I'd just use a 67-75% ish sizing which should leave around psb for river or close to it. I'd likely be jamming on both run outs. There are a lot of two pairs and some sets (88), that will be calling turn very often to just fold river. If it was a paired river, then that is a situation in which I might actually decide to just give up as a lot of two pairs/sets would become boats and obviously not fold. Also, as I stated we have a lot of natural straight combos here and it's pretty difficult to over bluff in my opinion--especially on turn.
Aug. 13, 2021 | 6:47 p.m.
Aside from some like AX of clubs combos this is literally the bottom of your range and you have KJ/AJ at very high frequencies, so I'd go ahead and bet. I don't think you get many folds on this turn, but you can get some on a lot of rivers.
Aug. 13, 2021 | 2 p.m.
Flop call (or raise) is ok
Turn I think is pure fold
River is whatever, don't think I care one way or the other. Probably supposed to always call, but doesn't feel great. K blocks some bluffs maybe, T is a pair but kind of irrelevant, and I think people (probably (?)) underbluffing here.
Aug. 11, 2021 | 8:15 p.m.
AJo is indeed pretty weak 3bet here oop. To put it into perspective AJo is mixed/0ev in SB vs CO open. Your 3bet size is also arguably on the lower end.
You're right that the flop is generally speaking going to favor you has villain shouldn't have any 4x/5x and you have the overcard and overpair advantage so betting often is going to be good. You can likely just bet a geometric sizing here for range (55-65%) as this is looking to be quite close to a pretty polarized situation.
For barreling turns/rivers ideally you would block his best combos of hands which in this instance is the more middling pocket pair region like 88-99-TT-JJ-QQ. You could also have clubs. The next best combos would be the fourth suit of the flop, in this case that would be heart combos. The idea being maybe he floats flop with some bdfd combos, but then folds them on turn, so unblocking those folding combos would be mainly XXhh.
In this situation after you barreled turn (which is kind of on the wider side). I'd likely cut my losses and x-f, but if you think he is folding those 88/99/TT/JJ combos at much frequency then exploitatively over bluffing will be profitable.
Aug. 5, 2021 | 11:04 p.m.
The first step in that process is beginning with a strong fundamental base. Learn to walk before you run type thing. Doing the running before the walking is only going to trip you up and make you have to start over. To be fair though i dont know where you are in your current progression but getting at least 100k+ hands online for your own database and self analysis is a good start.
July 29, 2021 | 8:16 p.m.
To put it blunty, this is likely out of your scope and should not be a priority at the moment. Your focus should be strong fundamental ranges if you are less than ~200nl. That isn't to say there is merit to studying it and what not, but before you start adjusting your base line game you need to have a strong understanding of it first. This will better help you understand how and why you deviate in the future.
July 29, 2021 | 5:20 p.m.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Do you mean looking at population's call/fold/3b ranges, or do you mean creating your own call/fold/3b ranges as a function of population's RFI and 3b ranges?
July 28, 2021 | 11:39 p.m.
Typically you'll be checking a lot when OOP to cold callers, especially on textures with two low/middling cards. AK can definitely still bet flop some as it's a strong value bet against all pocket pairs and weaker KX like KQ. Turn should be mostly blank, although it does add some connectivity to the board which is typically bad for OOP, but still mostly a blank in this case since IP shouldn't really have any new 2pairs or sets on the 2 turn, just gives 33/66 and AX hands some equity.
As played I think I prefer x/c river over betting. You're really only value betting against KJs or maybe KTs so I would prefer just x/c vs. some missed flushes or maybe some 33/66 turned into bluffs. I think you're in an objectively difficult position on the river as played because people typically do not bluff raise as much on the river as compared to if you had checked and he still can have a lot of sets/2p to value raise with.
July 28, 2021 | 9:19 p.m.
You can and should start at the lowest stakes if you're starting out. 5nl is more than soft enough to beat for a good win rate even if the rake is very high. Last year I did a $100-$10k challenge on ignition starting out at 5z (see stats below). You can calculate the rake I paid in bb/100 with the data in the picture as well.
When learning poker it's important to practice solid fundamentals and branch out from there. I'd recommend getting your preflop game down first with a main focus on RFI ranges and how to face RFI (so BB defense and 3b ranges). It's also important just to garner overall experience and learn not to tilt/adjust gameplay based on good or poor results. After that you can put more focus in basic post flop strategy and deviations to make vs. your population. You're already doing a great job by starting here on the forums and having software to track your progress, so keep it up!
July 28, 2021 | 5:52 p.m.
I'd say this is very likely a pure call if you simmed it, but it wouldn't be like super high EV I don't think (basically break even/ slightly +EV). If you want to make some deviations you can certainly fold it if you think people under bluff. After the 9 turn and the ~pot size bet I'm pretty okay with overfolding a bit on the river personally.
