Unexploitable Heads Up play

[GaF]

I decided to take the plunge and bought a copy of SnG Power Tools - it seems expensive compared to other tools like Poker Tracker, however on twoplustwo seems to get rave reviews, and Harrington supposedly praises it in HOH III - if it's good for Harrington ........ ;) Anyway, first thing that really took my eye was not the program itself, but an article in the help files on "Unexploitable Heads Up play". I don't feel it's right to reproduce the whole article, but will summarise and maybe give one table example of the data - so it may be that only others with the program can answer my query..... I make no secret that I think my HU play is quite weak - so this, a "robotic" way to play HU reasonably well hits the right spots with me. In brief, the argument is that if you follow this mathmatical approach - to either shove or fold every hand, you can play the "Nash Equilibrium" (apparently thats a "game theory" term) and it is impossible for your opponent to have an edge on you. And if he doesn't play the NE, then you will have an edge on him. The hands you shove (or fold) depend not on M or Q, but on R!!! Effectively the same - it is the multiplier of your stack over the Big Blind. However having read it, and tried it (only over 2 games - so no statistical significance at all) I am extremely dubious over the possibility that this has any chance at all of working - specifically at high M (or High R) moments (I haven't formed an opinion yet for low R moments - I haven't lasted long enough to find out). However, the guy who wrote the article is clearly very talented and his mathmatical and studious approach is one that I like and would want to "follow" - maybe I need to do some research on how Howard Lederer plays........ Here is an example of the criteria for when R=25 ...... HU, all-in/fold, Blinds 100/200, Min Stack 5000 (R=25)

	A	K	Q	J	T	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2
A	AA	AKs	AQs	AJs	ATs	A9s	A8s	A7s	A6s	A5s	A4s	A3s	A2s
K	AKo	KK	KQs	KJs	KTs	K9s	K8s	K7s	K6s	K5s	K4s	K3s	K2s
Q	AQo	KQo	QQ	QJs	QTs	Q9s	Q8s	Q7s	Q6s	Q5s	Q4s	Q3s	Q2s
J	AJo	KJo	QJo	JJ	JTs	J9s	J8s	J7s	J6s	J5s	J4s	J3s	J2s
T	ATo	KTo	QTo	JTo	TT	T9s	T8s	T7s	T6s	T5s	T4s	T3s	T2s
9	A9o	K9o	Q9o	J9o	T9o	99	98s	97s	96s	95s	94s	93s	92s
8	A8o	K8o	Q8o	J8o	T8o	98o	88	87s	86s	85s	84s	83s	82s
7	A7o	K7o	Q7o	J7o	T7o	97o	87o	77	76s	75s	74s	73s	72s
6	A6o	K6o	Q6o	J6o	T6o	96o	86o	76o	66	65s	64s	63s	62s
5	A5o	K5o	Q5o	J5o	T5o	95o	85o	75o	65o	55	54s	53s	52s
4	A4o	K4o	Q4o	J4o	T4o	94o	84o	74o	64o	54o	44	43s	42s
3	A3o	K3o	Q3o	J3o	T3o	93o	83o	73o	63o	53o	43o	33	32s
2	A2o	K2o	Q2o	J2o	T2o	92o	82o	72o	62o	52o	42o	32o	22

Basically Red is fold, green is all in and yellow is all in for SB but fold for BB. First thing is - if you are all in, what difference does the SB/BB make? ESPECIALLY at high R? The odds will be virtually identical. Secondly - there seems little distinction between going all in and calling all in - which must be utter crap mustn't it? (ok confession time - I've skim read it 3 or 4 times - but not read it properly yet - so I MAY have missed a point somewhere......) So you have a relatively huge stack and stand to win pretty small blinds - can it really be right to go all in pre flop with the likes of J9o, 96s - sounds like high risk for little reward to me........ I just cannot see it...... So my question - anyone else who has this - have you tried it and does it work for you? Is it my application that is wrong or the system? As I said - I'm talking specifically at high R moments - have formed no opinion yet on the lower R proposals, but can imagine that it may work - at that stage aggression is key ..... and this certainly advocates aggression!!!!! Also worth adding - this "all in" approach doesn't claim to be the best ("Maximal") solution, but it does claim to be a solution in which your oppoenent cannot get an edge on you - i.e. you will win 50% if your opponent plays the same, increasing if your opponent deviates from this..... or am I REALLY missing the point somewhere? :unsure

[slick mick]

Re: Unexploitable Heads Up play Being of a mathematical background (degree in statistics) i've done a little research on game theory and can see you're missing a few points but you're asking so many questions and I've had so many stella's that I'm going to have to reply tomorrow with a fuller explanation. Basically there is a basic theory of heads up and lots of more and more complex theories. I tend to do really well in heads up due to a mixture of maths backgound knowledge and poker instinct but it is such a complex area it's difficult to know where to start.