But 2 points. 1) Wouldn't we expect a 70bb stack 50NL player to be less likely to have a developed GTO 4betting range with things like KQs, KTs, A5s, etc? If we assume a fairly face up range, AQo doesn't do well vs this. 2) Given lower SPR pot we would be less likely to realize our equity further devaluing our preflop odds.
If we only get to see flop and his 4bet range is face up, we only have 18% equity. I get we can bluff, but most likely OP on flop line is bet or shove. And if check, as pointed out above, we have a awkward spot to construct a bluff.
Jan. 19, 2021 | 11:40 p.m.
Hey Henry, enjoyed the vid as usual. At 14:30. Understand the logic of pitching more low suited connector stuff given lower eff stack, but struggling to see how we can claw back our 3bet here with a call with AQo. At 1 SPR, our positional advantage is quite eroded as we basically have to fold to most cbet sans pairing our Q or A or better. If opp checks, we are again in a awkward spot given low maneuverability with a hand that likely has little SD value.
What do you think? Thanks!
Jan. 19, 2021 | 7:40 p.m.
Hey Tariq. Thumbs up on the vid. Your a sicko for some of your exploit call/folds :)
1:07. AQo. Why not like 3x instead 10x here since by 10x you commit yourself vs a blind shove which a crappy situation? Can comfortably fold to a 4bet from blinds if 3x.
30:50. 57s. I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how this can be a call since your range is mostly strong but not nutted (two pair, set), low freq nutted (flushes), and bricked heart flushes while V's line is nuts/air. So if we are calling 57 unblocking V's flushes, this may be close to bottom of our range which means we are paying off close to 100% on river. Given our opp can have close to 30 combos of flushes here (which is realistic given he chose his turn sizing with a draw) even if he is bluffing all his air, how could this be a profitable call?
Jan. 11, 2021 | 10:50 p.m.
Literally just hit a 25bb downswing. This video was great medicine for me. Thanks Saulo :)
Jan. 11, 2021 | 4:27 p.m.
Interesting thanks. I don't have access to pre-flop solves myself at the moment just these pre-made 2.5x. I understand a min raise or 3x would alter preflop ranges, never realized just a 1/4 of a BB would have such a dramatic impact. So much more to learn!
Dec. 29, 2020 | 3:46 p.m.
Hm, maybe the software I use is off but should be based on Monker using 2.5x solved to 0.4% for 500z rake. What is the actual EV diff from 3bet/fold COvsSB compared to 3bet/call/fold? Just curious, thanks.
Dec. 28, 2020 | 10:41 p.m.
Ben. Running Monker 500z specs shows <1% calling range (or 7% of VPIP range) COvsSB SRP. Sans exploit, why try to execute on this sliver of range when can just simplify life and 3bet/fold?
Dec. 28, 2020 | 6:17 p.m.
Hey Patrick, really enjoyed the video. This 45s is a interesting spot. So when node locking, some interesting conclusions:
At equilibrium 45s is near pure but one of the worse bluffs that solver wants to bet with (-) EV. 89s is bees knees as it is blocking highest freq value (A8, A9 called while A4, A5 folded). Bricked flushes rarely bet. BD spades small freq.
Adjusting turn only for pure call with Ax from IP. So I thought this was the most interesting conclusion. Under the assumption that IP calls all Ax on turn but folds small freq on river we get to bluff more and our bluffs make more money then equilibrium. This is because we now get more value from middling Ax since IP is calling lots of A2, A4, A5, etc and get to introduce more bluffs.
Your assumption of pure call Ax turn and river. Under this assumption we bluff little (89 still best) and all our bluffs are losing money and quite a bit. Exploitatively if you think this player is truly playing this way, I almost feel we could play completely unbalanced and not bluff river at all? Idk.
Dec. 22, 2020 | 7:46 p.m.
Hey Daniel. First off, I honestly thought that was another person behind you until 'both' of you scratched your head haha. Well played, nh.
So I'm predominantly a cash game player who occasionally donates to the tourney poker ecosystem. I understand that in tourney play there are an endless amount of situations to study (different stack sizes, ICM high, ICM low, etc, etc). What's your advice for a quick and dirty way to apply a reasonable strategy for a cash game player who will never have the time to invest as a tourney pro?
