I really like this idea for a video, comparing different situations in PIO where you keep most parameters fixed and vary just one (position) in order to zoom in on how this factor influences our strategy.
One thing though: You did not input any betting structure for turn and river, and I am fairly sure that this distorts your results. When comparing EV for different flop actions, PIO assumes that turn and river will be checked down. This is probably the reason for the weird fact you found around the 10 minute mark, were oop check raises ZERO bluffs vs the big sizing. Because ip can just call the raise and guarantee to realize his equity, bluffing simply doesn't work.
Dec. 2, 2019 | 9:35 p.m.
Great Content Zach I love it.
The only thing i wanted to add is what you ended up pointing out yourself in the end anyway, which is to diversify the 3bet bluff range in the last hand in order to make sense of the obscure output.
Keep it up!
Oct. 17, 2019 | 10:53 p.m.
Loving this content! Because of both your soothing voice and great capacity of verbalizing quantitative reasoning I watch most of your videos even though i don't play any heads up, so I appreciate 6max or MTT content alot!
In the last hand you say that you are not doing anything with your best blocker hand. But as you have mentioned before, the A kind of blocks alot of both villains bluffs in the wheel draws and A5/A2, so I am pretty sure KTs would be better if you ever chose to play back. Additionally, since all the T's you get to the flop from preflop are suited hands, you will have a BDFD 3 out of 4 times, so surely waiting for one of those to play back would be good.
Keep up the good work!
Sept. 5, 2019 | 2:55 p.m.
mako27: While I generally love Daniel Dvoress' videos and found also this one very helpful, his assumptions about preflop play in that sim were quite sketchy. He assumed that co would flat all of AA, all of KK, all of AKs and even 25% of AKo vs the bb 3bet, which, at 50bb deep seems way off, esp that AK portion (compared to what the population does in mtts). What he did was really almost not allow co to 4bet, which then resulted in his range being almost as strong as the 3bettors
Another factor is that the 3betting range Daniel gave, which he apparantly took from pio preflop, at 50 bb is a lot more polarized then the onne Ben is using for deeper stacked play, so Daniels range has a fair number of non BW/nonpair/ nonA/nonK hands that completely whiff, and those hands are almost absent from the callers range, (other then some SCs)
June 6, 2019 | 3:02 p.m.
Great Video Sam,
min 24: We bluff J8hh on a 533r Kb T runout. Given that bb will have a ton of KQ/KJ/KT/K9, some 3x slowplays, I don't think Tx is worth a valuebet. Also Tx is very uncommon in our range anyway, so I think we should let our sizing be dictated by our Kx+ region
March 24, 2016 | 1:37 a.m.
Great video, one comment:
Min 50, 77:
You say that slightly overfolding on the 8 is ok because it is one of the worst turns for our range. I don't think that is the case. While it's true that we hit a A-J more often then an 8, our opponent hits it even more often. This goes back to preflop, where a T is, along with a J the card that is represented most often in our preflop range.
Villains betting range otf has only 19% TP+, while our defending range has 28% TP+. So I would argue that any undercard to the T is better for our range. (Villain bets all 3 straights, but we fold some and don't even have all of them pre)
I have also plugged the numbers into equilab, and according to my calc The worst turn cards for our range are, in order: Q,K, A, J, 9, 8, 7. With our rangeequity being 54% on a Q and 59% on an 8.
So I do think we need to call turn, while its true that we have poor visability on rivers, it is ok to fold on all rivers but a 7 anyway, since it will be the bottom of our range, and we will have nough Tx to defend. What are your thoughts on that, would be cool if you could quickly plug in those different turn cards into your crev tree and see if my numbers match up.
July 20, 2015 | 4:17 p.m.
I think Daniel is pointing out this exploitative idea, without meaning to say that we should actually shove always.
But One thing that stood out to me is that he is not taking into acount the Tx combos, which are probably another 25 combos and may well be interested in bluffcatching.
Also courious about your betsizing choice, I would be inclined to bet much smaller on the flop so that we can include hands like PP's in our valuerange.
July 20, 2015 | 11:42 a.m.
I would also tend to just call the flop, but raising is ok too imo.
As played I think we just have to shove, given that we also have picked up a gutter, so even against a set we have 6 outs. So I think I would rather continue with 88 then with 99 or TT.
Also he is repping very thin, and with only one potsize bet left on the turn it seems like he would be way better of checking a nutted hand to allow you to bluff, because he could still get the money in on the river should you check.
June 30, 2015 | 5:31 p.m.
I'd call it off with AQo+, 88+
Against a pretty conservative range of 66+,ATs+,KQs,AQo+ we have 41,76%
Even against 66+,AQo+ we have 38,44% so even against the NIT its not that big of a mistake to call.
On the flipside against a somewhat lose but still reasonable range of 66+,ATs+,KJs+,QJs,AJo+,KQo we have 48,9%, so the magnitude of the mistake of folding vs the lose guy is much bigger then the one of calling vs the nit.
