Do you play that size as range bet?
It's around the size Pio likes if you cbet entire range on those boards. I used to play that way 3 years ago in HU and a few other regs did too so the idea isn't exactly new. 10% pot is on the lower end of reasonable sizes. I used more like 16% pot on those boards. Strategy is quite close to range check but makes the pot a bit larger when your range has an overall EV advantage but doesn't want to weaken checking range because you don't have nut advantage or even have nut disadvantage but higher EV overall.
Oct. 16, 2019 | 10:49 a.m.
Probably a fold preflop with that big of a raise and a caller. Offsuit hands doesn't play great OOP against two somewhat tight ranges unless they're ahead of similar hands. Neither the raiser nor the caller should have QTo so that should make it a fold. With better odds you don't have to be ahead of stuff but here I think you do.
Postflop you have a weak trips hand given what ranges looks like. I think you have a great hand but not one which wants to narrow ranges too much so I prefer to bet myself or XC rather than XR. I can't say it's a bad play but I'd rather XR KQ+ than QT or QJ.
Against a non tilting and not spewy reg you're likely never good on the river. It's closer against fish or regs that can be spewy/tilty. Regardless I lean towards a fold given the strength of both your and his line. In terms of GTO you're also at the bottom of your range and can definitely fold some trips without folding way too much. That shouldn't be much of a concern at 5nl but I'm just adding it in as reference to show that we don't have to make light calls.
Sept. 26, 2019 | 11:03 a.m.
i truly believe there is unconscious pattern recognition and knowledge that you can access when your playing your best and have played and studied the game a lot.
I don't think this is anything controversial. Top performers in most fields including sports, golf, arts and chess mostly uses their intuition when performing.
Sept. 1, 2019 | 12:53 p.m.
This is really interesting because my first thinking was: " Rake is too high, see more flops doesn't seem like a great idea " but as you said when we are SRP IP is "common" to have a bigger share than optimal.
My sims indicates that SB win rate isn't impacted much by opening size but BB win rate is so it's BB that mostly takes the hit from rake when sizing down. Going smaller than 2.2bb or 2.3bb seems to be too small though and rake might become too much of an issue.
I ran a quick sim to compare 5x vs 4x 3bet and there was a small increase in flops seen as Caller for BB, and SB was allowed to raise slightly wider because we can't 3bet as much so the point about 3bet frequency seems valid.
Aug. 30, 2019 | 5:06 p.m.
Really nice approach to making the video and content is very solid.
Do you have any thoughts on picking preflop sizes? I ran a bunch of sims with around 100nl rake recently and my conclusions overall was that size really doesn't matter much from GTO perspective as long as you stay within a certain range. For opening anything between 2.2bb and 3.Xbb seems fine and for 3bet anything between like 3.6x and 5.5x seems fine. Do you think it's viable to size down opens to see more flops assuming we win more than our fair share as SB in SRPs? For 3bet pots when called I'm not sure if I'd be able to reach higher win rate than GTO against regs of similar skills but surely would against fish or significantly weaker regs.
My overall conclusion is that it seems to make sense for SB opens but not necessarily BB 3bets and could even be good to try to see less flops there. Against fish we often have other considerations than just seeing more flops or not.
Aug. 30, 2019 | 3:32 p.m.
Very good advice on solver. I like to check a ton of my hands with sims but it's the accuracy of my thought process I like to check, not what I should have done with exact hand.
Second best way I think is to send someone who is interested to help you (likely coach, not sure study group work in sufficient way)
I think coach or forum here is much better than a study group if you don't have access to midstakes+ players (probably at least 5/10 for live). I even think a lot of the micro study groups can do more harm than good because the members don't really know how to improve yet and probably don't see the big picture of a lot of stuff.
the accuracy of my thought process
This is only possible if you know the assumptions you made and remember how you viewed the spots and can convey that information to the party helping you.
Aug. 26, 2019 | 7:42 a.m.
Interesting stuff and it makes sense that it's exactly low flops people play the worst flop strategies as they are by far the least common flops along monotone flops.
The 100% cbet strategy makes very little sense to me without a significant advantage against anyone reasonably competent. What you basically do is give up your positional advantage on the flop as BTN so BB can be aggressive with good hands and other good raising hands without worrying about splitting range and capping his calling range because he can immediately see the turn with all his medium hands and draws.
Aug. 25, 2019 | 8:08 a.m.
Preflop is very loose and close to bottom 25% of hands.
Flop seems fine.
I think turn should just be a clear fold and even something like J-high FD isn't great to call either. The extra overcard should increase EV a bit as he can have some AT. Reasons are low equity vs everything including his bluffs and domination problems when hitting flush.
River play isn't bad per se but if you call all FDs OTT and then shove OTR you put in too much money against a really strong range. The mistake is turn play and not river here.
