[kreativ_25]

Всем привет!

Дневник для самодисциплины! Цели как и у всех, но главная - добиться такого уровня игры, чтобы в августе 2011 года уволиться с работы (банковский работник, экономист-аналитик).

В ДНЕВНИКЕ В ОСНОВНОМ БУДУ ПОСТИТЬ РАЗДАЧИ ДЛЯ ОБСУЖДЕНИЯ.

Мой поэтапный план развития на июнь-июль следующий :
1. разбор всех сыгранных турниров в визарде (лимит 5-10)
2. доскональное изучение ICM (тренинг в quiz)
3. просмотр водов
4. Мошман

Далее в в начале августа сделать депозит 400-500$. С румом пока еще не определился. Есть большое желание в онгейм, но большие сомнения т.к. чересчур много регуляров, зато плюс - высокий рейкбек... в общем над этим пока думаю.

Итак начнем

[The_Chel]

если 400-500 то онгейм Проголосовал за все кроме 9-10макс снг

[kreativ_25]

Сообщение от The_Chel

если 400-500 то онгейм Проголосовал за все кроме 9-10макс снг

блин даже не знаю - в онгейме меня льстит только рейкбек... сейчас я играю на ФТ и не могу сказать, что там рыбы меньше, может даже и больше!!!

вот сейчас и получится - все проголосуют за кеш, а играем одностоловые

[The_Chel]

Ну против фактов то не попрешь

[kreativ_25]

был когда то на 2 + 2 тест по одностоловым, для меня несколько вопросов остались спорными, хотелось бы узнать ваше мнение.
-------------
Третий уровень. 25-50. 9 игроков. 2 лимпера и неизвестный чиплидер олинит в MP. У вас JJ на кнопке. Чиплидер и ранее вел себя крайне беспечно и необдуманно. Call или fold?
-------------
Я ответил фолд, визард говорит тоже фолд (KK+), а правильный ответ - КОЛЛ!!!

Лимперы могут заходить либо с мелкой карманкой, либо с конекторами, либо с туз хай одномастные - т.е. против лимперов мы стоим однозначно лучше!
Чиплидер? я бы ему дал АТ+ - и тут мы лучше стоим.
Но есть одно большое НО - это третий уровень и "относительной силы" пара вольтов.
Таким образом в любом случае надо фолдить.

Что вы думаете?

[My3ukaHT]

Мошман должен быть не номером 4, а номером 1. Удачи

[Rock`n`Roll]

Сколько хочешь зарабатывать в месяц, чтобы уволиться с работы?
Очень интересно т.к. живём в одном городе )

[kreativ_25]

Сообщение от Rock`n`Roll

Сколько хочешь зарабатывать в месяц, чтобы уволиться с работы?
Очень интересно т.к. живём в одном городе )

думаю, если смогу стабильно выводить по 2500 в мес.

[Temper]

я наоборот играю в покер пока не могу на норм работу идти) покер беспреспективен и при одинаоковом скилле доходы будут падать каждый месяц..а поднять скилл не каждый может^^
в целом удачи и 2500 ето довольно круто ....хотя смотря сколько опыта в покере?

[GukGV]

Нормально вы там в минске зарабатываете... 2500К в месяц.
А как ты сможешь катать столько, чтобы выводить по 2500К и не уволиться при этом?
Кончай мечтать. Встань на землю.
Или забей на покер и оставь его как хобби, строй семью и свою жизнь а не виртуальное говно.
Или забей на жизнь, семью, выйди на уровень 500$ кешаута в месяц (чтобы пожрать можно было) и гринди с утра до ночи. Только тогда ты станешь нормальным покеристом и кешаут только тогда будет 2500, причем стабильно.

Все всегда хотят и конфетку съесть и на кол не сесть.
Удачи !

[kreativ_25]

Сообщение от GukGV

Нормально вы там в минске зарабатываете... 2500К в месяц.
А как ты сможешь катать столько, чтобы выводить по 2500К и не уволиться при этом?
Кончай мечтать. Встань на землю.
Или забей на покер и оставь его как хобби, строй семью и свою жизнь а не виртуальное говно.
Или забей на жизнь, семью, выйди на уровень 500$ кешаута в месяц (чтобы пожрать можно было) и гринди с утра до ночи. Только тогда ты станешь нормальным покеристом и кешаут только тогда будет 2500, причем стабильно.