Although flush draws missed J8/KJ/87 are all straights and villain can still value bet two pair hands like QT and sets like 66. I think that ends up being quite a lot of value combos so unless you think they might over barrel and continue blasting with hands like 98o/97o I think folding is okay.
July 27, 2021 | 8:15 p.m.
Sort of depends if you think they value bet weaker than KX I guess. If yes then you have the option to potentially jam as a bluff (to fold out none KX value bets) and if no you sort of have the option to call as a pure bluff catcher under the assumption they are not value betting wide enough. Somewhere in the middle of there is mostly indifference I'd say.
July 27, 2021 | 8:12 p.m.
Not much point checking the ev here as if they are mixed they should be 0ev. If they are mixed and not showing 0 ev, then it is due to error rate in the sim and you should solve it further to analyze.
July 25, 2021 | 9:06 p.m.
Yeah, I'm likely mixing with sets/2p and non-KQ straights ott and going a bit wider than solver would suggest, but I think that is typically going to be a good strat vs. most populations... (wider than equilibrium). Could be a good idea to go smaller to simplify with the wider betting range as you suggest.. it's just typically I'm only using the one sizing. Weakest hand I might bet for pure value would be the sets like 99/JJ. JT 2p and the overpairs make good checks I think.
July 23, 2021 | 10:20 a.m.
T8s is going to show as a mixed RFI in MP for most 6max raked environments. With regards to a7 raising, BB is likely supposed to actually have a lot of donk bets here and in the absence of that MP likely supposed to be checking behind very often... though T8 obviously has pretty good betting properties. That being said, if you assume MP is betting even a little bit too much then raising a7 is very good, and even if he isn't... well raising a7 is still fine.
July 22, 2021 | 8:16 a.m.
I think how you played it is very standard and well played.
You can certainly mix pre and flop, but I think turn/river is good. Certainly feels like a middling sdv hand after turn sizing like 6Xdd/A7/88/99/55/65, but can't really think of a better combo to bluff river with and people would likely still fold hands like 55/maybe A7. Try not to include results next time though cause I do think it biases replies.
July 21, 2021 | 11:39 p.m.
Interesting hand tbh, I could see you having some checks and therefore likely having some x/j vs. his large sizing on the flop. This might actually be okay in equilibrium, but in practice you're likely better off just betting yourself. I imagine people 1. opening UTG, 2. Calling a large sqz and 3. betting when checked to for a large sizing on this texture when you block Ad, is generally just going to be a strong range. I'd also argue that competent regs here are relatively uncapped, especially if BTN is weaker player.
By jamming vs. his bet size you're assuming he is going to be bet/folding a reasonable amount and I'm not sure that's the case. You can actually just do an EV calculation here and solve for a required folding frequency to yield 0ev by making assumptions about what his calling range is. If you make some assumptions about his bet/call range, you can calculate your equity vs. that range, count the combos, and set up an equation to solve for the folding frequency required to yield 0ev, solve that, then set that equal to (folding combos/(folding combos + calling combos) and solve for the "folding combos" to see how many combos he would be required to be bet/folding for this to yield equal to or greater than 0EV.
July 21, 2021 | 9:25 p.m.
Typically if I run sims it's pretty rare for me to allow more than two sizings in any particular node. In practice on 99% of spots I am using either 30, 75, or 150% sizings although I certainly deviate from time to time either on specific run outs or on rivers where I adjust as I see fit. In this type of spot I probably am only doing a 3/4 or check strat on the flop (mostly) and 3/4 or check strat on the turn (mostly) and then likely (75%, 150%, all-in) for river.
I would play this more like 75% ott and mostly just jamming the river with this combo. When I read this hand I did end up running the sim and it's likely that in practice I overbluff river, not sure if that is really much of an issue, though.
July 21, 2021 | 9:18 p.m.
This is good, but I think you can polarize turn a bit more. I think it's pretty unlikely you continue turn with hands as weak as A8, so basically you're repping more 2 pair or better on turn, which includes a lot of 2p, most sets, and 65o/65s for straights. Choose a bigger turn size imo
July 21, 2021 | 9:40 a.m.
Presumably you would be risking less to win the same amount which means some hands that were otherwise close to open end up being opens in that situation. You can see this easy in the situation where SB plays a raise or fold strategy. As I mentioned in another thread SB raise or fold strategy for most rake structures and utilizing a 3bb open is ~44% RFI at equilibrium. If you change the RFI sizing to a 2.5bb sizing and solve, then the RFI frequency for the SB at equilibrium is closer to to 46% (slight increase in frequency).
July 21, 2021 | 5:36 a.m.
I open 3x at 200z on the button.
July 20, 2021 | 7:05 p.m.
