Man, I really dislike the river check by hero and the river shove by OTB. Nuno is going to miss out on a ton of value by checking that river, especially against very good players whose defense frequencies are well balanced on that fairly dry run out. And the shove with the KJ should probably be sized down to get thin value rom 99, TT or AK with suit blockers and reserve the polar part of his range for boats, flushes and hands that can get value from AA, KK, AJ, two pair, etc. Nothing that KJ wants to fold is folding for a pot-sized bet there; I see no reason to turn it into a bluff. Of course if Nuno has a read that OTB is turning all of his marginal made hands into bluffs there in addition to his "normal" bluffing combos, then by all means, check away, but I doubt they've played against each other enough to have such a read.
June 16, 2019 | 12:45 p.m.
Update #2: 101 Tournaments Played
Here we are after having already moved up to the $1 games, and I'm still two-tabling. I received a $5 bonus from the site for the number of games I put in last week (Winamax's feeble rakeback system) and am definitely counting that as part of the challenge since it was generated by HUSNG play at the micros.
I've marked quite a few hands in game but haven't had time to sift through them yet, but it will be done shortly.
You can see that I'm running well above EV, which is nice, I guess; I never really know how to feel about it but ultimately don't heed it too much attention unless I know that I'm playing bad or being outplayed, neither of which is the case here. I've simply had some cooler situations that I came out on top of, mostly all-in preflop situations at middling stack depths, e.g. JJ vs KK and I bink a J on the turn. Nothing too crazy, and I know it will come back around sooner than later anyway: it always does.
Until next time!
June 15, 2019 | 10:21 a.m.
Update #1: 51 Tournaments Played
Ok, so I decided to go ahead and two-table the reg speeds. It's what I'm used to, and some of them go on forever, so I'll sacrifice a bit of ROI for the sake of time.
Here are the results thus far. Keep in mind that my first 10 tournaments were played using tickets, so I didn't lose anything when I lost and gained two buy-ins (minus rake) when I won, which explains why there's more money in my account than is indicated by the graph. The graph reflects my true results, however, because it treated the losses as normal losses and the wins as normal gains.
I'll try to have picked out some hands at various stack depths to post for feedback and review within 24 hours.
Until then, good "luck!"
June 13, 2019 | 6:43 p.m.
I’m launching a little HUSNG challenge and invite you to follow along!
I’m aware HU play in general is not the most popular these days, nor are SNG’s—especially not on this site. That said, I was shocked to see some of the recent posts in the SNG forum and feel that HUSNG's were grossly misrepresented by a couple of members.
They are a fun and exciting form of poker which allow you to hone your skills in a setting with very wide ranges. They do offer plenty of room for edge, despite the relatively high rake these days, and HU cash is still where the true end bosses battle it out at even the highest of stakes.
They are, and forever will be, my game of choice.
0 to €100, playing strictly HUNL SNG’s.
To assess the current state of microstakes HUNLHE SNG’s and, ultimately, to prove that they are beatable.
To post hands in order to generate follower discussion and get feedback on range construction, frequencies, exploitative adjustments, population tendencies, and metagame implications, all the while using RIO coaching material to help shape our arguments and discussions.
No depositing. I will get started using 10 tickets for the .50 cent games.
I’ll start out one-tabling the regular speeds (5-minute blind levels) and possibly start playing the turbos (3-minute blind levels) when I have a little wiggle room.
I will move up in stakes as soon as I have 20 buy-ins of the next stake up and move down if I lose 5 buy-ins at that level. The progression up through the stakes will look something like this:
.47 +.03 €20 (40 buy-ins)
.94 + .06 €40 (20 buy-ins)
1.88 +.12 €60 (10 buy-ins)
2.82 + .18 €100 (14 buy-ins)
I will also plan to update with a graph here every 50 tournaments or so in order to show how things are progressing.
The Time Limit
The challenge is over when I go busto or when there is at least €100 in my account. That said, I will try to put in a decent amount of volume each day (10-15 tourneys while one-tabling) so as not to drag this out forever.
Wish me luck, and keep an eye out for my first update here within the next few days!
June 12, 2019 | 5:08 p.m.
This content is gold! I often struggle with if and how I should split my range after c-betting range on the flop. Excellent video, especially for those of us without sllvers. Spacebo!
June 3, 2019 | 9:39 p.m.
Thanks LukeH, that's basically what I thought but guess I just needed some confirmation.
And yes, I would love to hear a bit of Singlish! I'm a linguaphile! The grammar and all was standard, of course; I was just referring to the accent, which I'm sure is standard in Singapore. "Standard" is relative regarding accents, anyway. If I'm in Scotland, I don't have a standard--or local--accent despite being a native speaker and vice-versa.