Все всегда хотят и конфетку съесть и на кол не сесть.
Удачи !

И тебе УДАЧИ!

[kreativ_25]

Сообщение от Temper

я наоборот играю в покер пока не могу на норм работу идти) покер беспреспективен и при одинаоковом скилле доходы будут падать каждый месяц..а поднять скилл не каждый может^^
в целом удачи и 2500 ето довольно круто ....хотя смотря сколько опыта в покере?

покер бесперспективен???????? тогда почему его официально включили в разряд интеллектуальных игр? м?
я считаю, что скил поднять может каждый - если бы не ленились!

--------------------------
Boku87 закончил свой марафон...

« Итак, в среду, 19-го мая, я наконец закончил свой марафон. После немногим более 10 месяцев и около 45 000 турниров, мой банкролл достиг отметки в 100 384 долларов!

Около 50% моего профита – непосредственно со столов, другие 50% от FPP и этапных бонусов, а также других льгот и поощрений, таких как Битва Планет и Turbo Takedown. Я также выиграл около $1 000 в кеш-игре, но это не играет большой роли.

Этот марафон был труднее, чем я ожидал и я приложил много усилий в последнее время. Но думаю я доказал, что это возможно – превратить начальные $5 в $100 000 которых я достиг. И это возможно сделать в течение года, если вы приложите достаточно усилий для этого.

Секрет успеха – это непрерывно пытаться(?) играть, при этом всегда работая над своей игрой, пытаясь улучшить ее. Если вы делаете все это достаточно долго, у вас также есть шанс на постройку большого банкролла. Именно это и было целью – проверить возможность постройки большого банкролла при малых вложениях.

Спасибо, что следили за марафон предыдущие 10 месяцев и удачи за столами.»

[kreativ_25]

заметил небольшую особенность - покерстов и визард немого по разному определяют диапазоны: так если 2%, то визард QQ+, а покерстов JJ+! в некоторых случаях получается, что ошибка уже не ошибка

еще по визарду на первом уровне колить 22 нельзя, хотя Мошман утверждает обратное!

[Бегемот]

lol

визард пушфолд считает, а не коллы на сет )

[kreativ_25]

Сообщение от Бегемот

lol

визард пушфолд считает, а не коллы на сет )

ну да... че то я стормозил ))
-----------
вопрос по теме: как вы считаете стоит ли на 1-2 уровне с мелкой карманкой заходить под рейз в 2 -2,5ББ?

[petan]

Сообщение от kreativ_25

ну да... че то я стормозил ))
-----------
вопрос по теме: как вы считаете стоит ли на 1-2 уровне с мелкой карманкой заходить под рейз в 2 -2,5ББ?

Канеш стоит.

[kreativ_25]

In poker, the classic joke is that the answer to any question you may ask is “it depends”. While it may seem silly at first glance, there is much truth to that statement.

Nothing in poker is an absolute, and the ICM is no exception to this, as we've covered in the last article in the series. There are several issues with the Independent Chip Model that should be addressed before anyone delves in the magical world of math and expected value that is the ICM.


The main complaint about the ICM is that it's a complex set of equations, and that no one can solve such a complex series at the table with the amount of time that most poker sites give you. This is a very true statement, for the most part. However, just because it's no use at the table does not mean that it's not useful.

Doyle Brunson relied more on feel than on the math of a situation, and it certainly worked for him, as well as many others. But what is typically misunderstood is that players that develop a “feel” for the game have simply internalized the math, as opposed to relying on quantifying variables. Neither way is incorrect, but typically, the math of the situation will explain a play made by a player who “feels” it's the correct play, even though they have no knowledge of the equation.

The fact is that the ICM is extremely difficult to use in real time at the table. What you learn from examining situations using ICM in hindsight, however, has many, many benefits to your game, and the more information we can gather, the better our chances of making the correct decision.

Another situation in which the ICM tends to fail is when the blinds are large in relation to at least one stack on the table. Some people consider a stack of 1-2 big blinds to be where ICM begins to fail because of large blinds. Personally, I feel it's closer to 3 big blinds, and most people feel that “large” is closer to my estimate than 1-2 big blinds. In any situation, this can cause problems with the ICM, especially in bubble situations. In these types of situations, where a folding war defense may be more useful, ICM can be less accurate, although it will often give the correct answer.

