Depolarizing's avatar

Depolarizing

66 points

I've been going crazy recently studying with piosolver and trying to take as many notes as possible. It's quite addicting :) The "aha!" moments are so worth it. Thanks for the interesting videos!

April 25, 2017 | 10:51 p.m.

I ran this simulation awhile ago, so I can't remember exactly, but usually whenever I run a sim from someone else''s hand, I try to use their ranges, so I probably used Zach's. If I remember correctly though, I inputted my own ranges while simulating this spot and still got basically 100% call with T9. Could you screenshot your ranges? Thanks :)

It's also quite interesting to see how these strategies differ based off slight tweaks in preflop. Just goes to show how much human error can happen in using pio.

April 25, 2017 | 6:30 p.m.

Comment | Depolarizing commented on Deep Live Hands

Hi John, interesting live video. i've been transitionng more towards the same type of games and it's interesting to see some HHs that you have played. Just had a few things to add about doing piosolver analysis.

First, you should normally click the square size proportional to weight box. In fact, just click all the boxes in that column. You get a kind of misrepresentation of what your range looks like if you do not. I also ran this simulation with the ranges I could extrapolate from your video, and while it is true once facing a x/r, A4cc wants to be 3b jamming a relatively high frq, piosolver almost never bets A4cc on the flop to begin with.

Also do you really think Villain will turn TT into some weird type of protection raise on the flop? Fwiw, I nodelocked some of the hands you mentioned into a new strategy (also nodelocked you A4cc cbet at 100% frq), and as expected, OOP's strategy is horrible.

Anyway, piosolver's most powerful tool is nodelocking and you should nodelock what your actual cbet strategies looks like and see how piosolver responds to that strategy. I can't really know that, so I will be making some potentially poor assumptions. Pio doesn't like betting QJ/JT very often on the flop, whereas you might be always betting them vs a weaker opponent.

April 24, 2017 | 1:47 a.m.

@ around 8:00

April 23, 2017 | 6:52 a.m.

Hi, just wanted to add a quick note to this. In 3b pots, this is not as much of an issue where ranges are narrower/SPRs are smaller. However, in SRP scenarios, this is not always the case. When offering pio the option of 3+ sizings, it might choose, let's say the smaller size. However, if you give it a choice of 2 sizings, it will sometimes choose the larger sizing (and to be fair, most are significant mixes anyway). Offering more strategic options on each street is not necessarily synonymous with the option being chosen as the most efficient.

April 22, 2017 | 8:49 p.m.

@~4:00, you decide to fold KQo to the x/r 3 ways. Is this an exploit fold of basically you're entire range? You only have 3 combos better than this maybe 6 if you never 3b 99. I'm not sure though, toughh spot.

@~8:30 you mentioned that you would have to be betting nonequity hands like QJ often on the river. I don't think QJ makes for a very good triple barrel in a Btn vs BB SRP scenario. We want to be using hands that have better blockers towards his own Ax hands like 43s, 74s etc. QJ doesn't do a good job of blocking his Ax because presumably he 3b a decent portion of AQ/AJ preflop. Also maybe we can triple a hand liek T8o with a spade if that is in your preflop RFI range. Might be a little loose, I'm not sure.

April 21, 2017 | 5 a.m.

In the 477A hand, I don't understand the merits of your lead to induce captaincube to raise on 4th street. I'm also a huge fish btw at any mix game (probably less than 1k hands also against huge fish :) ). If I am playing captaincube's range, I would be incentivized to play my entire range as a call rather than raise. As you pointed out, this ace doesn't really pair you too often with a dead ace on 3rd street, so your hand is likely one pursuing a low. With lb6 showing two clubs as well, while also clearly pursuing a high hand, Especially with you and captain both showing a 7, aren't the chances that both you and captain are pursuing lows? If this is the case, shouldn't lb6 always be calling a raise? Sorry if this is very fish thinking.

April 21, 2017 | 4:17 a.m.

Hey Krab, enjoyed the video like always. I thought your last hand with J3cc was quite interesting, and I modeled it for you. I'm sure you've already done your own analysis on this spot, and would like to know if our conclusions/results match up.

First note is that I'm assuming Villain is 3b 56s and 67s at a high frq, so these combos I am excluding from his range. Also, 67o I think should be 3b sometimes vs 2.5x so these are cold called 50% (not sure if this is how people actually pllay though). Also A2s is 3b at 25%.

