Was curious about amount of bluffs needed if we assume average value hand gives us 19% equity and average bluff gives us 81%. The number came in at just under 18% bluffs and 82% value so we have to assume very passive play for it to be a fold. Hand class simplify has too much equity to consider folding.
Dec. 29, 2019 | 9:48 p.m.
Need like 30% to call and has 19% equity vs typical value range (9 outs). Bluffs probably has around that too if we assume overcards+GS, FDs and AK stuff. I think there are too many hands in villains range you're ahead of that plays much better as shove than check to not exceed 30% equity. You do worse the more QJ, QT stuff he shoves though.
Dec. 23, 2019 | 2:46 p.m.
Dec. 23, 2019 | 11:54 a.m.
Just bad luck. Nothing to do. You will win like 75% of the time here but this is part of that 25% you don't.
Dec. 20, 2019 | 6:50 p.m.
This is a little thin to comment on but there is always room to simplify or abstract complex strategies. However, sometimes the work simplifying it is greater than embracing the complexity and working hard on implementing and understanding it.
Dec. 19, 2019 | 9:16 p.m.
That one maybe? Tons of great videos here.
Dec. 9, 2019 | 7:56 p.m.
Honestly, I think his approach has never been good for PokerStars zoom type games and the results I've heard of hasn't been very impressive.
Looking at someone like Sauce or Educa for overall approach is a much better idea. They have beaten the highest stakes online and are very good at breaking down their plays and overall strategy. Sauce has some low stakes videos like the one below that covers high rake environments:
P.S. Flat calling ranges are indeed very rake and format dependant. The magnitude of antes and rake makes a huge difference.
Dec. 7, 2019 | 6:08 p.m.
Email support or wait a few hours
The message comes after opening many videos without even pressing play too
Dec. 7, 2019 | 5:49 p.m.
What strikes me the most from your post is that you don't seem to have a process of examining your game so you can gradually improve over time by checking validity of thought processes and doing targeted drills to fix leaks.
Dec. 7, 2019 | 2:04 p.m.
I also use simple preflop and it's a very useful tool. I don't disagree that it's possible to build trees that require 120gb+ RAM to run and takes a week to run but I have not found any practical advantages in application over full 6max sims that require around 48gb RAM to run and takes 12 hours to run to decent accuracy. The biggest I have run was around 200gb on a 48 core server that ran for a little more than 12 hours. We compared that one to one with heavier abstractions and there was no practical difference, and we always need to translate the solver outputs into something practical for humans. More accurate and less noisy sims do make the translation easier but a deep understanding of how the spot works can overcome the need for accuracy. With all the knowledge I have now I could easily just use PokerSnowie as reference for thresholds and come up with close to as good strategies as if I had the best preflop solver sims available.
Adding calls is very expensive and I suspect the software doesn't handle MW postlfop close to perfectly. Sims can become very large if we add limps or tons of overcalls so there are awkward scenarios to sim. I don't deny that.
P.S. I mostly jumped in because I thought the information overall here is misleading. There are cheap preflop solver options when comparing to Rangeconverter and it doesn't require a huge PC to solve most problems. Most of my pracitcal sims takes less than 20min to run and uses between 1gb and 10gb RAM (2, 3 or 4 active players). Simple preflop is 350 before tax so not exactly cheap for a recreational reg but very high value for a pro.
Dec. 2, 2019 | 1:07 a.m.
I am very hard on myself for my mistakes
You can start with that one. Be more forgiving. Maybe see yourself in 3rd person as if you were a good friend. Treat yourself the way you would treat a good friend.
Dec. 1, 2019 | 11:28 a.m.
Rangeconverter is very overpriced. Solving time with a modern preflop solver is much quicker than with the first generation of preflop solvers and has much lower CPU and RAM requirements. The issue with buying a single solution is that you only see the correct strategy under a single set of conditions. In my opinion, it's much more useful to run many lower quality simulations and see how it adjusts and learn concepts about how the equilibrium works. Of course, getting a baseline from a single solution is very useful but Snowie already has a very good baseline available for free but isn't accurate enough to give information about how to structure ranges.
This solution I can build and solve in 20 minutes to a practical accuracy level but they sell it for 500$: Overpriced!
I know they pushed accuracy to the max but there is no practical benefit of increasing it so much. You can buy a preflop solver for less than 400$ and solve it on a PC with less than 6 Gb ram in less than an hour from purchase to completion.
Dec. 1, 2019 | 11:09 a.m.
