Prophylax's avatar


2 points

Hi Daniel, one of the best videos I've seen in a while. I had a particular interest in the theorem you explain at 29'30, which states that if you run a sim with 3 sizings A, B, and C, and an identical sim with only 2 sizings, A and C, then Afreq + Bfreq + Cfreq (sim 1) = Afreq + C*freq (sim 2).
Thats something I never noticed and I would like how you would use this. I think it's mainly useful to simplify strategies for a very similar EV, for example when you get a sim with a variety of sizings and you want to simplify it to 1 or 2 sizings you can use this to find the perfect sizing(s).

But would you use it for other things ? Because I think it works only for these cases, as if you run a sim A with a 50% bet only, and then a sim B with a pot sizing only, the betting frequency of the second sim won't be 2x times the first one.

Feb. 8, 2021 | 9:16 p.m.

Hello fellow RIO members !

I'm going to move in London in a few weeks and I'm looking for a room in a house-sharing with other grinders.

I'm playing MTT professionally for 5 years, and in 2021 I'll be playing mainly the highstakes.

I lived with other people before and I really enjoy sharing a house. I think it's quite motivating, especially as grinders.

Please PM me or contact me on facebook: Axel Yallah, if you or someone you know is looking for a room mate in a poker house !



Jan. 15, 2021 | 3:07 p.m.

Comment | Prophylax commented on No equity turn cb

Well if your opponents floats you everytime you cbet, then second barelling air is OK. But this is a very exploitative move since it means you are second barreling any two. It has to be an auto-profit.
Against some fishes who call a lot of cbet but fold a lot of on turns, it may be OK occasionnally but you have to be sure of that + your opponents has to never adapt to your very wide second barrel range.

Dec. 21, 2016 | 3:11 p.m.


Both calling and 4 betting 15k / commit vs BTN look fine.

I don't have a big experience with sizings in live tournaments vs these type of fields, but usually when someone squeezes IP this spot with 4x+ and 60bb, they are capped, even it may be theorically correct to squeeze this big.

Usually when I see this sizing, I assume it's a strong hand which wants to get-in pre but has trouble to play post (JJ, AK, maybe QQ) He has also bluffs in his range.

With this assumptions, I would lean toward calling because of this very reason: villain 2 might have a hand he doesn't want to play post. You let villain 1 peel a reasonable amount of the time by just calling but being a CG players he will, I think, less be inclined to slowplay KK AA when he flat you UTG+1 vs UTG in the first place. I think they are less tricky than MTT players even if they balance ranges better, but I may be wrong. So imo he won't NYBR ever that spot.

By 4b there is some advantage, you may make him fold AKo, although given his profile and the nearly end of the reentry period giving an incentive to gamble, this gonna be rare. If villain 2 is good he won't squeeze / fold merged with a hand like TT / JJ, so I don't think you gonna make him fold that though. If he squeezed them, it's in value in order to call even if it's very loose.

In conclusion both are fine but given my assumptions on villain 2 range, I would just call and play straightforward post.

One detail is also that if you hit an Axx board you might have some nice implied odds, since I can see villain 2 squeeze a decent amount of Ax here, AQ AJ given his profile.

My two cents

Dec. 21, 2016 | 2:59 p.m.


Applications of NLHE is awesome. I'm a MTT pro and I almost never play CG, but this book about sound GTO poker helped me to improve a lot my understanding of this game. I strongly recommend it.

In addition, you may like Moorman's book. It consists of 80 analysed hand by Moorman. Worth buying and reading.

Dec. 21, 2016 | 2:41 p.m.


I actually never noticed this sharkscope's function. If I understand this right, the skill level of the tournament is the average of the skill levels of all the players playing this tournament ?

If so, I think your calculations are biaised. Sharkscope doesn't give the formula, but I'm pretty sure the personal skill level of a player is VERY impacted by his ABI. I used to look at this number since I understood this. You can find players with a 90 skill level having much less profits than 80 players just because their ABI is much higher. That's why I think the Sharkscope formula is too weighed toward the ABI, they should adjust the formula to give more weight to total profit and ROI.

So yeah, you can be a winning player if you are 78 on a 88 field.

I like this topic and your work, but it lies on an probably wrong assumption, which is the higher the skill level of a player, the better he is.

Nov. 4, 2016 | 4:52 p.m.

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