Moved that from NL / Mid Stakes.
1) 600 hands is nothing. Really nothing.
2) What are these screenshots telling us?
3) If you struggle with NL2, post hands and ask questions (not just copying plain hands - see my comment on your post).
4) Learn about sample sizes - what sample got you "wrecked" on?
Sept. 19, 2019 | 5:07 a.m.
Did you post that hand to brag with a herocall or was there any question attached to?
Not a huge fan of blank HH, if you want to get helped - you should invest the effort to ask for and give some information, instead of being lazy and let your supporters do the work. ;-)
PS: Probably the reason why it has stayed quiet here ...
Sept. 19, 2019 | 5:04 a.m.
No problem with leaving a column empty, it does exactly what you intend. Just pay attention to the "donk" column, otherwise OOP will be forced to check on any street.
The effect is a decrease in EV (for OOP). As a matter of fact. The amount of decrease depends on the board.
In general I'm not a big fan of node locking (in fact I never use it :D), and I even less understand why you wanna use it when working with scripts. I'd rather learn what the optimal way is - and see when / if OOP would or should bet (donk) a significant amount of the time and learn about proper adjustments if he doesn't, instead of assuming it will not happen anyways (and not see it).
Sept. 19, 2019 | 4:55 a.m.
Everybody is undoubtedly assuming that the call is good because we have good / sufficient equity against his range. How do you get to this idea - against an unknown?! I am always surprised about those thought processes. Who tells you that he is not valueheavy? BTN can have plenty of strong / better hands.
If we are not "happily" calling however, do we "have" to call? Again, nobody asked that question. Without having checked it, I would assume that we as well have plenty of better bluffcatchers than 96 (actually Ax, Kx included).
Not saying, that folding is definitely right, just criticizing that nobody really digs deep enough to get to a safe answer.
Sept. 14, 2019 | 1 p.m.
Honestly, given the stats (assumed the sample is valid), you should be ashamed for even asking! :-D
WTSD is the only indicator that makes me a bit unhappy as he's more the guy to see showdowns than to show aggression. But a 71/42 is not aware of relative handstrength and might perceive AJ, 98cc and whatnot as pure nuts.
Ah ... and then you should truly ask yourself, why you enter the hand with such a weak holding, oop. If you don't HAPPILY stackoff on this runout, you are absolutely wrong about playing this hand first in.
That said, most players overestimate their advantage oop against players like these.
Sept. 14, 2019 | 12:53 p.m.
* WALL OF TEXT FOLLOWING - SUMMARY (and SOLUTION) AT THE END *
Short answer: your overall winrate is formed by any decision in ANY single spot you get into. If you accepted a 5bb/100 trade-off in any single spot, your overall winrate drops 5bb/100. So, you define, how much you want to sacrifice.
Long answer: Start with a targeted winrate as a baseline. Define the trade-off you'd be willing to accept. Like, say you aim at a winrate of 5bb/100, and you'd be willing to accept a minimum winrate of 3bb/100.
Now, calculate how often the spot you're looking for happens. For example BTN open, SB fold, BB call. How often does that occur?
Let's make some assumptions:
a) In 17% you're on the button.
b) In (85% * 80% * 75% =) 51% the pot is unopened.
c) You open 45% when the pot is uncontested.
d) SB folds 80%.
e) BB will call 25% after BTN minraise open and SB fold.
f) BB will check the flop in 95%
Now, how often do you see a flop and get checked to after BTN minraise, SB fold and BB call?
P(x) = 0.17 x 0.51 x 0.45 x 0.8 x 0.25 x 0.95 = 0,0074.
That means, this spot will occur in 0.74%. Next question is, how often does this special flop comes up? The one flop mostly is worthless, as you won't be able to memorize the gameplan for each individual flop anyways, so you got to cluster them and build groups. Say, this flop category comes up 5%. This means, the spot we are talking about makes 0.0074 x 0.05 = 0.00037 (0.037%).
Now, if you accept a deviation in winrate of 5bb/100, this makes an impact on your overall winrate of 0.00037 x 5 = 0.00185 bb/100. Quite marginal, right?