Accuracy also comes into play with the number of players remaining in the tournament. ICM is most accurate when you're looking at a range of 3 to 5 players. When there are two players, ICM and actual tournament chips correlate perfectly, so while ICM works just fine with two players, it's quite pointless to calculate, as calculating with chips works just as well in that situation. As the number of players increases, it becomes more difficult to predict the actual outcome, because of the number of variables that come into play in tournaments that ICM doesn't capture, and are very difficult to model in general. While it still works well ten-handed, it works best near the bubble and after the bubble has ended.

The other issue that many have with ICM is the number of potential assumptions you have to make. In a simple ICM calculation, you only need to assume the percentage of time that you'll win the hand, but in more complex ICM situations, you may have to make assumptions about multiple hands, the likelihood that each specific player may call you, and the likelihood someone will call you based on if another player calls you. At this point, critics say that with the number of estimates that you're making, the numbers that ICM will give will not have the precision needed in order to make an accurate decision, so there's no real point in making the calculations to begin with.

ICM is not perfect. In reality, we have no way of actually approximating our average winnings in a tournament precisely and accurately. The number of tournament chips is one way to approximate this payout, but it does a poor job of calculating accurate pot odds. ICM takes into account the actual payouts, and because of this, it tends to be more accurate than estimating using only chips. It's far from perfect, but until something better than ICM comes along, it's a pretty good system, and it does a fairly good job at solving tough decisions.

This is the final article in the series on the Independent Chip Model. Now that you've made it through the third article, my next suggestion would be to start practicing with the ICM. If you get into a difficult decision in a hand, save the hand history, and analyze it using the ICM, and see where the math is coming from. I promise you, the more you practice, the more your tournament game will improve in these situations. If you're ever having problems applying the ICM, or you don't understand why it is telling you to fold when you think it's a pretty clear call, don't hesitate to visit the Sit-N-Go forum. There are many knowledgeable and helpful people there, and will be more than willing to help assist you the best they can.

[kreativ_25]

In the first article of this series entitled The Independent Chip Model – An Introduction, we investigated the roots of the Independent Chip Model (ICM), and we also explored an example of when ICM contradicts a decision justified by the conventional method of calculating pot odds. Now, let's expand on this idea further, and evaluate a situation with four players remaining. This stage of the game is referred to as bubble play, because in most Sit-n-Go ten player tournaments, there are three places paid out, and with four players remaining, none of them want to finish in the non-paying position.


Bubble play is also considered the most important part of the Sit-n-Go tournament for two reasons. For one reason, it's the determining factor in whether you will get rewarded for the time you've invested. However, it's also the time when the most money is awarded out. When there are three players remaining in a standard Sit-n-Go ten player tournament, each player left is guaranteed 20% of the prize pool, which means that 60% of the prize pool has already been awarded, and there's two more places to award still. Since Sit-n-Go tournaments pay out such a large portion of the prize pool at the beginning of the final three, it's even more important not to finish one out of the money.


With that being said, let's set up a theoretical bubble situation. Let's say you have 2400 in chips, the players to your left, in order, have 2200, 3600, and 1800, before paying the blinds. The blinds are 200/400, and you are the small blind. Action folds to you, and you have the monster of 98s, a suited connector, which you typically don't like to play heads up. What do you do?


First off, with 6BB, you're basically looking to either push or fold in this situation. If you make a minimum raise to 800, and the big blind comes over the top of you and pushes all-in, you are getting odds to call this. If you're getting odds to call it with the minimum raise, the question arises on why not just push all 2400 in to start, and make the big blind decide if they like their hand or not. So, we need to evaluate both decisions, and figure out which decision gives us a higher expected value, based on the ICM.


If we fold, we know what the chip stacks will be every time. You will have 2200, and to your left will be 2400, 3600, and 1800, respectively. When you punch these numbers into an ICM calculator, these chip stacks represent an ICM value of 0.2354.


Now, we evaluate all of the potential outcomes when we push. There are four outcomes that we need to investigate: the big blind folds to your push, the big blind calls and you win, the big blind calls and you lose, and the big blind calls and you tie. In most preflop situations, I do not calculate pot equity based on a tie, because it happens so rarely, that you're not losing much accuracy by not including it. Of course, this implies that we need to know how often that the big blind is going to fold to your push, and how often he's going to call.

