Just copy the script(s) and put it one after the other into a plain text file. Then run PioSolver (not PioViewer!!) and either directly load the script or run the solver directly on that scriptfile:
Here's the documentation of the scripting language:
Good luck! :)
May 25, 2019 | 5:36 a.m.
Yeah, might be. I stand corrected. :)
May 17, 2019 | 7:42 p.m.
How do you guys play A5cc in Villain's position?
May 17, 2019 | 5:46 p.m.
Readless? Please, by all means, insta-snap-happily-dancing-around-the-table-call. We block most valuehands, there are just a handful combos left and players float the flop with all kind of crap, to see what happens on the turn.
It would be different if you bet the turn and check the river. But as played, no way I'm folding.
May 17, 2019 | 1:52 p.m.
I'd check the flop. Hand is too good equitywise to "turn it into a bluff" and too bad to bet for value.
As played, I'd give up on the turn, there are plenty of combos better to be bet, first of all we still got K-high and some equity (compared to a hand like T6 for example) and second, like Jeff_ said, we are bluffing way too often if we stick to a proper range perspective and this hand qualified for a bluff.
May 16, 2019 | 6:34 a.m.
Definitely tighten up. Even small pockets lose value in "massive" multiway pots due to reverse implied odds. The question if players play better when you ramp up the sizing is very table-dependent, I've always raised slightly bigger in these loose live environments. Just as much that it does not "spoil the game".
May 16, 2019 | 6:15 a.m.
I'd tend to fold the turn, as played tend to call the river.
On the turn even more as we block spade draws with holding Qs. As Villain while overbetting most likely has a hand that's relative strength is the same against QQ as against AKs (for example), we should have sufficient combos in our range to withstand the overbet. Given that Villain has two streets to fire (and overbet) our defense% can go down a bit even further. That said, QQ should be a safe fold. Calling likely is no mistake either, it's on the fence.
May 15, 2019 | 6:59 a.m.
GTO+ is a solver, CREV is a tree modelling tool. I regularly work with solvers (that no misunderstandings come up), but in my opinion it's like a pocket calculator. And nobody learns math by operating a pocket calculator. :-)
May 14, 2019 | 4:41 p.m.
As mentioned, squeeze bigger.
As played, x/f the flop. Jamming is an option but likely not much better than checking with the intention to fold (which often enough just won't happen).
What about the "w/o a heart"-discussion? As long as we are not speaking about "AKs", meaning two hearts (and an insta-stack-off), I see one heart as even less of a call, blocking potential flush draws on Villain's side.
May 14, 2019 | 4:42 a.m.
Your winrate might go up a bit too.
Hehe, this is quite a brave statement. :D Poker still is a zero-sum-game, so for one's winrate to go up, the other's got to go down. And this purely comes from playing better than the others. But that's by far no matter of course. Deep play is a different beast and many 100bb regs play poorly on 200bb+, at least due to missing routine. And many "bad players" that lose quite a bit on 100bb "accidentally" play better on deep stacks, which means, their reduced losses (even when still losing) cause our winrate to sink as well.
Summarized - don't link deep stacks to higher winrates. It's tempting, because it looks so sweet, but dangerous.
May 14, 2019 | 4:32 a.m.
Numbers depend on standard deviation. Deeper games have a bunch of different impacts that influence the "risk of ruin" (RoR):
- looser play (more speculative hands enter the pot) => SDV goes up
- less stack-offs => SDV goes down
- bigger loss when stack-off => SDV goes up
Hard to say what the final effect should be, I'd guess (!) that SDV slightly goes up, so your bankroll should be slightly bigger.
PS: Where do you get 250 buy-ins?! What numbers did you take? And what was your "accepted risk"? It can never get zero, it only can get very close to ...
May 11, 2019 | 8:17 a.m.
Your perspective is wrong. :) IF you 2-bet AND get 3-bet, you're at a disadvantage. You must be. Anything else would be atrocious. And that means, you are losing money - and the best thing you can do is to limit your losses.
So, what you should do instead of looking at a steep graph and snapping for air is to calculate the loss per call oop vs. 3bet. And then compare to fold anytime you 2bet and get 3bet.
Example: You open to 2.5x. You get 3-bet. You fold. Your overall loss is 2.5bb or 250bb/100. Now you filter for calls. If your overall winrate is > -250bb/100 you didn't find a leak (yet). Your calls were at least winning money. That does not say that you couldn't do better - but that's another thing.
So, from the graph shown I can't see the numbers. Please check that - and hopefully you'll get a different view. :)
May 9, 2019 | 6:37 a.m.
One of the most important poker skills - in all seriousness - is knowing when to play and when not! That is even more important in live games - as well as (and because of being) more difficult, as you took some effort to get there, sit down etc. But it is absolutely vital. Nobody always plays his / her A-game.
At least you cut your losses after two buy-ins. Many (myself included) did not show this discipline too often.
May 9, 2019 | 6:30 a.m.
Looks fine. I'd put Villain on any 2p+, which is the reason why shoving is the "only" way to go. Don't tell me you lost to a boat on the river? ;-D
May 8, 2019 | 2:54 p.m.
It depends on what you mean with "minus EV". If you bet 3bb, get raised and then fold - what's your EV? You can say "my EV is -3bb" or you can say "my EV is 0bb".
Both is technically correct - although common definition is to base EV on the current decision - which means, it always start with zero-baseline, meaning - what is the difference in my stack when I a) fold (= 0, my stack will be exactly what it is when I am put to the decision) or b) do sth. else.
By that definition a -EV decision can NEVER be better than a fold.
