SB: $46.09 (Hero)
Jan. 11, 2019 | 11:38 a.m.
I think I have seen ads where they say "we can't discuss it here, but contact us for more details. This is really good" few times. My question is what is the reason for not explaining the method here? Cos there has to be a reason, otherwise you would have explained it.
Jan. 3, 2019 | 1:24 a.m.
For preflop RFI ranges you have two ways to go, unless you want to do the work yourself that others have already done.
1) use solver ranges
2) use PokerJuice ranges
First one is harder (as the ranges are not linear and precise), second one is quite easy. Hand charts don't work for PLO, you need to understand what makes a hand strong or weak, and what suits for different situations (like multiway or HU pots, deep or shallow stacks). That way you can adjust the basic ranges when needed.
For PokerJuice ranges it's easy to practice them with Odds Oracle. https://pokerjuice.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/categories/200116138-PokerJuice-Preflop-Ranges
Oct. 15, 2018 | 8:50 p.m.
If you bet the river, you are repping really narrow range. Your value range should be high flushes mostly. And to have a hand that raises flop, check turns and has that flush on the river would be quite a specific hand. When you raise flop and check turn, do you have anything else than bluffs in your range? Maybe some sets, but that's it. So on the river you are repping a bluff/set on the flop, that picked a flush draw on the turn and made the backdoor flush. You should be called there quite often with Ax two pairs and sets if you bet the river.
But on the other hand opponent called your raise on the flop, which doesn't make sense with naked AAxx. Might be QJTx type of hands. And you beat all of those missed draws with your 2 pairs.
Oct. 15, 2018 | 4:29 a.m.
If he is 41/5, his c-raise range is weighted to sets, maybe Q7 or an overpair that he overplays (they do it quite often). If he was more of a reg and his sizing would be smaller, his c-raise range can be up to 100%.
Oct. 15, 2018 | 4:17 a.m.
3bet preflop and make your life a bit easier. His flop bet looks more of a semibluff/bluff, as why would he pot it if he had the 3?
In general, passive lines oop with semistrong hands against aggros isn't the greatest spot to be.
Oct. 15, 2018 | 4:16 a.m.
When you bet the flop and check a blank turn, it's hard to put you on a value hand on the river. Expect to be called by an overpair often, if the opponent can think.
What 7+ hands you have in your range that bets the flop and checks the turn?
Oct. 15, 2018 | 4:12 a.m.
I have created ~10 topics plan to get good fundamentals for micros. If your plan is to work for micros, I think your preflop topics are way too precise. You can have good RFI ranges from all positions, and it takes 30min to set them up for practising.
In your sheet you have both default strategy topics (overall RFI) and adjustment strategies (RFI against certain opp). My advice is to focus on the standard strategy that you use against unknowns as a default. Learn that first. In poker we should have our standard strategy that we use, and deviate from that only when we have a good reason to justify that the deviated strategy is more +EV than the standard strategy. Focus on the basement before you start to plan the chimney. :)
Oct. 15, 2018 | 4:07 a.m.
I wouldn't raise flop. Problem is that BTN cbets against two players on drawy board, and SB calls. You won't get that many folds and when called you don't have that many good turns.
If you get a call on the flop, on what turns you are happy to barrel and estimate good FE? On how many turns you would like to check-fold?
Feb. 27, 2018 | 4:58 p.m.
Profits is all about mistakes. If everyone plays mistake-free poker (perfect GTO), then no one wins money in the long run. But as soon one starts to make mistakes, someone wins. In a way we can say that
PROFIT=Opponents mistakes - Our mistakes
If opponents make more mistakes (in terms of EV) than we, we make profit (without rake).
To make money, we need to force our opponents to make mistakes.
Take a hand, and imagine the seats are changed with your opponent. Would you play the hand in opponents shoes exactly the same way? If not, then one of you is making money in the long run. So as long as you can see opponents doing mistakes that you wouldn't do, you have an edge.
Feb. 18, 2018 | 10:22 p.m.
