Like in the dark, because, well. . . it's Saulo. Every video of his is gold =)
And I have mentioned this in other coaches videos, but I really appreciate the use of counterfactuals, Saulo Ribeiro - At 43 seconds in, you already mention how you would definitely have opened the T6o against the tight big blind if it had been folded to you. That stuff might seem small and unimportant, but it helps guys like me make more sense out of the great game of No Limit Hold'em, and we need all the help we can get!
Feb. 16, 2020 | 7:44 a.m.
Another great video, Tyler Forrester - That last hand was really interesting and thought-provoking, although admittedly it did leave me somewhat questioning my intestinal fortitude!
I look forward to the next one that you will be releasing at a later point in time ;-D
Feb. 13, 2020 | 10:52 a.m.
RIO Elite NL - While I admit that this format could be improved, mostly due to the slower pace, I really get a lot of value out of hearing the different coaches give their varying takes on different spots. For example, @15:44 when Teunuss bet pot on the river my first thought was that it seemed a little too large, especially if we want to have our 4's be in that sizing (Teunuss likely just has a different strategy there than I am familiar with). Normally though, how this works when viewing a video is the viewer sees a play that they aren't familiar or comfortable with, they then scratch their head and say something to themselves along the lines of "hmmm. . . interesting. . ." and the play is then either forgotten or misapplied. With multiple coaches giving input it helps to give the viewer a much better idea about what is more "standardish" and what is more exploitative or idiosyncratic. Definitely well worth the watch and it'd be cool to see more RIO coach collaborations in the future!
Feb. 13, 2020 | 9:08 a.m.
Great video, Nuno Alvarez - That first K6o hand had me really confused and I was on the verge of yelling at you that it is a simple snap-call on the river. . . until you explained that part about how there are many opponents who don't have enough non-spade bluffs on the turn. That is a very good and fair point that I completely missed and I will most definitely be thinking about that type of spot in the future.
**Random, Mostly-Pointless Comment: Don't judge me for being an old man like Sauce, but back in 2005 I played online against a guy named "CzechRazor" and always thought that was such an awesome name. I'm glad to see that you are rocking the "CheckRais3r" name! =]
Feb. 9, 2020 | 10:27 a.m.
Another great video, Qing Yang - It seems like you are a bit of a trail-blazer or pioneer with the content that you put out (BB 3bet sizing, Clairvoyance, Shania, Min-betting, just to name a few). Being more of a "follower," I admire that. But you are also very good at explaining what is taking place in the situations that you are describing, and that can often be the most difficult part about teaching. While there are all sorts of good videos that I can learn from, after watching your videos I often feel that my understanding of the game has just deepened. Thanks, Qing Yang, and keep up the great work!
Feb. 9, 2020 | 9:06 a.m.
Hi, teunuss - I'm just here because you accidentally liked one of my comments on a different video and then promptly un-liked it. So I came here to do the same with your video (just kidding)! =P
But while I was here I did watch your video in its entirety. I found this to be really well done and quite informative. I like the honesty. I'm actually not very familiar with videos of a coach critiquing a player's play aside from the videos where a coach reviews a student's play, but hearing you critique your own play was very helpful; especially the KJ of spades hand vs Goose where you described how your state of mind and running bad influenced your play. While I sort of used to take pride in the fact that I haven't gone on tilt in probably about a decade, I have to admit that I do make mental mistakes similar to your KJ hand when I am running poorly (or I skip value-bets, or over-fold when I shouldn't, etc.) and I guess that is a form of tilt after all. In fact, that may be a more dangerous form of tilt because it can easily go unnoticed, so thanks for helping me notice it!
Feb. 9, 2020 | 8:20 a.m.
Hey, Krzysztof Slaski - Thanks for another great video. Regarding splitting your range into different cbet sizes on various flops, what sort of sizes (assuming we're sticking with 2 for now) are generally preferred (obviously specific ranges and board textures are a determining factor, as well as turn and river bet sizing options)? A small bet and a large bet, I would imagine, but based on an experiment I did with PIO yesterday it seems like the precision of the sizes really do effect the EV fairly significantly. Basically (sparing the details) what I came up with on one specific board with pre-packaged CO and BB ranges in a SRP with the option to bet or check was that PIO showed the greatest EV with something like 20% and 90% flop cbet sizes. This wasn't surprising, but the fact that changing those sizes to 33% and 100% lost a noticeable amount of EV was surprising. This happened with single sizings as well, with about 130% as the single cbet size being far superior to both larger and smaller bets (even a size of 100% or 150% lost significant EV, and the beloved 33% size did not work well at all as an only size).
So, I guess none of what I said is really that relevent, but I was wondering if you knew of any sort of split sizings that were commonly used or accepted? 25% and 100% feels pretty intuitive to me, but again, board texture, ranges, etc.
If you can't make sense out of this, have no fear. I can hardly make any sense out of it myself. Let me try this: what type of sizings do you prefer to use, generally speaking, when choosing two cbet sizes on the flop?
Feb. 8, 2020 | 11:43 a.m.
Hi, Ben Sulsky - I'm not trying to embarrass you or anything like that and I know that you are retired from poker and that you are a PLO player now and all of those other obligatory et ceteras, etc. . . but based on the first 5 minutes of this video—as well as some unspecified minutes of other recent videos of yours—I just have to say it (and I hope that you do eventually forgive me). . . but you like this whole two-card poker thing. Admit it. =)
Fabricating a fictional reality where "Sauce sits in his PLO tower and scoffs at the lowly two-card simpletons" can eventually take its toll on one's psyche. Eventually the fabrication begins to crack, and then crumble, until all that remains is what was beneath the facade all along. . .
Feb. 8, 2020 | 8:57 a.m.
forCarlotta - "Hi Ben, this is the first video of yours that I’ve watched. . ."
Lucky you! If I were in your shoes I would spend the next week or more watching the last year or two worth of Sauce videos. =)
Feb. 8, 2020 | 7:35 a.m.
Hey, Gary Chappell - Thanks for the video. One thing I just want to quick point out is that I find it immensely beneficial when you say things like, "This is the bottom of my 3-betting range here," or "I'd open this hand at some frequency, or with a weaker lineup," etc. That stuff is super helpful for me, so thank you.
Feb. 6, 2020 | 6:03 a.m.
Cheers. And here's to another good month!
Feb. 4, 2020 | 6:42 a.m.
Thanks for the additional insight, as well as the advice, Paul. And while it is definitely easy to get a bit carried away with the node-locking, I feel like as long as we don't attempt to emulate the results and rather seek to simply understand them, it is quite helpful to see what takes place at the extremes because understanding that helps us understand more about the optimal strategy. Sort of like the difference between only knowing what the color gray looks like, versus understanding what the color gray is because you are familiar with both the black and the white extremes of the spectrum, as well as the concept that the color gray is something like a mixture of some parts black and some parts white.
Feb. 3, 2020 | 7:13 a.m.
Hey, Paul Atwal - Welcome back (please stick around)!
That comparison of strategies that you did around 40 minutes via the node-locking feature was quite eye-opening. Perhaps people were doing this sort of thing more often a couple of years ago and I missed it, but I honestly have no clue why there aren't dozens of videos out there that take an in-depth look at just how sensitive equilibrium strategies can be based on even slight changes in our opponent's strategy, and also how differently from an equilibrium strategy we can (should?) be playing based on a small amount of information that we have acquired about our opponent's tendencies. I am definitely a fan of the node-locking feature and really wish that more coaches would use it much more often than I see.
Anyway, thanks for the video, Paul. I really do hope to see some more from you in the future.
Feb. 2, 2020 | 12:05 p.m.
Even in his replies to critical comments, the DR does not disappoint and only further exemplifies what it means to be not only a great poker player and coach, but also a well-put-together human being. Much respect, brother, and thank you for your reply.
Feb. 2, 2020 | 4:39 a.m.
Patrick Cronin - I would never leave this comment if I thought of you as someone who was overly sensitive or incapable of handling constructive criticism—in fact, I believe you to be the most capable of receiving criticism out of all of the RIO coaches that I have thus far encountered—and please understand that I get no value out of thoughtlessly criticizing others (I have enough flaws of my own that if I simply wanted to be critical I could spend the rest of my waking life standing in front of a mirror and freestyling self-criticisms). I only leave this comment because I care (despite the fact that that does sound uncomfortably similar to a banal platitude).
The Criticism Sandwich:
I once heard something about a sandwich, where you take a criticism and place it between two compliments, and since every rational person likes sandwiches, let's give that a go. . .
You are likely the most original and idiosyncratic coach (when it comes to your content at least) on this entire site, and you never ever lose points for trying something new and original, especially when you are good at it. There are a massive amount of RIO subscribers, myself included, who seriously appreciate and value your uniqueness, so please continue to exercise your creativity mercilessly. For me, however, this video felt like it missed the bar that you set so high right out of the gate (I bet you're regretting that decision now, aren't ya, Pat! =). But I actually got a little bit sad while watching the video because it slowly dawned on me that I might not be able to make it through this one in its entirety (I did end up completing it though); and that is especially sad because I have watched all of your content with great satisfaction, and have even watched some of your videos 2 or 3 times at this point. In short, I know that you are capable of producing content that is among the absolute highest caliber, and you have already proven that, but this video simply falls short of what you are capable of, not to mention what you have the potential of being capable of (scary). While I won't publicly expound on why I personally believe that this video was not quite up to the incredibly (unfairly?) high standard that we place upon you, please know that I have absolutely nothing against Amy, as she seems like a marvelous woman who obviously helps and supports you in your endeavors, which in my estimation makes her quite the amazing person. And also please know that you are among the most beloved of RIO coaches, and you have earned that admiration and respect based on your quality of content, as well as your quality of character.
Thanks for coaching, Pat. I know that you can't please everyone and that there will always be plenty of harshly critical people waiting for an opportunity to put you down, or egocentric people who erroneously criticize content that is great just because it doesn't suit their own personal preferences, etc. I just hope that you don't count me in their number.
Feb. 1, 2020 | 12:14 p.m.
Cool video, Kevin Rabichow - That last hand was especially illustrative in regard to making deviations from GTO and the potential risk/reward that those deviations may entail. I am especially guilty of making exploitative adjustments—often likely based on premises which have little semblance of actually being appropriate—and while they may at times be very much warranted (as well as higher EV), your PIO sim of the last hand certainly has me reconsidering the importance of sticking to a more GTO based approach unless our justification for deviating is well established. Thanks for the video, Kevin.
Jan. 31, 2020 | 9:11 a.m.
Hey, Krzysztof Slaski - I was going to ask you this a couple of months ago, but is there a particular reason that you choose to play on Bodog? Is your preference dictated by the country that you currently occupy (can't play on PokerStars from where you are?) or are there other reasons? I live in the U.S. and as such I don't have any really great options for online play, but I do get curious about their reasons why when I see other players who live outside the U.S. playing on sites other than PokerStars.
Looking forward to your next video release, as always! Thanks, Krzysztof!
Jan. 26, 2020 | 6:38 a.m.
Geez, Peter Clarke - I really like this new and improved version of you (not that there was necessarily anything wrong with the old version, of course). But it feels like you just leveled up and now we all get to sit here and enjoy the benefits!
Jan. 24, 2020 | 11:09 a.m.
Dang, Apotheosis - Now I feel pretty bad. You went way above and beyond in your response, the most in-depth response I've ever gotten, but I am definitely grateful for it, so thank you.
". . .I'm sort of tired and your question is a bit odd." - Ha! "Odd." Thanks for putting it so mildly when words like "stupid" or "completely and utterly misguided" would also have sufficed =]
But in all seriousness, your response to my silly comment answered more than just my specific comment for me. The RPS example that you gave where the equilibrium is Rock 1/3, Paper 1/3 and Scissors 1/3 really made mixed strategies in poker make much more sense to me. When Matthew Janda would say (to paraphrase) that in order for an equilibrium strategy to be mixed, the EV of those strategies must be identical, so in a mixed strategy spot it theoretically doesn't matter what you do, I used to get quite confused. But your RPS example was very helpful in that respect. I get it now. "The EV's are identical" and "it doesn't matter what you do" in no way equates to it being a wise decision to simply choose one single element of a mixed strategy and use that 100% of the time. It seems very, very simple now, but thanks for spelling it out for me so that I finally understand it.
Thanks a bunch, Chris!
Jan. 19, 2020 | 11:25 a.m.
Great video again, Patrick Cronin - From a range vs range perspective, that A of spades on the river (completing the backdoor flush) was very interesting when considering how relatively few flushes are in a normalish 4-bet range there.
Me (before watching this video): "Ah ha! A on the river! Excellent card for me!"
DRLuck3: "Not so! Consider the flushes!"
Me: "Great point, good sir. Great point, indeed. Thank you much!"
DRLuck3: "You're very welcome. For what good is a doctor who fails to educate his patients?"
Jan. 19, 2020 | 7:50 a.m.
Thanks for the video, Apotheosis - This is the first of your PIO videos that I have watched (and it was useful for me), but do you ever talk about something like the "philosophy" behind PIO results and their usefulness? Perhaps my concern is addressed in the PIO user's manual or somewhere else very simple, but I haven't heard it discussed anywhere yet. It is also quite possible that I am confused about how PIO works on an algorithmic sort of level. What I am certainly NOT doing is bashing PIO or denigrating how amazing of a tool it is. It is just related to you talking about PIO being misused, and I often feel that people are misusing PIO conceptually.