Honestly, the biggest issue is that the books are too abstract and removed from what is important to think about at the tables and when trying to improve. You won't necessarily derive strong strategies if you follow the approaches outlined in Applications because it's only directly applicable to river play. The "straight-up wrong applications of theory" stems from that fundamental problem with the book (theory only works for river or perfectly polar flop/turn). Will Tipton focuses on equilibrium ideas and maximizing EV of your strategy at equilibrium and with exploits. Maximizing EV and equilibrium ideas are always relevant and are what a solver is doing.
Dec. 1, 2019 | 10:54 a.m.
I think these can get too abstract or too far removed from application to be practical, and there are straight-up wrong applications of theory in "Applications of No Limit Holdem" (proven wrong by solvers):
- "Mathematics of Poker", Billy Chen and Jerrod Ankenman
- "Applications of No Limit Holdem", Matthew Janda
Dec. 1, 2019 | 10:31 a.m.
+1 more for Tipton. I stopped reading poker books after studying those. You can't just skim them and expect to get much out of them though.
+1 to that Tipton should probably not be first theory book to read. I think Sklansky's books are great for basics.
Dec. 1, 2019 | 10:27 a.m.
Difficult to say and the longevity of a format is dependent both on the action and how beatable it is. Action is declining and regs do get better but it has weaker regs and more action than HU cash and even there you can make it in 2019. GTO assistance is both more difficult to make and less powerful than in HU formats so the fear of that is also less relevant. I'd say you don't have many reasons to not go all-in on the format if it's your favorite. The best online regs make huge amounts of money and the live scene is booming in certain places.
Nov. 20, 2019 | 10:50 a.m.
Just 4 years too late and the problem has been widely known for over 3 years already :-(
At this point, sites might as well stop offering HU Hypers when close to GTO RTA is used as far down as $60 games. I'm much more optimistic about the longevity of certain forms of ring games online than a few years ago for formats that involve fish dynamics and more MW postflop play. Those are areas bots will most likely never surpass good human players.
Nov. 8, 2019 | 9:51 a.m.
so we end up w a lot of give ups after x line
Yeah, and you can't get bluffed off 0% equity so there is no need to prevent getting bluffed off your equity with majority of range. XR is there to keep IP from betting too thin for value but it has to be as high or higher EV than betting.
Nov. 4, 2019 | 8:20 a.m.
"Real MDF" comes from indifference between bluffing and checking to SD for IP. Checking to SD has EV so bluffing needs to be +EV. In this spot, it needs to be very +EV to bluff as the highest equity bluff (the strongest hand that bluffs) has over 25% equity. Thus the EV of bluffing needs to be more than 25% of the pot.
MDF turns out to do more harm than good in a lot of spots, and understanding indifference ideas are much more useful. The naive MDF is just a special case of the indifference principle in poker.
Nov. 3, 2019 | 11:35 p.m.
overall range is weak and wide
That is part of the it but you do miss some parts of the reason we fold so much here.
Nov. 3, 2019 | 10:58 p.m.
Yeah, I also think it's more of a thing in HU. Specifically boards like AJx to AKx and KQx because you 3bet close to all 88+, KQ and AJ+ in HU. I haven't looked at 200% pot for 6max so might still be some nice spots.
The spots where OOP player can't XR much because of capped too low it can make sense to split out some hands like 2nd set (blocking mid calls) into a larger size like 200% pot while betting most other hands for more like 120% pot. This is just an idea and not something I've worked on and examined.
Oct. 26, 2019 | 2:41 p.m.
200% as only bet size is usually a bit large so probably need like a 100% pot size too in most spots and use 2 sizes at the same time. 120% to 150% can be used as only bet size in a lot of spots. The spots it makes sense to go 200% OTT after 33% OTF it often makes sense to start putting in more money already from the flop. Flops like AKx, AQx etc in HUNL for example.
Oct. 25, 2019 | 12:42 p.m.
It's definitely not allowed on Stars and not even in gray area.
Oct. 25, 2019 | 10:29 a.m.
Sim is just a model and not perfect. KQo is very close to 0EV OOP to two strong ranges and EV of call and 3bet is the same at equilibrium. Situation at the tables at 10NL is not equilibrium tho.
Oct. 24, 2019 | 5:35 p.m.
Preflop solver ranges are good to use in my experience but charts is not the way to go. I'd put those pictures into a flash card software and drill for thresholds (weakest 3bet, call etc). After you have thresholds down then focus on understanding how ranges are being split between passive and aggressive VPIPs. A combination of finding patterns (understand why and how) and raw memorization has been most effective for me. Easier to memorize when understanding and easier to understand and see patterns when I know many different ranges.
NLHE 6max preflop is pretty easy to learn in my experience compared to more complex games like HUSNGs, MTTs or PLO so shouldn't take too much time to understand all the patterns and memorize the thresholds. Maybe like 10 to 14 hours spread over 3-4 weeks?