But here's the deal: obviously, if you accepted a 5bb/100 offset for ANY imaginable situation you could come into, your overall winrate drops 5bb/100, turning your aimed winrate into zero. That means, in spots that makes the "bread-and-butter" of your game, you should accept a deviation that is not much bigger than your overall accepted reduction (2bb/100). In spots that occur less often, you can - proportionally - accept higher tradeoffs. So, reduce the accepted reduction for the major spots to -1bb and build some buffer for spots that come up less often (so you can reduce for example -20bb in rare spots and get to -2bb on overall average).
SUMMARY / SOLUTION:
Even though I love academic mathematical numbercrunching masturbation orgies, that is too much - even to me. :) Just forget about it. Study, go as far as you can - and don't care about the rest. Even with a simplified strategy and even if you lose 5bb/100 by simplification, if you manage to really internalize the basic idea behind that strategy and keep your ability to deviate where applicable, you will crush.
Hope that helps. :-)
Sept. 7, 2019 | 9:16 p.m.
I guess you are talking about different things. :) OP asks for differences in EV for different solutions (i.e. rounded betsizes, or restriction of betsizes from 5 to 3 - to make it more executable for humans, that lead to differences in EV for the solution).
What Jeff explained was EV deviation from optimum ("nash distance" as a measurement for the solution's precision). Naturally that leads to an EV difference as well.
I made a more detailed post somewhere else where I answered that exact question in greater detail, maybe you wanna search for it. But in short - the answer to both questions (what EV difference is acceptable) is equal: it depends on how often that scenario would happen in real life, hence, how big it's impact would be on your overall strategy (which is the base of your overall winrate). Like a "defend vs. cbet in SRP OOP vs. BTN-open, 100bb" happens like a gazillion times more often than a "defend vs. river x/r as PF-4bettor after x/c,x/c,x, 300bb deep". In the first scenario, 10bb/100 might be a gamechanger, whereas in the second scenario you might not recognize a difference if you had a 1k bb/100 difference.
Sept. 7, 2019 | 11:49 a.m.
In a nutshell:
Raise bigger preflop, look for cheap (!) flops (but don't exaggerate, 43s is not a great hand if you see the flop 6-ways), play aggressively postflop with strong hands but be careful about "hand strengths". TPTK is not actually a strong hand 5-ways where players see the flop with all kind of hands. If you bet strong, you likely kick out all crap (that you had beaten anyways) and get milked with 2pair+.
Test the water, check, evaluate, stab (small) when nobody seems interested, play nuts to the max.
Aug. 26, 2019 | 7:55 a.m.
First of all - take care that you REALLY got a problem, before you start healing anything. :)
The easiest thing to take care of both, so a) making sure that there's actually a leak and b) to cure it, is to analyze stats. Difficult to put that into a video as potential pitfalls are too individual.
Aug. 19, 2019 | 7:03 p.m.
That sounds as if there were different "Nash Strategies". That is - for almost all situations - not the case, there is only one Nash Equilibrium. Each solver, whatever you look at, will EVENTUALLY come to the exact same result.
Now, snowie only has limited resources as he is trying to solve the "entire" game (in contrast to a solver which solves a single scenario), hence solutions "must" be slightly less good than the "close-to-exact"-solver solution. How big the difference is, depends on how often that special scenario occurs. The less often, the less precise will be Snowie's advices.
Aug. 18, 2019 | 2:43 p.m.
Mind being a bit less lazy and write some more words about what exactly you'd like to know? The numbers in the red circles are not readable - and at least I am too lazy to do researches about what you're actually asking for. ;-)
Aug. 15, 2019 | 7:21 p.m.
This used to be a decent heuristic for having a somewhat balanced range over multiple streets, ...
... when we talk about potsized bets. :)
Aug. 14, 2019 | 11:41 a.m.
#2 just flat w the NFD and evaluate turn. If he goes big he’s prob not bluffing
Would you consider calling w/o nfd? If so, calling makes no sense. We likely even got only 7 clean outs, so calling is probably an -EV decision if we don't count on huge implied odds (which are somewhat neutralized by the EQ of Villain again).
Aug. 14, 2019 | 6:08 a.m.
It makes no sense to (massively) overbet the flop, especially on a drawy board.
Villain needs to defend a very rather small part of his range, which means, he is naturally inclined to play closer to "perfect" than he would do against a regular sized bet.
