"you are a newbie, work harder"
That was not what I meant. I suggested to work on your basics and that's exactly what I think is necessary. You seem to have wrong expectations / assumptions on "balance". I've been coaching students on GTO for more than 15 years now (more than 100 students overall), so I pretty much know what's going on.
Sorry, if it came off wise-ass or offending.
Dec. 8, 2020 | 4:24 p.m.
Folding will be a giant mistake. For the odds we're getting it's as if we were folding when checked to. No way. Even the chance of a misclick argues a call.
Only question would be to call or raise and here I'm with Tyler.
Nov. 17, 2020 | 10:13 a.m.
Assuming he's never flatting KK, JJ pre AND he's always betting 22 on the river, you're facing 4 combos of KJ and 3 combos of 22 (which are likely folding). That means, you got 3 / 7 fold equity (42%) which is more than sufficient.
If 22 only valuebets 50% though, your FE drops to 1.5 / 5.5 which is 27% - too low.
That said, if you assume he's playing scared, that would include that he's mostly not bluffing and likely he'd be xb with 22 a good portion of the time. I'd probably hesitate to pull the trigger in that specific case.
Nov. 15, 2020 | 11:04 p.m.
Using CREV, you build a tree manually
Additionally, CREV has a function to predefine an entire tree automatically.
CREV [...] does have an equilibrium solver tool that comes with it, but I don't have much information about it.
It's pretty handy and afaik it uses the same engine as GTO+ (would be surprising if not), so only difference is the different user interface - where GTO+ is better tuned for easy definition of tree parameters and quicker overview of results.
Nov. 13, 2020 | 12:45 p.m.
It's actually an interesting spot - more than I actually thought of. :-)
My first impressions were as following:
1) The solver play is overkill (in real 1/2 games).
2) I had called the shove.
Now, when I think about it more deeply, when I call the shove anyways - with a comparably mediocre hand, why should I even have a non-shoving-betting-range? Does that even make sense, as we limit our potential bluff range? It would only make sense, if we expected Villain to overbluff in case we're betting smaller and leave ourselves room for folding. Do I actually expect that? No. So, it likely would be better again to shove directly. Not sure, tbh. It still feels weird. :D
So, if I don't expect him to overbluff - why call the shove then? Or do I have to correct myself? The thing is - I wouldn't expect him to overbluff often enough (BEFORE he bet) that my overall EV for betting smaller would be higher than shoving. But ONCE he shoves, I surely would expect a non-balanced range. I mean, what's his nut range? And do we actually expect him to slowplay the turn often enough with this couple of combos? Again, not sure - but I likely wouldn't have found the fold-button, even though the EV-difference (in positive or negative direction) likely won't be that huge.
Oct. 26, 2020 | 10:12 a.m.
I'd absolut keep the pedal down! It would be a pity if the 600-ish guy had a decent hand and you didn't empty the clip on him. Just announce "pot" and then ask the dealer about the amount, so it looks like that you didn't really realize what it was. Or just take the biggest amount that comes close to the pot that lets you take one SINGLE chip (100?). It does not really matter that it's an overbet. Fun players (if they are like I'd assume) love to play for huge amounts if it "feels right". The chance to get you blown their K9o into your face is just too tempting to give up against a huge bet. :-)
And you don't want to leave money behind when the draws called twice and missed the river. Better get their money on the turn.
Oct. 25, 2020 | 8:27 a.m.
"Significant loss" obviously can't be determined absolutely as it's a relative number - in many dimensions.
The three major components (I see) are:
1) Personal winrate
2) Frequency of the situation
3) Personal goal
1) The higher my own winrate is, the more EV I can sacrifice in single situations (obv.), before my winrate drops below a set treshold (in the worst case below zero).
2) The more often that situation occurs, the higher the impact of an EV drop will be on my overall EV. That means, situations that occur over and over again, should justify the mental energy to take (learn) the "right play". In other cases, that happen "once in a blue moon", any simplification is just economic.
3) When my goal is to be a winning player and I can bear extreme swings (high variance), then anything above 0.0bb/100 is acceptable and I can simplify as much as I can - below dropping below 0.01bb/100 (take #2 into consideration though, remind the impact of single situations).
Hope that helps to shed some further light on the topic?
Oct. 25, 2020 | 8:08 a.m.
I did not say that following the pure GTO strategy is the most efficient approach to real life poker. And your conclusions are wrong.
Oct. 14, 2020 | 7:26 p.m.
I have understood that you want to build a "poker strategy advisor" that knows the optimal strategy for each and every situation. That knowledge should come from analyzing the best players' max exploitative strategies.
And then you want to use that advisor for different "use cases" (like the three you described).
Is that right?
Poker does not work that way. There's "one" solution that is "always correct", regardless of circumstances, that's the GTO solution. A GTO solution IS per definition the maximum exploitative strategy - against an optimal defending / playing opponent.
That said, if you are looking for something different than a GTO solution as the "best" solution, you are talking about very pool-specific strategies, that only work in that isolated area. Even worse, two completely different players might execute entirely different strategies and be very successful with it. If your advisor tries to combine them - it will likely come up with a mediocre average at best, in the worst case it will produce a losing strategy.
Correct me, if I got your idea wrong. And excuse me otherwise if I crushed your idea. :D
Oct. 13, 2020 | 7:58 p.m.
Actually, with your given range your EQR is 85%. I'm pretty shocked about the estimated range though. I mean, you titled him as a "tight reg". He's cold-4betting MP vs. UTG.
Against a reasonably tighter range your EQR quickly drops below 78%.
Oct. 9, 2020 | 9:06 a.m.
Some missing information, some confusion. :)
First of all - and in general, if open raise sizes get insanely large, stacks simply get shallower, hence position, speculative hands and skills in general lose value. Keep that in mind!
