Seven777's avatar


1 points

Comment | Seven777 commented on Cbet Range 1/4 or 1/3

Thanks for the answers :)

June 10, 2019 | 8:08 p.m.

Comment | Seven777 commented on Cbet Range 1/4 or 1/3

Thanks for the answer, sorry maybe I should have been more precise : I'm talking about the 200 and 500 NLz good regs. When I watched videos on the elite subscription the vast majority of them used either a 1/2 (3-Bet pots) or a 1/3 sizing when they said they were cbetting range.

When I said that "cbetting range spots happen very often" I meant for me though, not for the good 200 and 500 NLz good regs that still check at some frequency in high frequency cbet spots rather than sacrifice some EV simplifying it.

In 3-Bet pots (they're mostly what I work on) when I compare the EV of betting range with 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 Pio almost always considers either 1/4 or 1/2 to be the best line (although the difference between 1/4 and 1/3 is slight it's almost always in favor of 1/4 when not choosing 1/2), almost never 1/3. But that's the line both the Rio coaches and their opponents that they deemed good took whenever they said they were cbetting range (or in their opponent's case assumed out loud that they were).

So I'm wondering what I'm missing.

June 10, 2019 | 8:08 a.m.

Post | Seven777 posted in NLHE: Cbet Range 1/4 or 1/3


I see most good players use a 1/3 cbet in spots when they are betting their whole range, however I spent a lot of time on Piosolver (with rake) and 1/4 is actually almost always yielding more EV when betting range in spots when you want to cbet small (usually very small difference like 0.1-0.2% pot, but on some boards it's up to 1% pot).

When cbetting range the strategy doesn't get any more simple for us so even though the difference in EV is very small I feel like it should be logical to choose the sizing worth more EV, but the good players use the other one.

Does anyone know why? Is there an advantage to choosing 1/3 that makes up for the difference? Probably sounds like a worthless question but since cbetting range spots happen very often that feels important.

Thank you for reading, any answer/thoughts would be appreciated.

June 9, 2019 | 6:04 p.m.

Thanks for the answers, they're very helpful :)

June 8, 2019 | 10:15 a.m.

Post | Seven777 posted in NLHE: Piosolver EV / exploitable for

(if that's relevant I'm a Zoom cash game player)

I've spent dozens/hundreds of hours on Piosolver but I'm kinda running around in circle. I subscribed to the elite rio for 2 months and watched tons of videos but the only thing I got out of it is that you can cbet range on spots where doing so "won't cost you too much EV", but no one ever mentions how much EV is an acceptable loss.

So I drew an arbitrary line at 2% pot loss in EV at first, but then came the problem of playing hands where I arbitrarily decided I couldn't cbet range. When I build a strategy close to what Pio suggests but that can be reproduced IRL in a timely manner I get an EV very close to what an optimal strategy would be worth (minus 0.2% pot or so) but usually exploitable for 7-9% of the pot.

I tried looking all over the internet for ways to simplify/quantify all that but the only thing that ever comes out is the cbet range thing, again without any indication on what an acceptable EV loss would be like, and the very few posts I ever saw on how to play a range without cbetting all of it never mentions how much you can be "exploitable for".

So basically I'd like some kind of baselines :

1) Around what would be an acceptable EV loss when cbetting range? If there isn't a static number is there a way to figure out the one that applies for you? (that's really important cause without a baseline you're just gonna end up cbetting range on every flop that's not too awful for you, and the 2% pot I temporarily settled on is very random)
Does being exploitable by Pio even matter? And if so around how exploitable can you be when not cbetting range so long as your strategy yields an amount of EV similar to an optimal strategy?*
=> The reason I ask if it even matters is that Pio assumes both player are omniscient, but realistically your opponent should barely be able to figure out what your preflop range is, let alone how you play it postflop if you don't cbet range (unless you play dozens of thousands of hands against that specific opponent and he takes a considerable amount of time outside the table to research you, and at most stakes I imagine close to 0% of the player pool is gonna qualify).
So really so long as we're reasonably balanced we can pretty much flush the "exploitable for" variable down the toilet right? That's the conclusion I more or less came to, but then comes the last problem : if you ignore the "exploitable for" and just look at the EV you go right back to cbetting range on every board that's not awful for you. Hence me running around in circle.*

Thank you for reading and any answer/thought would be appreciated.

June 7, 2019 | 10:07 a.m.

I'm an idiot, I have Starshelper but I had no idea table placing could do that. Thanks Pape_Sux

Aug. 8, 2018 | 2:08 a.m.

Your tables look bigger than most people (you don't have the white pokestars borders), do you use a software for that and if so which one?

Aug. 5, 2018 | 5:33 a.m.

May 14, 2018 | 12:44 a.m.

Hey, thank you for the video. I have a question if you please :
- what are your 3-betting frequencies (approximately) with A9s-A2s when you are in the big blind vs a 2.5 open from the button from an unknown player 100 bb deep?

May 12, 2018 | 5:27 p.m.

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