Generally, a tight player will call with around 15% of their hands and a loose player will call with around 30% of their hands. It's up to your read on the big blind what this percentage is, and it's merely an estimate, but in this situation, we'll assume they're a tight player, and will call with 15% of the hands they're dealt. I personally feel this is still a bit loose, and 10% could be much closer to correct, but 15% is a fair assumption.


So, we'll say 85% of the time, they're going to end up folding. When they folds, the chip stacks will end up as 2600, 2000, 3600, 1800. From these stacks, you have an ICM EV value of 0.2623. This is great, we've gained an extra couple of percent of the prize pool on average, just by this one push.


Now, suppose he's calls. It's definitely not what you're hoping for, but it will happen three out of twenty times. When you do get called, however, all is not lost. You'll win this hand about 36% of the time, on average. This is based on running a simulator to compare 97o versus a range of hands. Tables exist with this kind of data for quick reference, or you could use a poker odds calculator like the one at ITH to calculate a range of hands.


So, the probability of him calling and winning is 15% * 64% = 9.6%, and the probability of him calling and losing is 15% * 36% = 5.4% of the time. In the first case, the chip stacks will be 0, 4600, 3600, and 1800, and your ICM will be 0, since there's no chance for you to make the money. If you win, the chip stacks are 4400, 200, 3600, 1800, and you'll have an ICM value of 0.3639.


So, we have three ICM numbers, and the probability that each of those situations happens, so all we have to do now is average them. We then have the equation ICM EV = (0.85 * 0.2623) + (0.096 * 0) + (0.054 * 0.3639) = 0.2426.


So, if we fold, we have an ICM value of 0.2354 if we fold, and an ICM value of 0.2426 if we push. We're gaining on average about 0.7% of the prize pool if we push here, instead of folding, or in other words, about 72 cents on a $10+1 tournament. If we're looking to make back two to three dollars on every tournament we play at this level, adding another 72 cents on average is a huge addition.


How can we apply this at the table? In contrast to the first article, in which we were getting away from a race once we were in the money, in this situation we're pushing into a situation where we're a race at the very best, and more than likely are behind by a good amount of 33% to 67% if not 20% to 80%. What's the difference in this situation? Well, for one, you're competing for an additional 20%-50% of the prize pool, as opposed to at 10%-30% share, but more importantly, you can win the hand in two ways: by either having the best hand at the end, or getting your opponent to fold. In contrast, when calling, you can only win the pot when you have the best hand.

This is known as the gap concept, the idea that you must have a better hand to call with than to raise with.


Now, after seeing these two examples, you should be able to calculate any situation using the Independent Chip Model. However, there are exceptions to all models, and times where these models can fail. In the final article of the series, we will address these failures, in addition to other caveats of the Independent Chip Model.


Continue to the third article in the series, The Independent Chip Model - Caveats and Further Learning

[kreativ_25]

I'm certain many people have read through the online forums on occasion, and have seen a glimpse of something referred to as ICM. Upon reading further into a jumble of decimal numbers, people typically end up doing one of two things: scroll to the bottom to find the actual decision decided through ICM in plain English, or give up altogether, and assume that since there was so much heavy math involved, it wasn't of too much use at the table.


ICM is short for Independent Chip Modeling, and while on the surface looks at best complicated, in actual practice is quite simple as long as you understand pot odds, and understanding the math behind it will improve your Sit-n-Go Game.


The fundamental problem with using your chips to calculate pot odds in a tournament is that tournament chips have no fixed value. In addition, different chips have different values to them. That is to say, if you were to compare the value of a person's last remaining chip, or the 10,000th chip in a stack of 10,000, the last chip has much more value than the 10,000th chip, because once you lose that last chip, you are out of the tournament, while when you lose the 10,000th chip, you still have 9,999 chips remaining. This concept is similar to the idea of diminishing returns to capital, for those economists out there. Because of this, calculating pot odds based on chips does not fully capture the amount of money won or lost on average based on a decision, which is really what we're doing when we're calculating pot odds.


