关于期望的一个疑问

如果你判断对手听同花，然后通过巧妙的设计，C-R对手allin了。如果你直接allin，对手call听同花的期望不够，因此不会call；如果你C-R对手，由于对手的bet，他的期望够了，那他call的行为就合理了？其实他是不得不在为之前的错误买单吧。Phil Galfond说的如果你有60%的胜率，你就会赢60%的锅，应该是这个意思吧？

這個論點的出發點就錯了。

怎麼去「判斷對手聽同花」??，在 flop 我們怎麼能去判斷對手 100% 是聽同花呢???，除非你能通神看到對手的牌，否則只憑對手一次的下注就判斷他是聽同花??哪有這種事~~

如果對手會拿同花兆，看到你 check 之後下注，當然，他也有可能拿著第二大的對子或頂對這樣做，甚至他什麼都沒有，只是看你沒下注示弱想下注偷 pot，這時被 c-r 他多半會扔，我們就多贏了，而且這裡的「多贏」是 70% 以上會發生的狀況。

然後當然，他也有可能認為你拿著同花兆 c-r 而拿比我們落後的牌 call，這對我們來說也是增加 ev 的情況。

不去考慮 80% 以上的情況下會發生的事，會讓我們能增加多少 ev，而去考慮 20% 以下的情況下，我們會損失多少 ev，這不是很沒意義嗎??

所以這樣做，重點不是期望值，而是我們希望要達到的目的，當我們認為我們領先的時候，我們會希望投入 pot 裡面的 $ 越多越好，既然目的已經達到了，還去談對手最後的 call 的期望值??；他之前已經做了二三次 -ev 的舉動，就算最後一個動作是 +ev，也無法改變他要輸錢的事實。

回复 16# Howard


    老霍，我一直搞不太懂，这个range的顶端时什么？

回复 14# greatsunkai


    这篇文章里的弯子我没绕过来，谁能结合例子给解释一下子，如下：
easy game里面的一章
Chapter Twelve: A Brief Understanding of G-Bucks
In the previous paragraph, we touched on a subject that is commonly referred to as GBucks.G-Bucks was originally pioneered as a concept by Phil Galfond (AKA OMGclayaiken, a top-5 player in the world currently). The idea is relatively simple—whether or not you make the correct decision against someone’s hand is relatively unimportant (this type of decision is called a Sklansky buck decision, i.e. if you put in 100 dollars at 20% to win, you win a theoretical 20 dollars). Galfond’s idea, though, was that even if you get the money in at 20% to win, if you’re 60% to win against his range, you actually win 60 dollars in the long-term, even though the results of the hand led you to a 20 dollar expectation.
A moment ago, we were talking about how people don’t do a good job of evaluating the strength of draws in the context of equity. They assume that if a person has a draw more often than 50% of the time, they should go all-in. This ignores the fact that range equities are what matter—a person with a range that looks like sets 40% of the time and draws 60% of the time usually is a big favorite against our range, even though they have a draw more than half the time.This is a pretty basic understanding of G-bucks in terms of equity.
This also is a pretty decent argument as for why we shouldn’t overly concern ourselves with math when trying to play poker at a table. The math is either very simple (we have the nut flush draw and thus have around 45% equity) or extremely complicated (against an estimated 10% of his range, we are 75% equity, against an estimated 35% of his range, we have 20% equity, against an estimated 55% of his range, we have 45% equity, balance out the range equity and compare to pot odds to determine our G-bucks). Even in the complicated scenario, it relies on deductive analysis to determine his likely range. In general, we’ll instead rely on the basic math and a generalized “feel” approach to the complicated stuff. But, it’s important to know that G-bucks defines a structural poker concept.
Since writing this chapter in for the initial release of “Easy Game”, it has come to my attention that G-Bucks, as originally written, refers not to our hand’s strength against our opponent’s ranges but the opposite—our range against our opponent’s holding. In terms of understanding the concept, this is somewhat beside the point. What matters is that we’re focused on identifying our equity against our opponent’s range first and foremost. It’s a rather more advanced skill to identify our range’s equity against our opponent’s range (and one that we won’t really need to emphasize until we play against the same strong players every day). Until we hit the nosebleeds, we can take advantage of the practical uses of G-Bucks and focus on range equities.