Additionally, from a theoretical point of view, you massively lose value by shoving compared to split your betsize evenly over three streets (because you minimize your potential bluff-range, but that is a more complex topic, so just believe me for now).
All that said, shoving is a pretty big mistake - unless you do it for exact purpose but in that case you had not to ask - because nobody can explain the maybe correct rationale behind it other than yourself.
Aug. 12, 2019 | 1:53 p.m.
Nope. :) Assuming you're drawing to the nuts (with any out, so no reverse implieds), the odds are:
100 / 500 = 20%
Reason being that you either lose your invest of 100 or win 500 - nothing in between. So you call 100 to win 500, means you need odds of 20%. While you instead get 23%, you are +EV.
Let it check with the EV formula:
EV = (0.23 * (300 + 200)) - (0.77 * 100) = +38
Or in other words:
EV = (0.23 * 600) - 100 = +38
Hope that helps?
Aug. 11, 2019 | 9:52 a.m.
The key is to deeply understand how a solver works:
1) It takes two ranges (part of the model as input).
2) It splits each combo(!) of each range evenly into each possible action, for example, if we only bet pot or check - it will take each line 50% (because it does not know which is better, yet).
3) It calculates the EV for each combination of combo and action - for each player.
4) It (slightly!) shifts EACH combo (for both player's ranges) in the direction of the higher EV action, i.e. it goes from 50/50 bet or check to 60% bet and 40% check - if betting yields a higher EV. (It does not go to 100/0 because otherwise we would just jump back and forth between the extremes and never get to an optimal strategy for both players - hence the "slight" shifts; it's not a scientific determined rule, it's more "try-and-error").
5) It starts another iteration and continues with 3.
The first iteration - i.e. when it folds the nuts 50%, will show the biggest adjustments after comparing the EVs for each action. While further iterations will show less and less differences in EV (for each player), adjustments get finer and finer - up to the point where EV differences will be so marginal that we tell the solver to stop and "treat" the difference as zero (which by definition is the Nash Equilibrium), meaning no player will gain any EV by adjusting his current strategy.
Now, wenn you truly internalize the above (and believe me), then you will realize that there's absolutely no way for single combos to sacrifice EV in order to protect / support / whatever others.
What COULD possibly happen is that the EV of one combo decreases in another iteration - compared to the previous one - when other combos increased - resulting in an overall higher EV. That probably is what you meant? But this is not the effect of "sacrificing EV", it's just the effect that the new counter strategy of the opponent leads to a decrease of EV - which at the same time leads to an increase of others. Nevertheless, if we would adjust our combos in the "new strategies", i.e. by trapping less and raising more with nuts - we would not gain EV. This is just not possible, because otherwise the solver would've taken that line. The fact that he doesn't shows that the opponent would immediately take counter-action which would hurt our new strategy.
Hope the confusion vanished (at least a bit)?
Aug. 8, 2019 | 9:13 a.m.
I don't actually mind 4-betting if you expected Villain to call hands like JJ, AJ, etc. Once he 5-bets, we obviously have a new situation - that needs a new assessment. Nevertheless, the 1% chance of Villain re-raising does not make 4-betting bad. In contrast, we likely got the chance to get away cheaply.
Aug. 4, 2019 | 11:33 a.m.
[...] then divide it by the number of unopened pots when I'm in MP.
Shouldn't it be divided by the number of ALL pots when you're in MP? But even that should be somewhat fuzzy, unless you're interested specifically in open-ranges when you're in a certain position. Otherwise just take the entire number of hands.
Should work fine when you do the right filters, i.e. for CO-open% basic filters should be set to "number of players between 6 and 6" and "Raiser's position: CO". Get the number, then delete the second filter and divide 1st result by 2nd result. That should give you the correct percentage.
BUT - why the heck are you interested in pool open%?! I could understand when you were interested in pool ranges (which is difficult obviously and not really valid, even with a big alias), but percentages?
July 30, 2019 | 7:47 p.m.
July 29, 2019 | 11:17 a.m.
ATTENTION: Wise ass text following - "What has happened to good old odds calculation? Solvers seem to really flatten the thinking process ... how does one use a solver, take the effort to nodelock - only to see that TP is not a good call vs. 2p+?"
