Depolarizing's avatar


34 points

@4:00, regarding the split range on the river, which 7x are you mixing into your small sizing? When designing range splits in my own practice, I've always had trouble figuring out how to do this in any meaningful way, so it ends up being a lot of randomization and consulting pio.

Jan. 7, 2017 | 6:25 p.m.

Yes I completely agree with you that position plays the largest role. And of course, if both ranges are 100% equal, then, oop should check quite often to the IP player. I guess what I was getting at was, even though every hand in our range is also in IP's range, IP has fewer combos of hands that completely miss. We both have AK, but IP has a smaller frq of AK (because he presumably 3b AK). Same with many other hands. Doing some very rough mental math (could be wrong), OOP player has 108/210 combos that flop no pairs, or more than half his range misses completely. Though IP has a symmetric range, he misses roughly 78/178 or 43% which is a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. I was saying this was the reasoning behind pio's high check percentage.

I think what I'm getting at is if you begin to mold IP's range towards fewer preflop slowplays, more hands like 80% of KQo, 25% of QJ/JTo etc (which I frequently see at live 5/10 and 10/20 though your experience is much more extensive than mine), we will begin to see a growing oop bet frequency. I have always thought that the preflop portion of the game tree was the most important when conducting pio analysis because it has the most margin of human error. Though it may not matter a huge deal (like you correctly pointed out) in this exact scenario, in spots where ranges are much narrower (for example 3b/4b pots), small range mistakes could drastically affect the outcome of pio's analysis.

However, now that I am rewatching your video, I realize this discussion really digresses from the true intention of your video, which are the factors that cause high check frequencies. Sorry for digressing! :)

Jan. 6, 2017 | 10:02 p.m.

6:08 when you show andy's range. You have him calling 6 combos of KJo and 0 combos of KQo. Also while we're on this topic, I'm very confused on how you decided Andy's range. Why is he calling 60% of 64s and 54s, but never any combos of 86s? However, I don't know what you mean by "ranging Andy accurately is irrelevant to this video." I might have a fundamental flaw in understanding how pio works, so please bear with me.

My understand of how PIO works is we are locking the preflop branch of the game tree and pio finds us the nash equilibrium strat for both ranges on various board textures and runouts. Doesn't Andy's preflop range matter quite a lot? To use extreme examples, if Andy's range only included 88 for whatever reason, wouldn't pio's solution be completely different than if Andy's range included 100% of hands?

When I ran similar symmetric range scenarios in the past, I also was surprised at how high the checking frq is for the oop player. However, I always chalked it up to the fact that normally the oop PFR has a higher concentration of combnations in the upper left hand corner of the preflop grid. So even though neither of our ranges are capped in a sense, we have considerably more combinations of AK, AQ, AJ, KQ etc that miss 842 board. Is this wrong?

Jan. 5, 2017 | 8:42 p.m.

Edit: I meant to say you have oop player cbetting 100% of 4x 66/77

Jan. 4, 2017 | 9:09 p.m.

There were a few things that I immediately noticed about your analysis (that may or may not be entirely accurate since I need to run it myself later tonight). Firstly, why is HJ never calling any KQo combos but calling hands like KJo? Also, having watched some of the LATB streams, I would have to say Andy is definitely calling some hands like QJo and 89o some percentage of the time.

I believe your oop cbet strategy that you provided is completely wrong. Boards like these require a very highly mixed strategy, especially with hands like 4x, and other middling pairs. You have the IP player cbetting 100% of 4x, and 66/77 type hands and also betting every pair at a super high frequency. Many of IP player's hands gain massive EV from raising because we end up having to fold pairs.

A result of your cbetting strategy is that our checking range becomes way too imbalanced. You have us checking AA/KK 50%, which I assume is our range "protection", but this is clearly not enough. We are also checking basically all our non pairs, so IP's clear strategy is to just bet everything when checked to. To succinctly sum up your cbetting strategy, you are betting all pairs for protection/value as well as some bluffs, and checking AA/KK everything else. I don't think we need pio to find an exploit for this strategy.

Jan. 4, 2017 | 8:50 p.m.

Comment | Depolarizing commented on Big Pots (part 2)

@6:00, wondering what combos you arrive on this river with. Are you tripling most overpairs for value on the river? If so, what else are you check calling with? Even though your call was correct, seems like A3dd would be an overcall, given the only worse hands would be A3hh, and maybe Kxhh if you include those in your 4b bluffs.

Jan. 3, 2017 | 6:41 p.m.

I'm curious as to which combos of hands you would defend in that 79 vs JJ hand on 7932x on the turn. I remember pio having an overbet sizing on these types of textures with a majority of >9x combos, and of course as many bluffs as we can fit in.

However, I'm not absolutely convinced JJ is crappy defend. With your sizing, Villain needs to defend at least 40% of his range. Considering that villain two barrels a majority of his AQ,AK combinations with this overbet sizing, as well as some of his own combinations of TJo, 58o combinations, doesn't that give Villain enough two barrel/fold hands to make JJ a call?