If you say, folding means an "overall" EV of -3bb, then yes, a -2bb decision would be better than folding. But again - that means fold = 0bb, alternative = +1bb.
I'd strongly suggest to adapt that definion, it makes life easier for you. :)
PS: Second time I got overtaken - I'm typing too slowly. :D
May 8, 2019 | 12:25 p.m.
You could check-evaluate (meaning, what happens? If BTN makes a healthy bet and UTG raises, we run - fast, if BTN bets and UTG calls, we likely call and x/f turn), or you can test the water by betting small! Make it $1.20 and be prepared to fold if you feel strong resistance. Multiway pots demand cautious play.
But the good thing is - EVERYBODY plays cautiously. Show me the guy who is running nuts with mid pair or calls down three big bets with TP. Neither will anybody raise over a small bet with a hand worse than AJ or a really strong combo-draw. It surely happens, but the frequency is negligble.
That means, you can safely fold, if somebody tells you to do so - no matter how "good" your hand feels. Relative handstrength is marginal - at best, once you feel power. But again - most often you bet small, get one call and one fold, make another small bet on the turn, get another call, then x/x river and Villain shows TP, weaker kicker. That's it.
May 8, 2019 | 12:06 p.m.
The line is fine, I'd raise bigger on the flop. It actually screams "set", but whatever, add bluffs to your raising range if they keep running for cover (I'd rather expect sth. like QQ and gutshot-crap that folded in that spot).
May 8, 2019 | 11:54 a.m.
I would not completely disregard checking - and folding. Like think about Villain's range. What hands will he bet the river with after xb? He can have KK(1), TT(6), 88(6), 77(6), Axs(5) - that makes 24 combos that beat us. He can have AK(4), KQs (3). The latter most likely will check the river. And he might have some lower flushes and some rare bluffs - from which most are at least middle pair, which are again less likely to bluff. What else do you see?
So, if he bets (besides some blockbets), what do we expect our equity to be?
Finally, don't look for monsters under the bed!! Checking the turn (even planning to fold the river) does not mean giving up! It means, that we will win the hand in 80%+. The rest puts us to a decision, which a) makes a very tiny part of our overall winrate anyways and b) even if we "mistakenly" fold, we lose some cents in EV, not more.
The chance to make a big mistake by "stubbornly" sticking to a rule that "denies" us to fold TPTK is raising it's ugly head. ;-)
May 8, 2019 | 10:36 a.m.
Don't try to force things. Poker is hard and dry work, "building a roll" is not a serious target nowadays anymore. It should be a side-effect, dropping from the combination of passion for the game, time to play and study and stable / resilient mentality.
Your line looks fine to me. I am not "happy" to get it in but I'm happy with the raise and at least not afraid of getting it in.
May 8, 2019 | 8 a.m.
Where did you get that? One of the thing I tell my students over and over again is to never trust to "rules of thumb". Simple solutions are mostly wrong - otherwise everybody would win, as these ideas are not really rocketscience.
Your strategies should be demanded by EV!
Think about the range an UTG-player continues against a 3-bet oop. Then think about the percentage OOP had to defend against you continuing postflop - to keep you from "bluffing any2". Make it simple. If it were an "auto stack off", you could go all-in directly. Means, you shove $9 into $3.45. Say, you are HU. Villain needs to defend 9 / (3.45 + 9) = 27%. Now, turn back to your initial defense range UTG against IP-3bet. Does a 27% fraction of that starting range still contain hands that you dominate with TPTK?
Finally, what does "dominating" means at least? It means, that you need 42% equity against his calling-range. Try to come up with a range that forms 27% of his defense-range vs. 3-bet that you still got 42% equity against.
And that does just mean that "auto-stack-off" is at least breakeven at all. It does not (yet) mean, that other ways, i.e. b/f, b/x/f, b/x/c, x/c/c etc. were not even better.
Again, ignore rules of thumb. They are worthless.
PS: You asked for the MW-game. That adds some cream topping. The defense frequency I calculated (27%) is the overall defense frequency against your bet. That is split between the remaining players, meaning their strategies should add-up to a total defense of 27%. Even if it's not evenly split, the defense% for UTG will shrink, to say 20% or even 18% overall.
May 7, 2019 | 9:27 p.m.
To get another thing clear: GTO never "guarantees" profit. It ... no I will go one step back:
GT means Game Theory. It's the entirety around maximizing profit (which is equal to minimizing losses). GTO is the abbreviation for "Game Theory Optimal" and actually means the state where EVERY player "minimizes his potential loss" (= Nash Equilibrium), by definition the state where nobody can deviate from his own strategy to gain more profit (this is NOT equal to win less / lose more, not yet!).
So, when two of three players are playing suboptimally, we are never talking about "GTO" anymore! By definition we are not, because GTO demands any player to play "optimally" in terms of GT.
Now, that said, back to my first sentence: a GTO-strategy does not guarantee wins. If we have the choice between -40 and -20, then our "optimal" strategy is -20. For example, even in a HU-game, where we are ALWAYS playing the BB (oop), we are forced to lose. No different way. So, GTO / Nash Equilibrium will show a negative EV for BB - still it's the GTO-strategy (within the range of possible choices, meaning if BB is not allowed to leave the game obv. :D).
That said, what belrio announced is not contradictory to GT - it's just that the "perfect" strategy still is a losing strategy.
May 7, 2019 | 7:49 a.m.
An alias is created for "Hero". How should PT4 know which of the random players at the table should be treated as Hero?
All you could do would be to write an individual program that opens the HH files, randomly choses one Hero and then adds it to the alias. An alias with potentially hundreds of thousands of player nicks would likely slow down PT4 up to the point where nothing works anymore. :)