There's a video out there somewhere with the phrase in it "don't kill the chicken (while it's still laying eggs)" or for non-native speakers, you don't want to necessarily take maximum immediate profits when you can make more money over the long term with patience. In terms of what you're talking about here with a x/r that prints money something to consider might be going into solvers and finding every single hand that the solver will x/r even a little bit then x/r those hands at higher frequencies than GTO, maybe even pure. The advantage of this strategy is that no one showdown is going to give the game away, someone will have to be very observant over a large number of hands to see that you're out of line. If you just x/r random crap then yes that may make money in this hand right now but there's a high chance that people either immediately or fairly quickly take a note and just stop folding to you. It also means that your entire strategy would be based on some pretty easy to counter stuff.
Personally the way I play is to try and understand every single mistake that it is possible for someone to make, then I work out reasonable counter strategies to each mistake and employ them when I see one. Often though the counter strategy will be something crude like you describe such as this player overfolds to double barrel so let's bet everything as a bluff but in game I will instead look to find every hand that has some non-0 barrelling freq and start going with those hands more often than a solver would so that my opponent is going to continue to make this mistake. I play in a fairly small pool of players so this may be more applicable to my games than yours but just something to keep in mind.
Feb. 24, 2021 | 1:03 p.m.
I play 500z and 1knl but yesterday I sat 2nl with some mates who are new to poker and I lost 6BI. Whilst I did briefly consider retirement I think this just goes to show how little there is to be taken from results over a small sample, just keep improving and the results will come.
Feb. 17, 2021 | 9 a.m.
No worries, happy to help :)
It's defo fine to add more sizings but very complicated, you could end up trying to run before you could walk, do you know how to play 2 sizings here or are you just winging it? By all means push yourself, dive into pio, come up with some ideas about how to split your range up properly here but you might just add a lot of complexity for no EV.
Had some pio sims on almost these exact hands so took a quick look and for hand 1 the smaller size is very sparingly/almost never used. 98+ is just strong enough to overbet here, and yes the weaker 9x has an incentive to bet smaller but it's mixing with x and it's a very small EV mistake to not include this in your strategy. As you're OOP you're going to want to mix some x/c with 9x that could feasibly overbet for value but that's a whole other topic.
Looking at hand 3 and on the full rainbow J turn, full pot is roughly the preferred sizing where you're securing almost all of the EV without needing to incorporate another sizing and on the other Jx that brings in a fd you want to size down slightly to something like 3/4 for the reasons I talked about earlier with your trips being more likely to be drawn out on but generally overbetting here is by no means going to be a massive mistake. It would just mean that either you put in too much money into the pot which incentives x backs with strong hands on flop (not happening) or you have to settle for getting less protection which sucks a little bit but not the end of the world.
Was just gonna add this as a little note but think it's worth it's own thing, the 75% sizing in these spots is very natural and easy to play. You just mix up your trips+ between bet and x/r (can do a bit of x/c if you want to get fancy) and then you bet almost every 7x, then for bluffs it's just most of the gutshots (occasionally want to x/r them) and then a bunch of Qx with 2 overs to the 7 which can also x/r or x/f, this hand class is pretty indifferent between every line. Think that also shows nicely how to add in some more bluffs when its hard to find natural draws, next strongest "draw" after all your gutshots are gone is just 2 overs to the 2
Overall I think you're gonna get more EV out of picking a sizing and playing it very well in these spots because the hands that have incentives to bet a different sizing are very limited. Also you can get too obsessed with trying to value bet everything here and suddenly you never x anything decent and you're getting torched by the delay CB. And finally on the turn there's less need to play multiple sizings than on rivers in spots like this and that's because you still have a street to go, if you want to play an absolutely massive pot you can, this is no limit, you can jam the river if you want to. More realistically you might want to bet something like 2x pot or thereabouts but the point is the same, if you want to put maximum pressure on someone then you can do it and you're not being hamstrung by a smaller turn sizing.
Feb. 16, 2021 | 11:31 a.m.
