Meliodas's avatar


10 points

Super video Mark! Great work and analysis like in yours others videos. It would be very interesting to see what happens on the turn too ;)

Jan. 1, 2020 | 6:17 p.m.

Sorry, my bad, I completely forgot to mention that this is the solution of an entire database on 163 flops. Now you can definitely answer more consistently and anyway thanks for the previous answers.

Sept. 11, 2019 | 5:14 p.m.

Hi everyone,
I think this is some kind of noob question in both senses (from the solver perspective and from the math too). This is the solution's aggregate for the BBvsBTN call scenario, and I'm suprised to see this high freq folding to 2/3p cbet. Ranges are GTO stuff, so that's nothing weird about it.

Can someone explain me the sense of this result? Thank you.

Sept. 11, 2019 | 12:42 p.m.

Hi Patrick,
very interesting video. One thing remained unclear to me (although you probably have been clear about it). You reccomend not to call and to implement a 3bet only strategy BTNvsCO for the low stakes because they are still very much influenced by rake and frequented by players who do not play well against this strategy (therefore it is more profitable than a mixed one)? I imagine that a mixed strategy that also includes calls becomes more profitable only with the presence of stronger players and less rake, right?

Thank you

July 20, 2019 | 1:32 p.m.

Comment | Meliodas commented on Merged flop raising

I, on the other hand, would like to receive clarifications regarding the composition of our x / r range. An exactly merged range should be perfectly linear (right?), but in the video it seems to me that Peter advises non-x / r hands that have a stable SDV and that don't need as much protection as others. This seems to me to make a lot of sense, because otherwise every time we call instead of x / r our range really sucks; but at the same time it makes our range not properly merged. What should we consider to correctly categorize our hand?

June 14, 2019 | 10:35 p.m.

Comment | Meliodas commented on Merged flop raising

I believe that the approach on the turn should become polarized, because at this point there should be no longer that marked advantage of a range that is on the flop instead. But this is just my guess.

June 14, 2019 | 10:29 p.m.

Very clear. Can weighing ranges however become useful when it comes to reacting to RFIs or 3bets?

June 14, 2019 | 6:27 p.m.

Hi James,
from what I believe I understood from Peter's advice, I think that the strength of our hand will often not be too strong (because an objectively strong hand can be raised ISO even if we have 0 FE and an unfavorable position): so I think of hands as K8 , T9, A5 or worse. As you said, we can call an ISO more often if the size is not too big (less than 6x?) And we have a good position (IP compared to all the opponents on the flop?). It will probably be better to also play with the recreational player in the hand than against the only ISO raiser, especially if he is not a weak regular. Am I on the right track?

June 14, 2019 | 6:23 p.m.

Even if the thread is old I hope I can help you. You can train with the different software you find around and try to "guess" which flops offer you or your opponent more equity; just input both ranges, randomize flop and compare what you think with what it actually is.
With the experience you will see that you will be able to recognize quite easily which elements favor hero compared to villain and therefore choose the appropriate cbet strategy.

June 11, 2019 | 5:19 p.m.

Post | Meliodas posted in Courses Forum: Episode 3 - When someone Limps

Hi all,
in addition to what has been said in the video, I would like to know what could be a good reaction if we were facing an ISO after overlimping / complete. Would it be ok to continue only if the recreational player stays in the hand and fold in the other case? Even being an IP on the flop in the multiway pot would be very important?

Thank you

June 11, 2019 | 1:50 p.m.

Post | Meliodas posted in Courses Forum: Episode 2 - Opening Ranges by Position

I have a question about preflop ranges. In this video all ranges are weighed at 100%; I would lke to know if there are advantages in weighed preflop ranges, and if the answer is yes why or when is better to use a randomizer as RFI?

Thank you

June 11, 2019 | 1:24 p.m.

Can you mail me for the same? Thank you

June 11, 2019 | 12:56 p.m.

Sure. However, I wasn't looking for a complete answer to my question, but rather advice that could help me understand what was a good method to get there even by myself (and sharing my work), since I can understand that nobody wants to share anything in purpose if not for money. I will try to have my questions answered in the video section.

June 9, 2019 | 6:39 p.m.

Thank you Kalupso. I totally agree with what you said, expecially for

I think most people forget that we simplify things in poker in every single decision we make.

In fact, my suspicion about the "complete GTO solution" has been confirmed by your words. But at this point, if my goal is to find a simplified strategy (in the sense of bet / check range) when the solver shows a mixed (like 55% cbet / 45% of control), the approach in the thread that I linked in previous post is very poor? What could be a good starting point to study these spots?

