Look at my formula, it contains a 50% psb on the flop. You might have a marginal autoprofit spot on the flop, but to get there you invested 0.5bb preflop. To decide about preflop you cannot just look at your flop EV.
March 29, 2020 | 3:50 p.m.
Basically, with a "timeframe" of 10 hands you have to take advantage of ANY single EV spot you can get your hands on. Variance is high, but that's the character of this special format, so nothing to discuss here.
Only doubt I have is your setup. His fold2cbet should be 70%. That likely is not identical to folds vs. stabs, which actually might be lower. Second point is your break-even point. To make the strategy +EV your stab must not exceed 1/3 pot size. With 1/2 pot being the minbet, strategy gets -EV:
EV (limp-stab) = (0.7 x (0.7 x 1.5 + 0.3 x -1.5)) + (0.3 x -1.5) = -0.03
March 29, 2020 | 8:40 a.m.
When KTs checks, it's almost 100% folding to a bet. KQs calls the smaller bets (which happen most frequently) and to a small extent even the higher bets.
In my model Villain is betting almost 60% when checked to, losing our EQ with KTs is quite an issue in that case.
That might be one (of many) pieces of the puzzle.
March 27, 2020 | 11 p.m.
AA calls the 3bet 100%? No 4bet at all? Something looks weird ...
March 27, 2020 | 8:13 p.m.
Got to be very dependent on the ranges you work with. Mind giving the parameters of your model? I've tried a similar model and it came to the exact opposite conclusion - KQs being a better bluff than KTs, yet both (!) are checked close to 100%.
And KTs having a higher EV as a check than KQs is surprising as well.
March 27, 2020 | 8:07 a.m.
Posts like these are very difficult to answer seriously. Especially w/o knowing your personal situation (playing for fun?, playing for ego?, playing for paying the bills?, ...?). So I will give an "universal" answer, and please consider that this is my very own personal opinion, without knowing you, your situation, your abilities or anything else. And the last thing I am able of is judging you. So, please take it as it is - a completely uninformed statement thrown at somebody who I not know more of than a ficticious name and some lines of text. Consider it as food for thought, not as any kind of "truth". OK? Then let's go on ...
First of all, I respect your honesty.
There might be a very long reply, giving hints to gain mental stability, learning about variance and such - but there's a very short reply as well:
This sounds overly brutal - and likely that was the last thing you wanted to hear (or even expected), but I mean it friendly, constructive (yes) and absolutely serious. Poker demands a certain mindset. And you don't have it. Either you never had it (and were not able to develop it over the time) or you had it and lost it over time (due to the rollercoaster you experienced). The result is the same. Right now you are absolutely not prepared to win money in poker. It's a fact. Trying to push your luck is as promising as playing black jack.
Taking a break might help as well - in case you were able to use that break productively, but that would be the long answer again: working on theory, understand the basic principle of the game, working on mental stability, hone strategies etc.
March 24, 2020 | 7:17 a.m.
The solver does not care about mistakes. He plays in a way that the optimal counterexploitation will not hurt him (more than necessary).
That means, if one betsize clearly has a higher EV than another (given that Villain correctly exploits either), the better will taken 100%.
If two (or more) betsizes yield the same EV (given optimal counterexploit in either), Pio will likely split between these. The split results in a slightly higher EV than deciding for one single option.
If you look at a "solved" scenario, it's useless to say "we could do this or that as well or more, it shows the same EV". The calculated EV's are for that exact split. Any change will result in different EVs.
If for example you see a split between 0.5p and 1.0p of 90 vs. 10%, and the EV is (exactly) the same, that does not mean that you could as well play 10/90 or 0/100. This only works as long as Villain does not (properly) adjust, but it would leave room for exploitation, which reduces your (potential) EV.
March 24, 2020 | 7:05 a.m.
The work you need is not done (or should be done) by database analysis. It demands working with ranges, training equity (and realized equities), poker math.
Get an equity tool (or equity trainer), get preflop range sheets and try to understand why these hands (i.e. hands that should defend vs. 3bets that you'd normally fold) are playable or defendable and such. Learn about pot odds and the relation between odds and equity. Learn about equity realization. Get CardrunnersEV.
Hope that gives some direction. :)
March 22, 2020 | 1:19 p.m.
Fold to 3bet of 80% is not simply "high", it's ridiculous high. Combined with your question / comments about preflop ranges it shows me that you have no real idea about ranges, EQ and odds at all. Start working on that, before you care about the rest (postflop stats). No offense intended, just an urgent suggestion. :-)
March 22, 2020 | 9:16 a.m.
Stats are hard to read!
From what I've seen or at least might have identified, it seems as if you are too lose preflop, (way) too much folding to 3bets (result of loose opening), too lose cbetting, too tight on turn / river (result of too lose cbetting), too high W$SD (which sounds weird, but it shows that you are either valuebetting to little or folding too often, mostly a combination of both).
March 21, 2020 | 8:43 a.m.
Ah sorry, didn't pay attention to sizes.