Obv. if you know the guy is a NIt, you can find a fold, but the default is to call imo.
June 30, 2015 | 5:17 p.m.
Hey James, great video, I really enjoy the in depth analysis, keep it up!
You say that 3bet/calling JTs here as opposed to flatting makes it more difficult for him to jam certain hands, but I would think that the opposite is true, since hands like KTo/QJo,QTs, 22-44, A4s, A8o or K9s should in my oppinion be in a tough spot vs your 3bet. So depolarizing your 3b/call range to an extent that includes JTs should makehis decisions easier in that he can now just jam a very wide and linear range, expecting to be ahead some of the time with a hand as weak as KTo.
In regards to our jaming range being "weak", I don't think that is necessarily the case. Stacks are shallow enough that I would think jamming with AK/AQ/88-JJ is at least reasonably close in ev to 3beting to induce., while also decreasing variance and shifiting more ev to those hands that want to jam.
So I would just jam most of my reraising range, something along the lines off 22+, ATo+, KJo+, 98s+, T9s+, JTs+, QJs+, K9s+ and have just a small 3bet-to-induce range with JJ+ and a portion of AJ+ (favouring the suited combos) and 88-TT, maybe some KQs.
What do you think about that?
June 28, 2015 | 1:56 p.m.
You are right that in the case he wins, his stack will gain a pot of 99 + 33,75$, but that will represent a "win" of 33,75$, and will result in an ev of 33,75$. Whereas the ev of call in the instances where he lose will resulat in an ev of -99$. So I think my calculation is still correct, in that he needs hero to bluff 74,75%.
June 18, 2015 | 2:30 a.m.
ad 1) Intuitively I think your bet is too large, but lets look at some math to find out more. It is important to know wheter you check KQ ever on the turn, and how often. For the sake of simplicity I will assume never, allthough that may well be incorrect.
ad 2) Empirically I don't think he will show up with pure bluffs in that situation.
Whether he should is a different question. For him to even have Qx in the check river line, check shove must be higher ev then leading the river for value. If he never checked Qx or better though, you could just go Allin with your entire range and either make him fold everything or get tons of ev with your Qx, so I think equilibrium has him checking Qx sometimes. Now once he checked Qx, assuming you never have KQ, there is no reason for him not to shove over your bet with Qx, since he can not lose and money, but might get you to fold a chop. So x/c Qx is dominated by x/shove Qx.
Whereas a pure bluff on his part, leaving out exploitative reasons, only 0ev, so they are simular to x/f (or x/c, if you bluff the right amount). So I would think, in order to balance villains KQ x/shove, Qx hands takes presidence over air. I think that means that he should only be pure bluffing if he can't show up with enough Qx combos to force you to call. Lets see how many those have to be.
When he calls 99$ with a combo that plays the board, he risks 99$ to win 33,75, so you need to be bluffing about 74,75% of the time in order to force him to call with less than Qx.
When you are bluffing 99 into 67,5, you risk 99$ to win 67,5$/2 = 33,75$. When he calls with the board your bluff will have simular ev as if you had checked, so we can take these instances out of the equation, when he calls with Qx you lose 99$, when he folds a chop you win 33,75$. (99 / 33,75 = 2,93) So to make money on a bluff you need him to fold 2,93 times as many combos of air than he calls you with Qx combos (+ the combos he may bluff shove).
When he tries to bluff you with a combo that plays the board, he risks 589,19$ to win 166,5$, so he needs you to fold 1 - (166,5/589,19) = 1 - 0,28 = 0,72 = 72%. Since we concluded that you kind of need to bluff 74,75%, that means that he still makes money bluffshoving if we never call with air. But calling with air sucks, because he might also be "bluffing" with Qx.
But what if you are underbluffing in the first place, and can defend enough % of your betting range with Qx calls to make his air bluffs 0ev? In that case you should
When you bluffcatch vs a range of air and KQ, you risk 490,19 to win 755,69. 490,19 / (755,69 + 490,19) = 0,393 ~39%. So he needs to bluff 0,39 combos of air for every KQ combo in his range (that is only if he never shoves Qx though).
When you bluffcatch against a range of Qx and KQ, you risk 490,19$ to win (67,5$+99$)/2 = 83,25$. 1 - (83,25/490,19) = 0,83. So you need him to have KQ less then 17%, or to have 5,92 combos of Qx for every combo of KQ.
I am not quite sure what follows from this, so if anybody finds errors in my calculations or reasoning, please point them out. It is quite late and i am not completly sober. But it seems to me, that, if you actually are bluffing enough to force him to call with less then Qx, and also fold your air to his shove, he can profitably shove anytwo cards over your bet. We would have to do more ev calcs to find out if you can prevent this by calling some air, or whether him x/shoving Qx along with KQ and air makes calling the check/shove with air minus ev still.
