joomorrow

15:56 table 2, why do you say ThTd is clear fold to XR? I thought that on the flop, these high underpairs with BDFD are clear continues.

You are right that QT is still a better call than AQ, but BB doesn't have TT in his range (pure 3-bet pre) and unlikely to shove 1.5x pot with QT on the river (too thin, block value targets).

46:15 Table 1 - I don't think your QsTh block any value hands (as the 6s and 6h are already on the board, and villain unlikely to defend Q6o T6o). Probably still a call, but more because it unblocks bluffs. Maybe a hand like AcQd would be a better call?

Just finished the coaching package with QY. I have studied a lot of poker theory, so I do know many of the stuffs in the course already. But there are still a few gems here and there in each session that enhance my understanding of poker significantly, so overall it's totally worth it. Highly recommended!

I think when you have a truly monster hand (sets, 2 pairs, trips...) then you don't want to hold a flush card (blocking C-range). But when you have a strong but not amazing hand (top pair, over pair...) then now you do want that bdfd extra equity.

This is similar to: on monotone board, now you bet more often sets/2 pairs with flush-blocker, because these hands are now just "strong but not amazing".

RunItTw1ce ah, I thought you were talking about the "blocking bottom pair + bdfd XR" concept. I do remember seeing that in Luke's first video, but I'm not sure if it's a universal heuristics. There are way too many exceptions that are hard to understand.

E.g. on your example of Ac9d3s SRP BB vs BU with gtowizard NL500-Basic ranges (I saw that you used gtowizard too):
- BU will indeed cbet clubs hands more often, but followed by spades, not diamonds.
- The same for BB: he will vpip K5cc Q8cc types of hands most often, but followed by spades, not diamonds.
- For certain hands such as 86s, now BB prefer to vpip 86dd followed by 86cc then 86ss. Probably because now we will be coolered by not only Axss but also 9xss.

I think I will just simplify it into: on clubs-diamonds-spades
- Prefer clubs over other suits, but indifferent to diamonds or spades
- If our hand < mid card, then now prefer clubs/diamonds over spades
But need to test the hypothesis on many different spots to be sure.

But also know when board is Spade - heart - diamond that spades and hearts for back door flush are going to be high frequency than diamonds.

What do you mean by this? The % run out of spades or hearts or diamonds will be the same no?

Bluff with backdoor to to the top pair first, then 2nd pair next, and bottom pair is the last suite you want to XR our of the 3 suites.

Why is that? Shouldn't we want to bluff with the same suits as bottom card, so that when we do hit our bdfd, villain will think we have less flushes and pay off more often?

Be careful with your sim's configurations. This behavior (wide donk range on blank turn) usually happens when you don't give IP a big raise option (or maybe even no raising option at all). When OOP checks, he usually faces a huge overbet barrel (1.5-2x pot) on blank turn, so if he can cheat by min donk and only get raised 50% pot, it would be cheaper, his marginal hands and marginal draws will now have a lot of incentive to just min donk.

But on the other hand villain will bluff catch the river more often with Ac/Kc (great suits to unblock our bluffs), so it should balance out the effect no?

Upswing's best coach is Fried Meulders (aka mynameiskarl) and it's not even close. 10x better than Janda.

What are some functionalities that Simple GTO Trainer has but DTO doesn't?

47.5% in default game (2 blinds, no ante) - that's not correct now as the book is outdated but let's assume it's correct.
You should open wider (say 60%) in 2 blinds with antes games.
And you should open tighter (say 35%) in 3 blinds with antes games.
So it's not contradicted at all.

When studying with solver, what if a solution comes up that requires a lot of mixed strategy? Like betting and checking with almost every combos, almost no pure check, no pure bet (or no pure bet with certain sizing). How do you simplify and put it into practice?

For the 88 hand, do you think a typical 500z villain would ever XR A4, 55, 66... here for value/protection? Usually I tend to call if my hand beats some combos in villain's value range. Or do you think because you bet big on the flop, villain XR range would be more polarized, and that's why 88 and AQ (as you said) have the same SDV?

53:22 Last 2 hands:
On the left: I understand your reasoning, but what kinds of hands would you check call here to defend? A5 seems so high up our range. Do you check the river with most of your Qx?

On the right: what are the bottom of your continuing ranges if 88 are folded? What about 99, TT... which shouldn't be too different?

Very interested in your exploitative style. I can watch other coaches if I want to see pio simulations.

Can you use other term for rec, e.g. fun player? To non native English speaking people, sometimes it's confusing whether you're talking about reg or rec.

FYI, I did what the video suggested and run this spot on 50 flops with 3 bet sizings: 110% 66% 33% and the 110% is almost never used in any of those boards.