Hand 1, lovely stuff, you have a bunch of 2x that he doesn't, you can size down a bit because of the double flush draw texture. OOP you want to be a bit careful building massive pots when your strong value hands might get turned into bluffcatchers but this is completely fine. Could also think about incorporating a smaller sizing for some 9x that wants a fair bit of protections, particularly those with undercard kickers as these hands are more vulnerable and can't hit a 2 pair to dominate someone's rivered top pair. Just some stuff to think about but overall this is all good.
Hand 2 you just have way too much sdv here. This hand is good enough to x/c whereas something like a naked T can't x/c so for that reason OOP we want to bet the Tx first and then if we still need even more bluffs we want to start using some Ax and 9x here. This is a fairly common theme OOP in this spot, you want to pick the hands that are too good to x/f and too weak to x/c and then if you need more bluffs you start adding in a few hands that might just about be able to x/c and also a few hands that would need to x/f. So quite commonly your betting range will look smth like all your flushdraws below a certain one and all the open enders then a few higher showdown fd and some gutshots, as the board gets more dynamic you start to x/f more with gutshots or vice versa.
Hand 3, good hand selection but not ideal sizing, when the top card pairs typically we want to bet a bit smaller, smth around 75% pot here is good and that's because we want to bet for value/protection with some hands like 88 or 7x and don't want to immediately isolate to trips+ here, can do that on the river. That being said, fairly high chance they just fold a lot to a big sizing here so might be fine.
Oh also side note, good post, this is exactly the kind of stuff you're going to see tangible improvement from reviewing, best of luck :)
Feb. 16, 2021 | 9:48 a.m.
No worries, happy to help.
I think this kind of adjustment that you're suggesting is perhaps a bit far, KK is a reasonable call down here as it unblocks all your bluffs because you should never bluff with a king in your hand here. Also weak players get attached to their hands that were strong preflop so they might just feel obligated to call KK but might still be overfolding. It's also possible that KK could be the top of their range as they may bet every ace on the flop, hard to say whether any of this is likely as I don't know what stakes this was played at. Basically what I'm getting at is seeing KK here would not convince me to make a massive adjustment. I'd definitely still be bluffing here but with the knowledge that they may be looking me up correctly on the river I'm going to want to make sure that either a) I'm keeping my turn frequencies in line with hands like this or b) sometimes giving up with a hand like this when we make it to the river.
Feb. 7, 2021 | 11:09 p.m.
This is a pure 3b preflop for me, the triangle around JTs-T8s-98s are all pure for me and the hands just outside of this triangle still 3b at a fairly high clip vs the button, hope that's a helpful way of remembering it. If you use different sizings and put in different rake numbers this might change and they will decrease in frequency a touch in favour of different hands but these are the staples of your 3b "bluffs" from this position. The reason being that they are dominated by offsuit opens from the button (K8o+, Q9o+, J9o+) that will then fold to a 3b. When trying to work out where to draw your primary bluffs from in the BB facing an open this is the best way to go about it - find an offsuit hand that they open but will fold to a raise then start raising the suited and connected hands that are dominated by that hand.
Turn should be super polar, Qx and Ax don't need protection and 9x is too thin to value bet so you just want to polarise to something like A8+ for a very large sizing, I personally use 125% here. In terms of bluffs this combo is fine but we can't pure bet every single gutshot in theory because our value range will not be wide enough to support this many bluffs and we have higher equity hands that cannot x/c that we want to bet first. Basically think of it as "if I have to x/f one, I'd rather x/f a gutshot than an OESD/FD". That being said all this goes out the window if you think your opponent is overfolding which is very likely, there are many regs who I will not roll a frequency with this hand against and will instead just pure bet it because their flop x back range here is poorly constructed.
River we don't have hearts which is nice, having a T and an 8 is also kind of nice because their strongest Ax is probably either AT/A8. Would slightly rather have the 54/43/53 because that will block more Ax and will unblock some Qx that will fold but I don't think it's a big deal and I think just piling on the pressure here until someone proves that they're willing to call down one pair vs this line is a good thing in my opinion, just make sure that you adjust if they start showing you those light call downs and consider reining it in a little. This may well be a pure bluff in theory once it gets to river, it's just if you bet turn and then overbet river every time you have a gutshot that unblocks hearts you're going to get a bit owned every time someone checks back an ace on the flop. IMPORTANT NOTE: getting owned by an ace occasionally does not make this a bad play and it can still be winning in the long run you just want to be careful that people are not exploiting you like this.
