Patrick Cronin ah damn that's a shame. as they say, don't fix what's not broken and after your success in your last video which was around 60 minutes, generated probably the highest number of likes of any recent video, it seems like strange timing for them to decide that.
also I believe my comment about my appreciation for the longer video gathered a decent number of likes too.
30-40 mins is too short imo. we are all poker players by profession so it's not as if we lack patience haha :P
Aug. 16, 2019 | 11:53 p.m.
nice video. I normally prefer longer videos but the length of this was perfect as it was more like a game than anything else.
I think one of your biggest strengths is your bvb play, so this work has definitely payed off.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 7:22 p.m.
yeah that's fair enough. I watch basically every video at 1.25x speed (some at 1.5x) and I am under the impression that a lot of other viewers do too. so an hour long video is probably closer to the 45-50 minute mark for most people.
even then, I don't mind longer videos :P anything up to an hour is fine imo.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 10:43 a.m.
really enjoyed this series but this video is far too short imo. 33 minutes seems like the video has barely begun and it's over. I can understand if the video is theoretical content that took a ton of time to prepare but doing a voiceover on an FT with cards up doesn't seem too time consuming.
regardless, the quality of your analysis is never in doubt. looking forward to the next part!
Aug. 15, 2019 | 9:44 p.m.
great video, one of your best ones imo. I think these hand reviews are the most captivating/enjoyable to watch as each hand highlights a completely different spot and really gets you thinking. your theory videos are obv good too but sometimes they can be a little dry and harder to watch the whole way through in one sitting.
villains A7hh bluff @39:00 is pretty sick btw. I think it's a great bluff and puts you in an extremely tough spot as most regs will bluff here 0% of the time.
Aug. 12, 2019 | 11:49 a.m.
ryanspicer it doesn't happen very often tbh, but yeah i'd be using a small sizing probably somewhere between min and 2.5x. anything larger is kinda un-necessary imo and too large.
yeah because if you never have a flop raising range on any boards then you let the other player bet at a much higher frequency as they still generate your air folds and also get to realise more equity with their marginal hands that aren't scared of getting blown off their equity vs a raise.
yeah you could take that line, exploitatively. if you think that you get AK to fold and they pure continue AA/KK as calls then you can raise and get those AK folds and then just x back and folds. you can mess around with node locking in PIO it reacts the same way if they have a strategy of, for example, bet/folding AK always on Txx and continuing all OP's. we just raise for protection with a bunch of marginal pairs and then give up when called/jammed on, effectively.
Aug. 6, 2019 | 2:17 p.m.
Asdfghjkl1 because we are pretty much playing a one street game and not nuts vs air. so we just get it in with more marginal hands and take their equity as opposed to using them as call downs in a polarized call down situation.
Aug. 6, 2019 | noon
ryanspicer cheers man. yeah for sure, and it ends up making your flop raising range extremely strong, and conversely your calling range extremely capped.
the reason that you raise on the flop to begin with is:
1-because it is higher EV to do so
2-so that you can leverage the nut portions of your range in order to get max value
however, when you are shallow stacked both of the points are not true any longer. when you raise top 2 pairs or a flop set you end up blocking many of the opponents continues, as well as not letting him 'catch up' with hands that are effectively drawing dead. such as AK/AQ on T9x when you have either 2 pair or a set. you are also not worried about getting sucked out on cos the spr is so low so even when he does the result will not be as costly to negate slow playing as the higher EV option.
when you are deep stacked, these 2 factors hold true, however.
you need to start building a pot with both value/bluffs in order to try and get all of your chips in the middle by the end of the hand and apply a ton of pressure to the bluff catching portions of his range. we also require much more protection with a hand such as top 2 pair because villains range is much wider (it is not a condensed 3/4 bet range) and we want to reduce the spr for future streets.
so yeah. it's not very intuitive but in 3bet pots it's kinda the reverse of 2bet pots. you will also see in PIO sims that it almost always slow plays sets as the pfc but raises hands such as top pair top kicker. this changes to an extent when we are OOP as the caller, however. or when we are 200 bb's deep.
Aug. 5, 2019 | 9:49 a.m.