Flop action seems standard. With your exact combo, pio likes calling most of the time to the raise, and 3bing flop around 1/3 of the time. Also interesting is that we have quite a significant 3b range (probably due to fewer nutted straight combos for Villain). Pio likes playing our range as an almost 20% 3b on the flop. Hands that 3b are obviously 67, 62s, and A2 as a mix. We also are 3b hands like 77 and 6x+fds.

After we arrive on the turn, you noted that Villain's sizing of around 1/3 pot is interesting. Pio favors the smaller bet size greatly. WIth Villain's exact combo, Pio advocates an almost exact 50/50 mix between 1/3 and checking. It is only betting 9 combos a slight overbet which are predominantly the few combos of 67, 77, 75o, and a mix of 6x combo draws. I think the reason for this is because our range contains way more straights and more combos of nutted straights than Villain does. Is this correct thinking or is there something deeper that I am missing?

Villain arrives on turn with this range:

And we arrive on the turn with roughly this range:

Here is Villain's entire turn barrel strategy:

After Villain's 1/3 pot bet, with J3cc, we are mixing our remaining few combos into raising/calling, with calling being the higher frequency play, which makes sense, since we have a bunch of 67 and nut straight blocker/combo draws to fit into the raising range.

When the river comes a complete blank, Villain should be betting most of his 6x, and always checking this A2cc combo, which makes complete sense. I think you also pointed this out in your video. However, when Villain checks river, you were wondering if we need to start bluffing lower pairs. You are supposed to be arriving on this river with a huge concentration of straights. When you bet for value with 6x+, there are so few combos that need to consider bluffing that we need to go into our pairs for bluffs. J3cc fits the bill.

Here is what I got for our River betting range when checked to:

I haven't done any nodelocking of any specific strategies yet, but this is just a baseline. I assume if you play a very aggressive strategy on earlier streets with a lot of your straight combos, it could very well be that J3cc may not need to be a bluff on this river. Sorry for this book of a post, but thought it might be interesting to you if you haven't already simulated this spot. Cheers!

April 19, 2017 | 4:47 a.m.

If someone is 3bing close to half of his range, we can widen the value portion of our 4b range.

April 18, 2017 | 10:34 p.m.

Thank you for that. You just convinced me to upgrade to pioedge (y)

April 18, 2017 | 9:41 p.m.

I completely agree with what you are saying, and it's often a strategy I employ as well. I'm just saying that this strategy often breaks down vs raises. Further, our strategy can get accidentally counterexploited when we have no studied how to defend vs raises OOP, leading us to the same issues as the one we incurred with a check/bet flop mix.

Also, aren't BB 3b ranges vs Btn supposed to be exceedingly polarised? I'm 3b hands like 84s and 53s, and other hands that are slightly too weak to defend BB with.

April 18, 2017 | 8:59 p.m.

I think heroing with your pairs is enough combos to defend to 2x

April 18, 2017 | 8:13 p.m.

I think vs a maniac oop 3b'er, just widening our 4b range linearly is quite a good adjustment.

April 18, 2017 | 8:10 p.m.

Betting range in 3b pots is OK in many pools because people rarely have a flop raising range vs preflop 3b'er (and if they do, it's almost always a nutted hand). Facing flop raises presents us with the same problems and defending correctly into the turn presents us with just as many problems as a higher EV mixed flop cb strat.

That's actually an interesting thing I have realized about pio. Presenting pio with more strategic options earlier in the game tree shift it's "optimal" strategy quite a lot. When we give pio a more manageable, but skeletal game tree (which I admit is very useful in studying and isolating variables), many generalisations are possible. However, complicating the game tree leads to many different results. I cannot confirm this 33% bet 100% range in my pio adventures.

April 18, 2017 | 8:02 p.m.

@Zach, you are right. Does A2357/A2347 always check call? I've only logged a few hundred hands in stud8, so I'm not too familiar with relative hand strengths. is AQ8 always a hand we want to bluffcatch with when we basically always have the low? Normally I'd be taking aggressive action on last street to bluff off a likely chop.

April 18, 2017 | 5:11 p.m.

@16:00 How does A2358 scoop you? you have a 23457 low.

April 16, 2017 | 5:37 p.m.

First video I've watched from you and I enjoyed it! I had a few questions.

