Scientifik's avatar


44 points

:( another good content creator gone or now elite. Good luck with your next venture.

Aug. 3, 2019 | 7:46 p.m.

Oh well before I saw this I sort of thought that hands that we checked and called which had a greater EV than leading out were essentially functioning as our bluff catchers. After watching this unless I misunderstood the material only hands which are indifferent to calling or folding can be classified as bluff catchers. Assuming I understand this correctly if we meet our minimum defense frequency partially with hands that have some EV when we check and call then we need less hands in our range that have zero EV as a call and thus need less bluff catchers assuming of course that a bluff catcher can only have zero EV when called.

July 20, 2019 | 5:16 p.m.

Oh that makes for a good question then I guess. If you have hands in your range that maximize their value by checking and calling vs betting does this mean that you need less bluff catchers in your range that have an EV of zero? Or does this just mean that our opponent was unbalanced with his value betting range in the size they chose?

July 6, 2019 | 7:01 p.m.

This was a good video thanks a lot. More of this stuff please. GTO concepts broken down and then related to real gaming conditions and exploitative thought processes. The concept that the bluff catcher could only beat my opponents bluffs and never his value combos was something I always struggled with before. This never quite made sense to me until it was broken down like this. I always kind of thought "What does it matter if my bluff catcher beat some of his value combos that just makes it a better bluff catcher doesn't it?" Now I see that that wasn't actual bluff catching but merely calling a hand that maximizes it's EV better in my calling range rather than my betting range.

July 6, 2019 | 6:53 p.m.

Hello Everyone I hope this one hasn't been posted to death and I missed it or something but I am having trouble finding other forums or anything about this so I thought I would start one here to get discussion started. Since the new client update at ACR I am experiencing a lot of problems that their customer service is not addressing and I am hoping that some of you can give feedback that they aren't. I feel we need a space to discuss all problems that we are all facing with this software so we can see if everybody is having the same issues or if it is just us individually. I hope everyone speaks up because the customer service there doesn't seem to care one bit about issues that you are having with their software.

The first and I think most important problem I am facing is since the new client launch is that Holdem Manager stopped importing my hand history so I can't see my stats in session and I can't review my sessions after the fact in the Holdem Manager hand replayer. Has anyone else experienced this or experienced the opposite where everything worked fine for them? Their customer service is atrocious and I can't get a clear answer from them if it is the new client that is doing this or if I need to change something in my Holdem Manager.

I assume other players are facing this as well but I hope that there is a work around or some kind of setting I can change in Holdem Manager or a patch I need to dl to get everything to work right or something. Everybodys' customer service wants to point the finger at the other guy though and I am making no headway on finding the real issue. I am hoping someone can post and say whether or not their tracking software works or does not work on ACR so I can further troubleshoot this problem.

There is another question I would like to address while I am asking about ACR. This is the status of Black Chip Poker., I understand BCP is another site under the Winning Poker Network who also runs ACR. Are they having any issue with Holdem Manager at the moment? If I deposit money and play there will my Holdem Manager work there? Ultimately I would like to get my Holdem Manager to work at ACR. However at the moment given their dismal customer service and me thinking the problem is their client and not my Holdem Manager I think the next step in my troubleshooting is finding another site that will take US players that supports the use of HUDs. I hate the thought of giving Winning Poker Network more of my business considering how they treated me at ACR but don't know many other sites that will accept US players AND allow the use of tracking software and a HUD.

June 19, 2019 | 6:35 a.m.

The idea isn't to make money vs Snowie. The idea is to stay within a tight EV range of Snowie on every given play when it evaluates your EV. For instance say you play Snowie and you win 3 buy ins within say 200 hands but it says you played at beginner level it means your play sucked that session despite the "result" of money won in buy ins or if "snowie folded to my 3-bet or 4-bet every time I 3-bet or 4-bet". In contrast if you lost 5 buy-ins in the same span of hands however you got a world class ranking in the end this means you played well that session and are probably learning. I guarantee if you chose to play 100% of hands or come over the top of Snowie every time you won't learn anything and your evaluation at the end of the session will be beginner.

June 9, 2019 | 5:52 p.m.

I only wish they would make a Poker Snowie for Omaha.

June 6, 2019 | 8:47 p.m.

I am a big proponent of Snowie. It has helped me learn a lot about GTO. I read Applications of No Limit Holdem by Matthew Janda then I applied the concepts in there to my playing against Snowie. Then I thought about Snowie's feedback about my play in the context of GTO. Essentially why does Snowie want this hand in this part of my range? Then I started to look at when Snowie would tell me I am wrong for making a bet because it liked a check better but I wanted that hand in my betting range for whatever reasons relevant to my thinking at the time like I wanted flush draws or straight draws in my betting range in that spot for example. I would then look at the different bet sizings to find out that I lost EV by betting say half pot but maybe double pot was only within 3/100 of a BB difference between checking there so I would remember to use that sizing for those types of hands in spots like that. I then would actually intuitively start to use two bet sizings in a lot of spots I used to use only one and think about balancing both of those spots with different hands in my range thinking about which hands had the best blockers for bluffing with which bet size and etc. This training tested my new growing knowledge of GTO and helped me learn those concepts way faster than I would have learned them just reading the book previously mentioned or I think using something like PIO where I would just have to look at a bunch of graphs and try to absorb all the answers then extract their meanings all on my own.

June 6, 2019 | 8:45 p.m.

Thx Great Video. The hand toward the end of the video on the left where you have AhQd9h7s and you decide to pot bluff on river. Is this a good bluffing candidate because of all the blockers to the T or more so because we have the Q blocker exactly? It seems to me every card in your hand blocks a T combo partially so I couldn't tell if you ripped the bluff because of the effect of having all the blockers or if it was blocking the Q specifically.

May 30, 2019 | 2:44 p.m.

How do you feel about a quarter pot bet sizing on the flop instead of a jam on any of these spots where we 4 bet someone OOP?

May 28, 2019 | 4:23 p.m.

At 10:40 where you were talking about the strength of the Ah9h8c7s. How do you feel about the same hand double suited? From the hero's position in the cut off would that hand then be a raise preflop?

May 8, 2019 | 5:30 p.m.

Not to sound too greedy because I will buy the book anyway but at check out there is a spot for coupon codes. Are there any coupon codes for this book?

March 27, 2019 | 9:57 a.m.

Comment | Scientifik commented on ACR $1k (Part 1)


Feb. 10, 2019 | 11:52 a.m.

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.

Comment | Scientifik commented on ACR $1k (Part 1)

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.

Great video. Thx.

Jan. 27, 2019 | 3:48 p.m.


Jan. 18, 2019 | 1:32 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.

Jan. 1, 2019 | 9:55 p.m.

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