heads up on flop, and effective stacks 25+bb. To qualify the player's hand on the River must be in the top 20% of available hands using at least 1 hole card. BetRiver_.4-.6: River bet of 40-60% of pot. Final pot must be atleast 15bb. (shows riverhandrange and spark) BetRiver_.6-.8: River bet of 60.1-80% of pot. Final pot must be atleast 15bb. (shows riverhandrange and spark) BetRiver_.8-1: River bet of 80.1-100% of pot. Final pot must be atleast 15bb. (shows riverhandrange and spark) BetRiver_1-1.25: River bet of 100.1-125% of pot. Final pot must be atleast 15bb. (shows riverhandrange and spark) BetRiver_1.25-inf: River bet of 125.1% or more of pot. Final pot must be at least 15bb. (shows riverhandrange and spark) BluffRaiseRiv: Raises or check raises river with a hand that is not in the top 20% of available hands. Final pot must be at least 30bb, and the River is heads-up. Implicits are included. FlushComesRiverRaise: Either 3 or 4 flush comes in on river and recipient raises or check/raises. Heads up on the River. (shows spark) HM.BetRiverW$SD(also for IP/OOP): Shows how often when betting the river wins money at showdown. HM.SRP.BetRivIP-vsMCBWEAK(different bet sizes and OOP, also for 3BP): Shows how often when betting the river vs. a missed cbet a certain bet size that the person is weak. Weak is defined by worse than the top 20% of available hands. Implicits are included. HM.SRP.DoubleBarrelOOPvsMCB(also for 3BP): Calls a flop raise, flop is checked back by the flop raiser. Shows how often the recipient bets the river after betting the turn. (shows spark) HM.SRP.RiverBetIP=Bluff(Different bet sizes also for OOP and 3BP): Shows how often when making a river bet it is a bluff. Bluff is defined by a hand which is not in the top 20% of available hands. Implicits are included. SRP-DelayedCbet-IP&BetRiver: Single raised pot. Recipient skips a flop cbet IP on flop, makes standard-sized bet on turn when checked to, and bets the river. (shows riverhandrange and spark) SRP-DelayedCbet-OOP&BetRiver: Same as above but recipient is OOP. SRP-Float_DoubleBarrelRange: Single raised pot. Heads up on flop. Recipient calls standard flop cbet IP, then makes standard-sized bet on the turn andd bets on the River. (shows riverhandrange and spark) 3BP-MissFCB_XbackRange: 3bet pot. Recipient is IP and misses a flop cbet. (shows flophandrange and spark) BetSizeTell_3BP_FlopCB-0-.4WEAK: This is % of time someone cbets up to 40% of pot in a 3b pot and has worse than 30% of all available hands. Draws stronger than inside straight draws are not counted as Weak (Inside straight draw IS Weak). Implicits are included. BetSizeTell_3BP_FlopCB.4-.6WEAK: Same as above but for 40.1-60% pot cbet. BetSizeTell_3BP_FlopCB.6-.8WEAK: same as above but for 60.1-80% pot cbet. BetsizeTell_3BP_FlopCB.8-1WEAK: same as above but for 80.1-100% pot cbet.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2012/0214567 A1 Snow (43) Pub
    US 20120214567A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2012/0214567 A1 Snow (43) Pub. Date: Aug. 23, 2012 (54) METHOD AND APPARATUS FORVARIANT Publication Classification OF TEXAS HOLDEM POKER (51) Int. Cl. A63F I3/00 (2006.01) (75) Inventor: Roger M. Snow, Las Vegas, NV A63F I/00 (2006.01) (US) (52) U.S. Cl. ........................................... 463/13; 273/292 57 ABSTRACT (73) Assignee: SHUFFLE MASTER, INC., Las (57) Vegas, NV (US) A variant game of Hold Empoker allows for rules of play of one or all of players being allowed to remain in game with an option of checking or making specific wagering amounts in (21) Appl. No.: 13/455.742 first play wagers, being limited in the size of Subsequent available play wagers or prohibited from making additional (22) Filed: Apr. 25, 2012 play wagers ifa first play wager has been made, being limited in the size of available laterplay wagers ifa first or earlier play Related U.S. Application Data wager has been made, and having the opportunity for at least two and as many as three or four distinct opportunities in the (62) Division of application No. 1 1/156.352, filed on Jun. stages in the play of a hand to be able to make one or more 17, 2005. play wagers. 110 Patent Application Publication Aug. 23, 2012 Sheet 1 of 10 US 2012/0214567 A1 Patent Application Publication Aug. 23, 2012 Sheet 2 of 10 US 2012/0214567 A1 a. s&Os Patent Application Publication Aug. 23, 2012 Sheet 3 of 10 US 2012/0214567 A1 Patent Application Publication Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximating Game-Theoretic Optimal Strategies for Full-Scale Poker
