GMjunior

I think I was trying to make myself indifferent to 0BB/100 when I should have been aiming for -50BB/100. So yeah basically SB is outragously profitable in my games. My winrate with RFI from the SB is 105BB/100 over 600 hands. Running marginally above all-in EV. My true winrate from the SB is -17BB/100. Think should for sure be expanding my opening range as it looks to be one of the most poorly defended nodes in the game tree. Might do some anaysis of BTN vs BB next

Im not so familiar with Pio but I was wondering if this sort of nodelocking approach affects previous streets. So for example if villain new that on flush completing runnouts you were never Over betting they could change their strategy accordingly OTF. Perhaps this is not the best example but I imagine this is the case that future simplifications could lead to pre-emptive exploitation.

I would say that good regs are 3-betting quite aggressivly, probably need to get a better tagging scheme going.

exploitation is something I'm trying to stay away from just because it's so darn wishy washy and it can be hard to build reads without MDA and even with it, running sims and avoiding bias isn't something I feel worthy of investment at this stage of my career. Like I would want to be sure that enough EV is gained from overfolding to justify underdefending

I understand this. But how can I tell by what margin I should overfold. I would need to build confidence in my reads, run sims to test how much I lose by overfolding vs how much I gain vs suspected villain's range. If I know I have a strategy which wins overall but just happens to lose when facing a 5bet, how can I tell if it is justifiable to choose a strategy which loses less vs 5-bets. Like how do I do what I have to do. Node-locking isn't specific to every player and i would need to be careful that counter-exploitation isn't so severe

Great video, would like to see a video on the topic of when we get to overfold compared to MDF. I know it can have something to do with the EV of checks being high so we have to make their bluffs profitable and also as mentioned in this video when we bet ourselves and hence some folds act as "give ups". None the less I find it to be quite confusing and would be interested in seeing a breakdown similiar to this video

Try to think about youre range and how you would balance it. So say on flush draw turns, think about which flush draw combos you want to put in both ranges. I think consiously focusing on balancing certain hands through different lines helps. In general if you have a sizing strategy you should just be drilling though

I think you should randomize tbh

I think it's a very bad check. Probably was 4-tabling and didn't realise BB had cold-called. HU its fine to check 10s I think because I don't want to range bet and need some protection. Multi-way probably I can mix checks low-frequency but I feel it makes a little more sense to just play in a vacuum

If we assume villain never folds a straight, jam of course becomes the best option, which we would do with K10 only (obviously having no incentive to bluff.) However if we expect villain to always raise straights against small bets, betting small can become the best option. If villain starts calling vs small-bets we still only bet the nut straight. If we remove K10o from villains range, jamming becomes the preferred option given that he has to felt other straights more often. However if we assume villain always jams straights and sometimes calls bluffcatchers we should opt for a 1/3 sizing (where they don't have K10o). Bluffs are 0EV so getting more calls always outweighs being able to bluff more

So I did the analysis and it's kinda bizarre. It centres around K10 being the nuts and also being a split, but also around ggpoker not raking postflop. Basically what it means is that villains raises should be K10 ONLY!!! In fact if I go 75% villain is meant to start folding A10, and if i go 120% villain is meant to pure fold A10 and mixing with his other 10s. I'm also only betting K10 for this size using AK and Kx of diamonds as bluffs. My sets and even straights want to pure check. Given that the nuts is a chop and pretty evenly distributed (technically he shouldn't have K10o but he has Q10o in game so i gave it to him for the sim.) With SPR still being relatively high and ranges being reasonably shallow what it basically means is that when we felt for a jam it's filtered to just K10. So basically I want to go a size which makes his straights indifferent and I can either make his A10 indifferent or his other straights indifferent. I would imagine if we don't think villain ever folds we should be jamming. Should also run sims where he doesn't have K10o and also where SPR is lower.

Also I don't mind the 1/2 pot. Like according to Freenachos, I can just go the size I want to with my hand here if I don't think I'll get bluff-raised. Maybe 1/3 makes sense though, I need to bet a size which will induce raises with my 10x, but this is slightly contradictory to thinking pool won't bluff-raise. Like If that is the case i would rather go 1/3 with sets and 3/4 with straights. Or if we do think they will bluff-raise maybe we can go the opposite, so 2/3 with sets and 1/3 with straights. Probably it's correct to go 1/3 with both though. If we do that I think we should mix sets into bet and check in a way where we make villain indifferent to bluffing given that we want to pure-fold sets. Otherwise I guess we can bluffcatch sets but it seems suspicious

Yeah I agree. I think if I can convince myself villain isn't going to jam as a bluff it's fine to bet. If I think pool finds bluffs here I think I should check. Likely this guy isn't finding any bluffs so bet-fold is correct play. From a theoretical standpoint I think maybe check is better. Villains range is quite 10 heavy. Having the Js is good because I unblock an additional J9 combo though I think it should fold river so maybe not relevant. I think it's a bet-fold vs pool though given they don't bluff enough (I don't have the stats to verify this but it seems to be the general consensus in such spots)