Jan. 3, 2017 | 5:53 a.m.

@10:53 You mention that versus a small sizing, you can find a raise with KK, as it's pretty much the top of your range. I was wondering how wide you'd be able to go on this river for value. I don't really know how your range on the turn is constructed, but it seems like KK would likely be the one of very few hands you were raising for value. Maybe a low frq of ATs? I'd imagine 9Ts barrels turn as a higher frq play than checking, and Kx two pairs block a lot of V's calling range. Also, I'm assuming many of your flush combos want to be barreling the turn as many do not have showdown value. If these are true (which they may be completely wrong,sorry), How would you choose to defend vs a river 3b? Fold KK and defend flushes and AhTx?

Dec. 3, 2016 | 7:30 p.m.

@~36:00, How do you play hands like KQT6ds or other 6xxx hands that you might have on the flop and turn? Are you checking a lot of your 6x hands on the turn? You also mention that 67 might be too thin of a bet and the fact we don't block an Ace means he'll use his Ace blocker to call down to regulate his defense quite often. While I agree with that, I don't understand why a hand like 67 is ever too thin to bet turn with. Maybe it is too thin for three streets, but what are the merits of getting that second street of value on river instead of the turn?

Oct. 4, 2016 | 12:36 a.m.

I come from a midstakes HU nlhe background, so I might be saying stupid things (just started PLO).

With regards to your ideas on the 6789T board, while I do agree that we perhaps need to include more in our river VB range than JQ combos, what non-straight value bets are we including in here? Also, why do you think splitting our river range into a large and small sizing with QJ and J high straights respectively will add value? If villain is clairvoyant about our strategy, he can turn a lot of his QT9x hands that reasonably play this way into bluffs when we bet smaller (unless we are defending against raises quite often). Wouldn't betting around a moderate sizing on the river with our entire range of bluffs and straights and defending against raises with an appropriate % of our range considering card removal/blockers simplify our strategy too?

in the J99 hand, are we raising anything other than a 9 here? or is the EV(call) >>> EV(raise) with most of our non 9/FH hands?

Oct. 4, 2016 | 12:10 a.m.

Great Video Phil! I'm still quite new to PLO, so excuse my ignorance if these questions are super rudimentary.

~8:00 You say that we should be content with showing down our King high flush because it's nowhere near the top of our range. Is this because there's a huge difference between the A and K high flushes? I thought perhaps the reason we shouldn't bet here is because we are fairly capped, as we don't have many boats. Seems strange to me that we call turn (which you said was pretty marginal), bink the flush, and can't bet for value.

~32:00, if we didn't block a lot of value, for example with a hand like AAxx, should the standard idea be to size larger? Since all draws missed, value hands should fold less often. I remember you had a video earlier in a similar hand where there was an argument on whether or not you should split your range on the river with a smaller sizings to "make bluffs more efficient".

Sept. 27, 2016 | 8:01 p.m.

This was written so well. It seems I have a lot of work ahead. I don't actually have PokerJuice yet, so I'm probably going to purchase it in the very near future. Does the software come with easy to understand instructions on how to play around with it? Or will it require the two hour coaching offered on the website to fully utilize the funcitonality?

Sept. 15, 2016 | 6:15 a.m.

I really enjoy all these HU videos between you and Sauce.

@~21:00, on the JTAJT board, you mention that you are inclined to bluff with the very bottom of your range with hands like 24, as they block combos of Ax. Could you elaborate more on this spot? How is 24 any different than 69dd, or 75, for example at blocking Ax?

@~24:00, on the 247T2 board, I've seen in many instances (in Sauce videos), that he tends to attack "capped" leads quite often with a very wide range of hands. We don't have many overpairs (or any for that matter), fewer combos of 2x, not too many combos of sets, and many hands to fall into the ~KT hand class. I guess the turn play was a little weird, and maybe Sauce mixes his frequencies on turn with those hands as well. However, if this is the case, should we b/f KT here? We're near the very top of our range, and we don't have too many better hands to call. If we are only b/c with 2x, I think this becomes a x/c on the river? Not sure if I'm ranging correctly though. Maybe if we never lead river with anything less than a Ten, we can fold?

@~33:00, on the T65ss board, would Jc7s find its way into your x/r range some low frq? To a have pot sizing, do you think the EV(call) > EV(x/r) with this exact hand? What about other portions of our x/r range? Does this hand add enough value to other portions of your x/r range, and our x/c range?

Sept. 14, 2016 | 6:59 p.m.

So i'm relatively new to PLO, and have a few ideas in HU PLO that I'm not quite sure how to explore. If anyone can point me in the right direction on how to explore these more in depth, it'd be greatly appreciated. I've been trying to construct some check raise ranges on different textures and something I'm having a tough time with is showing up with enough bluffs on later streets.