OK, that ahead - I had to get rid of it. :D
Now seriously. It is very obvious - or at least it should be - that you have no good call vs. a valueheavy range. That said, we got to ask if our opponent would be bluffing often enough - and if TPMK beats his bluffs. Second can very certainly be answered positively. So, do we expect Villain to got enough bluffs?
At least I don't know - you did not give any information, other than that he seems to be a "reg" and your friends say "he's too stupid" to do that. Where do they take that information? So, if they're right, we are the wrong to ask - because we don't have that information.
Against a complete unknown, whom we expect to be capable of bluffing in a balanced way (or being equally likely to over- or underbluff), this seems as a clear call, as you rarely get there with better bluff catchers.
If you expect that the "pool" will be balanced at best, but tends to rather be too valueheavy, than it's a (clear) fold on the river.
Now put these puzzle pieces together. ;-)
July 28, 2019 | 6:56 a.m.
OK, let's fix some basic facts to read from the same page:
1) "GT" stands for "Game Theory", aiming for maximally exploiting our opponents in ANY situation. The optimal decision in terms of Game Theory hence is always the maxEV decision.
2) When two players perform that against each other, they will eventually sink into a situation where both extract the absolute maximum that is possible - and any action one might take, will just hurt him (i.e. make him exploitable and increase opp's EV) without giving himself any advantage anymore. This special GT-state is called the Nash Equilibrium - and technically precise it's as well called the "Game Theory Optimum" => GTO.
3) Taken (1) and (2) combined, it is clear that - by definition - no exploit against a GTO-player exists! Simplest example is rock-paper-scissor, how do you exploit a player that perfectly mixes all options at 1/3rd? No chance. => Same for poker. Against a "true" GTO player there's no chance of exploitation.
Now, with that out of the way, add a number 4):
4) GTO is far too complex for human brains to internalize, hence nobody, not even the world's best players play true GTO. They have worked out strategies that more or less approximate a GTO-strategy, or at least look alike. That means, they are not truly optimal. Which again means, there is room for exploitation.
Now, (4) obviously is what you're looking for. But how to find an answer on your question? It - as with any other player - depends on human tendencies. There is ONE (for the sake of simplicity) true GTO strategy. And there are gazillions of less optimal - which deviate. The direction in which they deviate are different from player to player and their natural inherent tendencies. Like in the RPS game - no human (w/o artificial help) will be able to randomly mix his choice. He will regularly (at least slightly) favor one of the options. Which one is the task to find out. => You got to know these tendencies - and then find the "weak spot" to exploit. No general answer.
Summary: No exploitation of GTO. You can only exploit slight deviations that follow the player's tendencies. Find them and try to exploit them. No difference to "normal" common characterization of exploits.
Hope that helps?
PS: Explaining what mixed ranges and such truly mean and why they seem to be a characteristic of GTO leads to far here ... hence I'll leave that open.
July 28, 2019 | 5:26 a.m.
July 27, 2019 | 7:03 a.m.
And GTO is not about exploitation it is about optimal play when you know your opponents strategy and your opponents knows your strategy which on lower stakes is far from true.
This is not true. The "optimal" play in GT is the max exploitive play. GTO as a special term describes the Nash Equilibrium which is determined by two opponents maximally exploiting each other. Nevertheless GT(O) always aims for maximal exploitation.
That said, it's not true (in best case), dangerous (in worst case) to assume one does not need to care about Game Theory on the low stakes.
July 26, 2019 | 3:46 p.m.
When the question in the title is to be read literally (which I assume as you did not give any further information on your motivation), it shows that you don't understand what GTO means (no offense intended!).
July 26, 2019 | 8:47 a.m.
Hey mrscheng, let me repeat what I've often told - on different occasions. :)
1) A solver is a pocket calculator. You don't learn math by using a calc. Learn "math" first, then use the calculator to save some time.
2) Exploitive play depends on GTO. Without GTO there is not exploitation. In fact, GTO IS exploitation (of an optimally playing opponent). To know when and how to adjust demands to know the "baseline". GTO is that baseline.
July 24, 2019 | 3:15 p.m.
Mostly variance. Sample is even too low to consider overall stats (esp. winrate), not to mention positionwise. To get a feeling for it - just add a couple of stacks won in CO position (I mean, 5 additional stacks in 3.6k hands is not a big deal) and see your CO-winrate all of a sudden "skyrocketing". ;-)