    Approximating Game-Theoretic Optimal Strategies for Full-scale Poker D. Billings, N. Burch, A. Davidson, R. Holte, J. Schaeffer, T. Schauenberg, and D. Szafron Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E8, Canada Email: {darse,burch,davidson,holte,jonathan,terence,duane}@cs.ualberta.ca Abstract Due to the computational limitations involved, only simpli• fied poker variations have been solved in the past (e.g. [Kuhn, The computation of the first complete approxima• 1950; Sakaguchi and Sakai, 19921). While these are of the• tions of game-theoretic optimal strategies for full- oretical interest, the same methods are not feasible for real scale poker is addressed. Several abstraction tech• games, which are too large by many orders of magnitude niques are combined to represent the game of 2- ([Roller and Pfeffer, 1997J). player Texas Hold'em, having size O(1018), using 7 [Shi and Littman, 2001] investigated abstraction tech• closely related models each having size 0(1O ). niques to reduce the large search space and complexity of the Despite the reduction in size by a factor of 100 problem, using a simplified variant of poker. [Takusagawa, billion, the resulting models retain the key prop• 2000] created near-optimal strategies for the play of three erties and structure of the real game. Linear pro• specific Hold'em flops and betting sequences. [Selby, 1999] gramming solutions to the abstracted game are used computed an optimal solution for the abbreviated game of to create substantially improved poker-playing pro• 1 pre flop Hold em. grams, able to defeat strong human players and be Using new abstraction techniques, we have produced vi• competitive against world-class opponents.
    [Show full text]
  • Poker Phases: Draw, Stud and Hold’Em As Play-Forms of Capitalism
    the author(s) 2011 ephemera articles ISSN 1473-2866 www.ephemeraweb.org theory & politics in organization volume 11(4): 450-465 Poker phases: Draw, Stud and Hold’Em as play-forms of capitalism Ole Bjerg abstract The subject of the article is the history of poker. It explores how different structural variations of the game have evolved and how different types of poker have been dominant at different periods in history. There are three main forms of poker: Draw, Stud and Hold’Em. In the article, it is demonstrated how the three forms emerge and become the most popular form of poker at three different periods in history. It identifies structural homologies between the historical development of poker and key elements in the manifestation of capitalism at different times in history. Introduction Poker is the laboratory of capitalism. (McDonald, 1950: 23) When we look at a piece of art, read a piece of literature, watch a film, or listen to a piece of music, it is commonplace to think of these as cultural expressions of the social and historical context in which they are created. Art, literature, film and music are readily recognized as mediums of the Zeitgeist. Poker and other gambling games are rarely thought of in the same fashion. At best, they are considered to be meaningless entertainment, at worst self-destructive vices. I would, however, argue that poker is a cultural expression in line with art, literature, film, etc. The sudden popularity of poker in recent years demonstrates the rich cultural resonance of the game. Poker is a game of money.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawyers' Poker
