Ciaran I currently don't use PIO so forgive me if I am incorrect here. I still feel simply comparing the EV's of betting/checking and seeing that it says betting 1/3rd with range is reasonably close then node locking and looking at the comparison of the sim seems the way to go. Isn't PIO is using countless iterations of the same situation to come up with these adjustments? Assuming this is true your human opponent couldn't simply adjust after seeing you use a 1/3rd pot bet once. They would then have to come up with an adjustment after realizing this and even then if we are reasonably balanced I can't see this as having a savage impact on our EV. They would be better off finding other spots where we were visibly playing weaker and then exploit those.
Feb. 5, 2019 | 6:42 p.m.
I feel like many people get Equity or pot share conflated with Expected Value. While these things are interrelated they are two totally different things. Equity can be expressed as the percentage of the time you would win by the river given you get to showdown. This also can be expressed in the percentage of the pot you would win. Say we have a $100 pot you have a nut flush draw with KsQs on an As5s7d and villain has top pair with AcJc. Your Equity or odds you will win by showdown is 36% and the villain's is 64%. This can also be expressed in pot share by saying you have a $36 dollar equity share and your opponent has a $64 equity share. Expected value or EV is how much money usually expressed in how many big blinds or dollars a specific action will make or lose you. Say using the above example you check this flop and your opponent jams for $200. Your equity in terms of pot share on this call would be $108 which is 36% of the $300 dollar pot. Your Expected Value on this call however would be figured as follows EV= amount you win x percentage you win - amount you lose x percentage you lose. In this case EV= ($300 x .36) - ($200 x .64) for EV= -$20. So this means that making this call mathematically speaking is the same as handing our opponent $20 because we just like them but we don't that's why we call them the villain so we fold. The villain with this play however denied us our 36% of the pot with this bet which is the same as saying he denied us our $36 dollars of equity from this pot which was our equity share before villain bet. Playing in a way which we are denying our opponents more of their equity share than they are denying us is generally good and also the opposite is true playing in a way where our opponent is denying us more of our equity share than we are denying them is bad. This is the real reason why red line equity or win without showdown equity is so important overall. The more we are winning without showdown the more equity we are denying our opponents. I hope this was helpful and clears some things up.
Jan. 31, 2019 | 8:25 p.m.
Hi. I looove my Snowie account so far. You are right about their moble app it has a little to be desired but when you use the PC software it's much better and then you load the session and look at the analysis it's awesome. Don't just show errors either show by moves and look over your whole session even spots where you got a correct. Click stuff like 2x bet where you normally wouldn't and see what it says the EV difference is. There were spots for instance where I would bluff and say bet pot and I would be wrong and snowie would say to check and that check was correct but then I would click 2x to find that betting 2x in that spot would say be less EV than checking .05 EV or something. So looking a little further than just finding Correct or Wrong and thinking about WHY the values are as such will make you a lot better even if you got a correct. There will be little oddities like you will see that betting half pot has the same EV as checking because one way you are protecting your equity and the other way you are squeezing equity out of enough of the weaker hands in their range that betting half pot is fine. You will then click pot to find pot is a loss of EV because you lose equity on the hands you would get calls from with half pot and then lose EV on all the better shit that calls you. Then you click 2x pot and you now see the same profit as betting half pot because the double pot bet allows for more bluffs and your hand will fit as a bluff in that range.
Jan. 31, 2019 | 7:36 p.m.
pot is 3x the current bet + all other bets prior on the same street + the pot (or the middle) so say you have a $40 pot preflop you have 4 players utg bets $20 on the flop next player calls $20 third player raises $100 action comes to you and you say pot (assuming we are playing PLO or PLH). To calculate Pot value which is the same in both games we multiply last bet made on this street x3 so the last bet is $100 so you multiply that by 3 for $300 then you add the other bets to that which brings us to $340 lastly we add the pot or the middle which is another $40 that brings us to $380. Now that we have the value that is pot $380. We now need to obtain 60% of this value. If I don't have a calculator the simple way to do this is multiply this value by whatever tens percentage we want to know then move the decimal one to the left. Right now this is %60 so we multiply $380 by 6 to get $2280 then move the decimlal one to the left for the final answer or $228.