BB river range: A GTO model will mostly check bluffs that give up, AT and rivered 9x like you said together with a small amount of traps selected because of specific blocker effects. A bluff is supposed to be higher EV than check for you because you didn't get direct odds to call turn and need to "make back" that EV by having +EV river bluff (so if OOP you wouldn't be able to call even Jh8h as it wouldn't make back EV by bluffing river). In practice some weaker players "trap" too much and give up too many bluffs which can make the small stab better than all in (all in is what makes sense vs GTO model).
Aug. 21, 2019 | 1:25 p.m.
Was just meant to be an example to show that it's more complex and in general to fix it you just need to become a better player overall.
What hands are you the most aggressive with of all hands. Is those hands likely to see showdown?
Aug. 20, 2019 | 10:07 a.m.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 7:35 p.m.
Haha, up and down. Sounds like you play games with more action and variance than you're used too.
Also good luck and keep working on improving. The difference on sites like GG between games you play and higher isn't all that big either so push yourself to move up as you improve.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 10:06 a.m.
Nice fold but I think you have to just call once in a while if villain is a reg you play with regularly to make the shove less EV than check. This is only situation I know of when making -EV play some of the time is part of the equilibrium.
I hate when people make those plays because you have to fold because 50% of what's in the pot is less than rake.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 9:46 a.m.
Good luck and keep making those adjustments and you'll get there.
I'm more concerned with your redline in a fastfold game people don't bluff enough and it's probably a sign you lack aggression in a lot of spots. Can be preflop and can be things like flop XR.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 8:55 a.m.
Maybe time to exchange flopzilla for a solver for some of your study? I don't think flopzilla is bad in any way but you miss out on a lot by not using a solver. I mean long term and not over 2-3 months because there is a learning curve with solvers.
Aug. 8, 2019 | 12:39 p.m.
What's going to change if you move to MTTs? Won't the same problems follow into MTTs?
I would really question your methods if you struggle to beat 25nl zoom and working full time on it for 6 months. I played 30k hands around 25nl and 50nl zoom this winter after moving to EU sites again after a year on PokerMaster. These low stakes zoom games are beatable for a huge amount. 25nl I think 13+bb/100 isn't too difficult, 10bb/100 at 50nl isn't too difficult and l know 100nl can be beaten for 7bb+/100 without being close to a top player.
All I'm doing with this is like opening your mind to the possibility that you might have to change your methods and made hire a coach who has a high 100nl zoom or 200nl zoom win rate AND can coach. It won't be cheap compared to what you can make at 50nl but should be well worth it long term.
usually play 8-10k hands per day
Maybe a leak. I mean too much volume. Doesn't matter if you play hands breakeven or -EV for bottom line.
A high volume player that doesn't have good methods to improve could be one of few players for whom joining a good MTT stable with backing and coaching can make sense. I generally think it's a bad idea because of make up, giving up winnings and how difficult it's to make a living from MTTs. You also have to like MTTs to some degree.
Aug. 8, 2019 | 11:57 a.m.
Villain can raise huge with tons of hands if block bet has no good hands and then suddenly the nuts makes more money blockbetting. There is an equilibrium between the extremes where good hands makes enough money blockbetting because villain is raising often enough to block bet them but not making blockbetting them better than another line.
Aug. 7, 2019 | 9:38 p.m.
What's villains counter if never blockbetting good hands (only mid strength and bluffs)? Is blockbetting good hands likely higher EV than other options when that happens?
Aug. 7, 2019 | 7:52 p.m.
The reason that the solver will sometimes check with a hand that may have a slightly higher ev when it bets is because the solver cares about the ev of its range not the ev of each individual hand.
Not trying to be a smartass but what you wrote in quote above is completely wrong. Mixing hand with different EVs for actions when max exploited is a measure of the exploitability of the solution. Maximising every single hand in range leads to maximising EV with entire range, and range EV is just sum of EV of all individual hands in all situations.
Aug. 6, 2019 | 9 p.m.
No, the equibrium would in that case be that correct folding frequency for villain is higher than what naive calculation says.
If IP OTR and strongest bluff has 3% equity then villain needs to fold an amount that makes bluffing an EV of 3% of pot to incentivise you to bluff it. If you didn't bluff it villain would be incentivised to fold more hands and bluffing it would be higher EV than check. That's the process a solver goes through.
Aug. 6, 2019 | 4:17 p.m.
The only thing solvers understand is EV so it's just all about maximizing EV and following incentives. Balance, protecting and trapping are not something solvers try to accomplish but some of them are part of a strong strategy.
Aug. 6, 2019 | 4:03 p.m.
If you make a play GTO would never use because it's lower EV than another, then you lose EV vs GTO. You may pick any action with a hand vs GTO that's a mix for GTO. I'll leave it to the other guys to explain GTO and clarify further.
July 28, 2019 | 1:30 a.m.
Jeff_ I disagree for zoom but aggree for reg table. Zoom plays really tight to begin with and it's a much needed change if you ask me. I'd like to see them add antes to zoom as well to make it even looser and more fun.
At reg tables the fish plays way too loose and adding an extra tight position would lead to more costly mistakes by fish. Going from 5max to 6max would probably make fish preflop less punished for wide calls.