GameTheory's avatar

GameTheory

3844 points

Playmoney HU is all fun and games until one someone loses a buyin and starts shoving every hand and loses 100 buyins.

April 21, 2017 | 7:08 p.m.

If you can't beat them, join them. You already know their strategy.

April 16, 2017 | 8:07 p.m.

Comment | GameTheory commented on PLO hi-lo 4 card

You can search for PLO8, there are a few videos. Also a couple videos about NLO8 and 5 card PLO8.

http://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/?gametypes=plo8&prouser=all&prolevel=all&orderby=recent&videoformats=all&playerformats=all

April 9, 2017 | 2:58 p.m.

If you ask this as a math question, then the answer to not getting 3-bet is
(0.95)^5 = 0.77
So the chance of getting 3-bet is 23%.

Poker is not math, in poker you have card removal effects. Having blockers to the respective 3-bet ranges means that you will get 3-bet less frequent.

April 5, 2017 | 6:23 p.m.

I guess Daniel Negreanu

April 4, 2017 | 12:13 p.m.

Comment | GameTheory commented on GTO equals to 0 ev?

You can make it a zero-sum three-player game by way of giving two grenades to player A, he has the option to give a grenade to player B and C each, or to discard the grenades.

Then players B and C are put in the room for one hour and have the option to let their grenade explode with the other player in the room. Player A waits safely outside of the room. If B and C die, player A gets their inheritance, so the game is zero sum.

A GTO solution is for player A to hand out the grenades and for B and C to not let their grenade explode. But if B or C deviates then the other player in the room doesn't realize his GTO payoff.

April 4, 2017 | 1:39 a.m.

Me trying to stop al these new members from getting more points than me:

April 1, 2017 | 7:53 p.m.

Comment | GameTheory commented on 99 vs 2 opponents

If you fold this river, how wide could your opponents float here?

Against this (wide) range, how high up in your range is 99 on this runout?

March 10, 2017 | 3:41 p.m.

Stopped watching after 18:32 where you timed out instead of raised.

March 10, 2017 | 10:21 a.m.

Isn't blocking AA and A5s a thing with AQ so that AQ>>QT ?

AQ also blocks bluffs when you use AK to bluff here, so no:

March 7, 2017 | 12:50 p.m.

This line seems fine, you are going to have KK-AA and a 5 more frequent than your opponent. Blocking the A5s combo makes this hand extra strong.

Blocking AQ matters less since QT=AQ on this river, and AK would be a prime candidate for bluffing here.

For balance you should mix up your play. For instance checkcalling the flop or going smaller for value with other AA combos (that don't block A5s).

March 7, 2017 | 1:59 a.m.

I'll probably be posting everyday that I am playing

And then you make no posts....

March 2, 2017 | 3 p.m.

Comment | GameTheory commented on Intro to Solver(s)

I was under the impression that... GTO IS DEAD

If GTO is dead, then how can it be optimal to take the risks this person is taking, defying death:

March 1, 2017 | 10:52 p.m.

First time this upload worked for me.

March 1, 2017 | 9:41 p.m.

March 1, 2017 | 7:42 p.m.

Betting middle pair on such a drawy board isn't very nitty. Neither is calling a checkraise with it.

March 1, 2017 | 5:19 p.m.

Comment | GameTheory commented on Intro to Solver(s)

GTO assumes your opponent is constantly adjusting.

No. GTO is just a certain strategy pair. Each part assumes that the other part plays GTO.

Each 'iteration' is an adjustment on their behalf as well as your own.

If you have some algorithm that converges to GTO, this interpretation might be correct.

How do we know what part of the "climb" on the mountain to stop? I.E....GTO should rarely be the answer to our play in each hand, correct? Because (except for maybe the top players in the world) no one plays GTO...

If someone does not play GTO, then by definition there exists a counter strategy, that is not GTO, that exploits it. So, yes.

March 1, 2017 | 3:22 p.m.

Feb. 28, 2017 | 4:59 p.m.

What do you think is the case for these small bets or raises?

If the metagame is such as you describe, where both players overfold to tiny bets and raises, then any player that folds (i.e. you) is getting exploited and/or fails to exploit his opponent.

Feb. 27, 2017 | 11:32 p.m.

Feb. 26, 2017 | 9:19 p.m.

the solution is for both players to utilize small bets in the correct spots (reciprocated)

If you believe this to be true, do you believe your opponent should also overfold to a small raise (say from 70 to 170) as compared to MDF?

Feb. 24, 2017 | 10:55 p.m.

Why didn't Doug 3-bet preflop then? He was way ahead.

Feb. 24, 2017 | 4:17 p.m.

Feb. 23, 2017 | 2:07 a.m.

Feb. 23, 2017 | 1:31 a.m.

Action:
Preflop Doug straddles to 200 with 65o
Justin raises to 600, Doug calls

Flop:
Justin cbets 700 on 9d3hQd and Doug raises to 2350?

Turn 3s goes check, check

River:
Ad falls, Doug slightly overbet to 6450 and Justin calls.

Link to video: Doug Polk Makes a $6000 Overbet on a Scary River vs Justin ♠ Live at the Bike!

Preflop is loose by Doug. But on the flop he goes crazy, he has so many gutshots, backdoor hearts, hands with one overcard, or even 45/42 have better backdoor potential. It is hard to come up with a hand that is worse than 65o on this board. Doug literally always advocates folding the bottom of your range to a reasonably sized bet, so what is he doing here. Was Doug on tilt?

Turn check seems reasonable. As played, river is a good spot to bluff since he has a diamond blocker but he doesn't block any straightdraw.

Feb. 23, 2017 | 1:05 a.m.

Comment | GameTheory commented on Tom Chambers Books

Crazy expensive books. Are they even worth it?

Feb. 14, 2017 | 3:35 p.m.

15:00
Do you think the 70 into 500 cbet on Qc9c8c is part of a GTO style? If not, how do you exploit it?

Feb. 14, 2017 | 1:44 a.m.

Comment | GameTheory commented on GTO equals to 0 ev?

GTO vs. non GTO = print money

If I play rock-paper-scissors GTO (1/3 rock, 1/3 paper, 1/3 scissors) and you always play rock, nobody is printing money.

Also, it is not true for games with more than 2 players that a GTO strategy guarantees 0 EV.

Consider a 3-play game: you are put in a room with two other players for one hour. Each player is given a grenade that they can decide to explode. If one player does that, everyone dies. If nobody does that, each player gets $0.

Obvious it is GTO for all players to not let the grenade explode. But if one player deviates from GTO, the other players don't realize their GTO payoff.

Feb. 9, 2017 | 4:55 p.m.

The more bad hands like QJs/T9s/87s with very limited potential you start donking, the more incentive you give for opponents to raise you with overpairs and gutshots like KQ.

You would be way out of line here in this 4-way 3-bet pot that smashes many player's ranges to start betting these bad hands with a high frequency.

What I do like about your play is that you decide to donk into this player again on the turn, giving a sound explanation based on assumed range distributions.

This player probably expected you to always check the turn, making it easier for him to play his overpairs etc. Maybe he watched too many videos from Doug Polk on youtube where it is advocated to always check to the aggressor no matter what.That is also why he started berating you: he wanted to make this spot easy to play but instead some dude that doesn't have higher stakes to play made his life tough!

Feb. 8, 2017 | 11:35 p.m.

Comment | GameTheory commented on GTO equals to 0 ev?

The worst strategy the BB can use (versus SB equilibrium strategy) is to call 100% of the time.

Nope. It is worse to call with the bottom 63.4% and fold the top 36.6%.

Feb. 8, 2017 | 10:57 p.m.

Load more