Jan. 31, 2019 | 4:33 p.m.
I took his question to mean how can you recognize what parts of your range you want to bet 60% pot vs 50% etc. If this is your question I would say think about that hands you are either trying to fold out or get to continue on a given board then choose a size you think best accomplishes this. Also think about what hands you want to continue against what parts of your range you are betting.
Jan. 30, 2019 | 10:19 p.m.
I'm not really a "PLO guy" but I liked Pot-Limit Omaha Poker The Big Play Strategy by Jeff Hwang. It's not too dense and if you are a solid NL-holdem player I feel the concepts here can get you comfortable playing omaha as far as knowing what and why hands are playable and what you are looking to do with flops and when to bomb pots vs pot control and stuff. I feel there is a lot in this game that is counter intuitive if you go into it from a NL hold'em perspective. they are two completely different games. I feel like I like NL holdem more but definitely learned tons from this book.
Jan. 30, 2019 | 10:13 p.m.
Thx everyone! I feel I made an awesome little thread here. I thought I would make an update for anyone who sees this that might be in a similar situation as myself. After some consideration I got a poker snowie membership which I ended up really liking. I also mentioned in this thread I started reading Mat Janda's Applications of No-Limit Hold'em book. I highly recommend both these products. I feel like if you don't just copy cat what you think snowie wants you to do but carefully analyze why poker snowie chooses the lines it does and also consider lines it doesn't choose but finds close in EV and consider why those lines are close in EV you will learn a lot. Also learning from the videos here and reading the pre mentioned book although I'm not all the way through it is getting me thinking about hands and lines in new ways that I wasn't just a short while ago!
Jan. 30, 2019 | 10:05 p.m.
On the last hand in the video I like checking the turn but you got me interested with the 1/3rd pot bet idea following his check on the turn considering that board should overall suck for his range while we pick up equity at least for our hand on the turn. I do have some questions concerning this line in that spot considering we flated pre in early/middle position as opposed to say on the button or cut off where I assume we could have more Kx hands in our flat range that can gain value from draws and such. Do we have enough hands that get value from enough weaker hands like draws and such in our opponents range? Does our opponent have enough air in his range that folds out to this sizing? I assume we are more trying to pick the pot up from our opponent than getting value for our range. Or is our range just gaining enough value by denying equity to the air hands that fold here that we don't really need to get value from all that much?
Also if we do take this line on the turn and we smash the river with the club (assuming it's not 6c) then get checked to and we bet for value what would our optimal bet size be considering our range and what we think of his range? Also after considering our optimal bet size what does our bluffing range look like for that sizing?
Thx a lot and great video.
Jan. 30, 2019 | 9:39 p.m.
I'm a little confused by this comment. Isn't that the purpose of node locking he did in the first place? We take a line we are trying to simplify by node locking it then see what the EV looks like after. So we were just looking at the EV's of the current calculation vs the node locked value?
Jan. 30, 2019 | 6:41 p.m.
This may be slightly off topic but I see you use the 3rd pot range bet on occasion. Do you know any good materials covering this topic because I can't seem to find any? It seems to me it is done in lieu of a check to squeeze out some extra EV on boards that are better for your range than your opponent's range but I'm not sure. Thanks man.
Jan. 9, 2019 | 8:41 p.m.
Are you going to do a video where you show us the PIO analysis of the marked hands? What are all the nuggets you pull out of the simulation, things you would do different from what the simulation suggests vs the actual players in the hand, etc.? I think that would make for a really interesting video.
Jan. 6, 2019 | 6:53 p.m.