June 9, 2019 | 1:19 p.m.

Thank you PrankCallRiver, so why I have this output from my simulation? Am I doing something wrong?

SBvsBB - Cbet Flop

June 9, 2019 | 9:58 a.m.

Is it possible for a check range or a bet range locked solution to have an higher EV than the mixed strategy?

June 8, 2019 | 5 p.m.

Thank you for linking me that interesting thread; Bigfiszh answer is brilliant. I've lowered dEV to 0.1% and now reasults are:

Mixed --> 2.7
Check --> 2.73
Bet --> 2.56

Now the difference is considerable between the bet strategy and the others, but check strategy continues to have an higher EV than the optimal strategy; could it be because I've designed the three with an arbitrary betsize, so both solutions are sub-optimal in a sense (with check range > mixed with arbitrary sizing)?

June 6, 2019 | 10:24 a.m.

Hi Eldora,
love to see this kinds of topics here, I'm interested in the discussion.
Probably I will add in your plan to analyze if, when and how the cbet sizing of Villiain it affects our strategy.

Waiting for the first works ;)

June 5, 2019 | 10:11 p.m.

Hi belrio42, thank you for your input. dEV is setting to 0.5% at the moment. Have I to lower it?

June 5, 2019 | 7:56 p.m.

Low flop, not so connected, but I think that here is hard for me to make life difficult for the BB with a cbet; versus a low size/high frequency cbet, he can defends with all his pairs, draws, backdoors, a good % of overcards, so not so difficult on this board to find this kind of hands. Equities runs closer because of the ranges (expecially on these kinds of flops?) and we are OOP (making turn and river more tricky to play well).
My assumption: we can't have an high cbet frequency here, so probably better strategies will be checking range or (the nightmare) bet and check at some %.

Let's go for the GTO+ solutions for a 1/3 cbet size that seems what the solver prefers:

Optimal (55.5% Bet / 44.5% Check)

Bet range

Check Range

These reports are referred at the beginning of the hand, so I suppose this is the right way to find out what are the highest EV strategy. But, if I'm not wrong to read reports, it seems that the check range strategy has an higher EV (2.72) compared to the optimal one (2.7). How is it possible? Shouldn't the optimal strategy be the highest EV?

I would like to understand this first and then continue with the analysis.

June 5, 2019 | 5:38 p.m.

Hi James, thank you for your welcome and the answer. In that case I hope the lower stakes section will be fine; waiting for some feedback and eventually I will move in the other section as you suggest me.

June 4, 2019 | 6:08 p.m.

Hi all,
new to the RIO forum, and just trying to figure out what forum section is better to discuss about strategic/theoretical aspects of the game. I've seen that in NL-->High Stakes and Mid Stakes these kinds of discussions seems to be more answered than in the Low Stakes section. In absence of a specific forum section, I should consider starting these kind of discussions in these two categories?

Thank you :)

June 4, 2019 | 5:06 p.m.

Hi all! :)

During the last review of my database I had decided to start to construct a good SB strategy as RFI to improve my winrate from this position. I have a good idea of what to do when I play 3bet pots from this position so, for now, I've decided to focus on SRP because I have close to no idea of how to play here in optimal, exploitative, or any other correct way you like.
For this purpose I'm yousing PT4, GTO+ and the old fashioned math. I'm pretty newbie in the use of solvers, so I will appreciate very much any criticism/suggestion also in this specific topic.

My plan is this and, for now, I will use this method only to learn something about flop cbet:
- filter for SBvsBB + Opportunity to Cbet flop
- review hands and start to make assumptions based on ranges/playbility
- solve the hand with GTO+ and find differences with my previous assumptions
- try to semplify GTO+ strategy comparing EVs between optimal and simplified stategies
- take notes of all of that and try to implement this in my next hand analysis to identify some pattern
- analyze BB flop defence strategy to build up, eventually, a good exploitative strategy to maximize EV

My first question is: can be this a good approach? I know that, for example, to see where/what and how much to cbet flop is less time consuming (for the human) to run a solver for this situation on the 184 flops and to work on the report and aggregate, but with my plan I will probably be more forced to think and analyze what are happening and maybe learn in more deep way? I don't know.

Ok and, to conclude this my first post, this is how I build the tree for these spot. Is it correct to compile it like this to obtain a good result?

I think I've just find some interesting stuff, but wait for some of your comments and then start to discuss it.
Thank to everyone wants to take part in this discussion.

June 4, 2019 | 12:49 p.m.

Load more uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy