If we have a non-AI SQ range we should make it a tad smaller and definitely not have KTs in it. I guess it would be something like QQ/KK+ and maybe AKs and then you just use A9o and KTo at some frequency or something along those lines.
Dec. 5, 2020 | 2:20 p.m.
You deliberate whether the opener would jam or flat 77-99. How would you split your range? Jam TT-QQ and AKo always I suppose, mostly flat KK+, AJs-AQs and then mix AKs, KJs+. But what about the rest of our range, SC, weaker suited Ax and broadways and PPs
Nov. 26, 2020 | 9:40 p.m.
Yup, I have to agree, this Series is probably the best content I have seen of you on RIO and you did not even use any software. The quality of your play also reflects the quality of the vid.
Pretty incredible also that he found the fold with QQ ingame vs AA, just goes to show how good of a grasp of Cortez's ranges he has.
Nov. 7, 2020 | 1:29 p.m.
Once againg thanks for the gr8 vid!
36.00 AKo table 4
At that point and time ICM considerations start to factor in into your decision making. Say it was in an earlier stage of the tournament, would you still lean towards pure folding OTT? Don't you think (and in theory this might be a thing?) villain should sometimes show up with KJ here? Plus on this board he can have tons of strong draws that are kinda fine with b/calling if you jam. So all in all your EQ vs his turn betting range, where his only value is KQ and 77 (maybe a very rare 76s) should be good enough to warrant a gii, don'tyou think?
Nov. 4, 2020 | 9:51 a.m.
Thanks for the vid Luc!
You say 4b/jam is standard and I agree that most players would shove in that spot, however I could see a solver wanting to flat here, as he is not 3b/c TT and so we end up folding out hands that have ~30% EQ vs us and get called by stuff that has us crushed (+AKs).
Do you think even considering all this, shove might still just be better because of ICM considerations?
Oct. 8, 2020 | 9:45 p.m.
Mostly people are using Monker generated ranges or ranges they bought from other coaching platforms I would imagine. You could also run a DB analysis to see which opens are profitable, but for MTTs you would need a huge number of hands.
Suited Ax just perform well enough EQ wise, you can overflush and you have the best possible blocker.
KJo and 66 also clear opens, 97s can be opened if the players behind are tight/passive and you have an edge on the table in general.
Oct. 8, 2020 | 3:03 p.m.
The main difference between the 2 spots is that IP you do not want to b/f a hand like 74 here, whereas in the spot in the video you can not x/c it, so PIO wants to rather bet it than havin to x/f (for obvious reasons you can also not check all these types of hands with the plan to x/r).
Oct. 6, 2020 | 8:48 a.m.
Kinda strange question, if you have a good estimation of your ROI, you should also have an idea of how many average entrants the tournaments you play have and what the payout structure usually looks like.
Then you just see how hard you can swing over a sample you are planning to play (I would use the 95% confidence interval) to determine what the highest BI is, that you want to play with your current roll. Remember that you can and should pretty quickly drop down in stakes if you choose an agressive BRM and loose some.
Some more factors to consider: it is really hard to estimate your true ROI, so it is usually better to be rather pessimistic and conservative here. Also avg field size does not tell the whole thruth. You can get to an avg fieldsize of 500 by playing 10 MTTs with 500 entrants or 5 with 100 entrants and 5 with 900. The latter option will yield a higher variance...
Sept. 24, 2020 | 5:07 p.m.
K6o performs really well as a shove. In this spot your jamming range should be a bit wider than Nash, because the BB should call a bit tighter. However if you think the player is not ICM aware and wil call too wide you should jam tighter. I would jam K6o in any case, as it just performs too well as a jam.
Btw I would never fold, if you think he is calling way too wide, then you can still limp or openraise.
Sept. 24, 2020 | 4:56 p.m.
Your txt file should look like this:
So only flops and weights, nothing else.
Also why dont you just use the presaved flop subsets, they will show better results in aggregated reports than just randomly generated flops (although 10 is too little anyway to get any kind of proper results).
Sept. 24, 2020 | 4:50 p.m.
If we assume that UTG is a somewhat competent reg, we can also assume that he will be opening quite wide. Our hand is a 3b/gii for chips vs a normal CO range and vs a presumably wider than normal one we definitely want to 3b. Also the payout structure is really top heavy, so ICM is not that big of a factor and whe should just try to pick up chips.
Sept. 11, 2020 | 11:08 a.m.
Hi Daniel, great vid as usual!
I am currently renewing my DB of PIO sims, therefore running a lot of scripts and have mixed feelings after this vid. On the one hand I see the very valid points you make, on the other hand it is a) a pretty big investment of time of running a "pre-sim" on a huge flop subset, then try to create groups of boards that use approximately similiar sizes, then rerun it, validate it.... and then also implementing it into our learning routine, esp if one were to use simple gto trainer and b) as Mathias has pointed out, when using many different sizings it is much easier for us to make mistakes (ofc this is relativized a bit by our opps making more mistakes as well, when they encounter unusual sizings). So what is your take on that?
I know these are very broad questions and they boil down to some extent to how much time, energy and effort one wants to invest into studying, but this is not me being purely lazy but also trying to find the proper balance in increasing effeciency when learning.
Sept. 3, 2020 | 3:43 p.m.
On two tone vs rb boards sizes tend to get smaller because a) even with a large size you do not fold out FDs (esp OOP) and b) with the smaller size you get more folds on two tone boards as villain has less BDFDs.
Sept. 3, 2020 | 3:32 p.m.
Great vid Sam!
7.13 BB strategy after x/x x/x
We see that BB is giving up with a lot of hands that have 0 potshare (42s+, 52s+) on a runout that is rather favorable for the BB range. Would you vs most human opponents still take these hands and use them in a block sizing, hoping IP has checked back maybe too many A highs and to fold him off PPs <6 (I guess PIO is mostly giving up with these hands, as they are blocking a lot of the folding range)?
