Here is the youtube link from the hand in question: https://youtu.be/HAwaTNhA7SA
So I looked at a generic sim for this spot, and Limitless' specific hand is supposed to be folding turn. it's actually a large ev loss to call the 88 on the turn without a club. Also, even 88 with c is folding pure on river when we get there...
So now I feel like a few things could be happening here, but my main suspicion is that this is some kind of hard exploit. Villain's turn play seems quite delicate as he is required to hold back on firing a lot of his more "natural" looking bluffs. If Limitless thinks villain is overdoing it on turn by a lot and consequently getting to river with too many bluffs then he's going to want to bluff catch more. Okay fine, ill buy that.
But like damn, shouldnt we just start calling pure with all the indifferent hands, and hands with marginal ev loss first? When does it become acceptable to be taking hands that are substantial ev losses and using them for exploits? I actually see a lot of this crazy shit in the high stakes HHs and it makes me wonder about a lot of things... Are these guys leaning more on intuition/feel than we might think? Are these plays really just some brilliant genius-level exploits?
Sauce made a video a long time ago reviewing High stakes HHs and one of the topics was some ridiculous bluff catch that LLinus made with J high. Similar to this hand, the play was a substantial ev loss in solver but Sauce steered the discussion towards speculating about how much ev loss can we recover when we know our opponents are making a mistake... Essentially he reasoned that if our opponents are making large enough errors then it may be possible to turn even largely -ev theoretical plays into + ev ones in practice. But how much ev loss is too much? How do we gauge this when deciding to go out of bounds and leave the confines of the simulations?
I guess my post is somewhat open-ended but I will tell you that I was inspired to write this because this is something I have always wondered about. After studying solvers and having the effects of that rub off into my play, I sometimes feel very constrained as a poker player. I actually hate not being able to make particular plays that I want to make in the moment just because I think a solver wouldn't make them. I am naturally very creative and daring at times when I play but after reviewing some of my plays in solver I get discouraged when I find out "I should have just folded" or "I would have never lost my stack if I just followed my ranges etc."
But then, here I am looking at some of the best players in the world and they routinely do things that are very far from solver approved. I know every player has their own style and differences in the way they view poker but I would like to know what you guys think about this. How do you guys handle balancing theory and practice?
May 10, 2023 | 12:53 p.m.
I just finished QYs course and I was very surprised at the value that I got from it.
I am a full time live player at the 5/5 and 5/10 levels and I was able to gain a lot of valuable insight from QYs coaching.
Initially I thought that I was only going to learn about flop fundamentals but really I learned a lot about poker as a whole.
The best thing about QY is that he sets you up for poker success in the future. He teaches you how to become a learner and how to grow and improve moving forward. QY cleared up a lot of things for me when it came to the use of solvers and how to study with them effectively. He was even able to relate with the conditions I am facing in my live games, and helped me understand what to consider when making adjustments for those games.
Also, I got access to a lot of invaluable materials to help me out going forward. All the materials are very clean, well prepared and easy to use. The materials streamline the learning process a lot IMO.
I recorded all of our sessions and plan to review all of them as well as pour over all of the materials I was given. Even though I just finished and have gained a lot from the course, I feel like I have a lot of work to do and I am just beginning.
Highly recommend QYs coaching to anyone who is serious about becoming a better poker player.
March 30, 2021 | midnight
example: comparing range betting strategies vs betting/checking strats in 3 bet pots on the flop
Range betting strategies usually suffer some ev loss when compared to bet/check strats but the latter is more difficult to execute accurately and the former can be executed perfectly each time. When comparing the EVs of two strategies, how do we determine when an ev loss is acceptable enough for us to favor a simpler strategy? Are there any benchmark numbers that people commonly use to guide their decision making?
For example, I notice an ev loss of 4 chips on a particular board when I choose a range betting strat over a betting/checking strat. Is this too much of a loss? How many chips are considered "too much" of a loss and how many chips are considered an "acceptable" loss?
I am working on simplifying my strategies, but I don't know any cutoff points when it comes to differences in ev. How do I determine this?
