stroggos

he could block bet 1/4 or check, don't get why someone would shove KTo here, it's very bad in a 'normal' situation.

It is not good advise, a better approach would be to pick the size the opponent plays worse against given your particular hand.

limp strategies are good for combating people who have studied a ton of rfi strategies with solvers, it puts them out of their element. And also to combat people who use A.I in real time. I doubt oborra, if he is a 'bot', has got all the limp charts to pull from :).

i expect limp strategies to become more popular over time.

yeah the focus on QJ dont make sense to me either, i wouldnt expect more than 1 combo of QJ bluffing this river given that it isn't betting turn that often...either by solvers or the players imo. 56s on the other hand is always barreling turn and almost always barreling river, there are 3-4 combos. 96s is one of the weakest 2nd pairs to call with, this is very far from equilibrium and cindy has to be making an exploitative call here, in his own mind. i give him credit for it. Im guessing the Ax that called the least with in your sim was A6s?

@ elias, you fold AJ in this spot? seems crazy. i woulda thought 96s is one of the worst since it blocks 56s/67s, 63s which should bluff here basically always. I understand why 98s or 9Ts would be better than Q9 though.

the bluff with QJs seems somewhat standard to me but the call is a slight deviation from equilibrium, surely there are several better 9x's to pick from. calling here would be an exploitative play.

Either villian overfolds here or they dont, in which case the correct strategy is to bluff entire range or check entire range (of nonshowdown hands), if they fall say 3-5%+ outside of optimal frequencies.

It's not really about how much time you put in, since you should put in 4+ hours a day anyway, but you have to have a good approach to learning. Find people who can teach you a lot, and try to get as many point of views as possible so you can keep questioning assumptions and create a good methodological approach. Do this and you will learn effectively and efficiently. (nl2k reg)

doesn't even make sense, if he is innocent then what is he forgiving him for? It's common knowledge that hellmuth is a complete idiot, so i wouldn't take this picture too seriously.

I guess he can have some AQ, QT, Q5, some AK, several Tx hands. but he has a lot of hand worse than 88 as well. it looks quite thin for this sizing, but i don't play these games so what do i know.

skype name is: StroggosDoug. i'd like to join, thx

yeah that's what i was thinking too. it's not a missclick, he did it with A2s, AQo and KTs (again) as well.

hey at least he isn't jamming flop like linuslove. I think overbets are good here for protecting your equity. The weaker draws cannot flat your cbet when you overbet like this. That's why i overbet these textures.

flop is just a raise for protection, he takes it down sometimes, and yes some value as well. It's hard to explain these flop raises but they are for a combination of reasons like the ones i listed above, so the flop raise is relatively standard and i think the solver will play very similarly.

I can only speculate on turn. The sizing says he basically has a 6 or a strong Jack. He decides to put 22 in his range for a number of reasons, similar to the flop raise. When he is polarized like this, he will actually get some value with this overbet. (they are calling with a lot of flush draws, some A-high.) It makes him tougher to play against. It does seem like a kind of merge, which is normal for linuslove, i think from reading his other hand histories he does this kind of stuff a lot, either merging, or making small bets with entire range on scary boards rather than checking. So i guess he think's checking 22 on turn is an inferior play.

A lot of the time he also bets very small, like 30% after c/r flop. so he will c/r then barrel off small bets, but this doesn't seem like the board texture he wants to do it on.

cool, thanks for the analysis, looks good. I was kinda suprised that it was a bet 100% of range and not even close on the flop, it looks like linuslove got that part wrong as well. I would have thought a twotone flop with some connectivity would have some checks, but i guess it just doesn't hit jungle's range very hard if he was playing gto.

He can bluff with 64o no diamond, and 65o no diamond, assuming they 3bet the turn, instead of 6Td.
how often would 66 and 77 c/c the flop instead of c/r? It seems like those hands should almost always, if not 100%, c/r instead.

Also I would have thought that jungle should bet flop with 6x low kicker and check his 6x good kicker, do you agree? That actually makes a huge difference by the river, so do preflop ranges.

I have nothing against effective altruism, however rather than donating to slaves or things that address the problems of slavery to improve their lives i would rather get rid of slavery. I wonder what effective altruists would have had to say about improving the lives of slaves 200 years ago.

Today's main system's of oppression is the rich nations exploiting the poor nations; imperialism and colonialism and the capitalist wage system, it exists through america and nato's military power and through the use of the mass media and propaganda.

It seems to me like effective altruism doesn't seem to address structural problems in society. From my reading of third world activists, i listen to what they want. And what they want is often a fair economic system. For example farmers in India don't want intellectual property rights laws to say monsanto owns the seeds that are provided to them for genetically modifying seeds. They want trading rules that will help their countries develop rather than be exploited and dependent. And they want agro ecology based farming systems.

Probably one reason why some are aversive to effective altruism is that they see the stereotype of those who buy fair trade to make themselves feel better rather than do better. That is a stereotype which has some small amount of truth to it. But also then there were philanthropists in history like rockefelor, bill gates, and carnigie who oppressed the poor. These people also gave charity a bad name.

so i guess I don't think effective altruism is very progressive. It doesn't change our society structurally. Structural change is the main change needed to avoid the problems of climate change as well.

Is my representation correct?