But what I mean, by way of an anecdote, is this: I have seen many players analyze something like a high-stakes tournament hand (like a Triton High-Roller) using PIO, seeing that PIO doesn't take the line in question, and then concluding that the player made a mistake. This tactic has been used against Linus, Foxen and Chidwick at times to show that they are commonly making substantial mistakes. But this often completely ignores the fact that PIO has no concept of time (or the amount of hands a human can play in a lifetime, let alone the amount of times this specific human will be in this sort of high-stakes tournament with this hand, against this player, on this board, with these stacks, etc. . .) and it assumes that even the most rare spots and situations occur perpetually. So in a high-stakes tournament, a player may legitimately be in a "once in a lifetime" poker situation, and I'm not too confident that PIO results can be used to cast judgement on whether the player made a mistake or not when PIO is assuming that the player will be in that spot thousands of times when in reality he will be in that spot only once. I always had this problem when Doug Polk would analyze a situation that a player will never be involved in again in their lives and say something like, "You're going to have so many better hands to bluff with in this spot." And I would think, "No, they won't have any better hands to bluff with in this spot because they will never be in this spot again in their entire lives." I know this could easily be confused with the "Exploitative vs GTO" nonsense, but I'm specifically thinking about the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of PIO solutions as they pertain to exceptionally rare nodes in game trees. To put it simply: how relevant are PIO's solutions regarding how to best play your runner-runner royal flush after check-raising the flop and barreling the turn? Or: although technically impossible, would PIO still bluff-catch at the same frequencies with the same combos if it somehow "knew" that the spot it was solving would never come up again?
Sorry for rambling somewhat incoherently, Chris, but sometimes I can't seem to formulate my thoughts as cogently as I would like. Do you have any thoughts on this at all? And if I have done nothing but demonstrate my ignorance of PIO, and game theory in general, then please go easy on me and don't embarrass me too bad! =] Thanks, Chris.
Jan. 19, 2020 | 6:44 a.m.
Always happy to see some Tyler Forrester - Even when he tries playing heads-up against a guy who retreats every time he sees "The Tyler Special." Oh, you don't know what "The Tyler Special" is? No problem. Here's what you do. You vary your RFI sizes by varying degrees every single time you open. Sometimes you vary your RFI size by a mere two pennies in a $500 buy-in game, and other times you vary it by 22, 73, or even 97 cents. Addditionally, you also vary it by any-and-every other super-random number you can come across (having a bet slider, and bet slider skillz, is beneficial in this regard). =D
Thanks for the video, Tyler. It's always enjoyable watching you play/talk/teach poker!
Jan. 16, 2020 | 11:22 a.m.
Hi, Krzysztof Slaski - I can confirm that this video is very dry, so your goal has been accomplished. =]
Definitely an interesting video, and also quite different from what I'm used to seeing. It was intriguing to see how the strategies changed (or didn't change) based on your range manipulations. One thing I really wished you did though (admittedly this is not necessary, so it's not a flaw in the video at all) was to remove the option of OOP C/R in your real hand scenario at the end of the video and see if IP then cbets a lot larger and at what frequency. Was IP cbetting small because it can easily build the pot via the massive amount of OOP check-raising? If that is the case, and we find ourselves in a game where people don't check-raise the flop nearly enough, I wonder if an almost "range c-bet" with a larger sizing would be used (or a more polarized c-bet strategy?). Or, to phrase it slightly differently, how would our opponent's lack of check-raising make our strategy differ from the equilibrium strategy? Do you have any knowledge or speculations on that? Thanks again, Krzysztof!
THAT LION BETTER BE BACK SOON!!!
Jan. 12, 2020 | 11:13 a.m.
I got a good laugh out of the notes you had on Dekkers, Henry Lister - he must have gotten you with some "run-good" back in the day =D Great job explaining that they were likely outdated though; while I've only seen two of his videos so far, I'm very confident that he has worked on his game since those notes were taken. =]
Jan. 12, 2020 | 4:43 a.m.
Hey, great job guys. Nicely done. Well played. But did any of you even consider stopping for just one single second to imagine what it would be like if we were to suddenly realize that we were in something like a bad Twilight Zone episode, and that your cute little dream table was actually. . . a terrible nightmare?
—Eerie music begins playing softly in the background—
I sure did, and it's not pretty at all. And none of you look very amused about it either. . . and now I'm just really sorry that I even dreamt this whole crazy thing up to begin with. . .