At 21.15 you said that if we remove OOP option to raise that we will always take a size which we want with our specific hand. I was wondering would the same be true if villains would never bluff-raise? I feel that this may be true as we would always fold and hence not lose any value anyway. As a further extension to this would villain only slightly under-bluffing with their raises cause the same effect?

everything is udnerbluffed at micros online. Thats just how it is. This line is probably value 95%

Villains are more likely to 4-bet AJ/A10/KJ/K10 hence removing outs for 10s and JJs vs OPs. With 9s and 8s it is less evident. Could be straight over straights scenarios going on. with 9s 10JQK isn't that nutted but with 6s 78910 is much more nutted. not to mention 5789. I imagine this places quite significantly into the decision. The comment amount being dominated is very heavily related to MDF. We need to call so many hands to avoid being exploitable but if we call only broadways we can be easily dominated. e.g QJ can lose a stack to AQ 10J to AJ and the like. Therefore we choose to maintain MDF by playing lower hands. They are not profitable in and off themselves but they are essential as part of a balanced and unexploitable strategy.

Ok so the reason the solver plays these hands is 2fold. 1) Board Coverage 2) these hands tend not to be dominated. For example you will often see solver folding JJ-88 before 77-66. What I would recommend in most low-stakes field is to 3-bet these hands at a higher frequency due to people not 4-betting enough and being able to realise your equity later. Against 4-bets I think i would low frequency call. If you decide to 3-bet them at a lower frequency I would recommend you call them against 4-bets in most cases.

Yeah im going to be playing 33/50/75/150 in different spots. Normally i only play 1 size but sometimes i add 2 depending how depolarized i want to play and if i feel a spot will be overfolded. I really think i get a lot of folds and sometimes win when called but when I check villains likely have 12 live outs so I probably lose like 35-45% of the time. Also I'm pretty sure that the river is going to be outrageously underbluffed and I'll end up having to fold 66 to a bet anyway

Ok great insight. I think 66 I'm more inclined to bet multi-way than HU. I need more protection than usual and also villains are less likely to call with A high. I guess I felt some A high's would call B33 but probably that's a good thing,

If im playing B50/B150 I think its fine to bet 66 at least if i assume that players really dont protect theyre checking ranges. This mightnt be true on the board pairing 8 though. BB could still
have 10x and LJ 77/99. And probably villains play too face up 3-way OTR. Ok i should check for sure

The 7s hand is for sure a mistake. The 66 bet I'm more ok with. Also dont mind the 1/2 pot sizing. I think i basically get folds 80+% of the time here and protect my equity quite well. Can still get called by some draws and win with x/x OTR. Maybe 1/3 is better as i get called by A high but i dont see it being terrible to fold them out. I would be playing B50/B150, maybe B33/B150 is better

Well vs a recreational I assume he won't leverage his range equity OTF and will end up checking his giveups more than his marginal showdown value which I thought would make small bets overperform vs OBs. OTR i would play an OB/x strategy.

OC I dont normally defend J4. In general i tend not to focus on preflop so much although definitely my ranges are better now as ive been working on some flop strategies since recording this video. Like im fine making the occasional 1BB mistake pre if it means i stop makikg my 26BB mistakes OTR.

Perhaps this is the wrong strategy but I try to learn preflop from postflop rather than vice versa.

Anyway thanks Steve for the great video, definitely learned a lot. Adapted my game from some of the advice you had previously given me and now Im doing quite well at 10Nl.

Ok cool. I've done a lot of work on SB vs BB recently so hopefully I will improve there. I do think that I'm calling too many 3bets OOP but will go through that in the next week. Anyway thanks for the helps. very insightful and much appreciated

HJ -> 91BB/100 -> 98BB/100 for 20% RFI
CO winrate only 37BB/100. Same at a 29% RFI
BTN ->63BB/100

SB winrate is -21BB/100 (62BB/100 after RFI)
BB winrate is -40BB/100

Just noticing a slight bias in the winrates. This example doesn't show that opening more hands is more profitable. It just shows that stronger ranges win more postflop. Would it not be better to run the search with the 3% not included in the 14% range to see if they are profitable opens?

Winrate at 17% is 184BB/100 over 1200 hands and 190BB/100 over 1050 hands. true winrate is 167BB/100 over 1466 hands which is slightly concerning. I have recently cut down in small PPs and suited connectors in my strategy so this leak I believe has been patched. Should probably look at my other winrates because that it concerningly high for a barely winning player

But do good players use such strategies? I understand equity and nut advantages quite well and am starting to put more emphasis on balance. More because it helps me later on the hand. I find when i know where I am in my range i can avoid a lot of mental leaks i used to have so when i have a strategy it kind of helps. Definitely it would be a good idea to study equity dostributions on more board types but just clarifying that its not important to build strategies myself and that ita fine to just play based on in-game intuition