23:10 is this a spot that you would check range? I think you do check raise some flush draws on the flop so you can still barrel this turn (maybe even bet the whole range for small size), and I think 66 would be a nice inclusion into the betting range. Cause if you only barrel the turn with flushes or bluffs then you will have problems when the river pairs the board. Maybe check with low sets (33 55) and barrel with top set (66) - get some value from lower sets and prepare to win a big pot if the river pairs.

12:37 you go for a 1/3 pot thin value bet on the river with small Ax and get check raised on. It seems solver really dislikes to bet IP on the river with anything less than 1/2 pot, as it reopens the betting for the opponent. Are you exploiting the opponent (e.g. you think he's not gonna XR too often) or is this a standard size you use in this spot?

Thanks for answering. I meant the hand when you rfi 88 from HJ and folded to a 3-bet from CO. Would you prefer to call 88 there or suited broadways like ATs KJs?

What tool are you using to automate bet sizing? Starshelper?
I also feel like folding 88 HJ vs CO is a bit tight, but you obviously know better than me. Do you prefer calling with 88 more than hands like KJs ATs or vice versa?

I'm not really asking about whether or not I should bet or should check a marginal made hand, but which hand between 2 marginal made hands is better to bet/check. Even if both of these hands are better played as a checking (or betting) hand, there must be one which should be bet more frequently. If you increase (or decrease) your betting frequency to exploit your opponent, then that hand will tend to be the one you add into your betting range before the other one.

Let's rephrase my question differently. Can you think of a board + 2 marginal made hands with similar strength, where you would prefer betting the one with additional draw than the one without? And vice versa, can you think of one where you would prefer betting the one without draws? What are the main factors that changed between these 2 cases (board texture, type of draws, opponents...) to make you switch the decision like that? Just give me one example that way, and I think it would be much more helpful and clear for me than discussing too much about pure theory.

I also don't think that "betting vulnerable hands" and stuffs like that has a lot to do with "playing in a balance way vs exploitative way". For example in a A22 spot, I think it's clear that in most cases, betting with 77 is a better default strategy than betting with KK, whether you are trying to play inexploitably or not.

I agree with you that playing in an inexploitable way is overrated. I even wrote an article titled "The obsession with being inexploitable" in my blog recently, to criticize players who care too much about being inexploitable (e.g. always shoving with Nash-equilibrium range even when they are up against a nit, when they should have raise-folded instead).

I have always played in an exploitative way all my life, so you don't need to worry for me about playing too defensively. However, understanding about balanced and inexploitable play is also very important, first to have a way to fall back on when you are in a tough spot, and secondly so that you can recognize and identify weaknesses from other players more quickly / easily / correctly.

Discussing strategy in an exploitative way is useless unless you are given a context, because depending on each opponent, the correct and optimal play may be vastly different. My questions are about in a standard spot versus a standard opponent, and I don't see anything wrong with building a default strategy. You can always deviate from this strategy when you see fit, it's not like you have to follow it to the letter.

LOL There is nothing wrong with the words "vulnerable" and "afraid". And it also has nothing to do with "playing a well balanced strategy" or "using exploitative options". Matt Janda discussed how the vulnerability of a hand (versus villain's folding range) is an important criteria to decide whether you should bet that hand, in his book "Applications of NLHE". And I doubt you could call that book is about "defensive paradigm".

What are you talking about? Everyone has a few "quick and dirty rules" to simplify the decision process simply because they can't possibly remember every single way how a range interacts with a board.

And having reads and what not has nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

I disagree a little bit. In poker, it's the destination that is important, not the journey. The destination is: "How can I make quick and good decisions at a poker table". Doing detailed analysis of board texture and hand range, is only 1 way to reach that destination. Remember simple, "quick and dirty" rules is another way. Compared to the 1st way, these rules may be slightly less correct in certain exceptional cases, but it has a much better advantage in that, it is much simpler to remember and apply in real world practical situations.

That's why it's good and all to do the analysis as you suggested. I have done so many times and very familiar with the process. However, I believe that reaching simple observations and conclusions from these analysis is at least as important.

It's impossible to analyze all ranges on all board textures, and even if you could, it's impossible to remember the raw results.
Studying specific cases away from the table is not very useful unless:
- you encounter the exact same situation
- or you can find some simplified ideas so that you can easily remember and apply to other board textures in the future

For example, even without making a detailed analysis of board texture, I could see that in general it's better to raise with 6c5c on Kc9s2c4c than raising with QcTc, because you are more vulnerable to a 4th club card. This is the kind of simplified observations that is more useful for you than an exact analysis of how a range interacts with a board.

In that example of Qc7s5d flop, you said you would tend to bet 7c6c and check Jh7h. Can you think of an example when you would prefer to check a marginal made hand with backdraw equity OOP, but would bet a marginal made hand with no draw instead?