An example would be a flop of Ts 7s 3h. On this texture i would be check raising with sets, combo draws, nut flush draws, pair+ straight draws, with mixed frq (probably not x/r top set too often). However, on certain turn cards, our range becomes so strong, assuming V is clairvoyant about our x/r strat, V can just exploitatively fold his entire range weaker than top set, let's say, since we only have sets/flushes, etc.

What other hands can we mix in at lower frequency so we can still have bluffs on let's say a Js turn? Can we x/r a hand like As 8h 8d x where on spade turns, we can still bluff with the Nut flush blocker? Is this too weak? Or what hands can we mix in that are weak enough, but with enough equity such that the EV of x/r > EV of flatting? Also,what sorts of backdoors make good candidates for a check raise? I'm worried that my check raise range may become too wide if we include too many backdoor draws.

Sept. 9, 2016 | 2:36 a.m.

I'm pretty sure you worded your question wrong, because this makes no sense. If I understand this correctly, you're saying Villain has bluff catchers + nuts, and Hero has a pure polarized range. So are you saying both Villain and Hero both share the same "nutted" hand region, while Hero has an Air range and Villain has SDV bluff catcher range?

Why would Villain bet his bluff catchers? It would seem that the strategy of just checking his entire range should be good regardless. From Hero's perspective, he still needs to be betting his air, or his nut region will lose value since Villain can just fold his bluff catchers and raise/call his own nutted region. If Hero simply checks his entire range, he loses value for obvious reasons.

Aug. 31, 2016 | 1:31 a.m.

Stop capping your own range postflop by Isoing more hands with better coverage. If these LAGs are just blasting off with ATC then just call down more. If they have 78s, then they have 57 and QT and Q8 and so many combos of just total air.

Aug. 31, 2016 | 1:17 a.m.

IMO, I don't think there's anything wrong with check calling your entire range as the OOP player, as long as your construct your x/c and x/f ranges well. As a side note, on dynamic boards, without either side having a significant range advantage, being in position is very +EV so checking most if not all of your range on these dynamic boards as the OOP player should be the high frequency play.

Aug. 31, 2016 | 1:12 a.m.

I've never played around with PioSolver, but I was also quite surprised that PioSolver checked back a majority of AA/KK combos in response to your simplified strat. Is this because the IP player already has so few combos of AA/KK in his range, as he is 3b most of them? Is it a generally correct to continue to "slowplay" AA/KK as the IP player just to stay consistent with the rest of his range?

July 6, 2016 | 1:12 p.m.

Post | Depolarizing posted in Other: Opening Sets with Two Pairs

Let's say this is OFC pineapple HU.

When you are dealt two pairs in the opening 5 cards and you are out of position, is it always correct to place both pairs on the bottom? What about if you in position and both pairs are live? What if the lower pair is not live? Do we place the "Dead-er" low pair in the middle? What if the higher pair is not live, or also "Dead-er"? Sorry for my lack of terminology.

May 19, 2016 | 1:53 p.m.

Problem here is if we are folding AA, that means your range is only calling sets? And I'm not sure how your live games go, but I know plenty of live 2/5 players that won't even remember that you 3b and will just ship it in with KJ/KQ

May 14, 2016 | 4:30 p.m.

Hey Nick,

I really appreciate the angle you took with this video. You really examined the internal psychology war that rages in every grinder's mind, and did it in a way that was fluid, visceral, and just really wise. The fact that you took your commentary that one step further was frankly eye opening. Whenever I watch a training video I'll hear something like, "this is not optimal, but it will make your life easier to do things this way," I take in what they said and will to some degree admire the intrinsic value of such an approach, but almost immediately my immaturity will get the best of me and I'll daydream about becoming the ultra pro man some day. In particular, your comments about coming to a place where one can dissolve resistance to such temptation via thinking of it in terms of that by playing simpler, you are not playing dumber, rather you are playing smarter because this is the best possible outcome for you. Acknowledgement of one's level/potential is really that individual's Nash equilibrium. Just thought I would extend my compliments and reiterate that your explanations went above and beyond in this video in a way that is quite rare. Thanks man.

April 14, 2016 | 2:16 p.m.


It is extremely curious why GTORB suggests checking back some weaker flushes but always betting AA on the final node of the second hand. Before I offer my guess on this, let me preface, I am an enormously large fish, so please do not eat my alive for positing this... Having said that, perhaps this rather odd scenario could arise from the possibility of villain potentially folding some of his own weaker flushes when faced with a bet. This would mean that AA could act to some extent as a very unexpected merge bet, whereas Hero's Q6/Q5 combos are always getting called by better flushes and occasionally folding out some weaker ones netting it a little bit less EV overall... Could it also potentially have anything to do with the fact that most of Hero's AA combos that made it to this node contain the A of clubs for blocking effects or were 100% of Hero's AA combos making it to the river? Could it also just be some kind of glitch or rounding error? Am I making any sense here or just totally blowing smoke? Please no feasterino on my corpse. Thanks.

April 14, 2016 | 1:37 p.m.

Load more