In any case it seems to suggest that betting this big is not a good idea, as long ass you don't have KQ in your range.
Cliffs (all assuming we never have KQ):
1) Your bet is too large
2) a) if you bluff enough: He should shove anytwo cards.
b) if you don't bluff enough: He needs you to fold some Qx in order for pure bluffs to break even, and he should thus just bluff enough to make your Qx calls break even. In trying to balance he should first pick Qx, and only pick pure bluffs if he runs out of Qx.
3) a) if you bluff enough: You need to call all Qx, maybe even some air (sounds absurd)
b) if you don't bluff enough: You can probably fold a small amount of your Qx, depending on how much you bluff too little.
On a sidenote I like checking this hand on the flop, I may bet A7hh or T7hh though :)
Curious if anybody finds blatant mistakes in my post, because I sure find my own conclusions quite counter-intuitive.
June 16, 2015 | 3:26 a.m.
Gl man, but I think comitting yourself to watch 3-5 hours of videos a day is not going to be the best use of your time. It my just be to much input to properly take in. Why not do 2 videos accompanied by thorough work on your own hands or hands you encounter in the videos with the programs you mentioned?
June 16, 2015 | 12:58 a.m.
Against 99+,AQs+,AKo A4s has 31,05%. 22 has 30,05%, 44 has 31,06, and 66 has 31,6%, so fairly close.
Blocking his bluffing range with A4s is a valid point, but I would guess that blocking AK, AQ and AA outweighs that.
June 8, 2015 | 4:44 p.m.
very Good Video Duncan :)
One minor point a disagree with is that you say the reason for bb's high x/f frequency on the river is polarization. I think the reason is just that BB's range is just so much weaker and contains a lot of really crappy air like 96s, K2s and alike, that dont even beat Bu's bluffs. That kind of resonates with the idea that we never need to defend 1-alpha, but rather 1-alpha of (hands that beat bluffs).
About the polarization, i would argue that the more we polarize our range, the more medium to strongish value hands get moved into our checking range, so our x/f frequency goes down. On the contrary, if we depolarize our betting range, lower our sizing and start bet thinner for value, resulting in a higher betting frequency, our x/f frequency goes up.
May 30, 2015 | 3 p.m.
Agree with Djunkell, the main point being, that betting simular fractions on turn and river is likely superior if you want to start betting a polarized range right away on the turn. In this spot though, and in a lot of situations in NLH in general, we actually want to bet a lot of hands for protection on the turn, thus the small sizing, and then polarize our range further on the river.
May 30, 2015 | 2:50 p.m.
Preflop I actually think that your call is ok, but I also prefer a 3bet. Flop is just a very clear fold. Once you do get to the turn, I think your bet is +ev. On the river it is very player dependent.
@RN: I don't think we are repping that narrow, we rep a ton of flushes given that we defend any2 suited (~40combos), + almost all Jx (~65 combos) + 55, 33 = ~111 valuecombos.
HOWEVER: If we float 72 of spades here, we have a TON of floats, so we def. need to take care not to overbluff. We dont have any blockers, but does not seem to important in that spot, since we also not block any of the obvious folding hands, like Acx. Holding a high club other then the A would still be of value though.
April 29, 2015 | 12:45 a.m.
Shoving might well be +chipev, but I agree that in a soft 22$ field with 37bb, keeping variance down is somewhat important.
Calling however is clearly supirior to folding, we are getting like 3,8 to one with another 10x implied odds, so even when we are purely setmining it is likely already +ev. Add to that that villain will sometimes give up / go to SD with Ahigh or a flopped pair lower then our 88, and that we can call a cbet on a decent number of flops very profitably, since most players tendency is to cbet very small. Basically, even if we plan to "play cautious" we will still be presented with opportunities that are profitable enough to be worth taking. Just call and play postflop.
April 29, 2015 | 12:20 a.m.
Nice video, I definitely enjoy your way of looking at hands.
One thing I am curious about: You keep saying that you think, that due to 4bet pots being so uncommon, there would not be enough meta to incentivice villain to try and exploit you with overbluffing. But then on the same note, you keep saying that you think they underbluff and end up making a bunch of HUGE folds, that you do seem to derive from some sort of meta.
Don't get me wrong, intuitively I get most of your folds, but I am having a hard time justifying them inteIlectually. I guess what I am asking is where you are taking the certainty from that people are not bluffing you a ton.
Dont you think that the one who called the 4bet is kind of expected to not defend enough post? And that the 4bettor is incentivized to be agro?
March 2, 2015 | 1:49 p.m.
I am also curious about betsizing on the turn. Since our delay cbet range represents mostly Jx and weak Ax for value, do we not want to bet more in the 40-60% range? We are prettty capped (other then 77) and Dylan is not necessarily, on this board he might go for a checkraise at a reasonable frequency.