Oct. 23, 2020 | 9:32 a.m.
You can run the same sim adjusted for 200bb and see what changes.
Aug. 6, 2020 | 7:45 a.m.
When I am studying a grid in PIO I come across mechanics that I am not always able to explain. For example, I was studying some wide range 3bet pot spots and I came across a turn situation where there was some turn overbet shoving but it was only happening on certain cards and only when the backdoor flush draw was coming on board. The same cards of different suits showed no overbetting at all. This is just one example of many mechanics that baffle me at times. I always try to understand what is going on in a grid to the best of my ability but inevitably I will run into something that I cannot easily explain.
I guess I would just like to ask you guys, how can I become better at understanding some of the more complex interactions in pio? I feel like I improve my understanding slowly over time but I also feel like there are some things that I will never be able to make sense of unless someone just gives me the answer outright. What do you guys usually do when you are unable to make sense of some of the mechanics in pio?
Aug. 6, 2020 | 7:39 a.m.
I really think the amount that you bet is fine. I also think that his range is elastic here so sometimes you shove and he just folds. You really just need to kind of bet whatever you think he will call in situations like this. Maybe you missed out on the 175 but maybe if you shove he folds. We will never know. I always just make it very easy for fish to call down when I am value betting.
Also the fact that he tanked so long before calling the turn makes me believe that he had some marginal hand with showdown value that could have possibly folded to a shove.
Sept. 10, 2019 | 4:24 a.m.
Interested to hear others thoughts on the pre flop decision. Sometimes I am in games that are extremely loose and I know I will be going multiway to the flop when I am raising over limps from out of the blinds. My question to you guys is IF we knew that this iso never gets through, (meaning we never take the pot down pre) should we still be isoing offsuit broadways from the blinds? Time and time again I just find that it creates a situation where I am OOP , multiway in a bloated pot with a bad hand. Thoughts? I been going back and forth on this for a long time now and I still do not know what to think about it.
Sept. 10, 2019 | 4:11 a.m.
Ink your limp call range hits this board and yes you can credibly rep a lot of strong hands with your action and against a lot of players this line would probably work a lot but this is not one of those guys.
Hes not thinking about the game how you are thinking about the game
I have played lots of live poker and have dusted off many stacks to terrible players that I thought "should" have folded their hands. You described multiple spots where villain had shown a willingness to put money into the pot in very unfavorable conditions so when he does it against you (calling turn raise with AK) please do not act surprised.
You have all the answers to your own questions already just try to think more about your villain and you'll see that there are better ways to take his money than to try and run him off a hand that he seems to like.
April 19, 2017 | 10:32 a.m.
I really dont understand the actions you took in the pre cursor hand you explained nor in the actual hand in question... I know i suck at poker but damn.... both hands just seem like suicide without stellar reads
April 14, 2017 | 11:23 p.m.
T8 is possibly the only bluff combo vil has on the flop. Hes got all 2 pair combos and 77,99. Maybe he can overplay AQ AJ or AT depending on how bad or good he is. So
on the turn when you check raise you are hoping he has AT AQ and calls it off? Seems thin.
Id bet a bit more on flop. Calling the flop raise is standard. Turn check raise seems bad to me, i would prefer a check/decide based on sizing/reads. Without reads id call a reasonable/smallish sized bet on the turn and prob check fold to river shoves on most run outs.
Plug in his flop raising range then run the board out to the turn and see how youre doing vs it. Look at your equity and ask yourself why you would commit your stack here.
April 14, 2017 | 9:49 p.m.
I have seen many people 3 bet fold flops at this stake so you cant say that you have 0 fe for sure. But honestly there are a lot of ways to play this hand but you really cant go too wrong with just going with it on the flop.
I saw a similar hand in hsp with dwan and greenstein where dwan piled it in on the flop with a pair and flush draw vs barrys AA. I believe it was a 3 bet pot and although stacks were deeper the sprs were probably similar due to the pot being inflated pre. And fwiw dwan was slightly ahead there vs barrys specific hand.