Best Strategy for WPT All-in Hold'em Casino Game
Timothy Liu
All-in Hold'em. After some number crunching, here is the best strategy
and EV.
http://tim.liu.home.comcast.net/poker
Bottom line is: if perfect strategy is played, the house edge is about
1.5%.
The strategy has some fascinating perculiarities: require you to bet 10x for the
highest and lowest hand. It revealed something about Hold'em I am sure
some expert players can relate to. If you can lock opponent on high
cards, low cards plays better than medium cards.
Tim
Iceman
(Timothy Liu) wrote:
>Someone else posted a piece of news on the new house game called WPT
>All-in Hold'em. After some number crunching, here is the best strategy
>and EV.
>
>http://tim.liu.home.comcast.net/poker
>
>Bottom line is: if perfect strategy is played, the house edge is about
>1.5%.
Thanks. I suspect in real life most players would do much worse than
that, since they would fold a lot more hands than just the very worst,
not bet 10x with low flush/straight cards, and instead bet 10x with a
lot of seemingly strong high card hands that do better with 5x.
>The strategy has some fascinating perculiarities: require you to bet 10x for the
>highest and lowest hand.
I thought about this...the reason betting 10x makes sense with low
flush/straight cards is that:
-the dealer will fold a large fraction of the hands he holds, and
those extra antes make a big difference
-when you do get called you're rarely in terrible shape (40-45%
against overcards)
Low unconnected cards don't win enough on the extra antes you pick up
by betting 10x to make up for their greater disadvantage relative to
higher hands - the few extra percent of a straight or flush draw makes
the difference here.
> It revealed something about Hold'em I am sure
>some expert players can relate to. If you can lock opponent on high
>cards, low cards plays better than medium cards.
I disagree. Low cards do poorly against the 13+ or 17+ range of
hands, but the difference is that they lose less against the 17+
because the dealer folds a lot more often. Medium cards do okay
against the 13+ range, but poorly against the 17+ range; unlike low
cards you'd rather the dealer play the 13-16 hands, many of which you
dominate. Hands with one high card and one low/medium card also want
to face the 13-16 range.
ContactGSW
Thanks for the work Tim, if it ever makes it to Tunica, I'll donate to the
cause (your cause, at 1.5% Its a pretty good chance I'll donate to the
casino's cause too)
ContactGSW
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
salmoneous
imagine that just a bit of knowledge of the other dealt cards would be
able to get that 1.5% advantage down.
J. Michael Hammond
I shoved your numbers into a spreadsheet and got a house advantage of
1.65%.
Do you think the difference is due to me mis-transcribing or
mis-computing something, or due to the numbers being published to two
decimal places, or did you round off the summary number somehow?
Thanks!
--JMike
Ron Legere
Thanks for posting the strategy. As I posted earlier, i also analyzed
this game (monte carlo) and got the same strategy you did (within margin
of error) , and the same
house edge. So, unless we both screwed up the same way, I can now
beleive the strategy a bit more :)
Anyway, you are correct about the 'practical' house edge. If you
played this like you were playing real holdem, you would fold a lot more
hands
and the house edge shoots way up!!
Cheers!
Timothy Liu
is set to display 2 decimal places. If you want it I can email it to
you. My email is in the web site.
jm...@alum.mit.edu (J. Michael Hammond) wrote in message news:<f9290115.04052...@posting.google.com>...