Feb. 7, 2021 | 8:21 p.m.
Blockers are fairly high hanging fruit imo, I don't think they're incredibly hard to get an understanding of but I think they often distract people from the more obvious things going on in the hand and cause people to make -EV plays in the name of making "good looking" plays. Blockers are relevant when your opponents are calling close enough to optimal that blocking a few calls will make your bluff +EV but blocking a few folds will make it -EV. This isn't the case in most river spots up to and including against a lot of 500z regs. It's much more important to understand what you're expecting your opponent to get to river and fold to a bet with vs what they get here and call with. Identifying things like, for instance, a range full of hands like pair + draw that will now fold to aggression is much more important than which specific blocker is the most valuable. They are also a natural progression from developing the thought process laid out because once you can imagine roughly what someone will call you can start to think things like "oh a lot of those hands will have x in them, we want to have x ourselves when we bluff" or conversely "a lot of hands they fold will have y in them, we don't want to have y ourselves".
So basically build the GTO process out of the exploitative one, first get really familiar with working out whether they will call enough/too much/too little then start honing in on the times that you think they're calling enough and start looking to use blockers to shift the balance in those spots.
Feb. 7, 2021 | 8:04 p.m.
I'm calling this all the way down, we block value and unblock bluffs + it's easy to find bluffs so I see little reason to overfold and honestly this is a spot where 500z regs are often likely to generate too much aggression because they really don't like giving up on pots when they know it's going to be hard for you to call down properly. If they have KJ/KT/JT no spades they are going to take this line at too high a frequency not just because they will follow through on river too often but they will get to river too often with these hands in the first place. Firstly they're likely to almost pure stab these hands to try and take it away on the flop and then also there's probably a fair bit of bet flop, x back turn with JT particularly that isn't happening in practise. So their river frequencies in isolation might be fine or close but they're going to get to river too often with these hands.
A good general description of how you can understand the mistakes of 500z regs is that they understand the reasons to bet very well but they don't understand the reasons to check.
Feb. 7, 2021 | 7:37 p.m.
Something I think you've missed as a reason to increase the frequency that we make this play with T9 is that you're not necessarily targeting the bet/fold range, you're targeting the bet/call range. By this I mean that if IP bets too many high equity but low sdv hands that are going to have to call off then the EV of doing this with T9 will increase as you can just get it in ahead. Of course there are a lot of combo draws that IP might pure bet/call with which is going to be very good for this hand but also if you take a look at the turn IP betting there should be some frequency of betting stuff like 97hh which has to call off to a jam and we can stack. Also you can up the frequency with this as a nice counter exploit because some people may bet/call the NFD if they perceive the x/r range to just have a ton of combo draws in it and so then getting to stack the NFD with 2nd pair is obviously a massive win.
Essentially I think this play is primarily a response to a poorly disciplined x back range with hands that are unable to fold vs jam more than it is the kind of play that you start employing to punish overfolding even though obviously bluffing more is going to be the right response to someone who folds too much I don't think that's where it primarily arises from. I also think that the 9h is pretty relevant here, you'll see the solver doesn't get to this node with the 9h in hand because the EV of x/r with this hand is significantly lower when you block a lot of the calls that you are ahead off.
On a bit of a tangent here but another place I see similar things happen is in say a SRP BTN vs BB on QJ8ss2r facing a double barrel as BB we will have some x/r frequency with QT that functions as a bluff because it will fold out hands like AA or KQ but it also functions as a value bet as you can get called by Tx/9x fd or maybe a pair + fd or Q9 and the frequency of this play is not really too dependent upon the folding range and is much more focused on punishing an undisciplined betting range (although the two can be interlinked, KQ is a pure fold vs this turn x/r but if someone always goes bet/bet/fold with KQ then the EV of this play goes up). On a further tangent being able to incorporate these weird kind of turn value bluffs at deeper SPRs helps to construct some sort of river x/c range in a spot where it is very hard to do so without outright trapping.