Sept. 3, 2020 | 1:32 p.m.
Kyriakos Papadopoulos I did not run this spot in a MW solver, but HU we definitely want to bet for a large size here. As you have said, our probing range is very narrow and consists of only 8x and bluffs. It being so polar means we are going for a big/huge size. Us not probing many of our draws is not a reason to go small here. I would also guess this dynamic does not change much 3way, as the flatters range is pretty capped and by going big bet, jam river we are getting Kx indifferent.
Sept. 1, 2020 | 11:58 a.m.
thanks for the video!
Some notes about your intro. Doubling up in the first hand of a 100$ MTT is worth around 90$-75$, rather than 10$. And yes, decisions at FTs are worth a lot more money obv, but they also come up far less often than spots in the beginning of MTTs. So while a typical error in the beginning of a 100$ MTT might cost you 5$ (just shooting random number here) and an error of the same magnitude at an FT will cost you 500$, the error in the beginning will be happening so much more often, that the EV loss might actually be much closer to the FT spot than one might think.
Aug. 11, 2020 | 2:37 p.m.
Thank you for the always insightful vids and funky lines Ben!
32.40 You keep talking about OOP using an overbet, while it actually is a PS bet. Pretty interesting that IP overfolds by quite a bit vs it (61% folds vs what "should be" ~50%) and is also folding some really strong hands i.e 2pairs. I do get the folds from Q7 and T7, as OOP is predominantly using 7x to bluff here, however I do not understand why Q8 is being folded at a frequency, not blocking bluffs really? If this hand is a 0EV calls shouldn't we be looking to call it at a 100% frequency in order to reach MDF?
Aug. 9, 2020 | 12:29 p.m.
thanks for the great video as usual :)
16.30 Do you even float unpaired hands OTF here, like AJdd? If not, I guess you have to turn 6x into a bluff and thus the only sizing here for you should be 2x pot jam? Meaning for value you only get to use FHs and maybe KQ?
Aug. 8, 2020 | 3:15 p.m.
Also here is BB strat vs open, I only allowed for call or jam. As one can see, BB is overfolding vs cEV (continuing ~52% vs what should be ~66%), but not as much as one could expect.
Vs jam BB is calling 66+,A7s+,KTs,ATo+, mixing KQo which is a 0EV call. Vs an ATC jam BB was calling 66+ A9s+ AJo+ KQs.
Aug. 7, 2020 | 6:42 p.m.
I have realized some time after, that I had ignored the possibility to run this spot with PIO ICM and have done so now. The result is interesting and proves me wrong in my assumption, that we would not be allowed to play ATC if we did not jam. PIO still opens 100%. There are some caveats to the sim: a) maybe I should have chosen a different RFI size and a different iso vs limp size (I went with 3,3x and 3,5x), b) I used a small flop subset (19 flops) so the EVs and also the exact combos in the "lower parts" of the range are probably off. Still, the general point that we want to play a mixed strategy between open raising and shoving holds true.
Aug. 7, 2020 | 6:30 p.m.
Alex I am also interested in your approach to these spots. There was a lengthy discussion on this topic in one of Luc Greenwood's videos (https://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/lucas-greenwood-pro-poker-nlhe/) with the result being everyone going home with their opinion...
The spot in the video could have easily been solved with a PIO sim, but for spots outside of BvB what is your take on jamming ATC where we are allowed to, vs splitting our range. Once we split, we are usually not able to open range anymore, so do you think the EV we gain from not getting in a lot of chips with crap by implementing RFI strategies overcompensates for us having to fold some %% of our range vs just jamming ATC?
Aug. 7, 2020 | 9:37 a.m.
With 20BB from these positions I would not have a non-AI 3betting range. The range we play is so narrow and amount of hands that profit from non-AI 3betting vs the other 2 options so small (KK+ namely), that splitting our range her like this does not make much sense. Calling and jamming are both fine, depends mainly on your opponents opening stats and also a bit on the stacks and players behind.
When you think that the other players (esp the opener) are better than you, that would also sway me towards jamming.
Aug. 4, 2020 | 2:25 p.m.
Hi Sam, thanks for the vid. Liked your joke about the names in the beginning a lot :)
Our turn strat will be quite polar and we will split our FDs (although I guess the concern of being x/shoved on is not that big, given the ICM pressure on him). So I suppose we want to b/c our best FDs (Ahi, Brodway one with GS+), x/back the middling portion and stuff like 56dd and then bet again with the worst ones. Still, vs a human opponent, calling off with KJdd or A7dd feels pretty ugly when he check shoves, as we block quite a big portion of his draws and he probably will have a bit more value than he should. So what is your take on that, do you still use this strat and sigh call?
Aug. 1, 2020 | 3:06 p.m.
Seems like a trivial gii, the question is whether to do it now or OTT, but considering how drawy the board is and you not having a club, I guess I would 3b/jam right now.
As for villain, it is pretty tough to range him, for value he can have all the 2pairs (only one combo of A9s&A8s each though) and 88-99. He could also go with AQ. As for bluffs/draws, there is a ton really.
July 28, 2020 | 11:47 p.m.
I have run the sim twice now, yours is definitely way off. I seem to have made a mistake in my first one as well, as I have Ben jamming 24% in the one I just ran, which makes KJs a marginal call by BB. If he is jamming slightly wider now and/or limping his premiums, the call becomes borderline or even slightly winning.
As you have said yourself, future game aspects should not sway apestyles into calling lighter than what the model suggests.
The range you posted as his jamming range looks like the jamming range I have for EEE, I think this is your mistake... :)