Second, what happens if somebody opens 7x? What happens with a called? Will it get folded around or will the flop regularly be 3- or even 4-way?
Lastly, if you decide to 3-bet for value only, why do you want to reduce your betsize?
Oct. 6, 2020 | 6:48 a.m.
There are some flaws in your calculation:
First, our win if we get a fold includes our own open raise. So it's:
1 + 4.5 + 1.5 + 14 = 21bb
Second, in case we are getting called, we did not invest 100, but only 95.5bb (rest is dead money):
EV(call) = (0.3015 x 202.5) - 95.5 = -34.45bb
Total formula is now:
EV (shove) = (0.725 x 21) + (0.275 x ((0.3015 x 202.5) - 95.5)) = 5.75 bb
Third, the reference point should not be total EV before opening (you don't know that you'll getting 3-bet), but the decision point AFTER getting 3-bet. So you should compare 5.75bb (shoving) to 0bb (folding).
Finally, I completely agree with DNegs98, our assumptions on fold equitey are WAY too optimistic. Regs that are capable of exploiting weak open ranges don't fold that easily against a 4-bet-shove. And with a theory relying that heavily on fold equity, you'll easily hit the ground. Against a range of TT+, AK you're already losing - and there's no real chance that you'll "exploit" that range in the future.
Sept. 30, 2020 | 6:23 a.m.
Another bright example for how "useful" the term "fish" is! :-(
What do you consider as fish?! Anybody that significantly deviates from "optimal" play is a "fish". That said, there are gazillion types of weak player types. Against some it might be +EV, against others, you'll bleed money. So, what does this question actually aims at?
Sorry for ranting. :-)
Sept. 21, 2020 | 9:15 a.m.
Do you have links to resources on the topic of multi-street bluffing?
I've made videos on that, but they are not free of charge (as far as I know).
Typically am going to call here having roughly 38% against his range.
I's about equity realization (EQR), namely the fraction of your EQ that you will realize postflop. Depends on stack depth, position, ranges. Being oop with an easily dominated (offsuit) holding your EQR might easily drop to 50 - 55%, which means, your 38% (hot-cold-) equity will shrink to 19%. Not sure about this special situation though, I'm on the jump, so just as a rough example.
Sept. 13, 2020 | 8:08 a.m.
First of all, if you are sure to correctly predict the next street, you can - or must! - combine these. Like here, and I 100% follow your assumption, you can treat the raise as an all-in-shove. Otherwise you will get burnt EV-wise (topic is "multistreet-bluffing" which is a pretty nice topic to explore as it shows how and why we can significantly increase our bluffing range with more streets to come).
Second, how to react entirely depends on your assessment. I'd rarely ever expect a "tight passive" to minraise w/ AK on a dry K722 board in a 3-bet pot. In position! Against the preflop aggressor - which still is perceived to have AA in his range.
Against a range of all AK, 77, 22 you get a merely break-even call on the turn!! That means, folding does not lose anything!
Now compare the chances that you make a mistake by folding, that means, his range is significantly wider. Somewhat likely? You know better - but doubtful, right?
What about calling (remember, we are break-even), how about the probability that he's tighter - i.e. only has AKs, or only 50% AK or even AA in his range? I'd say somewhat higher than 0%. That means, on average, calling is close to folding, folding will almost never be wrong, but calling might be a big mistake.
That means, a tight (almost crazy looking) fold might be the best alternative in this special scenario.
Sept. 11, 2020 | 7:01 a.m.
There are three "simple" tricks:
1) GTO -> Define your optimal defense. Means, consider your betting-range and then define the optimal defense-range. The defense part not necessarily is the best part of your range in terms of hand rankings, but the part with the highest EQ. For example, AJ is likely a better hand to defend than AA.
2) Pseudo-GTO -> You are talking about being close to a "break-even-call". What does that help? Breakeven is losing - which means you can as well fold. Now, work with different probabilities. For example, make three baskets: B1 is the likelihood for him having the nuts like always (EV = -130), B2 is the likelihood for having a break-even-call (mixture between nuts and very weak valuebets, EV = 0) and B3 is the likelihood for splashing around (EV = say 200).
We can ignore the middle part (BE-call) as it changes nothing. When we are on the bad end, we lose 130, when we are at the good end we win 200. The latter one is approximately 1.5x in value of the bad end. That means, the ratio between nuts and splash should be 1.5 : 1, in other words, the likelihood of him splasing should roughly be 2/3 or the likelihood of him nutting. In numbers, when you assign him a 40% probability of having the nuts, you need 25% splashing (and remaining 35% of having a break-even-call). And then AGAIN, you're just break-even, so better plan with a risk buffer).
3) Error margin -> a somewhat simplified version of 2): consider only two situations, one where you're right (profitable call) and the other where you're wrong (bad call). The bad situation will lead to a significant loss. The good situation will lead to a marginal win. Now, as you can't be 100% sure of either, think about an error margin. When you fold (and were wrong - in your assumption, not the single call), you lost SOME EV, but the probability of being wrong is likely not that big, which reduces the loss again, likely close to zero. When you call (and were right in your assumptions), it will likely be a very small win, which might get reduced by the error margin close to zero again.
Summarized: in a live game against an unknown, with the pool tendency to be more nutheavy in that situation, there's likely NO situation that makes folding a mistake. Like ever. So, just fold and gather more information before playing the hero.
Aug. 28, 2020 | 8:20 a.m.
I can't really follow your math ... if you are sure that Villain only does it with Ax with redraw, it's irrelevant if he had one combo or 100.
Our EQ is ~40% (20% we lose, 80% we tie for a total of 50% of the pot, which makes 40% EQ share total - given a HU pot). After we call, there's 780 in the pot, our share is 312. We invest 350, so we lose 38.