3betting is pretty big and a bit complicated concept. It's impossible to give you short answers. First thing is that you don't HAVE to 3bet Aces preflop. In videos most players do, but they have the skills to make good decisions postflop. Without those skills, 3betting crappy Aces will create hard spots where the chance for mistake goes up.
Especially at micros, you should always assume that everyone who has put money into the pot (limped, raised or called) will not fold to your 3bet. And a lot of players cold call 3bets a lot at micros.
Concept of "premium hand" is also subjective.
With Aces, it helps a lot when you start to learn more about your equities vs. opponents ranges and therefore figure out when to stack off and when to give up. As a rule of thumb, against one player and SPR<4 you shouldn't be folding a lot, and in multiway pots when you totally miss the dynamic board you shouldn't be stacking off a lot.
Jan. 9, 2018 | 10:04 p.m.
For you, you are mostly right. But the problem is that you are looking the world from your own little box. That's what caught my eye, you say universally that HH is mostly a waste of time.
To be able to get progress from solvers, one needs to have good enough poker thinking for solid base and foundation. If one can't yet handle even range thinking, limitin yourself only to solvers probably hurts your game more than it helps. Or if he can't do some basic math or combinations? As you see, we all are at different situation in our learning curve. What works for you, might not work for others. What works for me, might not work for others. That's why it's a bit dangerous to say universal truths about learning and progression.
I do work with solvers, thank you. I should have said "for most players, HH work can be the best way to improve if done correctly". My bad. Solvers are the future of PLO, and I think a lot of "known strategies" will be challenged with people working more and more with solvers.
And as with other estimations and assumptions, there isn't an absolute truth about this matter. I am just trying to widen your perspective to people who are not at your spot in their learning curve.
Although I do disagree that your sudden rise in stakes comes only from the work with solver. If you have done HH for few years without getting improvement, the problem definitely isn't in HH work. It's in the way you have done it. And maybe the lack of other formats of studying. It's like saying jogging doesn't improve condition, as I have jogged for 2 years and my condition sucks. See the problem in that kind of thinking?
Even without knowing you I believe that it's a case of "last treatment biasis". This happens often when people seek aid to their illness from different treatments. They try something once, and if it doesn't give instant results they change to the next one. And then finally one treatment gives results, and they think it's all because of that treatment. While in reality getting results often takes time and all those previous treatments accumulated response. Your years with HH work have probably improved your poker thinking and many areas in poker skills that have helped you with the solver work. If you had skipped those years and turned straight to solvers two years ago, you might now have learned what you did now.
As in any learning and improvement (whether it's poker or sports) we shouldn't stick to just one thing. I think the best way to improve is to use different methods of studying, and find the ones that fit your situation and learning habits the best. For some it's HH, for some it's game tree, for some it's poker math, for some it's solvers, for some it's something else.
I am not right or wrong, and you are not right or wrong. So there isn't a conclusion to be reached. Just keep the box as wide open as possible. :)
Jan. 5, 2018 | 1:49 p.m.
As with any other format of studying, you can do it in many ways. With those arguments you could also say that watching videos is no good or using solver is no good.
We can use individual hand histories in many ways. But the biggest advantage is that it’s concrete and practical situation. To adapt some overall concepts to practical use, we need those practical situations. With hand history you can also work with your math, range definition, understanding game tree and how your present decisions affect futire streets, practice how to adjust against different opponents/ranges etc. Just to name few.
When you say that PJ is no good as ranges are outdated and it relies on your estimations, that sounds really strange. The whole poker is based on your estimations. If you don’t like PJ built-in ranges then use your own.
Poker is a game of imperfect information. It’s all based on estimations and assumptions. So often it’s possible to have good reasoning for two different strategies. That’s whe people play differently. And in the end we can never be sure who had the best estimation. But it’s about logic and reasoning. Discussing and thinking between two different strategies can really help one to see outside his own box and widen the understanding of strategies. If you just think ”it’s close so I don’t have to put effort to this” is a bad way of thinking in the long-term. For that specific spot it’s often irrelevant in terms of EV for that spot, but if going through the situation improves your poker thinking your overall EV in the future improves.