My range for flatting vs utg is 6% mix of all pairs 22-qq, all suited
connectors 45s-kqs+, suited bw, suited ax, and some off suit kq,
aj-ak. I feel like I have to continue my suited connectors, pairs,
ATs+ at some frequency. Is that kind of range really too defined to
defend vs squeeze? Doesn't it become even more defined if I start pure
folding hands like T9s and 66?
that's an extremely wide range imo. the rake at these stakes is very high and you are pretty susceptible to squeezes if you start flatting hands like low pp's as well as off suit broadways. I would be surprised if many of these hands were winning due to both the rake and the fact that the utg range is very tight, and like I said you are also gonna get squeezed a certain % of the time. are you using a solver for this range or just winging it?
it's true to a certain extent about your range being defined if you start folding hands such as T9s/66, but you shouldn't continue hands which are -EV simply for the sake of board coverage.
Re post flop play. Today I ran the sim again, must've changed the
composition of the ranges around a little because It gave me an ev of
60%. And it started raising flop about 10% of the time, and failing to
do so, would cede about 0.7% of the pot. But it chooses the JJ and QQ
(and bw gut shots) in my range instead of the sets, 2 pair, which goes
with what you were saying about protecting our call range.
was this by node locking an OOP cbet or optimally with the 10% raising frequency? it's still pretty low, however. given the fact that our range is already very tight anyways. in 3bp's we tend to prefer raising hands that require more protection/benefit from folds as opposed to the nutted portions of our range (such as sets/2 pairs) due to the fact that the spr is already extremely low and we can easily get the money in by the river anyways. we also don't require protection, and want to keep in villains over cards so he can spike a random top pair and stack off, or bluff off vs our perceived 'capped' range. most players have this backwards though, and raise sets and call with weak OP's/top pairs.
Also I kind of disagree with what you said about his cbet size.
Against a 2/3 sizing, it's not as simple as folding all our underpairs
and AQs. In fact when I node locked all those folds in, it costs us
over 5% of the pot. The big sizing forces ip to play a mixed strategy
with those hands which is harder to execute than the pure call vs the
small size. I don't really see either defense strategy being easier
than the other one, so I feel like we should just choose the sizing
that is used at equilibrium, which is the big sizing.
it depends how both ranges are constructed pre. if your range consists of sets/hands that are going to fold then it makes no sense to use a large sizing. for example you can see this as an example on a board such as 543 btn vs bb. where bb has many more straights and 2 pairs, yet has a bunch of random air over cards that are gonna fold to any sizing, so we end up checking back at high frequencies or using a small sizing. which doesn't seem too intuitive on such a drawy board where 'protection' and value seem to favour a larger IP sizing.
if your range contains more top/second pairs and open enders/gut shots then yeah I can understand the use of the larger sizing. your pre-flop range is probably more merged/weak on this board than most players due to the fact that both your flatting range vs the open, as well as calling range vs the squeeze are wider. which would lead to the use of a larger sizing. if your range was tighter and lets say JJ-88, as well as some suited broadways AQs/AJs then imo OOP would favour the smaller sizing. I could be wrong though I haven't ran any sims on this exact board/scenario.
Aug. 3, 2019 | 7:56 a.m.
BB: $1218.94 (Hero)
BB wins and shows three of a kind, Fives.
BB wins $1275.00
Rake is $3.00
Aug. 3, 2019 | 6:43 a.m.
agreed. pre raise much larger. on the flop I don't mind the check tbh, can mix it in and vs the jam you obv have to snap cos he can be shoving Jx for protection as well as a bunch of draws and you look like Ak/AQ so there's a chance that he even jams Tx every so often as well.
Aug. 3, 2019 | 6:37 a.m.
pretty sure you have to fold almost all of your range pre to this squeeze. your range is extremely defined and capped pre, due to the fact that you simply called vs utg as opposed to 3betting, so you only have to continue with traps or the strongest portions of your range that mix between 3bet/call pre-such as JJ/TT AQs etc. even if the guy is loose T9s should be pretty -EV to call here imo.
as played on the flop you can have both sets in your range, as well as some JJ/88, T9s and perhaps JTs. so I think he should be mixing between bet and x on this flop, due to the fact that his range should be heavily formed of larger Ax hands and less Tx9x. he is also gonna sometimes flat TT/99 and shouldn't have T9s in his range. I think his sizing is good cos he is trying to apply pressure to hands such as AQs and 88 as opposed to betting large where you can continue with your sets and OP's and top pairs, which is pretty easy to execute.
in 3bp's IP you don't need to do much raising because you want to take advantage of your positional advantage, something that you negate when you introduce a flop raising range. also, you will probably gut your call range and you will end up massively over folding subsequent streets, or call down with hands that should be folding.
ott if you have a protection raise such as JJ/Tx you will want to be checking these back, so you need to be checking back with some strong hands too. given the fact that you block all boats/trips/quads your hand makes a decent x back. which will allow him to bluff jam hands such as AK, as well as his AA/KK type hands for value. so ott I think mostly checking is good with some betting (which is what PIO seems to suggest.)
his jam is pretty nonsensical obv but w/e. btw you should never be having 44 in your pre-flop range, so including this in the sim is an inaccuracy. even hands such as 88/77 should probably be pure folding pre unless the guy is either a maniac or a massive fish and punts in post.
