It's a great video and I'm working on building this sheet myself. After consolidate several blind levels, I'm trying to make some adjustments based on your way in the video.
1) The way of finding the tight version of push range seems based on our own practical experience. But eleminating10%-20% of the range is ambiguous and we can hardly execute really well on every hand.
So my way is to remove all the hands which have an EV lower than +0.5% of the pot. E.g. for 6BBs, the pot could be 6+6+0.5+1+1=14.5, 0.5% of pot could be 0.0725BB, then I remove all the hands which have a EV lower than +0.07. So far I find it falling into the 10%-20% range well.
2) In your video you set villain's stack size randomly. But I find that their stack size actually have an impact on the EV they call the jam. It leaves some problems, e.g. sometimes the calling range of BTN is narrower than the CO since CO has a shorter stack.
I understand that there is no absolutely accurate way to create a perfect chart, but I want to get a chart following a concreate standard. So I start to set all the villain's stack to the average stack, in your case, 30BBs.
I want to know how you think about these adjustments before I go further. Maybe I'm shortsighted and missed some points on why you do it your way.
Thanks and looking forward to your feedback.
Sept. 5, 2021 | 7:32 a.m.
Great video, Peter. Absolutely love your way of pointing our those common mistakes people making all day long, but very hard to find out by ourselves. I even checked A7cc in the last example sometimes and didn't realize how big mistake it is. Cheers.
July 5, 2021 | 1:26 p.m.
Thanks. I'm appreciated that you gave a lot of insightful comments.
I agree that the population would fold much more than they should when they face our XR. And a capped range should be able to work since we don't get to this situation very often, due to the overfolding of population.
Oct. 14, 2020 | 5:17 a.m.
I agree that on the turn if we bet, we are not in a clear state of whether it's a bluff or value.
But the problem is after we check, our range is kind of capped. If we check our 7x and 4x, which we raised on the flop, then we need to check a hell lot of other strong value combos to protect them from turn and river barrels. I felt that it 'll come close to a full range check.
I actually ran the situation on PioSolver. The first finding is that the solver suggest the BTN should go for selective c-bet instead of unselective c-bet, which is not aligned with Peter's suggestion on EP7. Also in a video of Nick Petrangelo on another platform, he also suggest a selective approach for this dynamic board.
Then I use the node lock function and force BTN to c-bet full range with 33% pot, then the XR range of BB is aligned with Peter. And on the turn, solver suggest BB to use a full range bet.
So my understanding now is that we need to really check whether villain on the BTN is actually c-bet unselectively, and then decide when XR approach we are going to choose. And the turn, I'm still not very sure we should go full range bet or full range check.
Oct. 13, 2020 | 2:55 a.m.
I just watched the merged flop raising course and it actually brought me a lot of new ideas about how to deal with full range c-bet strategy.
Then the next questions would be the turn play after villain calls our merged raise. We need to battle with a merged range against a stronger range of villain out of position. If villain overfolds on flop vs. our raise then we can easily go away. But as Peter indicated in the video, a solid villain would also call many weak hands to somehow meet the minimal defense frequency. Then I guess that we have an uphill battle to fight then.
Is there any suggestion on this topic. Or maybe we can use the example in the video, we check-raise with A4dd on 7c4s2h and villain called. Turn comes a 8d or Kd, how should we approach the hand?
Thanks in advance.