Like here's my thought and tell me if this is foolish or you have a better idea.
In non-ICM situations, apply cash game techniques while being mindful about stack sizes. Meaning, don't bet a large portion of your stack with a good hand that want's to realize its equity but would be put in a super tough spot if shoved on as a example. Also, ranges seem more polarized for 3betting vs cash game mostly linear?
In ICM situations, apply stack size logic. Big stack, take up aggressive preflop and post against mid stacks. Low stack playing closer to $EV. Mid stack vs mid stack bet more aggressively, call tighter. That kind of thing.
Thank you for any input!
Dec. 19, 2020 | 2 p.m.
Hey Ben. Weird question. Just curious whenever you come across a situation that never happens in solver land, do you think it skews strong or weak? Like the KK donk river hand, IP raising is never a thing (unless you were to over cbet) since solver hates it because you both have similar amount of flushes, 2 pairs, and sets.
Dec. 14, 2020 | 10:47 p.m.
Hey Peter Clarke . 15.43. I understand why in pool given not balancing correctly we can punish with more delayed cbets, but in theory (or if playing a reasonable opp) is this really the case sans range checking boards?
We can bet at high freq on turn post low card flop boards since we are range checking mostly and IP should be floating at high freq. Makes sense.
But a lot of these high/mid card, paired, etc we will be cbetting flop with a freq (pretty high on board went over in video given a block works great at folding out low trash IP can't do anything about) and IP shouldn't be floating as much. So can we really come firing turn at high freq?
Dec. 11, 2020 | 6:45 p.m.
Hey sauloCosta10 thanks for shedding some light on a part of the poker sphere that has always been in the shadows for me.
The Tirelli and Tomanari graphs you posted was for 'all stakes'. Curious what type of bb/100 are they making at 500nl and 1,000nl in Terelli's case and over x sample size? Thanks.
Dec. 9, 2020 | 10:48 p.m.
I just ran it. So even assuming he's balancing this shove with bluffs, we are actually folding most are 9T combos and prefer AA. This is likely because 9T never choses 2x pot when we have all the AT so AA better blockers to AT than 9T. What a weird spot huh.
Dec. 4, 2020 | 7:34 p.m.
I apologize for the format but AC HH are not compatible with RIO. Another kick to the crouch for American players :(
I check river, he shoves for 130bb or 2x+ pot. 700 hands 23/19 VPIP/PFR. Usually have some kind of note on a player by 700 hands but had none on him.
I very clearly can have all the ATs & 9Ts, not to mention KK, QQ, JJ which even a recreational can easily discover this. Our opponent will never have KK, QQ, maybe some JJ but should have lots of ATs, 9Ts. How is this anything but ATs??? But this is crazy talk because I have the 2nd nutz using my 2 hole cards so I can't fold if we sprinkle in some spazz right???
Thanks for the help on this!
Dec. 4, 2020 | 3:41 a.m.
Hey guys. Obvious depends on degree of skill for each winning player, but just like overall general bb/100 brackets (low single = good, mid single = very good, high single+ crushing, etc) what are these brackets for SB? I'm assuming its negative, just unsure what amounts.
Oct. 28, 2020 | 6:12 p.m.
Thanks for the response Jeff_ So the issue with calling more OP, I think, is this V is very aggressive postflop so we wont be realizing are equity the same way we do against more normal V. Things like low to mid pairs, low broadway, etc are going to have a tough time realizing equity. I have to fold a lot post flop.
Oct. 2, 2020 | 3:40 p.m.
sjfraley1975 No need to get frisky here. I was just helping. At equilibrium when an opp is overbluffing 3bets countering by 4betting more is a prudent strategy since you generate a lot of folds and win a rake free pot and don't have to worry about realizing your equity even if your in position. This only holds if V is folding properly to 4bets and isn't over 5betting of course.
In the situation I described, this V is overcalling 4bets so the math is very different.
Oct. 2, 2020 | 2:19 p.m.
Well actually if V is overbluffing preflop we'd actually want to be calling less and raising more. However, that assumes equilibrium folding to a 4bet which this V is not and thus the crux of my question.
In terms of V's postflop play. Its very loose/aggressive, spewy, lots of barreling.