Aug. 3, 2019 | 6:33 a.m.
and props for the 60 minute video, so many coaches seem to record the minimum length of time deemed acceptable for a video and you end up getting 35 minutes of content. imo all videos should be 45-60 mins in length which gives the perfect amount of time to learn something new and become engrossed in the video, whilst also avoiding boredom.
Aug. 3, 2019 | 6:19 a.m.
yeah that makes sense. it is possible that either we end up on the river with a lack of bluffs or that villain over-folds his range to both bet sizings, thinking that by defending flop/turn he can simply fold a bunch of his range on the river and ends up massively over-folding by avoiding using a randomiser.
haha it can be easy to end up talking for the entirety of a video about a hand such as this so I understand your counter :P i'm guessing you are correct about each hand bluffing some % of the time, even with poorer blockers such as our combination, but I think as a simplification I would never be bluffing with this combo and bluff at higher frequencies with hands such as the non club versions of these hands. which would increase the folding frequency of the villain and still perhaps exploit higher than optimal river folding frequencies from his over pairs.
cool hand. i'm back from a holiday to Canada so I shall see you at the tables again soon!
Aug. 2, 2019 | 2:55 a.m.
Hey man. First of all, welcome to RIO and i think you are a great addition! I suggested that you become a coach so props to the guys behind the scenes for getting you on board!
In my DB your win rate is like 22bb/100 looool. Albeit not a large sample size.
Some interesting hands. With the last hand QTcc i dont really like the river bluff. Sure, we will have a bunch of straights here as well as sets, and i 100% agree about the river split sizings between 1/2p for sets and jam for straights, but this seems like the most clear give up in our entire range.
We need to have some river give ups here, and blocking villains snap folds (AQcc and ATcc) then it seems like a pure x. And if we sonehow run out of bluffs (which i dont think we do we can bluff QJ/JT/AT as well as whatever unerpairs we have) then slotting in to smaller sizing seems best so that we get a much better price on our bluffs and can rep an expanded value region of the sets and perhaps some 2 pairs.)
What hands do you prefer to give up with otr in this spot instead?
Great vid though, ive never seen you make mistakes vs me :P haha
July 24, 2019 | 2:55 a.m.
@37:00 yeah agreed these games are consistent under bluffs in most scenarios. you can get in to some situations where regs are completely unbalanced the other way (in terms of far too high of a bluff/value ratio) but for the most part they are either not finding the bluffs on earlier streets or simply giving up with many of those hands that should be bluffed at equilibrium, on the river.
for example with that AT where villain raises on the river repping the 77, I think that call would be significantly losing as 95%+ of regs at this limit would not even consider taking such a creative line when they only rep one combo and have checked down 3 ways and are most likely thinking about moving on to the next hand.
it's pretty funny that guys making a living from poker for 5+ years in many cases are still too much of a b*tch to blast off with a bluff. i'd save the bluff catching for 10/20+ where regulars actually pull the trigger as there is a reason why many of these guys have stuck at the same limit for numerous years and never moved up. rant/ lol
July 1, 2019 | 11:43 a.m.
yeah but population tend to over cbet every single board bvb so I think we should be increasing our raising frequency in order to exploit this. otherwise we don't punish OOP's strategy and let him bet a bunch of marginal hands without the fear of getting raised.
June 28, 2019 | 12:10 p.m.
yeah man probably just a bit rusty, practice makes perfect, as they say! you should create some filters in your pokertracker/hm and see if you can figure out where you are leaking. perhaps it is from the bb, in 3bet pots, in srp's, who knows! but it could just be one or two areas that you are very weak in that is causing you to break even/lose.
props on creating this thread, though, you clearly want to learn and improve and so the best way to do so is to first acknowledge that you are not where you want to be in terms of skill/ability at the moment. just study/review and i'm sure you will be moving up in limits in no time.