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 57 Number 2 Article 2 1-1-2003 Lawyers' Poker Steven Lubet Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Steven Lubet, Lawyers' Poker, 57 U. Miami L. Rev. 283 (2003) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol57/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. University of Miami Law Review VOLUME 57 JANUARY 2003 NUMBER 2 ARTICLES Lawyers' Poker STEVEN LUBET* I. INTRODUCTION Neither history nor anthropology can tell us with certainty whether trials resemble games or games resemble trials. The similarities are often noted and beyond question. Both games and trials are contests in which winners are declared. Both depend upon formal rules and set pro- cedures, and both occur in separate, designated spaces where these spe- cial rules apply. Trials, of course, are deadly serious (for the participants, if not the observers), while games are, well, games-a combination these days of fun and commerce, but focused always on an irreducible core of entertainment (someone has to enjoy it or it isn't really a game). The Dutch cultural historian Johan Huizinga believed that games came first; indeed, that play actually precedes humanity: Play is older than culture, for culture, however inadequately defined, always presupposes human society, and animals have not waited for man to teach them their playing.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2005/0040601A1 Yoseloff Et Al
    US 20050040601A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2005/0040601A1 Yoseloff et al. (43) Pub. Date: Feb. 24, 2005 (54) INTERACTIVE SIMULATED STUD POKER Aug. 12, 1996, now abandoned, which is a continu APPARATUS AND METHOD ation-in-part of application No. 08/388,292, filed on Feb. 14, 1995, now Pat. No. 5,544,892, which is a (75) Inventors: Mark L. Yoseloff, Henderson, NV continuation-in-part of application No. 08/043,413, (US); R. Brooke Dunn, Henderson, NV filed on Apr. 6, 1993, now Pat. No. 5,417,430, which (US); Philip S. Smith, Las Vegas, NV is a continuation-in-part of application No. 08/023, (US); Roger M. Snow, Las Vegas, NV 196, filed on Feb. 5, 1993, now Pat. No. 5,288,081. (US) Continuation-in-part of application No. 10/764,827, filed on Jan. 26, 2004. Correspondence Address: Continuation-in-part of application No. 10/624,994, Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. filed on Jul. 22, 2003. York Business Center, Suite 205 Continuation-in-part of application No. 10/624,995, 3209 West 76th St. filed on Jul. 22, 2003. Edina, MN 55435 (US) Publication Classification (73) Assignee: Shuffle Master, Inc. (51) Int. Cl." ........................................................ A63F 1700 (21) Appl. No.: 10/938,484 (52) U.S. Cl. .............................................................. 273/292 (22) Filed: Sep. 10, 2004 (57) ABSTRACT Related U.S. Application Data A multi-player automated casino table card game platform (63) Continuation-in-part of application No. 10/602,015, enables play of casino table poker-type games according to filed on Jun.
    [Show full text]
  • Players Guide 2
    EUROPEAN PLAYERSGUIDE European Nations Cup European European Nations Cup, The Annabelle Hotel in Paphos, Cyprus - April, 12th-15th 2013 - International Federation of Poker (IFP) To be hosted in the beautiful surroundings of ‘The Annabelle Hotel’ in Paphos, Cyprus, on MY TEAM 12th-15th April 2013, the Euro- pean Nations Cup will be the very Country: __________________ first official IFP tournament to be conducted without physical play- Player 1: _______________________ ing cards and dealers. The event will showcase a whole host of Player 2: _______________________ brand new IFP Match Poker technology. Not only will players Player 3: _______________________ receive their hole cards on indi- vidual smartphone devices, but every single action on all 14 tables Player 4: _______________________ will be logged and openly avail- able for replay and analysis via Player 5: _______________________ the “IFP Player”. The 14 participating Nations Player 6: _______________________ are as follows: Cyprus (host), Bos- nia Herzogovina, Denmark, Es- tonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Reserve: _______________________ Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Russia and UK. 1 International Federation of Poker Event Schedule The Annabelle Hotel in Paphos, Cyprus April, 12th-15th All ENC sessions will feature Match Poker play and last approxi- mately three and a half hours. Due to varying speeds of play, some players’ break times may be extended or reduced accordingly. The in- running scoreboard will be shown to players right up until the com- European Nations Cup European mencement of the final ENC Ses- sion, where the final hands will be GUIDE played “in the dark”. During ENC sessions only spectators and coaches will have access to the IFP Player.
