Hi im having some trouble with Vision.
I am trying to practise the action of SRP utg vs btn, i want to decide between bet and check, but my option is on button as if utg has already checked i cant see any setting to change this ?
April 4, 2020 | 2:19 a.m.
Hi Krzysztof Slaski!
Thanks for a great video.
I have been doing some of my own analysis in SB vs BTN 4b pots.
But im super confused at one situation.
Almost all of my sims the BTN has a big equity advantage on the flop.
Except 2 boards were around 50%/50%.
Qs 6d 4s
Ts 9d 8s
Strangely the SB leads 70% for a small sizing on the Qs 6d 4s.
But almost never leads on the Ts9d8s.
What do you look at to determine the reasoning for this ?
I understood leading to occur with big equity/range advantages.
Thanks in advance.
March 17, 2020 | 4:08 a.m.
I appreciate the reply Ben !
Just to clarify, you said "Write down the gto strat or save it and then lock it against 100% check"
You mean write down the actual strategy ie each individual frequency of fold/call/raise for btn's gto strat and lock that vs a locked 100% check range ?
Since the gto range is already solved for and the locked range is well locked,If we push the "solve" button what is actually solving ?
Im purely looking for proof from the solver that:
Nothing any player does can increase his EV vs the optimal strategy of the other, however his changes in strategy can decrease his own ev and in turn increase the optimal pairs EV.
Jan. 29, 2020 | 2:54 p.m.
Hi Ben Sulsky
This video seems fantastic to me so far, but unfortunately there is something that I don't fully understand about pio and nodelocking.
Could you or anyone else perhaps answer my example below ? (which would in turn help me understand the video much better)
So I have a scenario, BB 3 bets BTN and BTN defends.
On the flop BB cbets 98%.
I locked the BB cb to 0% with 100% check and then re-solved..
BB’s Ev went down and IP Ev went up.
1.) Would this suggest that this is the max exploit strategy ? (Btn is now exploiting this 100% check leak as best as he can)
2.) then if BTN was to continue playing his optimal strategy that was solved initially, should his EV stay the same vs the 100% check locked strategy of OOP?
3.) then how do we see/prove this with pio ?
Thanks in advance.
Jan. 28, 2020 | 4:59 a.m.
"I thought you said it was some well known players solved ranges not a solver?" - preflop ranges are solved via solvers like monker and pio they use massive amounts of resources, i could not compare other positions because i dont have the resources. However i could compare BTN vs SB/BB.
"should not be risking your stack preflop in marginal EV spots"
--The solver is concerned only of EV. If one decision is > than the other it will take the decision with the Higher ev. it does not take into account stack risk or tournament life as a factor only a higher value in EV.
Im only interested in equilibrium theory for study at this point. The ranges in question are meant to be optimal - these ranges were not created to exploit any pool of players specifically.
The preflop sheet is UpswingPoker and its preflop master sheet.
Sept. 17, 2019 | 3:55 p.m.
thanks for the reply!
Im still not convinced that a solver takes this somewhat abstract term of "tournament life" into account. Tournament life and playing lower variance would seem an emotional decision as apposed to an EV decision ?
Anyone else have any input ?
Thanks again !
Sept. 15, 2019 | 9:25 p.m.
Hi Guys i am busy transitioning to MTT's and have run into a bizarre preflop solution sold by a very well known poker player online.
This preflop sheet states that BTN 2.8x at 100bb facing SB 3b of 4x (11.2bb) 4bets less than 1%.. 40% of KK and AKs 15% of QQ and 10% AA JJ. not much else.
I find this quite bizarre especially since SB's threebet range is wide as 16-18%
I went and ran the exact sim on monker-solver and as expected monker solver gave BTN 4b much much more frequent.
I discussed this with a friend and he told me that it could be due to "tournament life".
As far as i know this is only a concept that applies to ICM conditions and not chip ev conditions as the one described above.
Is there an error in the preflop master sheet i bought online or am i no understanding the "tournament life" concept to a point where btn wants to allow sb to see a flop with almost its entire range for free ?
Thanks for reading
Sept. 7, 2019 | 6:37 p.m.
I second that Diego! Chinese games = 2 of my worst downswings in 12 years in 2 years, they do indeed have that variance (and collusion! maybe more than i even believe!)
April 14, 2019 | 7:48 p.m.
Saulo, i appreciate your replies. Thank you.
As I understood is that we are trying to achieve a given amount of ev in a strategy - if both players in a hu match played perfect gto their ev's would be net 0 over both positions, that being said they aim for an ev of 0.
If one was to be achieving a negative ev in the headsup case when aiming for the ev of 0 that would be undesirable like in the text multi-way where the sb nash losing 17bb and not 11. Here it would seem pointless to even use the nash solutions as a framework ?
Feb. 16, 2019 | 8:48 a.m.
Surely this (the fact that sb has more opportunity to shove as a result of btn folding more) is included within the EV results? I mean the solver solved for the EV's of the entire strategy of each individual playing nash and then it solved again with sb and bb playing nash and the button not.
Feb. 16, 2019 | 8:39 a.m.
I have just read a post on how GTO multi-way can harm us in cases and it has disturbed my understanding/approach.
I was wondering how you guys approach multi-way scenarios with regards to study and improvement?
By considering the below information it would seem that applying/following preflop equilibrium solutions solved by a solver like monkersolver for say btn sb bb as a guide when playing with unknown opponents may in fact be useless ?
