Like.a.G6

Hello. I specialise in very advanced database reviews, so I can find your leaks much faster than in standard coaching. I have testimonials from regs who play even online 5k, 10k or live 50k tournaments.
https://www.mttdatabasereview.com/

Thank you for filling it in.
Those answers you mention are for formats like online cg, online mtt, live cg. So just to get an idea if respondent is cg/mtt live/online player. The main question about playing frequency is total hours per week. But its a good point, so I swaped the position of these two questions so that the hours per week comes first, making it hopefully more clear.

Nice video Sam, I have a PIO theory question not directly aimed at the hands. In around 3 minutes you are reviewing the K9s hand in PIO and you are using 50% and 75% cbet sizes. I want to talk about that. My idea is that if we are using 2 sizings in 3bet pot, then they should be more different. I am not talking about this flop in particular, in which I understand very small sizing may not be as viable as on some dry A high flop, but I would still say that to find out more about our strategy it would be better to use for example 25% and 75% on any flop in this spot, as the 75% and 50% combination is just way too similar. Which can be seen in the fact that both are used 15% and most of the hands are very equal mixes except few instances like 98s or K9s prefering smaller sizing and A2s prefering larger sizings. So I am guessing that if we were using just single sizing anywhere between 50-75, the strategy and EV is going to be extremely similar.
I would use similar logic in other spots like IP raise, BB defend, check, cbet. Using something like 25/75 by default, changing it to different options on some flops where I already know small or big sizings will not be used, but if I were using only 2 sizings, I would probably never have them this much close to each other.
What do you think about it?

Yeah, clueless confirmed. :)
I've tried working with those .cfr files already, but didn't go so far. Managed to connect to preflop solver instead postflop solver and import them. Not much further, didn't see no ranges. Can try again and harder. :D
But anyway, why aren't the ranges already in simple .txt files that can be put in the C:\PioSOLVER\Ranges folder? Seems more logical and much faster.
The only benefit of the .cfr files I can imagine, is that it might tell me, how much of a mistake in EV some bad opens would be.

tree:
(exploitable for 0,42 % of pot)

Hi Ben, another great video!
I am trying to work more with PIO, analyzing hands seen in videos. What caught my eye is that hand in 35:50 - 8c Kd 6h Qc turn overbet with Ad 6c. You mention it's a very good card for our range, which my calculation confirmed, actually ranking it as the single best turn card for our range, but it heavily goes for check instead of betting. Although it's very possible I've made some sort of mistake in the tree, since I'm PIO noob. :)

Hi Juan.
-Do you think your limping strategy is better than raising strategy GTO wise? Or would you say its probably little bit worse from GTO standpoint, but makes more money exploitively because even good regs don't know how to tackle a limping opponent who isn't a fish?
-Also what do you think about the fact, that when good players start to limp something else than SB, its almost always BTN, while you went the other way around. Is limping strategy on BTN bad idea in your opinion?
-Do you consider, that maybe you have higher bb/100h by limping, but could have higher hourly rate by raising?
-And do you play tournaments and use limp strategy there? Would you agree, that pretty much everyone is doing a mistake by not using limping strategy instead of raising whenever they are shortstack in ICM situation (both before the bubble or on FT)? It seems logical to me that you should try to play smaller pots in those situations to minimize the chance of busting out, but I don't see many regs do that ever.

I don't understand those small 3x 3bets OOP. I instantly mark players as bad if I see them do that in 100bb cash game. In previous videos you did that even from the BB. How is that not a huge leak? The rest of the gameplay seems very well played and explained, but those tiny 3bets, how is that a thing? o.O What is your winrate on those stakes?

Hi Ben,
10:00 T9s - aren't our checkraises so polar between sets/twopairs and open enders, that we could just x/shove the turn? Is there something bad with that strategy? I guess he can adjust by checking back QQ/KK on flop, but he can do that against frequent x/raise turn/shove river too. I guess maybe we have the benefit of maybe checkraising 76s for value and check/fold some rivers, because his river bets would be very strong?
40:40 A7s river - Isn't the most obvious play here going to be x/raise the river, just because we often have other A high with the ace of clubs, which we are going to checkdown, but when facing a bet could use as a pretty much the nuts blocker, as I don't think fullhouse is really a thing for the button here?