  1. @~5:00, UTG raises to a bit over 3x, you call with KQo on the Btn, SB calls. Flop AK6r, V bets around 2/3 pot. What are your thoughts on the removal effects of KQo on UTG's value range and SB continuing range? I also normally get confused trying to figure out what SB flats consist of, so I have a particularly difficult time figuring out how to play hands liek KQ/KJ. Also, are you always flatting hands like QTs preflop and on the flop?

  2. @ ~16:30, you have 79dd on 67J one diamond in a 3b pot CO vs HJ. In many HU spots like this, I know piosolver loves betting your type of hand close to 100%. I will run a 6m spot after I finish your video and get back to you on that. Before working a lot with piosolver, I normally always checked this type of hand back. However, I think pio wants to barrel these hands because V should be probing blank rivers a decent amount vs a CO 3b on this runout and 79dd does not make a very good bluff catcher and we basically always fold when HJ probes. However by turning 79dd into a semi bluff, we can barrell as a bluff on basically all non paired (non spade?) rivers and also we can river the best hand at a decent frq as well. This way, the expectation of 79dd over two streets is probably >0 which is what happens when we end up folding river. Is my thinking correct? What are your initial thoughts on pio's recommendation in HU pots in practice? Also what would be your initial hypothesis as to how this carries over to this exact 6m spot?

April 6, 2017 | 5:06 a.m.

In response to SlotMachine, I node locked a bunch of strategies for Zach, including betting all his JT/KT/AT, as well as adding 100% of top pairs, and T9 is still always a call. Thought this was interesting. I've also bought Doug's HU course and I've noticed many differences between what pio advocates (I get exact ranges and strategies so there's no guess work). Doug's strategy is super "well balanced" such that every line cannot be easily attacked. However, since he is a staunch advocate for never using solvers, his "balance" is not always the highest EV. Perhaps in his strategy, he needs to fold half of his second pair hands in order to keep other lines/ as well as the x/c x/c line balanced in his mind. However, his fold with T9o seems like a very clear mistake from an EV standpoint.

Also fwiw Zach, as long as you're not overdoing betting all your Tx, JTo/s does not realy affect the EV of your strategy as a whole. After nodelocking JT/KT/AT as part of your turn bet strategy, you lose like $2 dollars of the pot which is basically negligible.

April 6, 2017 | 3:02 a.m.

I think an important thing to know is how you play your sets on this board. I use a strategy of mostly checking my sets on these types of boards and favoring betting AK/AQ/AJ/AT type hands along with straights. On river, i think BigFiszh is right. We can use our AxQh/AxJh hands to bluff catch. QJ should just be a shove as played.

X/C our straights allows a majority of V's range to see a cheap showdown because almost 2/3 of the combos that Villain arrives on river should be hands in the top pair hand class (mostly AQ/AJo/s). He can then force you to bluff catch QJ with his nonequity hands and nuts, basically allowing Villain to play his range in the most efficient manner possible.

Fwiw, since V should be Bluff catching a lot of his top pairs as well, I don't really think Villain's calling range is ahead of our betting range. It should be quite close though. I'm also interested to hear what better players than me have to say about this spot. I tend to be quite spewy in these tricky Hu spots.

But yeah, I think for any real constructive discussion to occur, we need to know your flop cbetting strategy and what you arrive on the river with.

April 6, 2017 | 12:22 a.m.

I think there is a lot of truth to what Nick is saying. There really is no real reason argue whether Nick's coaching is worth it, if he's a good coach, etc. In the end, the student will decide for themselves if they believe it's worth it for them. I think the most important part is to not "write a response attempting to invalidate it with negativity".

There's absolutely nothing wrong if with a post expressing disagreement if there is some constructive benefit to be gained. In poker, if you disagree with a line, or an idea, and you respond to it stating why and asking questions, both parties can benefit with potentially new ways of thinking. However, just responding with "nah you suck at poker, clearly spew", is obviously not helpful to anyone.

If you were a prospective student of Nick's, you would obviously do your own research, probably contact him, ask questions and ultimately decide if his CFP package is for you. If you feel like it wouldn't benefit you, that's obviously ok. However, just coming in the thread attempting to discredit Nick without any interest in his actual coaching services is just kind of ridiculous.

March 16, 2017 | 7:24 p.m.