The fact that most people are lazy, narrow minded and one dimensional when posting and replying to hand histories doesn’t mean they sre useless.
In my mind working with real hand histories is the best way to improve, if it’s done correctly.
Jan. 5, 2018 | 10:23 a.m.
If you think he is bluffing at least 1 out of four times you call. :)
It's just about your reads on the opponent. If he is a recreational, the bluff frequency drops a lot. If he is thinking player, he might do that with a split. Hard to see him having any sets when he checked flop.
In general against a player pool it's a bad spot to bluff as the bet is so small. Any information on the opponent is quite essential here.
Dec. 27, 2017 | 5:23 p.m.
If opponent plays a lot of hands, and you play a lot of hands, but he is the one who doesn't need to hit the flop to put money in, who is going to win money? You both hit the flop as often. When you both hit, money goes in. When you both miss, he makes you fold.
The best way to take his money is to play with stronger range. By doing that you will hit flops harder and dominate your opponent when you both hit it.
Dec. 22, 2017 | 2:35 p.m.
When we bet we have folding equity, and against his shove range we have decent equity. SPR is 2 so there isn't a lot of room to make any fancy moves.
Other option is to check, and then opponent can decide if he wants to take a free card or bet. The thing is that if our plan is to c-raise, we hope that opponent bets. His betting range is probably stronger than his raise range (because of the SPR and the fact that hero is 3bettor) so I don't like c-raise plan on this board. We should use c-raise on boards that doesn't hit our 3bet range that well (where we might check our whole range). If we check-call, then playing the turn becomes tricky. If flop goes check-check, then most of the times we have to play turn and river oop which reduces the value if we improve.
If opponent stacks off with any flush draw, any pair, overpair or better, or wrap, bet&stackoff EV is +8bb.
Some options depending on opponent is to bet just pot or bet smallish, like 1/3 pot to induce a looser raise.
Dec. 22, 2017 | 2:33 p.m.
Dude, do you even read with thought? I said it’s a common way. Not that everyone does it nor I do it. The price I have is he amount I think is a good compensation for my time and is still affordable for the lower stakes players which is important to me. You can decide your price as you wish, based on whatever you like. You asked how to figure out a price and I gave you answers and some common ways. Why did you even make the original post if you don’t like to get replies?
Dec. 22, 2017 | 1:56 p.m.
At small stakes the rake is high, 15-20bb/100. So to make money you need to have edge bigger than that versus your opponents. To beat the rake, you need to target the opponents you have the biggest edge against. Those are the high VPIP players.
If you check the average VPIP of tables, you will see that in normal tables you can easily find tables that have twice the avg VPIP compared to Zoom. So per hand, you should be making more money in normal tables if you keep yourself in the tables that have high VPIP players.
In Zoom you don't have to table select, so it's a lot easier. And you can get more hands per hour.
So in short: Zoom is easy, but often gives smaller winrate.
Dec. 21, 2017 | 8:50 p.m.
- and 3. went wrong, 2. and 4. are possible. Not likely, but there is a small chance. :)
I answered you in my first reply. $30-$50 is probably the spread. Everyone values and weights their time differently. And buying a coaching is buying your time. Most common way to price it is to compare it to how much you make if you spend that time doing something else (that you have to give away if you host a coaching session). If you make $50/h from playing poker, then it makes sense to take $50/h from coaching.
Some coaches feel that coaching is good balancing for playing, and they don't charge as much from it as they would make from the playing. And some think the opposite, they want to make more from the coaching if they do it.
Also one aspect are your target customers. If you target PLO10 players or below, they are not likely to spend multiple buyins for coaching. If you target PLO50 players, then that same price tag seems very reasonable.
As in any other form of work, experience often correlates with price. If you are proven and well known, people are more likely to pay a little more than if you don't have any experience in coaching or you are totally unknown. That's why most starting coaches have lower price in the beginning. I know couple who have given free hours in the beginning when they started to practice coaching. It's a skill as any other, it takes practice to become good at it.