Magic the Gathering. I'm a little surprised MTG didn't get more love in this thread. This is not just a fantastic game it is actually very complimentary to poker. You have to know how to play each deck in the meta game. You have to know how to sideboard against each deck, and how each deck sideboards against you. Hand reading is also very similar. You know roughly what sort of cards they have in their deck because of the type of deck they are playing because you have also played with it as well. You can then guess what cards they do or don't have in their hand considering how they deal or fail to deal with a situation. There is even a sort of balance to play that most MTG players that don't play poker are not truly aware of. The super common sort stuff that happens every game like whether or not someone plays a shock land vertical and takes 2 damage on turn two when playing blue then passes turn. If they leave it tapped and pass turn I can probably rule them out having any two mana counterspells or serious threats at two mana and can play my hand out more aggressively. If on the other hand they keep it up take the 2 damage and then leave the mana open and pass or advance their own board say by playing a Tarmogoyf or something they keep their hand way more dynamic as they can still have all these cards in their hand. Most players fail to see the meanings of these interactions all together and simply take their 2 damage when they have stuff they want to do or leave it tapped when they can't. I remember I got scoffed at once when I told someone just that that they should leave their shock land face up and take the two against almost all decks in the format for the above reason. It was sort of comical because all the people that laughed at that had win/loss records that were dismal compared to mine.
Jan. 4, 2019 | 7:50 p.m.
Thx I am in the middle of reading Applications of No Limit Holdem now and can say I like it way better than the Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen. I get way more out of it and the information is more digestible to me. I would definitely recommend that book to someone in a similar situation as I was. I got the Mathematics of Poker and couldn't really do a lot with it and never picked up the other book because I assumed it would be a lot the same but I was wrong.
Jan. 4, 2019 | 12:43 p.m.
Thx. I tried that. I was able to pull some nuggets out of it here and there like 1-A or checking back sometimes to allow a brick to drop to gain more equity before betting etc. I found though that the math formulas they used were a little too dense for me to digest easily. I also read Ed Miller's Poker's 1% which seemed to make a lot of concepts more clear to me. I think I'm going to try Matthew Janda's Applications of No Limit Holdem next.
Jan. 2, 2019 | 6:19 p.m.
I was thinking about either investing in a program like Snowie or PIO solver. I am an exploitative type player and want to learn more about what a GTO approach will add to my toolbox. Am I better training with a program like Snowie or am I better to enter hands in PIO solver and train that way?
Jan. 1, 2019 | 3:47 p.m.
I would like to start a discussion about range betting. I am fairly new to the concept myself and would like to know if there are any good videos focusing on this. I would also like to hear from people that regularly use range betting in their arsenal. What game do you play plo or holdem? What boards do you choose to do this on? Are there certain opponents you range bet and certain ones you don't. Is this mainly a GTO consideration? etc.
Dec. 31, 2018 | 4:12 p.m.
I am interested in hearing others thoughts about Joe Ingram's podcast rants about super users and bots on ACR. I enjoyed his podcasts about this topic however they all left me with more questions than I had before I watched them. Is this all valid stuff or is it somewhat blown out of proportion for the purpose of making entertaining podcasts? What is the implications of all this? What should I do if I suspect this type of collusion? How do I verify my suspicions and to whom would I report this to? What measures if any should I expect ACR to take about any suspicions? How sophisticated are these bots? Do they play well enough that you should run away or if you are a solid enough player should you look to counter exploit these bots?
Dec. 27, 2018 | 12:53 p.m.
I make a point to do about an hour a day or hard exercise. Lifting weights, indoor climbing, yoga/pilates, kettlebells, etc. If you are living a largely sedentary lifestyle which a lot if not most of us in the poker community are a good workout regimen is a necessary counterbalance imo.
Dec. 27, 2018 | 12:40 p.m.
Great video man thx. To me at least I would rather lean on being too optimistic then pessimistic. I remember when I first started playing and I talked to a friend about poker a lot he told me I should be optimistic and that my pessimism which came out about how I talked about hands was bad. He sited that I should be actively finding situations I thought were profitable and to look for profit not actively trying to avoid situations that were losses and to look for loss. At the time this seemed silly but as I plugged along and slowly adjusted my mindset to be optimistic instead of pessimistic. I noticed a lot of positive changes in my poker game, including an increase in energy and motivation and also tackled things in life outside of poker that I noticed grumpier nay saying types fumble around with.
Dec. 25, 2018 | 12:21 p.m.
At 26:27 you have Ac3c on QhJsTc board. You get check raised on flop decide to call. Turn is 9d and opponent bets half pot you fold. I like how you played that hand but I think I sometimes get hemmed up in spots like these when my opponent checks turn instead of bets. How would you have proceeded here if instead of opponent betting half pot on turn he checks instead? Do we treat this as a float and try to take it away on the turn? If so do we take the range we do this with and represent a straight and bluff river hard if called on turn?