    [Show full text]
  • Automating Collusion Detection in Sequential Games
    Automating Collusion Detection in Sequential Games Parisa Mazrooei and Christopher Archibald and Michael Bowling Computing Science Department, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E8, Canada fmazrooei,archibal,[email protected] Abstract which exceeds the parameters” of normal activity (Watson 2012). Human intervention in these systems comes in the Collusion is the practice of two or more parties deliberately form of comparisons with human-specified models of sus- cooperating to the detriment of others. While such behavior pect behavior, and the systems can naturally only identify may be desirable in certain circumstances, in many it is con- sidered dishonest and unfair. If agents otherwise hold strictly collusive behavior matching the model. These models are to the established rules, though, collusion can be challenging typically domain specific, and new models are required for to police. In this paper, we introduce an automatic method any new domain addressed. Since any model of collusive be- for collusion detection in sequential games. We achieve this havior will be based on past examples of such behavior, new through a novel object, called a collusion table, that captures forms of collusion typically go undetected. As a commu- the effects of collusive behavior, i.e., advantage to the collud- nity’s size increases, detecting collusion places a huge bur- ing parties, without assuming any particular pattern of behav- den on human experts, in terms of responding to complaints, ior. We show the effectiveness of this method in the domain investigating false positives from an automated system, or of poker, a popular game where collusion is prohibited. continually updating the set of known collusive behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation Into Tournament Poker Strategy Using Evolutionary Algorithms
    An Investigation into Tournament Poker Strategy using Evolutionary Algorithms Richard G. Carter I V N E R U S E I T H Y T O H F G E R D I N B U Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Intelligent Systems and their Applications School of Informatics University of Edinburgh 2007 Abstract Poker has become the subject of an increasing amount of study in the computational in- telligence community. The element of imperfect information presents new and greater challenges than those previously posed by games such as checkers and chess. Ad- vances in computer poker have great potential, since reasoning under conditions of uncertainty is typical of many real world problems. To date the focus of computer poker research has centred on the development of ring game players for limit Texas hold’em. For a computer to compete in the most prestigious poker events, however, it will be required to play in a tournament setting with a no-limit betting structure. This thesis is the first academic attempt to investigate the underlying dynamics of successful no-limit tournament poker play. Professional players have proffered advice in the non-academic poker literature on correct strategies for tournament poker play. This study seeks to empirically validate their suggestions on a simplified no-limit Texas hold’em tournament framework. Starting by using exhaustive simulations, we first assess the hypothesis that a strat- egy including information related to game-specific factors performs better than one founded on hand strength knowledge alone. Specifically, we demonstrate that the use of information pertaining to one’s seating position, the opponents’ prior actions, the stage of the tournament, and one’s chip stack size all contribute towards a statistically significant improvement in the number of tournaments won.
    [Show full text]
  • Fides: Remote Anomaly-Based Cheat Detection Using Client Emulation*
    Fides: Remote Anomaly-Based Cheat Detection Using Client Emulation∗ Edward Kaiser Wu-chang Feng Travis Schluessler Portland State University Portland State University Intel Corporation Portland, OR, USA Portland, OR, USA Hillsboro, OR, USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT While the motives vary, cheating has become widespread. As a result of physically owning the client machine, cheaters Many cheat communities write and sell cheats which range in online games currently have the upper-hand when it comes from automated bots that treasure hunt virtual items, level to avoiding detection. To address this problem and turn the up characters, and attain ranks for cheaters unwilling to play table on cheaters, this paper presents Fides, an anomaly- the game, to cheats that provide perfect aim, reveal secret based cheat detection approach that remotely validates game knowledge, and force opponents to disconnect (and thereby execution. With Fides, a server-side Controller specifies how concede) for cheaters unable to win unaided. Legitimate and when a client-side Auditor measures the game. To accu- players are frustrated by cheaters to the point where they rately validate measurements, the Controller partially emu- seek other games that are more resilient to cheating. Since lates the client and collaborates with the server. This paper losing existing and potential paying players directly impacts examines a range of cheat methods and initial measurements revenue, developers must thwart cheating in their games. that counter them, showing that a Fides prototype is able to efficiently detect several existing cheats, including one 1.2 A Distinct Security Problem state-of-the-art cheat that is advertised as “undetectable”.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximating Game-Theoretic Optimal Strategies for Full-Scale Poker