Hi Juan
37:00 first table, if we have hand like QThh or QTcc, isn't that a perfect checkshove hand? And therefore we should have few valuecombos to balance it? And what about a bit weaker combos like KThh, KTcc ....?

lol how am I so blind? okay then :)

Hi Ben,
34:00 AQo - would love some more explanation on those flop overbets. Not a thing I really do much often, or many players in general imho. Especially on A high flops.
46:30 Q6s - What bluffs do you have here? I presume no flush draws, because you can just call them and getting shoved on with them is weird. So maybe BDFD? KJss? Although thats probably still too strong. Maybe something like T9ss 98ss?

6:30 KJs, you say that you can flat, because opponent only minraised. My thinking process would be quite the opposite.
-The bad thing about flatting is that we are giving the BB great odds to call and we are gonna be OOP 3way if that happens. Larger open size means BB calls less often, making our flat better.
-Also opponent who minraises should have wider range than opponent who raises to 3x, so we can 3bet the minraise more often.
-Maybe there's some argument about rake/cap too (playing small pots is bad), but I guess that depends on what limit you are playing and I don't want to get too much into that.

Hi Juan,
QQ hand from 29:00 to 35:00, how about a small bet (less than 1/3pot) not on river but on the turn with most/all of our range? We should have all those high pocket pairs, opponent should have some weaker hits on the board but also flushes and sets, so that gives me a reason to bet often but not big... not sure about aces, the fact that the turn is ace of diamond means we both have less top pairs now compared to if the turn was and offsuit ace. We will give any hand with a diamond great odds to call if we bet like 1/4 pot, but some of our hands have a better diamond than what he's gonna mostly have (like this QQd we have here).
Overall probably similar though process to what you did, but do it on the turn instead river. And maybe even continue with another very small bet on the river, since our KK,QQ,JJ should be good here very often with the ace being diamond.

Yeah that Q82 also looks to me like a flop that could be bet with 100% range and sizing around 30-35%. But maybe you can improve that strategy by taking few super strong hands (AA,KK,88,22, maybe AQ and Q8, but it kinda sucks to block the top pair) and some premium bluffs (meaning any backdoor straight/flush combo like KJs, T9s ...) and bet them larger SOME of the time, to get max value. And if you mix it up right and still have all those hands in your small 1/3 sizing often enough, then your opponent can't do much about it (like checkraising that flop). btw, do you have a checkback range here? If so, then what's the range? Like A6o, K7o ?...

34:30 A8ss vs BB on Js5hTh, is this really a flop for small sizing and high frequency cbet? I definitely like to cbet this combo, but expected at least half pot sizing.

Hi Butters!
26:15 upper right table with 99. Isn't your cbet too small? That doesn't look like one of those flops where we should make 1/3 cbet with most (or 100%) of our range. I do actually think, that if we do small cbet like this on 5 high board, the BB should be checkraising most of his fives and pocket sixes, sevens... He has enough better hands so we cant really go for many 3bets and his top pair need protection. Maybe his raise could be little bit smaller, since a considerable part of his range is just raising for protection and he doesn't want to burn money against our overpairs? Not sure how he should proceed on the turn though. I guess another small barrel with just a pair of fives isn't very good, because after we called the flop we do have something, often either better pair or a draw that loves to see small bet. But I also dont like his sizing with A5, since that looks too thin. And if he just continues with more polarized range, then his fives arent much protected. So maybe he should play considerable part of his value range as checkraise flop, checkraise turn? Even though that looks like kinda funky line. Or maybe you should just cbet less often with 2/3 sizing, so he just calls with top pair and this whole turn dilemma for him won't happen?

36:15 98ss bottom right. Shouldn't we overbet this river? We have most of the 98s (some we 3bet), all 98o, 84s, 43s (some we 3bet?) and 43o. While our opponent opens 98s and 98o but I imagine cbets it 90%+ of the time, doesn't open 84s or 43o, and 43s he might cbet less often than 98 but I'd still expect him to cbet it more than not. I think we could use 2 betsizes, one for straights and one for 2pairs/sets. Also don't think he should be raising with JT, as we can shove over that pretty easily with our straights and bluffs containing 8 or 9. Or maybe I am completely off with my assumption about what zoom500 villains cbet and miss cbet with?