I think as a broader concept this is mostly about how IP on the turn you need to make a distinction when bluffing between the levels of equity that you can 1) happily bet/call 2) reluctantly bet/call 3) reluctantly bet fold and 4) easy bet fold. I think a lot of people just construct their range by bluffing in roughly descending order of equity with some more rogue stuff thrown in or maybe just mix a bit with everything without realising that the hands in category 2/3 - particularly those that blur the line between the two need to be treated with caution when considering a bet.
Ngl a tad nervous tryna teach the legendary sauce something so if I've got something wrong here then I wouldn't be terribly surprised but more than happy to try and work it out.
Jan. 25, 2021 | 5:09 p.m.
I think Ts is a bit deceptive and is going to be one of the least valuable FD blockers because I'd imagine we're not going to see OOP barrel much Tx on turn, maybe some ATss and a few other combos might slip in there sometimes especially when they size down a bit but I imagine the majority will just x/c whereas most other spades are going to barrel turn except the more sdv oriented ones that might x/c and some combo draws that will consider a x/r.
Think there's also a decent reason to overfold, when people polarise the flop instead of range betting they are often over reliant on direct draws and under do it with more marginal equity that they can use as bluffs when other things get there, hands like A5/65 or missed hearts are likely to be proportionally under represented in their range in comparison to spades and also when we see that most of the flopped straight draws have got there or hit sdv I think the average player will at the very least struggle to overbluff this spot to punish you nitting up and is more than likely to be underbluffing. Also there's just the general read that overbet in a spot where overbets don't exist means they have it which is not great fundamental poker but tends to ring true.
Jan. 4, 2021 | 4:51 a.m.
Thanks, always nice to hear that people appreciate my posts, happy new year to you also
Dec. 30, 2020 | 6 p.m.
Something that you're going to miss with this kind of analysis is that hitting a board is a relative thing. On a board like QJ9 having a gutshot with some Kx probably counts as a hit but on a board like 942 having JTbdfd is probably going to count as a miss. I just think this methodology kind of misses the vital part of things that your equity is relative to your opponents range, if you've both "missed the board" a lot in the classical sense then maybe you need to rethink which hands have actually "missed". I don't say this to be snarky, just trying to point you in the right direction because board texture insensitivity is a problem that people have as high as 500z so if you get a hold on this early and learn to contextualise your hand class relative to what it is possible to have on the board you'll be in great shape.
Dec. 30, 2020 | 4:14 a.m.
I think if you try to understand how bluff heavy turn raises are that's likely to be far too general an approach, you want to understand what sort of hand classes are appropriate to raise in these spots and how that will change with texture. Something I'll expect you'll find if you dig into this is that the main bluffs tend to be combo draws so a question you can start asking is "what happens when there are no combo draws to pick from?" and conversely "What happens when there are too many with a thin value range?" If you answer these properly dependent upon texture you'll have a good idea of whether people are finding the bluffs in the specific spot you're looking at rather than going "turn raise is underbluffed, just fold"
Dec. 26, 2020 | 7:24 p.m.
If you do something because "otherwise you are exploitable" rather than because you think it's making money then the reality of the situation is that you're setting money on fire. Doesn't mean calling is wrong, I think it's a fairly close spot depending on opponent tendencies but don't just flick it in because they might exploit you. It's honestly way too flattering to your opponents to assume that they're good enough to exploit you a lot of the time as well, people are not clairvoyant and just have to take educated guesses at what your strategy is and how to counter it and at 50nl these adjustments will be imprecise at best.
Also preflop with 50nl rake you should probably play 3b or fold for around this sizing as I say in my other comment, also against most players their 4B here will be way too tight so the EV of 3b increases while EV of flatting is the same so even without rake I'm inclined to pure 3B this vs 50nl regs.
Dec. 26, 2020 | 6:37 p.m.
In high rake environments playing 3b or fold for fairly large sizings IP tends to be optimal unless you have a read on the player pool/individual that would suggest otherwise. Not saying this is entirely wrong but basically in theory you really don't want to see flops even IP with a range advantage because the rake just kills your EV.
