Thanks a lot for your explanation!
The goal was to find out at which boards i can simplify my strategy and do a range-bet and on which boards i should make a mixed bet/check strategy. But i was surprised that at all 55 Flops, that i solved, that the difference in EV was marginal....
next example to explain it better:
When i look at the 33% Sim then i could see that we can 93% betting (which means that we can simplify here a rangebet with 100% frequency) and we have a EV of 12,10.
When we choose the 55% betsizing we should mix our strategy with a 65% betting and 35% checking frequency. EV overall is 12,12
=> But the difference in EV is only 0,02...and that looks for me not logical...?
Jan. 13, 2021 | 6:30 p.m.
actually i try to work on my 3bet oop strategy.
I run two sims in GTO+. One sim with a 33% Bet on the flop and one sim with a 55% Bet on the flop. Both sims with a subset of 55 Flops.
My goal was to find out the "best" sizing.
When I compared the two Sims, I was surprised how close the EV from both sims is.
SB vs BTN 3betPot on a AsAcKh Flop:
1) Rangebet with 100% Frequency: EV of 14,04 for the SB
2) 55% Bet with 51% Frequency: EV of 13,82
What means the EV Difference in bb? And is this a small or a big difference between this two situations?
Jan. 13, 2021 | 3:37 p.m.
HawksWin i'm playing at ggpoker, so i can't use a hud and for a good playerpool analysis i don't have enough hand at my limit. So i use my own calling Range to be able to see at the same time how I would have to play as BTN vs the GTO solution.
My calling Range vs a 3bet from the SB is this here:
Dec. 23, 2020 | 10:11 a.m.
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation!
The more I think about it, the more logical it seems to me!
I still have a lot of work to do here, so far I've felt 80% of the boards in the 3bet Pot SBvsX played with 33%^^
Just recently saw a video (from the beginning of 2019) about where a coach said (whom I really appreciate by the way) that on boards like A87r or 744r a range bet with 33% sizing works pretty well.
I was just wondering why my solver would sometimes want to do it completely differently and therefore asked here!
I was definitely able to take away a lot from the whole discussion and will have to set up my SB-Play again!
Thank you and Merry Christmas!
Dec. 22, 2020 | 6:55 p.m.
Yeah right, I'm mainly interested in the 3b Spot SV vs BTN.
And it's very interesting that you say that very few rangebets exist in general in 3bet pots OOP. Because my solver says the same and i was wondering why.
Because I've learned that we can make a range bet very often on the flop, especially with a 3bet only strategy in the SB. And that's exactly what I've heard from several coaches here on rio.
OOP cbets in 3bet pots tend to be bigger sizing than the 33% you see used often. It's 50-60% pot.
Indeed! When I look at the subset in the solver, it prefers a 50%+ sizing over the entire flops rather than a smaller sizing.
Would you also choose a 50%+ sizing on a A73r board or would this be one of the few boards that are more suitable for a rangebet?
Dec. 22, 2020 | 10:41 a.m.
Thank you for your answer, but a few things are still unclear to me:
1) Why is a BBvsBTN rangebet more common than compared to SBvsBTN? In the SB we have a linear and therefore stronger 3bet range. So we have more equity on many boards than if we 3bet in the BB. And I've always thought that the more equity and nutadvantage we have, the more likely a rangebet is to be considered.
2) you wrote "Broadway boards leaves BTN with a lot of air hands" => but aren't broadway boards like KJx, QJx, KTx, ... exactly the boards that hit the calling range from the Button very well?
3) you wrote "Range cbet vs SB is almost never a thing." => do you mean a rangebet as the BB vs the SB in a 3bet Pot?
Dec. 22, 2020 | 9:18 a.m.
Thanks for you answers, the most sounds logical for me.
My assumption so far has always been that if the solver has a checking range of almost 0% in a mixed strategy (with more betsizes in the flop gametree), we can simplify our strategy and bet our entire range 1/3.
But when i read this:
"First of all is 65% for 1/3 not enough to justify a rangebot of 100%. We usually choose this simplification if the solver likes to do it 85%+ or so."
...and then look at my solving Subset of SBvsBTN, then I see that the solver does not want to bet a frequency higher than 65% on any board with the 1/3 sizing:
So would it be better to do several solves with only one selected bet size on the flop?
Because so far I always assumed that SBvsBTN is predestined to implement a rangebet on many boards.
Dec. 22, 2020 | 8:23 a.m.
sometimes I have the feeling that I am struggling a bit, especially in 3b-pots (SBvsBU), that's why I solved a subset of flops in GTO+ and tried to work out simplified solutions.
Now I have the problem that it is difficult for me to interpret the solver solutions correctly. Here is an example with the flop KJ7r:
My first solving I've made was with 3 betsizes (33% / 58% / 100%):
The solver want to check 0% of the SB-Range and prefers the 33% Potsizebet with a frequency of 65%.
=> So I made the assumption that a Rangebet would be nice with a frequency of 100%
Now i've mad a second solve with only the 33% Betsize, but now the solver wanted to check ~ 20% of my Range:
Somehow this seems illogical to me or what exactly am I missing here?
Basically, I wanted to find out which boards I would bet my entire range on and which boards I would like to bet polarized.