Nice video!
19:00 KQo top right: You say our opponent wont triple barrel AA or AK. Should he bet bet check or bet check bet? Im asking, because if he's checking AK or AA on the turn, then the A river is a card he should lead shove on? I assume you are not gonna bet the ace a lot? Will you even valuebet KJ? So a leadshove with AK, AA or something that blocks Q or T, so possibly his KT turned into bluff? As long as the leadshove is under like 1,5 pots it should be ok even though you have QT combos. Especially since I guess you only have QTs. And your only set is probably 99?

2 things:
1.) Those small SB opens. I honestly though those small sizings are universally acccepted as wrong. How many hands can BB defend against 2,3x raise from SB? Isn't the number so high and close to 100% anyway, that it's better to invest 72% less chips by limping? You have been doing some 3,5x or 4x BvB raises in some previous videos haven't you? I though that's how you should play against a tough lineup that defends BB correctly. Either limp or raise more than the standard 3x.
2.) 18:40 you raise QJs against Eccentric's limp with the good old "standard raise +1bb for each limper" sizing. Isn't this a mistake against someone who limps correctly? If he just raised to say 45, your 3bet sizing would be something around 4x, so lets say 180. So when you 3bet and the action gets back to him, he would have to call 135 into pot 390. So he would have to realize 34,6% of the pot to call. But if he limps 20 and you raise to 66 and the action gets back to him, he has to call 46 into pot 162, so he has to realize 28,4% of the pot. Isn't this where his limping strategy is crushing you? It's much easier for him to defend against your izo, than it would be against your 3bet if he just openraised. And there is also much higher chance of someone behind us just flatting than it would be if it was std open/3bet spot, which should further help him to call light when the action gets back to him in a multiway pot.

16:40 AA you 3b 3x out of BB 28.5bb eff and even calling it a small sizing?
37:30 K3s you 3b 2,875x out of BB 31bb eff.
Shouldn't it be like 2,5-2,7x for the first one and minimum 3x for the second one? Especially since the second one is a final table, where you want to deny your opponent the chance to call and play non-allin pot with you. So the sizing should be little bit larger than if it was in middle of the tournament? Or do you think than even with smaller out of BB 3b it's so hard for him to call with anything, that larger sizing (50k) would just burn money when he finds a decent hand?

Horrible backdoors for that. Almost any hand would be a better candidate for a raise than this one. Bottom of calling range is a concept you can use preflop for light 3bets or 4bets. On flop you (usually) prefer something, that has good barreling equity. Something like JThh might be a good raise here.

Deuces in first hand, I'd definitely fold the flop. You say we can turn some straight draws. We can only hit runner runner ace and five, wouldn't call that straight draws really. And even if that run out comes, our opponent is not only beat by a deuce but also by a six -> not much of implied odds there. Also no bdfd for us, but some other fd (would be better if it was at least rainbow, because now As and 5s are not that great turns). Opponent bet with a decent sizing on a board he shouldn't be cbeting with extra high frequency, so we should be a bit more picky with our hands to continue. Also his mini 3bet pre suggests a great possibility of a monster, which we obviously still call with everything preflop because of the sizing, but should be extra careful postflop because of it.

Are you guys talking about the same hand? There's no checking back on the turn for us in the last hand. We are OOP.

Great video Ben, I think you can make 100 more zoom 500 videos and they still won't go out of fashion. I'm not really convinced on the big 3bet strategy though. Larger sizings -> narrower range -> more often stack-off preflop -> less edge to realize crushing players postflop.
If I had to give one advice to a bad player who for some reason has to play tough games that he is not beating, the advice number one to at least decrease his lose-rate would be: Play less hands, but use larger sizings preflop. 4x open, 5x 3bets, larger 4bets too... Minimalize the postflop game. So it looks kinda counterproductive when you employ this strategy.

Great video Sam! It seems like your poker life is very easy, since your limps never get raised :) I'd love a second part where you get raised everytime and have to construct limp/call limp/shove or limp/3b ranges.
Also in the video you expect BB raise range to be linear. What do you think about polarized range? Not totally polarized with total trash like 72o but maybe something like 74s, 95s... ? Especially for shallow stacks, where SB can limp/shove, which is really bad for hands like QJo that would have to raise/fold and lose ton of value.
And even with larger stacks, there's still the board coverage reason for occasional raise with 54s and simillar.