Dec. 26, 2020 | 6:30 p.m.
Don't try and isolate "hero folding" as some big leak that you need to plug in your game, try to understand in these spots how you would go about being balanced. Work out what combos they should x/r turn and then barrel river then understand how people deviate and what that does to your hands incentives to call or fold. If you don't know what hands they should be value betting/bluffing here it's going to be incredibly hard for you to assess over the table whether their bluff:value ratio is off.
I honestly think that this mental leak holds back so many players from improving, they just get so caught up in trying to find big folds to "save their session" that they just ignore the process which actually makes things like this easy. See my post "PSA: poker isn't about hero folding and even if it was..." if you want a very detailed discussion on why attempting to learn these spots really isn't going to help you progress.
Dec. 26, 2020 | 6:26 p.m.
There's a lot of variance in terms of how good 500z regs are, the absolute top regs this is probably going to be a crying call but against a lot of them you can hero fold here. A fairly common leak among weaker 500z regs is that they construct flop raising ranges with too much of a 1 street view to the game and run out of bluffs when the run out is "too good" for their range. Honestly even some of the best ones have some clear misconceptions about how you're supposed to think about x/r so if ever there is a spot to get out of line and tighten up a bunch it's going to be here.
Just ran a quick sim to take a look and from what I can see pio is going to be a lot less reliant on QJ/fd to make up the bulk of it's bluffs, finding stuff like T9, lots of AQ/AJ, some A3, 44/22 with a club. Also in theory they should just block their entire range on this turn so maybe there is some relevance to the sizing tell.
Dec. 24, 2020 | 1:58 p.m.
In these spots vs fun players just pick the biggest size that you think they always call an ace to, with that in mind I like your river sizing, maybe a touch smaller if they're not a complete station but this seems totally fine.
Dec. 23, 2020 | 1:54 p.m.
Even against big blind potting the flop here has a lot of merit, personally I play a mix of 25%/100%/x but just playing 100% or x is also fine, you can range bet but there's a lot of arguments for different strategies on this board.
Against the small blind we should be playing a polar strategy but for a smaller sizing, somewhere around half pot is fine, when you go too big it doesn't really accomplish much and theoretically you have to x back a lot
Dec. 23, 2020 | 1:53 p.m.
I kind of have mixed feelings here, so on the one hand I agree that fluency >>> theoretical EV and a lot of times people forget this. So yeah, with that in mind I completely understand where he's coming from. However, on the other hand I think that more complex strategies often allow for greater expression of that fluency.
As one example, say you have the read that after you x back the flop your opponent is preferring bet too often with middling value hands and as a result is neglecting their x/c line. Here you can adjust by decreasing your CB frequency with your more middling value hands and some of your bluffs in order to put into your delay CB (and then subsequently barrel river thinner for value and more aggro as a bluff also). I acknowledge this is a fairly complex read and adjustment to make but this is the kind of thing that you can do if you're very fluent playing a polar strategy but you can't if you're just defaulting to range betting. So when you range bet you're really giving up a lot of your ability to run exploits over multiple streets because your ability to skew your range off of GTO starts at the turn.
I don't think this is a problem for Tyler Forrester because from what I've seen he plays in anonymous games so even if he stays sat at one table for his entire session it's going to be hard to be confident enough in your reads to make adjustments like this and these things are typically not so easy to do population samples on, particularly at the stakes he plays.
Also, there could be a certain degree of learning to run before you can walk here, it could be better to first get used to adjusting your turn play in preparation for river situations and then you start introducing the polar flop strategy which will allow you to do it over 3 streets.
Dec. 23, 2020 | 12:16 a.m.
Some factors worth considering here outside of just being balanced:
1) it's a rainbow board with limited straight draws, weak players are not likely to find aggressive x/r with hands like A5bdfd in order to put pressure on you for stabbing too often
2) if you think it is unlikely that either of your opponents is ever going to x/c a hand stronger that KT then there is a lot of EV in getting to a turn where you have bet, faced a call and the turn bricks because theoretically you can play for stacks here with KT+ which also incentivises you to bluff at much higher frequencies.