I think there is a lot of truth to what Nick is saying. There really is no real reason argue whether Nick's coaching is worth it, if he's a good coach, etc. In the end, the student will decide for themselves if they believe it's worth it for them. I think the most important part is to "write a response attempting to invalidate it with negativity".

There's absolutely nothing wrong if with a post expressing disagreement if there is some constructive benefit to be gained. In poker, if you disagree with a line, or an idea, and you respond to it stating why and asking questions, both parties can benefit with potentially new ways of thinking. However, just responding with "nah you suck at poker, clearly spew", is obviously not helpful to anyone.

If you were a prospective student of Nick's, you would obviously do your own research, probably contact him, ask questions and ultimately decide if his CFP package is for you. If you feel like it wouldn't benefit you, that's obviously ok. However, just coming in the thread attempting to discredit Nick without any interest in his actual coaching services is just kind of ridiculous.

March 16, 2017 | 7:24 p.m.

Interesting, I reran the simulation for 50bb and got roughly the same results as you. I guess the determining variable in this situation is stack depth. i guess this makes a bit of sense. With our super nutted combos, we want to try to get in as much money as possible so we are all in by the river. At 50 bbs, it's not as difficult to get all in, so KK is sometimes a slowplay (even though 80% betting is still quite large). In fact, even at 50bbs, pio doesn't recommend that we slowplay any of our other "nutted" combos of 2p+ (except for K2 which is also a high FRQ bet).

However, this still is strange that our check back range is left so dry. In my Q95r example, when flop goes x/x, on every dry turn card, our range has 4 times fewer sets, 6 times fewer 2ps, and way fewer top pairs (Depending on our mix%).

Here were my original notes on Q95r

BTN BET FLOP BET STRATEGY OBSERVATIONS (50% pot):

1. Bets 100% of sets, overpairs, two pairs. 2. Betting 60% of our top pairs. * Betting always basically KQs+/AQo * Mixing (50/50) with KQo, Qx with BDSD/BDFD 3. Betting 1/3 of our 9x. From Highest % down: * A9s, A9o * 9xs with BDFD * Mixing with 9xs with BDSD * Checking 9xo with BDSD 4. Betting most 5xs with BDFD. Mixing A5o 5. Checking 22-88 6. Mixing TT/JJ (roughly 50/50). 7. Mixing almost every weak Axs/Kxs BDFD combo * Almost always checking stronger Axs 8. Mixing most Axo with less betting for strong Ax. 9. High FRQ betting with every SD, with more emphasis on BDFD 10. Mixing weak BDFD/BDSD 11. When Flop goes x/x, both players will arrive on turn with fairly symmetric ranges. BB will have more 2 pairs.

Brick Turn/River

1. We will be still be barreling almost 100% of our sets/overpairs/top pair on turns/rivers. 2. We will still be barreling higher straight draws (KT/KJ/JT) a high FRQ. 3. Still a mix with Axs/o type hands. 4. BTN checks behind many 9x and weaker straight draws (87s, 86s etc).Wh 5. When Turn goes x/x, BB will arrive on brick rivers with a value range mainly consisting of Qx/9x 6. When we check behind turn, be prepared to call a river probe with pairs worse than 9x and even some A highs. 7. When x/x turn, BB should river probe with a high percentage of missed gutters and top pairs. 8. Vs passive BB's who don't turn probe missed draws, good spot to exploit fold entire range. 9. Almost all brick rivers will give us some trips/straights because of how often we bet flop with Ax/Kx with backdoors, so Btn should still have a raising range. 10. Btn's river raising range can be balanced by missed Ax straight blockers/weaker Kx 11. when checked to on the river, Btn can value bet a his stronger 9x.

March 16, 2017 | 7 p.m.

Can also try a larger flop bet size, with no difference.

EDIT: with no difference in the frequency of AK+ combos

March 16, 2017 | 6:35 p.m.

March 16, 2017 | 6:23 p.m.

I don't know if there is something wrong with my pio (its the latest one, running till about being exploitable to 0.4%ofpot). I just ran the sim, with K72r, and KK, 77, 22, K7s, K2s are100%pure bets by pio on flop. It is never checking anything behind. I ran a sim for "normal sizings", turn overbet/river psb, bothsides can raise/3b. I even introduced a turndonking range like galzianboy recommended, and nothing has changed. The only difference between the different bet sizings, is that the larger betsizings require us to mix more with our marginal hands. Our nutted hands we're basically betting 100%

March 16, 2017 | 6:18 p.m.