回复 16# Howard


    嗯，大概有一些思路了，谢谢。

回复  Howard


    那您认为主角的check-raise是不是正确的选择呢？
greatsunkai 发表于 2010-11-24 14:00

    是否正确的选择取决于怎样定义“正确”。如果主角认为对手range偏弱，fold概率大于特定值比如30%，即使他跟自己的牌也有40%以上赢率，这个C-R就是正确的。但是对手恰好是暗三条，不但绝不可能fold，而且希望主角C-R，这里主角就正中对手的奸计。但主角的估计也没错，只不过对手恰好处在他range的顶端而已。

下一次对手同样行动的时候，说不定就是仅有8 outer甚至更少。仍然可以把主角的的C-R看作正确的。

c-r对超对不适合吧，考虑自己是set的情况。如果对手100%bet flush draw的时候，这么的C-R不是相当于套住了么。

easy game里面的一章
Chapter Twelve: A Brief Understanding of G-Bucks
In the previous paragraph, we touched on a subject that is commonly referred to as GBucks.G-Bucks was originally pioneered as a concept by Phil Galfond (AKA OMGclayaiken, a top-5 player in the world currently). The idea is relatively simple—whether or not you make the correct decision against someone’s hand is relatively unimportant (this type of decision is called a Sklansky buck decision, i.e. if you put in 100 dollars at 20% to win, you win a theoretical 20 dollars). Galfond’s idea, though, was that even if you get the money in at 20% to win, if you’re 60% to win against his range, you actually win 60 dollars in the long-term, even though the results of the hand led you to a 20 dollar expectation.
A moment ago, we were talking about how people don’t do a good job of evaluating the strength of draws in the context of equity. They assume that if a person has a draw more often than 50% of the time, they should go all-in. This ignores the fact that range equities are what matter—a person with a range that looks like sets 40% of the time and draws 60% of the time usually is a big favorite against our range, even though they have a draw more than half the time.This is a pretty basic understanding of G-bucks in terms of equity.
This also is a pretty decent argument as for why we shouldn’t overly concern ourselves with math when trying to play poker at a table. The math is either very simple (we have the nut flush draw and thus have around 45% equity) or extremely complicated (against an estimated 10% of his range, we are 75% equity, against an estimated 35% of his range, we have 20% equity, against an estimated 55% of his range, we have 45% equity, balance out the range equity and compare to pot odds to determine our G-bucks). Even in the complicated scenario, it relies on deductive analysis to determine his likely range. In general, we’ll instead rely on the basic math and a generalized “feel” approach to the complicated stuff. But, it’s important to know that G-bucks defines a structural poker concept.
Since writing this chapter in for the initial release of “Easy Game”, it has come to my attention that G-Bucks, as originally written, refers not to our hand’s strength against our opponent’s ranges but the opposite—our range against our opponent’s holding. In terms of understanding the concept, this is somewhat beside the point. What matters is that we’re focused on identifying our equity against our opponent’s range first and foremost. It’s a rather more advanced skill to identify our range’s equity against our opponent’s range (and one that we won’t really need to emphasize until we play against the same strong players every day). Until we hit the nosebleeds, we can take advantage of the practical uses of G-Bucks and focus on range equities.

回复  伟大的墙


    其实我这个疑问主要是针对Phil Galfond的理论，而不是具体的一手牌。
In the previo ...
greatsunkai 发表于 2010-11-24 14:37

   
没看懂

回复 11# 伟大的墙


    其实我这个疑问主要是针对Phil Galfond的理论，而不是具体的一手牌。
In the previous paragraph, we touched on a subject that is commonly referred to as GBucks.
G-Bucks was originally pioneered as a concept by Phil Galfond (AKA OMGclayaiken, a
top-5 player in the world currently). The idea is relatively simple—whether or not you make the
correct decision against someone’s hand is relatively unimportant (this type of decision is called
a Sklansky buck decision, i.e. if you put in 100 dollars at 20% to win, you win a theoretical 20
dollars). Galfond’s idea, though, was that even if you get the money in at 20% to win, if you’re
60% to win against his range, you actually win 60 dollars in the long-term, even though the
results of the hand led you to a 20 dollar expectation.