    Approximating Game-Theoretic Optimal Strategies for Full-scale Poker D. Billings, N. Burch, A. Davidson, R. Holte, J. Schaeffer, T. Schauenberg, and D. Szafron Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E8, Canada Email: darse,burch,davidson,holte,jonathan,terence,duane ¡ @cs.ualberta.ca Abstract Due to the computational limitations involved, only simpli- fied poker variations have been solved in the past (e.g. [Kuhn, The computation of the first complete approxima- 1950; Sakaguchi and Sakai, 1992]). While these are of the- tions of game-theoretic optimal strategies for full- oretical interest, the same methods are not feasible for real scale poker is addressed. Several abstraction tech- games, which are too large by many orders of magnitude niques are combined to represent the game of 2- ([Koller and Pfeffer, 1997]). player Texas Hold’em, having size ¢¤£¦¥¨§ © ¨ , using [Shi and Littman, 2001] investigated abstraction tech- closely related models each having size ¢¤£¦¥¨§¨ . niques to reduce the large search space and complexity of the Despite the reduction in size by a factor of 100 problem, using a simplified variant of poker. [Takusagawa, billion, the resulting models retain the key prop- 2000] created near-optimal strategies for the play of three erties and structure of the real game. Linear pro- specific Hold’em flops and betting sequences. [Selby, 1999] gramming solutions to the abstracted game are used computed an optimal solution for the abbreviated game of to create substantially improved poker-playing pro- preflop Hold’em. grams, able to defeat strong human players and be Using new abstraction techniques, we have produced vi- competitive against world-class opponents.
    [Show full text]
  • Hand2note Pro.Tools
    Hand2Note Pro.Tools Hand2Note Pro.Tools Professional collection of stats and pop-up www.Hand2NoteProTools.com Skype: Notecaddy.ProTools E-mail: [email protected] Notecaddy Pro.Tools Professional package of stats and popups Structure of HUD (positional HUD) Pro.Tools package has positional HUD, which displays the different block with the statistics for the player depending on your position at the table. Examples: HUD for PFR (PreFlop Raiser) HUD for Caller/3Bet http://Hand2NoteProTools.com Pro.Tools – Professional collection of stats and Pop-ups e-mail: [email protected] DB.Analysis –Database and player analysis skype: Notecaddy.ProTools Notecaddy Pro.Tools Professional package of stats and popups Structure of block HUD for PFR (PreFlop Raiser) The information in the blocks: 1st raises, folds to 3bet, calls 3bet, 4bet, postflop in and out of position 24 – VPIP 19 – PFR 29 – WTSD 26k – number of hands Cb 52 / 42 / 37 – Cbet Flop / Turn / River Cb/F 43 / 50 / 0 – Fold to Raise (Cbet Fold) Flop / Turn / River X/F 51 / 52 / 43 – Check-Fold Flop / Turn / River Clarification: Stats IP or OOP displayed depending on your position at the table: for the preflop raiser in position cbets and folds in the position, for the preflop raiser out of position will be displayed cbets and folds out of position 16 – 1st raise EP 18 – 1st raise MP 27 – 1st raise CO 49 – 1st raise BTN 47 / 44 / 7.7 – Fold to 3bet vs Hero Position) – Call 3bet vs Hero Position – 4bet vs Hero Position Clarification: This section also displays the statistics,
    [Show full text]
  • Deposit Bonuses to Get Started
    DEPOSIT BONUSES TO GET STARTED FullTiltPoker (100% Deposit Bonus) Play Online Poker CakePoker (110% Deposit Bonus) WilliamHill (100% Deposit Bonus & $120,000 RakeRace) PrestigeCasino ($1,500 in FREE Spins No Deposit Needed) PokerStrategy ($50usd Starting Capital FREE No Deposit Needed) Easy Game Making Sense of No Limit Hold ‘em Vol. 1 Easy Game Vol. 1 is © 2009 Andrew Seidman, except HU Play for Beginners, which is © 2009 Matt Colletta Table of Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................3 A Game of Information .......................................................................................................................................5 Chapter One: The Reasons for Betting..............................................................................................................6 Chapter Two: Preflop Hand Ranges and Postflop Equities..............................................................................9 Chapter Three: Aggression and the Turn........................................................................................................11 Chapter Four: Bet Sizing and Thin Value.........................................................................................................14 Chapter Five: Player Identification and Basic Handreading ..........................................................................16 Chapter Six: Isolation Theory...........................................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]