So, I decided to take a look at my current database for 200z and I get the following results for BB 3b when BTN RFI for various sizings:
2.0bb = 10.3
2.5bb = 10.4
3.0bb = 8.5
3.5bb = 7.4
July 20, 2021 | 6:51 p.m.
Well you play on ignition/bovada right? Typically the players opening for small sizings on the BTN both bifurcate their preflop RFI ranges with two sizings --- more likely to go smaller with weaker hands/larger with stronger hands and also more likely to be wider preflop which results in it being completely OK to 3bet this at higher frequencies than theory would suggest. This is completely due to preflop range construction as a function of the RFI sizing, though. In the example I provided the RFI range was kept constant as the RFI sizing was increased.
TLDR: theory/practice don't always line up due to other variables
To answer your question specifically, though, the answer is yes. The 3b frequency decreases as a function of sizing increasing.
July 20, 2021 | 6:29 p.m.
I should be careful with how I'm wording things. When I say 0ev I mean specifically at equilibrium. Obviously vs. weaker opposition and with very good play you should expect these hands to be greater than 0 ev and thus look to play them.
Also, GTO Warrior your statement, "Basically I am trying to put as many 0 ev hands into the widest range possible, which is forcing me to open for smaller than the standard 3x. To do this you have to open min -2.5x, which means in theory you should get 3bet a lot. " has a lot of issues with it.
Presumably these 0ev hands at equilibrium will be +EV in the game you've stated (due to weak opponents)
Opening a wider range would generally mean you open smaller at equilibrium (which this isn't), but even so, this impact is not significant and is not relevant to the situation in which you've painted for us. Opening larger, even with a wider range, is going to be better vs. weaker opposition.
A smaller opening size means in theory you should get 3bet less, not more.
Take the hypothetical situation:
BTN RFI 40% of hands for the following RFI sizings keeping the RFI range constant:
The equilibrium 3b frequency for BB vs. these hypothetical situations will increase as the RFI sizing increases.
Here is an example where I have BB facing the same RFI range for the following sizings and you can take a look at the BB's response (look specifically at the 3b frequency). I don't want to post any "paid for" content/preflop ranges, so these ranges I created entirely on my own using PIO Edge. The situation is UTG 17.6% RFI range
3B frequencies here as a function of sizing for the BB
vs 2.0 = 4.91
vs 2.3 = 5.58
vs 2.5 = 6.10
vs 3.0 = 6.82
July 20, 2021 | 5:39 p.m.
Yes they seem fine. If you're concerned, just drop some of the mixed/0ev hands. You're a lot better off spending time focusing on other stuff as long as you have ranges similar to these you're not going to be making any massive mistakes.
July 20, 2021 | 8:42 a.m.
Keep in mind, GTOwizard looks like it has 6 different sizings on that river. I really doubt that the solve you are doing has all of the same allowed sizings. Basically, unless the ranges are exactly the same and all post flop settings are the same along with rake settings and exploitability settings (accuracy of sim), then there are going to be differences in the solver outputs and as I said above these differences will be the most noticeable further into the game tree or when exploring lines that occur in one sim, but not the other.
July 20, 2021 | 8:29 a.m.
At lower limits I'd say attacking limps with more or less in the way you've described is going to be good (as in more or less just ignoring the fact they limped). This results in a pretty wide iso range which is going to be typically pretty good. That being said, when you start playing with better opponents there is going to be a lot more 3betting after you iso which in turn makes you want to not iso as wide as this. So, when more regs are behind/aggressive players, you can play slightly tighter. There are also some spots where limping behind is completely fine as well.
July 20, 2021 | 3:17 a.m.
Well, there is a lot to unpack, but basically in weak/passive games a lot of hands end up going multi-way. This is the main aspect that really makes you want to continue playing solid ranges despite playing with weaker players. A lot of EV from multiway pots are garnered strictly from making winning hands which obviously has a strong preferential to "nut-making" hands (which would therefore align quite well with strong/tight preflop play).
That being said, when playing against weaker the opposition then presumably you can be playing a wider range than you otherwise would--especially under circumstances in which you can accurately punish common nodes in the post flop tree. This is difficult to do in multiway pots, though, which is the main argument I'd make against being "too loose."
Without going into too many specifics about the type of game you're referring to in which you might want to play a wider range--I'd say my main adjustment is to just start opening hands that would otherwise be 0ev/mixed. For example, hands like 22-55 are mixed in most preflop ranges for UTG in your typical 6-max game, but I'd more or less pure open them in a soft line up. That is just one example, but if you refer to any preflop charts you can just take a look at the hands that are 0ev/mixed and pure open those hands in a soft line up under the assumption that you have a sufficient skill edge. In situations where the players are significantly weaker, then I'd be making the biggest adjustments to my RFI ranges in later positions (BTN/CO) because you're more likely to be in position and also more likely to get in a heads up pot as opposed to a 3-way pot.