My bad, this was actually an old sim. I apparently didn't save the newer one. I gave Villain a 110% turn size, and a pot sized river and did not affect it much. We are still barrelling all our 2p+, 1/2 our top pairs, and just doing a bit more mixing with other hands.

March 16, 2017 | 5:43 p.m.

Here is my Sim btw, if anyone wants to check if I built the tree wrong.

#TreeBuilding#V2
#Range0#AA:0.1,KK:0.1,QQ:0.1,JJ:0.1,TT:0.3,99:0.5,88:0.5,77:0.9,66,55,44,33,22:0.9,AK:0.1,AQs:0.1,AQo:0.5,AJs:0.5,AJo:0.8,ATs:0.8,ATo,A9,A8,A7,A6,A5,A4,A3,A2,KQs:0.5,KQo:0.8,KJs:0.5,KJo,KTs:0.8,KTo,K9,K8,K7s,K6s,K5s,K4s,K3s,K2s,QJs:0.8,QJo,QTs:0.8,QTo,Q9s:0.9,Q9o,Q8,Q7s,Q6s,Q5s,Q4s,Q3s,Q2s:0.9,JTs:0.8,JTo,J9s:0.8,J9o,J8s:0.9,J7s,J6s,J5s,J4s:0.9,J3s:0.9,T9s:0.8,T9o,T8s:0.8,T8o,T7s:0.9,T6s,T5s:0.9,98s:0.8,98o,97s:0.8,97o,96s:0.9,95s:0.9,87s:0.8,87o,86s:0.8,85s:0.8,84s:0.9,76s:0.8,75s:0.8,74s:0.8,65s:0.8,64s:0.8,63s:0.8,54s:0.8,53s:0.8,43s:0.8
#Range1#AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,99,88,77,66,55,44,33,22,AK,AQ,AJ,AT,A9,A8,A7,A6,A5,A4,A3s,A3o:0.5,A2s,A2o:0.5,KQ,KJ,KT,K9,K8,K7s,K7o:0.3,K6s,K5s,K4s,K3s,K2s,QJ,QT,Q9,Q8s,Q7s,Q6s,Q5s,Q4s,Q3s,Q2s:0.5,JT,J9,J8s,J7s,J6s,J5s:0.3,J4s:0.3,T9,T8,T7s,T6s:0.3,98,97s,96s,95s:0.3,87s,87o:0.3,86s,85s,84s:0.3,76s,75s,74s:0.5,65s,64s,63s:0.5,54s,53s,43s
#Board#Qd 9h 5s
#Pot#55
#EffectiveStacks#1000
#AllinThreshold#67
#AddAllinOnlyIfLessThanThisTimesThePot#500
#MinimumBetsize#0
#UseUnifiedBetAfterRaise#False
#UnifiedBetAfterRaise#
#ForceIPBet#False
#ForceOOPBet#False
#Cap#0
#CapEnabled#False
#CapMode#NoLimit
#RemovedLines#
#ExtraLines#
#FlopConfig.BetSize#
#FlopConfig.RaiseSize#3.5x
#FlopConfig.AddAllin#False
#FlopConfig.DonkBetSize#
#TurnConfig.BetSize#75
#TurnConfig.RaiseSize#4x
#TurnConfig.AddAllin#False
#TurnConfig.DonkBetSize#
#RiverConfig.BetSize#75
#RiverConfig.RaiseSize#3x
#RiverConfig.AddAllin#False
#RiverConfig.DonkBetSize#
#FlopConfigIP.BetSize#50
#FlopConfigIP.RaiseSize#
#FlopConfigIP.AddAllin#False
#FlopConfigIP.Dont3bet#False
#TurnConfigIP.BetSize#75
#TurnConfigIP.RaiseSize#3x
#TurnConfigIP.AddAllin#False
#TurnConfigIP.Dont3bet#False
#RiverConfigIP.BetSize#75
#RiverConfigIP.RaiseSize#3x
#RiverConfigIP.AddAllin#False
#RiverConfigIP.Dont3bet#False
#Rake.Cap#0
#Rake.Fraction#0
#Rake.Enabled#False
setrange OOP 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 1 0.8 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 1 1 0.8 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 0 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 0 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 0 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.9 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.1 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
set
range IP 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.3 0.3 1 0.3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.3 0.3 1 0.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
setboard Qd 9h 5s
set
effstack 1000
set
isomorphism 1 0
setpot 0 0 55
clear
lines
addline 0 0 0 0 0 41 123 287 615 1000
add
line 0 0 0 0 41 123 287 615 1000
addline 0 0 0 41 164 164 164 451 1000
add
line 0 0 0 41 164 164 451 1000
addline 0 0 0 41 164 410 1000
add
line 0 0 0 41 164 410 410 410 1000
addline 0 0 0 41 41 41 144 350 1000
add
line 0 0 41 123 123 123 349 1000
addline 0 0 41 123 369 1000
add
line 0 0 41 123 369 369 1000
addline 0 0 41 123 369 369 369 1000
add
line 0 0 41 41 144 350 1000
addline 0 0 41 41 41 144 350 1000
add
line 0 28 28 28 111 111 111 319 1000
addline 0 28 28 28 111 360 1000
add
line 0 28 28 28 111 360 360 1000
addline 0 28 28 28 111 360 360 360 1000
add
line 0 28 28 28 28 111 277 609 1000
addline 0 28 28 28 28 28 111 277 609 1000
add
line 0 28 98 98 286 286 1000
addline 0 28 98 98 286 286 286 1000
add
line 0 28 98 98 286 662 1000
addline 0 28 98 98 286 662 662 662 1000
add
line 0 28 98 98 98 286 1000
addline 0 28 98 98 98 286 286 286 1000
add
line 0 28 98 98 98 98 286 662 1000
addline 0 28 98 98 98 98 98 286 662 1000
build
tree