May 31, 2019 | 11:57 a.m.
Finally, they get in an Essential HU specialist to replace Nuno.
You can’t put’em our fast enough, Antonio! Welcome and congrats on an impressive debut.
May 30, 2019 | 9:02 p.m.
Yeah, how do we arrive at the exact percentage of checking QQ 17% and betting it 83%? I understand why IP calls 17% (MDF is 17%), but I don't understand how OOP calculates how often he should be betting the QQ. Does he just subtract the 17% MDF from the bluff range so that it's made up for by the AA? Anyway, don't want to bother you with this for too long, haha.
On a side note, your English is quite interesting. I know English is something of a lingua franca in Singapore and that many of you are educated in it, but your accent is very close to an Indian accent (not at all Chinese). Is Indian English the default there?
May 30, 2019 | 3:16 p.m.
Thank you, that makes sense. I'm still having trouble figuring out how OOP balances their range with just two possible hands (anyone can answer, not just Qiang, though his explanations will probably be best). I understand that OOP is risking 500 to win 600 when he shoves and so IP must call with a 17% minimum defense frequency to keep OOP indifferent to bluffing, but what I don't get is how OOP balances his range to do that when IP will be getting 6-to-5 on a call, meaning OOP needs to have 55% value to 45% bluffs. With just two combos, where does that extra 5% value come from? Sorry to be a nuisance but I've never totally grasped this idea and would like to get it down now and move on!
May 30, 2019 | 12:11 p.m.
I'm a theory noob and a complete math fish, all that to say that I'm lost at the first toy game. Can someone please explain to me why on Earth OOP wouldn't just bet 100% of his range, and IP not call 100% of the time? I don't understand why we would give up QQ. Thank you!
May 29, 2019 | 3:12 p.m.
The licensed version of Equilab does this and it's only $4/month or $99 lifetime. It also does it very quickly and includes a list of both ranges in columns on the right that can be synchronized with where your cursor is on the graph lines and vice versa.
May 29, 2019 | 2:56 p.m.
Low volume, but damn dude, crushing NL500!
Feb. 2, 2019 | 3:50 a.m.
Even if it does make much more sense to play deeper against weaker players, I think this short-stacking experiment is an efficient way to sort of articulate population leaks and test out exploiting them, which can be really useful knowledge in tournaments, for example, where stack sizes vary from the git go, and even SNG: I can extrapolate some ideas here to apply to PLO HUSNG, for sure. Interesting video, thank you!
Jan. 27, 2019 | 10:05 p.m.
Hey, go over that long losing streak and look for spots in your tracker where you were consistently leaking money. Review some of your more basic concepts with Pio just for a refresher and confidence boost (watch some of your own GTO Trainer vids, haha), and maybe go to a nearby casino to play in a little casual, live tournament on Sunday afternoon with a non-pro friend to relax and enjoy people’s company while playing. Those things could help you focus on just continuing to improve and enjoy the game instead of whatever issues your having. Maybe play a few mid-stake HUSNG’s to wind down. All that said, you’ll eventually need to figure out why you’re having anxiety in order to cure it. You’re a writer: try keeping a personal journal just before and after a session where you write down how you were feeling and potential reasons why (personal life issues, stakes, a certain villain, overambitious goals, etc.) that way you have a written record that can help you spot patterns in your feelings and play, ultimately locating the source.
Once you figure it out, you'll do great at helping others with similar issues. Crush it! We all want to see you do well and reap the benefits of all your hard work!
Jan. 14, 2019 | 1:43 p.m.
The most practical video I’ve ever seen. Thank you!
Important question to help my tiny brain make sense of things: when the solver incorporates more and more mixed turn sizings on cards that you say are not blanks/improve Villain’s range, is it not also because they typically improve our perceived range too, thereby incentivizing us to value bet more frequently with a wider, less polarized range? It seems like the two seemingly contrasting ideas could work together. For example, at 23:31, when you start going through the different rivers, the 9 is still mostly an overbet because it doesn’t improve us that much (we remain polarized) AND Villain’s range remains capped. The T depolarizes our potentiel betting range all the while widening Villain’s calling range, thus more mixing, and it finally culminates with the J turn, which seems neutral as to whose range it’s better for, thus we want to bet frequently since it’s good for our range and get value from our good hands when it improves Villain, kind of like c-betting a dry flop frequently and with a small size. What do you think Nuno? Is there some dangerously flawed logic there that just isn’t evident in those particular examples, or can I implant that sort of mindset and move forward?