Dec. 25, 2018 | 11:55 a.m.
Thx man great video. At 12:41 on the KcJh hand you were deciding on whether to call or not given your pot odds siting that you thought that 2.3x was a snap call 3x was a snap fold and 2.5x was close. Does this extra .5x matter THAT much in this spot given we have the implied odds and our opponents have the reverse implied odds? I would have thought my main consideration for calling this bet would be my potential implied odds I would have when I spiked the flop with a nutted hand and not this slight difference in pot odds. Say we call 2.5x and the times we flop AQT, or QT9, KJx and hose AK/AQ type hands for multiple streets make us more potentially than all the times in aggregate we check/fold. Wouldn't then the slightly bigger pot when it is 3x allow us to get more money in on those times we hose second best hands on multiple streets thus relatively negating the extra .5x we are paying in aggregate when we call 3x and are forced to check/fold?
Dec. 25, 2018 | 11:28 a.m.
I have a 55" HD tv, a wireless keyboard and an elecom huge trackball mouse, and I sleep on the futon I play on. I don't seem to have any problems but I am critical about ritual though. (nothing weird just preparation before playing.) The first thing I do when I wake up if I'm going to play is change into some clothes I would wear away so no pajamas and slippers I then fire up some spoitify to get my energy right. I usually start off with some metal or rap to get me in that combative mindset then towards the middle of my session switch to a nice trance or techno. I then start a pot of coffee fix my futon to couch mode, eat some breakfast, fill my coffee mug and sit down to play. I load up about 3-4 tables and go till I feel like stopping. I do feel it is important to be disciplined though. When I am playing poker I am playing poker not talking on the phone, looking shit up on the net etc. When I am studying poker I am studying poker not watching irrelevant you tube videos etc. When I am relaxing/ goofing off I am not doing anything poker related at all except maybe watch an interview on youtube or a sweat video or something. I feel like work life balance is the key to the longevity of doing this where you have the freedom to do what you feel like when you feel like. Poker time is poker time. Study time is study time. Other stuff doesn't leak into my poker time and poker most certainly will not leak into my non poker playing life. No taking the gf to play poker, when hanging out with non poker friends and you get "hey want to go to the casino and play?" Nah no thanks i'll pass. If I get a call while I'm playing I decline it if I get called back I answer and say "I'm playing is it important?" If not "hey I'll call you back in like 2 hrs is that fine?"
Dec. 24, 2018 | 10:14 p.m.
Is this phenomenon why way back when I taught myself to play poker with a book I would read it and nothing I read made much sense to me then one day it was like presto and I got it? I would read it some every day but then got frustrated with the book put it away for a while and plugged away at playing some more. I would then go back to the book and try to reread stuff and skip through sections hoping I could pull something out of it but to little avail. I still remember that book Ken Warren Teaches Texas Holdem great beginner book IMO. I remember I was determined to learn how to play poker but at the time couldn't see how any of the material I was reading was particularly relevant or how the pieces were supposed to fit together. Then one day I played and got the crap kicked out of me and thought I was going to quit altogether. I came home from work the next day and thought the heck with it I might as well keep playing until the deposit is gone having about $40 of my original $200. I loaded up a few $2 and $3 tournaments expecting a similar result and in the middle of one of the tournaments in one particular hand I even remember that I had pocket tens. There was a 3 x raise in front of me and a call and I had this odd thought to me at the time which felt like a lightning of insight that my tens were probably the best hand and with the size of the pot compared to my stack I ought as well just put it all in. If everyone folds great I'll be in a lot better shape than I was in now and if I get called and I happen to win I'll actually be the chip leader and knock one of these guys out and be one step closer to the cash. As it happened I jammed got called, won that hand and went on to win that tournament which was my first tournament cash ever and placed money in two more of them that night. The next day I started to read the book from the beginning and everything I read made perfect sense to me. I then went on to run that $40 up to $800 with no further deposits just by cashing tournaments.