March 16, 2017 | 5:23 a.m.

I've been running a lot of pio simulations recently for single raised pots and have been noticing some weird trends in pio's solutions. I usually keep notes on anything conceptualize-able in Evernote and I've been noticing some "imbalances" in flop checkback ranges. I'll provide an example:

Flop Q95r, Btn vs BB, single raised pots.

Some Observations about how each range hits this board:
1. Btn has more overpairs/sets
2. About similar amount of two pairs/top pair/underpairs
3. Relatively symmetric in about everything else.

With a 50% pot bet, pio advocates betting with near 100% Frequency all sets, all two pairs, all overpairs, and about 1/2 of all top pairs. This is balanced by a high frequency of BDFD, weak Axs, SD's with emphasis on the BDFD, 1/3 of our 9x, and mixes for a lot of other hands. This is surprising to me. Why are we never checking behind our overpair+? When the flop goes x/x, we arrive on turns with a range slightly symmetric relative to BB's total range, except BB has more two pairs. This is a trend I keep noticing for many boards in SRPs where the preflop caller does not have too many overpairs/sets.

Further, in the line that goes flop x/b/c, turn x/x, our turn check back range also includes none of our sets/overpairs/two pairs. We literally arrive on river in the Btn with like 4combos of top pair, many combos of 9x, and a bunch of gutshots and Ax. When BB river probes (with an overwhelming amount of Qx, strong 9x, and missed gutshots), we are supposed to basically call with many pairs worse that 9x, and even a few combos of Ax. Is this something we are supposed to be going for? This doesn't seem like something I would willingly strive towards. Vs Villains that don't river probe missed draws, it seems like we should have to exploit fold our entire range. Has anyone else noticed something like this? Is not having nutted combos in our flop/turn check back ranges not very important?

EDIT: Also something I forgot to mention is that because we barrel flop with such a high FRQ of Ax BDSD or BDFD, on almost every brick river we can still have a raising range as we will always have trips/straights a low percentage of the time. However, our overall equity in the pot on rivers as BTN is super low.

March 16, 2017 | 5:04 a.m.

Yeah it is! I basically spent a good majority of my day today tweaking adjusting certain pio outputs to see how it affected the overall strategy. I started experimenting around with including a turn raise range, and also a small 3b sizing on flop too, but I haven't really finished looking it over. I'll probably post here with any interesting findings.

March 14, 2017 | 5:38 a.m.

@Quido,

Ahhh I see. People are gonna say whateve they want, but I think the importance is that Nick is doing a great job of showing what kind of coach he is, and the students will naturally gravitate towards that.

March 14, 2017 | 2:14 a.m.

Load more