2nd hand --- I think A8o usually checks otf because it dominates worse Ax and some combos are probably pretty close to 0EV continue vs XR. By comparison, A5o-A3o get folds from better Ax for that sizing, and it can fold easier vs a raise (at least without Ah). Assume these particularities have more weight than the blocker effect in this situation, when making a flop decision.
Dec. 23, 2019 | 4:42 p.m.
Great video! Really liked the K9o analysis. People often say they don't bet x hand because it can't continue vs raise, which I find very inaccurate. They should say something like "my hand is in the worst possible situation after getting XR, by being close to 0EV decision, which is a reason for checking in the first place".
Bet-folding is part of a strong strategy, obviously. Some players even force a larger size ott with a specific combo, just to be able to barely call a raise-shove, which is often a terrible reasoning, imo. If you can continue vs raise but it's very close, your situation has not improved. I guess it's for the thrill of gambling.
What do you think about the 2nd barrell with QQ? Does PIO prefer betting the double flush-draw blocker combo, or not blocking those? It seems another interesting hand to look at. Cheers!
Dec. 23, 2019 | 9:17 a.m.
Great stuff, Patrick. Nice to see someone talking about 4bet pots, spot so often overlooked.
I'd have liked a longer video, though. A follow up video analysing additional hands would be very nice. It could also be interesting to see situations where the caller is OOP, maybe emphasizing the strategic differences between both spots (just an idea).
Dec. 22, 2019 | 9:35 a.m.
Make sense, thank you for the quick response.
33.00 with JTs on Q935, I agree there's no need for having a raising range ott, although wouldn't mind jamming strong hands that need some protection like AQ, mixing some high equity bluffs like combo-draws and nut flush-draws. I like your play with JThh, think it could be a little bit too weak to jam (low equity when called).
Dec. 20, 2019 | 4:44 p.m.
21.40 --- Do you see any merits in explotatively using a medium size with value hands, because people would overfold vs big bets on this runout?
31.00 --- After you checked, what would you have done if you had faced a 75% PSB on the river?
33.00 --- Would you play any raises vs 2nd barrel on this turn?
Great video, thanks!
Dec. 20, 2019 | 9:50 a.m.
Ran my own sim to try to understand it better. Got similar results. The flop XC line for OOP is infrequent (even for b66) and extremely condensed. As PrankCallRiver said, this results in IP attacking turn very thin for value and very polar relative to OOP range. Once IP XB turn, his range on the river is super weak, but has some flushes left. OOP's range continues being mostly condensed, despite his huge equity advantage, so it mainly likes to either block or check, protecting the middle range (JJ-TT, 9x), while still getting added value with flushes after IP raise-shoves thin with QTs. IP facing block bet otr:
The spot is weird and difficult to analyze tbh, largely due to the low frequency XC line on the flop. I don't think these results are very relevant in practice, but still interesting.
Dec. 16, 2019 | 10:50 a.m.
Pot and stacks are simulating a $5/$10 game, so yeah, -15 chips equals -1.5bb or -150$ for the 50/100 stake. In other words, -15 chips in a pot of 240 chips, equivalent to ~6.25% pot mistake otf. The check behind otr would be a 13bb mistake in PIO land.
Dec. 15, 2019 | 8:23 p.m.
43 minute on the right, the AK hand seems like a huge mess by bit2easy. His call otf is losing a lot. It wasn't like Ben was check-raising every hand, so maybe he misread the suits, I don't know.
Then he allows you to showdown a hand that shouldn't be checking for any EV. The runout is pretty good for OOP, so the double checking line for OOP (turn and river) is very weak, allowing hands like AK to have a very high EV bluff on the river, even though it checks for decent equity (~21%).
Any additional thoughts on the hand would be appreciated, obviously. Very enjoyable video, with many details to analyze. Looking forward to the next parts.
Dec. 15, 2019 | 6:58 p.m.
Nice video, really enjoyed the different solutions for the last hand. I'd also think that increasing the weight of pocket pairs is a better representation of 500z games.
Another good spot for implementing very small bets is 3bet pot on boards like AJT/KQT, especially when IP has offsuit combos that flopped straight. Similar to your example on AKQ, but being OOP and facing more nutted combos I assume the strategy makes even more sense and see more and more high stakes players going for it. sim
Dec. 12, 2019 | 1:44 p.m.
If I understand correctly, according to the sim the XR play is losing 1.55 chips in a pot of 83 chips, which would cost us 1.8% of the pot. This is not a huge mistake, but quite significant one, imo. The sim structure is consistent with 5/10 blinds, where -1.55 chips equals -1.55$. So half dollars loss when playing 500nl.
Obviously the equilibrium change very quickly when the opponent overfolds or cbets too often. Reran it forcing IP to cbet 100% freq for that sizing. We have a break-even raise with Q7s now. sim
We need some pretty strong read on villain/population to make this raise profitable, imo. But it could be, for sure.
Thank you for your detailed reply.
Dec. 8, 2019 | 11:21 a.m.
35.50 on the left - Your XR otf seems quite loose vs b50 sim. i wonder whether it is an exploitative play vs player/sizing, expecting too many cbets, or just a low frequency play.
It seems like you open very loose SB vs BB but tight/standard on the button. Is it because the population are overfolding bvb? I'd expect your edge postflop being higher IP though.
Dec. 7, 2019 | 9:52 a.m.
Great and instructive video.
18:50 on 9847 - I feel like this turn is really bad for OOP so we want to slow down a lot. As you said, IP is improving quite often, also he called a medium bet on a flop in which he probably doesn't do any raise, so his turn range is initially quite strong. I think it would make more sense to check turn very often and build a value heavy but still balanced check-shove range (risking a lot, facing strong equity driven range). Here is my sim.