I have pasted the text below:
In 3-handed situations the entire premise of GTO starts to break down,
because a decrease in one of our opponents EV does not necessarily
mean an increase in ours. In fact, it is often the case that an
opponent who makes mistakes can actually decrease our EV even if we
continue to play GTO. The easiest way to see this is to start with a
simple example of a 3 handed push/fold equilibrium in a short stacked
Suppose we are 3 handed and all players have 15BB and are playing
shove/fold poker in a rake free cash game (15BB is a bit to deep for
this to be a great idea, but that doesn't matter for the sake of the
example). The equilibrium solution for this game is reasonably simple
and can be found here.
Basically the button shoves about 29% of his hands, the small blind
calls with 14.5%, and the big blind over calls with a very tight range
(9.4%) and calls if the small blind folds with a wider range (14.8%).
If the button folds, then the small blind shoves a very wide range
(46%) and the big blind calls 28%.
Lets assume the hero is in the small blind. If you put that scenario
into an analysis tool like CardRunnersEV (I ran CREV with a 1 million
hand monte-carlo sample which is pretty good but not perfectly
accurate, particlarly because CREV rounds to the nearest 1BB/100) you
can easily see the expected value for each player when playing the
Nash Equilibrium strategies. They are:
Button EV: 19 bb / 100 (HERO) Small Blind EV: -11 bb / 100 Big Blind
EV: -8 bb / 100
If all 3 players play GTO, on average each player will win 19bb / 100
in the button, lose 11bb / 100 in the small blind, and lose 8bb / 100
in the big blind, netting to 0bb / 100 break even play.
Now we know from the Nash definition that if any player starts from
the Nash state (where all 3 players are playing Nash) and changes only
his own strategy, that he will reduce his EV. Lets assume that the
button is a weak tight player and does not shove nearly enough. We
know this has to decrease the buttons EV, but nothing about the
definition of a Nash Equilibrium guarantees that the button's change
in strategy won't also decrease the hero's ev.
If the button only shoves: 55+, AJ+, KQ, KJs, QJs, JTs the EVs become:
Button EV: 15 bb / 100 (HERO) Small Blind EV: - 17 bb / 100 Big
Blind EV: 2 bb / 100
The hero's EV is down 6bb per 100, even though he is still playing the
GTO strategy. The hero's EV decreases by more than the buttons EV,
even though the button is the player making a mistake! If you imagine
that every player plays GTO in all positions, except for the one fishy
player who is too tight on the button, what happens to the hero's
winrate? He wins 19bb / 100 on the button, loses 17bb / 100 on the
small blind, and loses 8bb / 100 on the big blind, for an average of
-2bb / 100. Playing GTO poker in 3+ way scenarios can lose money if there is a fishy player at the table who is not playing GTO.
If you imagine that the Big Blind player is a smart reactive player it
can get even worse! The condition that the big blind must lose EV if
he changes his strategy away from the Nash Equilibrium strategy no
longer applies once there is a fish on the button. The Nash condition
is only relevant when ALL players are playing Nash. Now that the
button has changed his strategy, the big blind player can change his
strategy as well to increase his profit and to reduce our hero's ev.
If the BB tightens up his over-calling range he can further reduce the
hero's EV by almost another 1BB / 100 when the hero is in the small
In 3-way pots with a fish a GTO strategy can lose and furthermore, a
smart reactive player can adjust his strategy to make the GTO strategy
lose even more.
It is important to note that the above are not due to ICM, they appear
even in cash games. In SnG situations where ICM is a factor there are
even bigger and more obvious instances where the presence of a fish
can make a nash strategy -EV, but the fundamental issue in both cash
games and ICM cases is the same.
Using any postflop scenario that has been solved by monkersolver as a basis for learning, as if one of the players is deviating greatly it can potentially be reducing our ev drastically to achieve the opposite of what we set out when solving the scenario in the first place ?
I have been treating my multi-way solutions with monker solver the same way that i had any head-sup solutions that i had solved for.
Any discussion around the approach to multi-way scenarios would be appreciated !
Here is the link to the text i quoted:
Feb. 14, 2019 | 1:04 p.m.
Fantastic video. Probably one of the most useful for me as of recent!
How do we go about using the preflop subset of 74 flops ? Did you use that within pio ?
Dec. 23, 2016 | 4:37 a.m.
Hes definitely not opening any two cards. Hes a good reg. Whats our plan if we get 4B by him or the short stacks behind to which we would be somewhat committed. If we fold it feels like a waste of a hand?
Sept. 22, 2016 | 4:33 p.m.
I'm posting this from memory so just gonna round.
Payout structure is top heavy. 7 left.
Very soft table with only 1 good reg and 1 weak reg. The rest are all recs over the age of 40.
There are two <15bb stacks who are both overly tight recs.
I have 25bb which is average and the good reg has 60bb and is the chip leader.
Good reg opens CO to 2.25bb I am BTN with AJo.
SB has 20bb and is tight.
BB has 15BB and is very tight.
The top heavy payout structure makes me wanna 3B call, is this terrible? but the field being so soft and a few shorter stack makes me wanna flat.
How do I make this descision?
Sept. 22, 2016 | 8:43 a.m.
Hey Tyler, fantastic video !
In the first hand, why is QQ a check on the river the majority of the time ?
I can understand that the betting of QJ and KK would have higher EV's than that of QQ with the parameters provided.
Is that saying that the EV of a bet with QQ is less than 0 here ? Surely not ?
Maybe i do not entirely understand what PIO is doing here ? I understand it as creating the best possible strategies, ones that yield highest EV but are closest to GTO with the parameters given.
-The fact that there might be no bluff combos available to be paired with QQ and that being the reason it is checked.. Does that mean that QQ is still a +EV bet but would just fall into the MES with these parameters ?
Thanks in advance