Personally I would give the possibility to give a like only to a Pro or to a verified competent user (maybe a new kind of user?). In this way the rankings and the quality of the forum would certainly be different: many posts written to make volume, scarce in terms of content and suggestions for improvement, would no longer exist as well as all these chatter that shows no trust in those who have worked well so far based on my experience.
May 2, 2020 | 5:23 p.m.
You've played very well flop and turn, but I think this is an exploitative fold OTR, expecially vs a regular. But is probably more important to overbet this river too; you betting strategy here wants to continue to be polarized and this hand too high in you value range to use a smaller size (don't forget that you want to put max pressure to BB range with your bluffs too).
April 22, 2020 | 10:47 p.m.
As rule of thumb, his ranges are always weaker than they should be. Fold less, raise/call wider and polarize/depolarize your ranges depends on how and where he puts his aggression and how much FE do you have in some dynamics, try to figure it out as soon as possible with notes if you haven't stats. You can also train your exploitative skills with a solver (if you just have enough awarness of why a solver does something).
April 22, 2020 | 9:23 p.m.
So follow my intuition to play this hand in two streets, even if it means an overbet OTT. Honestly, I can play this situation that way but having top 2P seems bad for that sizing here, or at least this is my big question in the tank (and I'm still looking for an answer). Reason why I didn't use a big flop size too (I would have had to overbet anyway).
April 11, 2020 | 9:05 p.m.
SB: $86.30 (Hero)
April 8, 2020 | 11:30 p.m.
In an exploitative context I think that sizing have a predominant importance to determine it, because we assume that our opponent will not manage correctly MDF and therefore he will not able to recognize on witch texture he will be able to over/under defend, using a more static response. Just doing some math and you will find out.
April 6, 2020 | 1:52 a.m.
You didn't 3bet polar IP and linear OOP. You should choose between this two kind of ranges types based on fold equity and the intention of develop or not a calling range.
Your screenshot probably is referred to an IPvsRFI dynamic, but in the case of blinds who give us some incentives to develop a calling range with some of our hands instead of using other types of 3bet ranges.
April 6, 2020 | 1:38 a.m.
I think a smaller size will work better on this flop with this hand than your cbet (and for a large part of your range, even larger if your opponents e.g. under raise on the flop) but check will probably give you even more EV; pretty standard strategy for these ranges and flop textures. Think about concepts that will determine your cbet sizing and frequency and you will get there.
As played river is always a check.
April 5, 2020 | 6:13 p.m.
Hi Denellus ,
I think you have to worry about everything except having a decent sample size.
It's common for my graphs to have really bad red line as I'm pretty tight and not very aggressive (VPIP/PFR/Agg/3B 19/14/1.6/6, 6-max)
The only reality here and after 35k hands is that your game can't be good with this kind of stats; my suggestion is to use the resources on RIO to start learning at least the foundamentals (e.g. From The Ground Up is something like pure gold as starting point and, or if you need more basics contents the essential subscription is plenty of videos with this purpose). I hope you don't misunderstand my tones, but I'm just trying to make the problem present to you very clearly and also offer you a solution.
Stop thinking to AK, stop analyzing this kind of thing, start to build the foundation for a solid game and your next AKs will follow (as any other hand).
April 4, 2020 | 11:37 p.m.
Don't know anything about this formula, but usually the more the rake the less we can call. You can start to folds all the hands with such a tiny EV that requires to play in a low rake enviroment to be a winner long term. I think that's how it works in a perfect scenario, but if your opponents' weaknesses compensate for the rake's EV loss, that's another story.
If you are looking for a mathematical method to estimate exactly this kind of things, I apologize for my answer.
April 3, 2020 | 11:24 p.m.
My doubt is that you are thinking about the best exploitative preflop strategy taking into account the EV then generated by a postflop GTO solution (which does not happen in the pool). Could a better adjustment be made on the opening range rather than on the defense range vs 3bet?
April 3, 2020 | 3:09 p.m.
I think that with the proper play on the flop and/or on the turn, we can have a lot easier and profitable action on the river. If you are not using a pure check simplified strategy for this kind of flops in BvB (and I think it couldn't be fine in this case), I will cbet with a high frequency with this kind of combos here for a lot of purposes related, above all, to the fact that both ranges are very wide and the flop texture. You can probably even choose a small size because of were this combo is located along your range.
If you choose to check on the flop I don't think you can go wildly with raising your flush draws, because of your check/calling range will suffer this too much. Same story with the follow up on the turn after x/r the flop.
Try to think about what flushdraws are best to x/r, but be aware of the texture and the ranges; same story on the turn with your cbet after x/r. In BvB the same basic concepts of poker are always valid, but sometimes strategies can displace us because of the assumptions of this dynamic, or just because we haven't sufficiently familiar with the importance of some concepts.
April 1, 2020 | 11:05 p.m.
SB: $63.56 (Hero)
April 1, 2020 | 10:10 p.m.
I too have come to the same conclusions that have been suggested, but I still have doubts about it:
- The first doubt is how much our huge openraise sizes expose themselves to an exploit by the regular (or at most the two) present at the table.
- The second is whether it is better to use a limping strategy than to open 10x.
March 24, 2020 | 1:13 a.m.
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.
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?
July 20, 2019 | 1:32 p.m.
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?