It's true that your combo does a lot of betting, although it only uses small sizings. It's indifferent vs IP shove, but obviously quite happy in other nodes.
Dec. 2, 2019 | 10:06 a.m.
I usually like your videos, but I didn't like this one. It looked more like a hang out on twich than a teaching video. It sounded like you were in a rush most of the time. There was no time to get into details. Without pauses or hand selection, the content felt incredibly shallow. Quality over quantity, please, that's how people learn.
Nov. 24, 2019 | 6:36 p.m.
Nice review, Krzysztof. Few questions:
min 19, table 3 - Not sure why you were surprised by a single XR in this bvb spot. I checked it out on pio, sb checks flop around half of the time, having a pretty high frequency XR range, even for the large size that villain used in-game. sim
min 23, table 2 - It seems like a standard overbet or check turn spot. Do you think there are merits in sizing down against unknown opponents as you did? sim
Nov. 16, 2019 | 11:38 a.m.
Another great video. Thanks Sam.
Nov. 11, 2019 | 7:49 p.m.
Hey Saulo, thanks for the vid, you're bringing a lot of value to this site.
23.00 3BP on KT4 - I was surprised that you went for a polar c-bet strategy. It seems a spot where we have a huge advantage and the small bet will get a lot of folds.
On the turn, even though PIO wants to check your combo, I like your barrel, understanding that XR frequency should be very low. Once villain shoves, I think you could've folded. In theory it seems to be a close fold, while in practice I don't really see people bluffing anything but a few combo-draws, which you block.
Also, what about sizing down a little on turn? I think it would be effective on this paired and kinda dry board, having the benefit of gaining EV in XR/Xshove lines which, although they should be infrequent, I suspect they're more common and value heavy in practice.
Nov. 11, 2019 | 6:28 p.m.
I'd use the 'create subtree configuration' (from the turn) feature for these cases. In doing so 1) you save a lot of time and 2) the flop outcome will be better having more options for later streets. Only from there you limit the turn sizes according to the turn card and specific situation you want to analyse.
Nov. 9, 2019 | 9:09 a.m.
Thanks for the reply.
4.25 - Sure, what I meant to say is that you build your river betting range around your value hands, then you add the required amount of bluffs, but not the other way around, as your sentence seemed to suggest.
38.45 - Yep, I agree checking range is a fine strategy vs reg. I'd expect the rec player to cold call much wider on average, but fully understand your point.
Nov. 8, 2019 | 9:33 p.m.
Hey Patrick, nice video.
@4.25 - You said "if we only overbet Kx we don't get to bluff very frequently". I wonder how this is relevant. I think your bluffs should be ~0 EV anyway, given that your range is still so wide, therefore IP should defend close to mdf vs any sizing.
@38.45 on A63r - Is there no value in developing a c-betting range against a player who likely plays too many hands? I think this texture will quickly go on your favor soon after IP's range gets too wide.
Nov. 8, 2019 | 5:57 p.m.
Nice video. @14:50 with QQ - I also thought that shoving turn would be the play. Villain's range has a large proportion of flush draws, given the double suited board, so that our overpairs have a great incentive to deny equity.
However, the ev difference in equilibrium is certainly not that large and there may be many exploitative reasons to play otherwise. Let's see what Tyler thinks.
Nov. 7, 2019 | 12:03 p.m.
Yep, nodelocked for OOP always continuing 5x with bdfd and only folding half of his weaker 5x. The exploit follows the same tendency but becomes pretty hard now. EV IP: 19.004 (+1.8% pot, compared to equilibrium sim). Here is the strategy for both players.
As you can see in the latter picture, calling weak 5x hands is losing ~10 chips (2bb), while raising those hands would be absolutely terrible vs such a value heavy range (IP folds 5% vs raise). Not bad!
Nov. 5, 2019 | 11:42 a.m.
Thanks for the insights and sim!
As for the last hand, I also ran it for 6-max, out of curiosity, keeping the two sizing strategy on flop for better comparison. There are definitely some similarities, and yeah, seems like b30 also falls short on turn T. In fact, pio uses only b50 on this card and checks even higher frequency than in your sim, probably due to IP's tighter range improving to a very strong hand quite a bit more often now.
Nov. 4, 2019 | 6:13 p.m.
Extremely valuable video, Nuno. Few thoughts:
1st hand - Really liked your analysis here, some blocker concepts were so good that I'll review it a few more times. As a practical question, would you have a river shoving range with some flushes at this SPR when the river is not paired?
2nd hand - I think the main reason why we don't want an overbet size on J turn is because villain's range also improves a lot on that card, so it works more like 3-flush turns, where we want to use smaller sizes and not isolate the villain's range to nutted hands plus strong draws, specially being OOP. The river 2 was very interesting and tough to play. Kinda funny to see OOP getting to the river with so many 2x.
3rd hand - Weird turn spot, but really liked your explanations.
Last hand - I think the turn fold with A9 is a little bit more simple to explain, although it's easy to make this mistake in-game. Villain's range improves a ton on T. A9 got heavily devalued, likely has a poor equity and terrible EV, given the lack of nut potential and having river left to play vs a polarized range. Weaker kicker + draw is always gonna be a better call in these spots. There's no need to pay much attention to blocker effects or our own range (mdf), imo. A9 is just too weak, having such a poor equity realization. Also, I'd have liked to see a turn block bet size for OOP on turns like this, where texture changes dramatically. I think it would be used a significant amount, but I may be wrong.