March 17, 2020 | 9:11 a.m.
2:1, right? Like a PSB, don't see it's being overly "tempting". Only issue I see is that your bet looks exactly as weak as it is, which might induce more bluffs as usual.
March 16, 2020 | 4:36 p.m.
EVs are comparable in an optimal scenario. But don't forget that it's way harder for your opponent to play "optimally" when you are using multiple betsizes. In other words, the chance of driving your opponent into errors is bigger if you manage different betsizes, playing against one betsize is easier.
March 12, 2020 | 5:10 p.m.
9 sets (instead of 3+1), way more pair+A, draws etc. You could nodelock BTN's strategy on the 862 board to 100% cbet and see what happens (I'd expect a whole lot of x/c and x/r).
March 10, 2020 | 12:41 p.m.
One final note - and this is the reason why I really dislike the function of nodelocking (not for the function, it's a nice feature - but for pure practicability): Pio - as GTO in general - plays maximally exploitive. So, if a frequency shifts slightly away from the optimal, Pio will switch to the extreme. Simple example, if we have a polarized range on the river and bet potsize, Villain should call 50%. If V. instead "only" calls 49.5%, a true GTO solution will bluff 100%!
That is what you observe in your model. Switching the strategy away from the optimal, the counterexploit will almost always result in an extreme.
Now, it's a great idea to really deeply analyze the dynamic of what happens (as you show here - I greatly admit that, hats off for that!), but it's IMHO a bad idea to take it to try to learn how to best play a hand in a certain scenario by nodelocking our opponent's strategy and then look at how to adjust. This will almost always end in trouble (not to mention how thin the margin for correctly pinpointing our opponent's strategy and how huge the resulting potential error margin is).
March 10, 2020 | 9:51 a.m.
Pio is probably running a fairly extreme exploit if you haven't also made villain raise with more bluffs as well in that it bets it's entire range, folds everything behind the value range to a raise and goes kind of nuts against the overly weak range facing a call.
March 8, 2020 | 9:50 a.m.
Just as a quick idea - clubs don't block potential semibluffs, which means, when Villain bets, we don't block AXss and stuff like that which means, protecting our EQ becomes more important.
March 2, 2020 | 7:12 a.m.
That's why I asked, that is a lot more info than "unknown", right? :)
I like betting small for EQ protection, I don't see any merits in letting him see the turn for free. According to your description it does not seem as if you could happily expect (and call) a bluff from him. And betting (too) big does not accomplish much, I'd say players of these types play worse against small betsizes.
Feb. 28, 2020 | 9:28 p.m.
Honestly, guys like these you don't beat by naked stats. Take notes. Try to get into their heads and punish them for their mistakes.
Just a pure example: you face a Villain with a WTSD of 35%. A bit too high you might say and expect him to be a station. So, you stop bluffing. What you don't realize is that his W$SD (amount of $$ won when saw showdown) is 65%, which either means he is running in god-mode (possible when sample is small enough) or he is just brutally passive and does not take any aggressive actions. Still he overfolds to bets on the river, so bluffing might be a good opportunity.
Second, sample size of 55 is rarely enough to put any evidence on showdown stats. Just imagine, how often one gets involved in a hand at all. Say 25%. Now, say, 20% of these hands actually see a showdown (rest ends preflop or on flop / turn). That makes 5% total! Based on 55 hands, these are like 3 hands. Not a sample to put any worth on showdown stats.
Finally - if you are depending on stats because you are playing Zoom (or any other fast folding variant), better stick to your own solid gameplan, because notetaking on these players is very complicated - if you don't restrict yourself to a single table and really concentrate. Better play regular tables and take notes like your life depended on it - and really get behind the scenes. Think about what they might have thought, paint a picture, fill it with any hand / result you see and come up with "counter-actions".
Ah - and regarding question #4, just stop thinking about how to bluff a low stakes player off TP. :D
Feb. 24, 2020 | 8:42 a.m.
Mmhm ... when I saw the stats of V1 and V2 I almost stopped reading. :D
Don't bother with trying to spot ranges of weak players. Neither 39/24 nor 23/11 mark good, thinking players (not even with that small sample). So, don't expect too much logic behind their decisions. They could have million reasons why they played their current hands the way they did and most of those wouldn't seem logical to you (or me), so better save your energy for more worthy spots. :)
Feb. 23, 2020 | 6:03 p.m.
Your thoughts are (somewhat) common or at least known, but utterly wrong.
There's no chance to exploit a GTO strategy. Not in theory, not in practice. You cannot arbitrarily take one branch of the strategy and say - now, when I know that ... I can crush him. If a preflop-strategy with a certain fold-/limp-/open-distribution is optimal and Villain reacts optimally himself, there's no chance to adjust.
If Villain plays suboptimal (i.e. overshoving over limps) then we are not talking about GTO and obviously you'd deviate. That's the core of optimal play.
Feb. 19, 2020 | 4:36 p.m.
It's not only about potsize, it's about how often that spot happens. The more often it happens the bigger it's (negative) impact on our winrate - obv.