Oh, and I was implying this in the form of a potential portion of a future video, not in the form of you laboring away for an hour responding to my comment =]
March 27, 2020 | 12:41 p.m.
Hey, Patrick Cronin - I've loosely gathered that your primary method of formulating your range-based strategies is a logical/thoughtful/analytical approach as opposed to a "copy what the solver does" approach (though I do understand that you also take good advantage of knowing "what the solver does"). I would be very interested in hearing you talk about how you go about developing your ranges, at least as it pertains to how you go about thinking through how you construct your ranges and how you expect and understand the competing options available to work together. Thanks for the video and for the consideration, Patrick!
March 27, 2020 | 11:02 a.m.
Hey, welcome aboard, Alex Theologis! - I don't watch a whole lot of tournament videos, but based on this one, I will be watching yours. Much of what you spoke about was quite informative for cash game play as well. Nice work.
March 27, 2020 | 9:49 a.m.
Hi, EluSiVeMark - Thanks for the video! Have you had a flatting range in the SB and Button for a while, or is that a relatively new implementation? My memory could just be flawed, but it seems like around 6 months ago when I started watching a bunch of RIO videos there were not very many coaches with flatting ranges. Have you noticed this as a trend, or am I just misinterpreting things based on the limited experience I have with PokerStars games? Thanks, Mark. Stay safe!
March 26, 2020 | 9:47 a.m.
Ohhh, how I love this:
Gary: ". . .however its all about the profit line -> many ways to skin a cat!"
Jeff_: "why would you want to skin a cat? It means take skin off right? or cut hair?
poor cat :("
Language/cultural barriers between good people and among friends make me smile. Jeff_ - "There's more than one way to skin a cat" is an old saying that simply means there is more than one appropriate way to do a certain thing. Now that you have me thinking about it, skinning cats does seem a bit strange and I may have to investigate this saying later to better understand its origins. But the point of the saying is at least timeless, as well as broadly applicable for a vast array of people and cultures; a sort of archetype I suppose. One person cooks their eggs in a frying pan while another cooks their eggs in boiling water. Maybe "there's more than one way to cook an egg" just isn't as memorable, I don't know. But as it pertains to poker, I found it interesting from seeing certain players' graphs and stats that it is not uncommon for two players from $500 Zoom to have very similar winrates while having noticeably different playing styles. It's pretty cool that something like "styles" even exist in the modern poker era, especially when you consider the fact that many people believe that winning online poker players are just "pseudo-GTO-bots" and all play the same. Anyway, digression over. Thanks for the humor (whether intended or not); it's nice to maintain some lightheartedness in times like these. Be well!
March 26, 2020 | 8:55 a.m.
Hey, Tyler Forrester - That was a fun video, and also informative. What a great combination! But here's just an example of the simple things that I can learn from you, even while you teach more advanced concepts that I am not yet at the point of understanding. The second to last hand with the K8ss on 9hJd9s, flop goes check, check. Turn, A of s, you lead with an overbet. My first—and admittedly amateurish—thought was something like, "Yikes, I don't know if I like leading into that A when IP checks back a lot of aces there." But then within 5 seconds your thinking makes sense and I realize that I was simply a few levels behind you, as is most often the case. Then I feel silly when I realize that my turn bluffing range in that spot consisted of approximately nothing, but now I understand things a little bit better and can continue to improve at a faster rate than my most frequent opposition. Thanks, Tyler!
March 26, 2020 | 7:31 a.m.
Hey, Chris Pimmer - Hopefully it is okay to post this here, but I thought it was appropriate to share a brief story with you. A few weeks ago I was having a very, very difficult time in my personal life and being that I am a 3rd shifter who doesn't have friends (no seeking for pity here as it is of my own doing) I am often by myself (not necessarily the ideal place to be when dealing with some serious depression). Well, there I was by myself having a really hard time holding it together and my wife and daughter were sound asleep and I had absolutely no one on earth that I could talk to in that moment, so I decided that I would write a message and send it to you. I spent about an hour just writing out my struggles while trying to keep tears from soaking my keyboard, and I thanked you for your time and then I didn't send it because I didn't want to burden you with my garbage or risk violating RIO's trust or anything like that. But I did feel better. But also, as a couple of weeks have gone by I have thought that while I need not burden you with my nonsense, you should at least know that in that moment you helped me. And before you can respond by saying something about how there's no need to thank you or how you didn't even do anything, I will preemptively counter that by telling you that it was your character that made me aim the message in your direction as opposed to anyone else's. So I know that this isn't poker related and that it might not fully make sense, but just know (I'm sure you are already well aware) that your coaching and your personality transcend the bounds of poker. When you are able to "be there" for somebody without even knowing it (and without even knowing the person), you are doing something right. Thank you, Chris. I hope that all is well with you in these interesting times.