The ICM has foundations from several different sources, from usenet groups to Mason Malmuth and others. The theory behind the ICM can be described as complex at best. The main assumption is that your probability of winning is based on the number of chips you have compared to the number of chips in the tournament. Then, you calculate your probability of finishing in second, which is based on how many chips you have compared to the number of chips in the tournament after the winner's chips have been removed from the tournament. This iterates down for the number of places that pay out.

You then calculate how much you win by multiplying your probability of finishing in a certain place, and you'll arrive at a decimal, which represents your expected share of the prize pool, commonly referred to as your expected value.


As expected, the math above can end up being quite complex, and the above description is still simplified. For that reason, several calculators have been written to do the work instead of having to calculate it on your own, including the ICM Calculator hosted at this very site. If you want to actually calculate it out, there are pages out there that have the mathematical formula for ICM as well, but the number of computations that are made by hand just aren't worth the hassle, in my opinion.


Now that you have the calculator, let's try a situation. Suppose you have three players left, the button has 2000, and you and the small blind have 4000 chips. Payouts are a standard Sit-n-Go ten player structure of 50% for the winner, 30% for 2nd place, and 20% for 3rd place. The blinds are 150/300, and you're on the BB. You look down, and you get QQ, and fireworks go off, you have a monster of a hand. The small blind pushes all-in, and we'll make the assumption that you also know from playing with him that he'll only make that kind of bet with AK. What do you do?


So, you have to calculate your ICM expected value (EV) for three situations: if you were to fold, if you were to call and win, and if you were to call and lose. We will ignore splitting the pot in this situation since it will occur less than one percent of the time. I'll address splitting the pot in the next article.


We will start with the first situation. If you were to fold, the button would still have 2000 chips, you would have 3700 chips, and the small blind would have 4300 chips. When you enter these numbers into the calculator, it will output the ICM value of 0.3482. If you were playing a $10+1 buy-in tournament, you'd have an expected value of $100*0.3482, or $34.82, with that chip stack against those other two chip stacks, specifically. In other words, in the long run, you'd expect to win $34.82 on average if you were put in this exact situation every time. Not bad, eh?


Now, let's calculate the second and third situations. If you call and lose, the math is very simple; you would end up with 0 chips and 3rd place, or an ICM expected value of 0.2000. When you multiply this number by the prize pool, you end up with $100*0.2, or $20 in the long run, which is the payout for 3rd place. If you call and win, you will have 8000 chips, and the button will have 2000 chips. When you punch this value into the ICM calculator, the calculator outputs a value of 0.4600.


What's the expected value of calling? QQ will win 56% of the time versus AK. We can figure these percentages out using the help of an odds calculator, such as ITH's Poker Odds Calculator. So, 56% of the time, we'll have an ICM of 0.4600, and 44% of the time, we'll have an ICM of 0.2000. So if we average this out, we have (0.56*0.46)+(0.44*0.2) = 0.3457.


This gives us a EV of calling at 0.3457, and an EV of folding of 0.3482. So, the more optimal play is to fold your QQ. If we wanted to quantify this, at a $10+1 tournament, the difference between the two decisions on average is $100*(0.3482 – 0.3457), which is equal to a quarter. A quarter doesn't sound like much, but that is an increase of your ROI by 2.3% by folding instead of calling in this situation every time.


This may sound strange, but there are reasons for this. First off, this is assuming that you know your opponent is playing AK exactly. Of course he could make this push with a wider variety of hands, and that could (and most likely would) make it a callable all-in. However, the main idea is that you do not want to be taking risks and calling off your chips (note the emphasis on calling) with three players remaining. You don't want to risk calling into races, mostly because of the small increase from third to second place.

This is contradictory to the style of most players, who are thrilled that they just made the money, and are willing to take risks, loosely calling all-ins after playing tight on the bubble, in hopes of getting lucky and possibly winning first place.


This is the end of article one in a series of three articles. In the next article, we'll focus on the other side of the decision - whether to push all-in or fold. Then, in the third article, we'll evaluate the pitfalls of the ICM model, and the realistic applications it has at the table.

[mr.kiris]

Сообщение от kreativ_25

вопрос по теме: как вы считаете стоит ли на 1-2 уровне с мелкой карманкой заходить под рейз в 2 -2,5ББ?

Я бы заходил только из поздней позиции под рейз 2бб, а под 2.5 и 3ББ, заходил бы только если есть хотя бы один лимпер