With that in mind I'd probably bet small (25% or so) with the intention to get them to cap themselves and defend a wide range that they will have difficulty playing on later streets then barrel off aggressively on most run outs. If you end up jamming this hand by river and the HJ sigh calls off a weak top pair cos "top of my range" that's really not the end of the world from a strategy perspective because then you can do the exact same thing with KT+ as discussed above. What is much more likely is that you see them call/call/fold a king or a pair that turns a bdfd or something similar, maybe you get trapped by KK occasionally but again, not the end of the world.
There are definitely other mistakes in the game tree that you can target but it gets a bit more complicated, the delay stab on turn and barrel rivers is definitely going to be making money along with some weird lines like x back flop to raise on turn when you block a turned bdfd with view to bluffing flush completing rivers but these lines are all a lot more complicated and generally need some more specific reads to be sure that they're making money, also you may just see people make curious calls vs your weird lines because you need a lot of discipline in your CB strategy to regularly show up with value hands there so this tends to be the approach that I recommend starting with then you can add those additional "weapons" later on.
Dec. 22, 2020 | 9:19 p.m.
Doesn't entirely solve your problem but thought I'd just throw this your way because if you look at flop strategy it's going to be very hard to understand when you don't look at it through this lense.
Value to bluff ratio is actually less important than your ability to deliberately skew one way or the other on all future streets/runouts. Basically when you're generating aggression it's more important to be able to overbluff nodes as a response to overfolding than it is to hit the exact correct frequencies at every point on the game tree. The reason for this is your opponents will not be able to adjust to minor frequency deviations but they will be able to adjust to a spot where you run out of bluffs by folding their entire range and in this case you need to counter adjust but supplying yourself with not just enough bluffs to be balanced but enough to deliberately over bluff them to punish them for their nittyness (and as a result force them to start calling you when you have a value bet). Try and think of flop x/r bluffs as in terms of what turn cards you either 1) double barrel 2) give up and are happy to x/f 3) make a value hand. Often you'll see the range constructed something like x amount of strong draws that almost always double barrel on bricks (except when they x/r again on turn) + y amount of weaker/backdoor draws that give up on bricks but double barrel when other draws complete.
If the reason that a hand plays the way it does on flop doesn't make sense start looking at what it does on certain runouts, if you find a weird x/r on flop then maybe look at some turns where everything gets there and it will start to make sense why you include this hand.
Dec. 22, 2020 | 7:23 p.m.
Honestly I think humans are pretty good on the river when it comes to their individual hand in isolation if we ignore their range as a whole because it plays very intuitively, this isn't to say that they are perfect but when it comes to regs the mistakes aren't as big as they are on previous streets in my opinion. This doesn't mean I think people are even close to balanced in these spots but I think people generally have a good idea for what the reasonable options that they could take with their hand are. My idea here is that people understand when they have a hand that they should probably bluff but they just don't get to the river with those hands at the right (or any) frequency. Basically I don't think you really see horrendous showdowns from regulars that often which should never occur where they x back a mandatory bluff or triple barrel a pure give up (not to say they never do just the frequency of this mistake is lower than others) but you can often find spots where in order to stay balanced they need to bluff some hands that look like give ups often due to the fact that they misplayed turn. The opposite is also true where you can hero call instead of hero fold as they have too many hands that look like mandatory bluffs.
Comparing this to the turn it's a lot more complex because the reasons for betting or checking a hand go beyond "must get value bet to bluff ratio correct". In essence I think if mid stakes regs where given a perfectly balanced range on the river they'd play it ok but you give them a perfectly balanced range on the turn and they'll completely butcher it and screw themselves over when it comes to river play.
Dec. 22, 2020 | 7:11 p.m.
Ah yeah and now you're getting to the heart of it I'd say, 200z does not expect to face bluffs in this line so they don't worry about having proper bluff catchers for this line themselves. This is fairly reasonable tbh, if you're going to fold KJ here on the river anyway as an exploit then what's the point in putting it in a x/c on the turn, but when people do this and then don't adjust it becomes a problem.