March 22, 2020 | 4:09 a.m.
Oh, and MMAsherdog is Run It Once user "Chael Sonnen" if anyone was left scratching their heads in confusion.
March 19, 2020 | 9:02 a.m.
Congratulations, Jeff_! I feel like we should throw you a virtual party or something, but this is the next best thing I could think of =] Well done, and we'll see you around in the comments!
March 19, 2020 | 9 a.m.
March 19, 2020 | 5:25 a.m.
Hey, Chris Pimmer - Another enlightening video, thank you. I really like the 'inversion" technique and have found success using it to play poker hands better. When trying to simply play as optimally as I can, I often get buried in the paradox of choice (given all the mixed strategies that can be appropriate), but when I invert and think "how can I screw this hand up really badly?" it opens my eyes to the next question, namely, "how can I play this hand in a manner as to not screw this hand up?" Then everything seems much clearer and I am able to focus on the more optimal strategies at that point.
I believe that this inversion technique is at least part of the reason why much of the time a field is revolutionized by someone who isn't quite a part of it. They are somewhat of an "outsider," and as such they are able to see things differently (inverted?) than the people who are engulfed in that field (the field becoming something of an echo-chamber which unintentionally—at least I hope it's unintentional—discourages seeing things differently).
Anyway, thanks for the video and you've got my mind wandering as usual. =] Thanks, Chris!
March 14, 2020 | 10:15 a.m.
Tyler Forrester - "I lost 15 buy-ins in one session and it was weird."
Me - "I lost one buy-in in one session and I punched a wall."
Jeez, Tyler. It's bad enough that you constantly show me how deficient my poker knowledge is, but now you go ahead and also show me that my mental game is nowhere near as strong as I had self-servingly assumed. You are a total jerk. And thank you. =)
March 14, 2020 | 6:59 a.m.
Hey, Patrick Sekinger - Great video. I can definitely tell you have been preparing for your Elite videos. Your Essential videos were always excellent (I watched at least 75% of them) but It's cool to see the change of pace from you as well. Keep it up and I'll "see" you in the next one!
March 7, 2020 | 11:43 a.m.
Hey, Tyler Forrester - Thanks for the video! @26:57 would that AJo make a better/good 4bet if it was something like the Hijack open vs a SB 3bet, considering the fact that AJo is generally a fold there? Just trying to clarify some things in my mind. Thanks, Tyler!
March 7, 2020 | 7:44 a.m.
All excellent points, Krzysztof Slaski - I think your statement, "I think there is a ton to be gained from constantly trying to figure out what you're accomplishing with the bet size you're choosing, whether you are right or not" is an especially good point though. Sometimes it's easy to forget that the whole point of playing is to get better (aside from making money, of course), and you are absolutely right that getting stuck in the simplified strategy would be a really big detriment to one's game. Thank you for the well-thought-out response!
March 6, 2020 | 6:07 a.m.
Hey, Krzysztof Slaski - Thanks for the video! I know that you are knowledgeable about bet-sizing and I have a bit of a generalized question for you. If someone were trying to develop a really solid and basic strategy before learning the more nuanced elements of bet sizes, what do you think would be the biggest problems with starting off with something like a simplified strategy of: "C-bet 33% with range on many boards, but learn certain board types that we want to check on frequently and c-bet 66% on those boards the times we do bet." And: "Bet 75% or check on turns and rivers, allowing for river block-betting when OOP." Obviously this wouldn't be a great overall strategy, but it may be useful for someone trying to get a grasp of the game and trying not to get overwhelmed with bet-size technicalities right off the bat. But what would the main problems with this strategy be, as you see it, generally and broadly speaking?
March 5, 2020 | 10:18 a.m.
Awesome video, Patrick Cronin - thanks for keeping it real =] My only complaint is that the ending caught me completely off guard and now I'm unsure what to do with myself until the next one is released!
March 5, 2020 | 8:53 a.m.
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. =)