Also if there's one thing I can say after spending the last month or so wrapped up in pio sims, 500z regs are not as good as they initially seem, they are absolutely great at triple barrelling but once you get outside of the "main line" their knowledge starts to get a bit spotty and they will all do some things very well but they will also all have a bunch of leaks you can pick up on. So, in my opinion, playing with an attitude of disrespect is actually crucial because they're good enough to punish your mistakes so if you're not punishing theirs you're just going to bleed money.
Dec. 18, 2020 | 1:39 p.m.
No worries, happy to help and in response to that I'd say that yeah, if you take the opposite assumptions than I make then this indifferent hand will adjust the other way but I'm fairly confident in them and I just don't think this hand is close to indifferent in practise because people do not balance their bet, x/c, x/c line properly at these stakes so you're just leaving EV on the table by not attacking them. I also trust myself to recognise the showdowns which will tell me my assumptions about this are wrong and to then adjust back to playing a more balanced strategy. I think people tend to have a habit of playing an emulate GTO then decide on rivers sort of strategy but here I'm making a conscious choice to set myself up with the opportunity to over bluff every river runout because I think that this is a very poorly understood spot safe in the knowledge that I will notice when someone actually does understand this spot. Personal preference thing I guess but I think your EV suffers when you give your opponents too much respect for doing complex things that they're probably not managing.
Dec. 18, 2020 | 12:29 p.m.
Don't check back the turn here imo. A lot of floating with pocket pairs on the flop IP on 3bp is used to turn them into bluffs, this hand is likely to mix stab and x back to realise some equity/sdv but I think the incentives to just bet are way too strong when you factor in how much people are going to 1) immediately overfold and 2) overfold river when you barrel again due to poorly constructed turn x/c range and general unwillingness to bluff catch from regs at these stakes in big pots.
River I think is honestly a snap call, I really don't think 200z regs actually rep much of a value range here. They should be checking a fair bit of Kx on the turn here to put into a b/x/b line but realistically that's not happening, people just suck at going x/c with hands that could value bet but aren't really traps either (i.e: they find the x/c with KK fine, but AK-KJ much less often). Add on to this that they should already barrel a lot of flushdraws and will probably barrel too many because a lot of people tend to miss the x/c with AJ/AQdd and also on a board without many combo draws they will not have checked many flushdraws with the view to x/r them either because regs at these stakes fail to recognise the subtle difference in texture that forces them to look for slightly more marginal bluffs to put in that line and it's really hard to give them a flush here. This size just makes me think they just want you to fold almost your exact hand because they realise that population doesn't look them up often enough in spots like this. OOP range here just really tends to favour blocking, a lot of thin value hands that are slightly ahead along with some nutted hands that want to go either bet->3b, x/r or just go big themselves so when someone picks a sizing like this it just makes me think they don't have a value hand because it doesn't come about from a natural thought process and they just picked a decent looking sizing to bluff, of course some people will size wrong with their value hands as well but I think it's hard for OOP to have a hand that really screams 2/3 pot here. Shove seems fine and might be higher EV vs certain players but I don't want to own myself against the player who actually does know what they're doing with their turn range and shows up with a flush on the river here, would rather just pay it off smaller and make a note.
Dec. 18, 2020 | 10:16 a.m.
One advantage of regular tables is you can learn to exploit better because you'll see loads more showdowns from a concentrated group of players so you can build up a better idea of player archetypes. On the flip side a great benefit I find to playing zoom is that I can pause the tables at any moment to go study a hand I just played whilst it's fresh in my mind, rather than having to come back to it later. For me personally that's the most effective method I've found of studying and so for that reason I tend to stick to zoom whenever I can but honestly they're both fine and it's much more important that you're constantly working on your game away from the table and the sitting down each time trying to implement new things rather than the exact game that you play.
Dec. 18, 2020 | 9:47 a.m.
Just want to quickly clear something up: a solver will do the same thing and also always take the max EV line even if the difference is absolutely tiny but the difference is snowie has an oversimplified way of calculating EV and as a result will often play pure strategies with a hand when the EV of bet and x are in fact equal vs a balanced opponent.