Seven777's avatar

Seven777

10 points

Hello,
I'd like to know if the required equity when bluffing and bluff catching on the river works like this when accounting for a 5% Rake on Pokerstars (uncapped or within cap range to make it simple) :

Bluffing
- You bet 75% on the river, normally you'd need to get folds 75/175 = 42.85% of the time in order to break even.
- When accounting for the rake, is it correct that you'd need to get folds 75/(175x0.95) = 75/166.25 = 45.11% of the time?

Bluff Catching
- You face a 75% bet on the river, normally you'd need to have the best hand 75/250 = 30% of the time in order to break even.
- When accounting for the rake, is it correct that you'd need to have the best hand 75/(250x0.95) = 75/237.5 = 31.58% of the time?

=> Or does it work completely differently, and if so how? I'm playing on Pokerstars, I tried to check in HM and H2N but they seem to take the rake into account in different ways so I'm confused.

May 11, 2021 | 8:34 a.m.

Hello, I'm aware of that, and I wanted to know from the players who worked with both Simple Preflop and Pio Edge if the player facing the 3-bet folded less when modeling for 6-max instead of just inputing 2 players.

Does anyone know the answer please?

March 20, 2021 | 3:13 p.m.

Hello, I have a question for people who worked with 6-max preflop softwares (like simple GTO).

Say CO opens and BTN 3-bets, SB and BB fold. When building the CO defending range, will the solver take into account that SB and BB were yet to act and defend less than it would heads-up as a result?

To make things simple let's say you open CO to 3 bb 30% of the time, BTN 3-bets to 9 bb and CO decides to play 4-bet or fold. You'll need to defend 30x0.33 (9/13.5) = 10% of the time. But let's say SB and BB both cold 4-bet 5% of the time each.

1) Will CO still defend 30x0.33 = 10% of the time when it gets folded back to it?
2) Or will it defend 30x0.23 (0.33 - 0.05 - 0.05) = 6.9% of the time?

I know it's an exagerated oversimplified model and it's more complicated that just calculating the MDF, but I do want to know if the solver takes SB and BB into account when building CO defending range and I'm worried that if I don't oversimplify it I'm gonna get a non-answer.

Thank you for reading this.

March 19, 2021 | 12:09 a.m.

Hey Henry, I've watched most of your videos recently, I've gotta say you're the best Essential Coach on this site :)

I have a few questions if you have some time :

1) Say you had to play 4B or fold OOP (in a very high rake game), you open EP for 2,5 bb and BTN 3B to 8 bb. You need to defend 33% of your OR, however there are 2 players in the blinds that will Cold 4B the BTN at some frequency. Do you substract their Cold 4B % from your defending range, or do you ignore that dynamic?

2) At what frequency do you 3B AQo BB vs BTN with your rake structure?

3) When you're in the BB OOP and facing a 1/3 from a player you think might be betting range (but you aren't sure) what raise size do you usually choose? If you choose a small size (50%) do you bet really big on further streets trying to put stacks in or do you keep using standard sizings?

Love your videos, take care :)

May 25, 2020 | 8:15 p.m.

You're right about how it should be divived, thanks for pointing it out.

Well I want to have a good guess at what the RFI of unknown players is basically, and knowing the overall RFI of my player pool would give me that (it's much better than nothing anyway).

For instance on the button against unknown players I 3-bet about 6% vs EP, 8% vs MP and 11% vs CO, I basically assume my opponents' RFI is something like 13/17/23 in these positions but I have no basis for that.

July 30, 2019 | 8:07 p.m.

Thanks for the answer, but I don't think that's possible with HM2. In theory you can create an alias with multiple players and then check their RFI but in practice you have to add players one by one which takes forever and it can crash if you load too many so I'm looking for another solution if there is one.

July 30, 2019 | 7:06 p.m.

Hello,
Is there a way to use HM2 to find out the overall opening ranges of your player pool by position?

I know you can in theory create an alias with everyone in it in HM2 but it's not doable in practice. One (possibly stupid) thing I've tried to do in HM2 is to check the number of pots when I'm in MP and the EP player open raises, then divide it by the number of unopened pots when I'm in MP.

This exact example kinda checks out (= roughly 20%) but when I try in other positions (e.g. BTN and CO, SB and BTN) the results look inaccurate (CO supposedly opens 35% and BTN 57%, but I know my player pool is tighter than that) so I might be missing some math concept that screws that up.

Thanks for reading, any answer would be appreaciated.

July 30, 2019 | 4:42 p.m.

Well we'll never really know what type of hands anyone is 3-betting BVB and from what I understand Snowie played billions of hands so the way it plays BVB isn't against any one player type. Also its RFI isn't tight, it's standard (45%).

As to how it plays vs a 5-bet shove about 70% of its 3-betting range is calling it off 100 bb deep :

July 1, 2019 | 3:42 p.m.

Post | Seven777 posted in NLHE: Pokersnowie BVB vs 3-Bet

Hello,

Pokersnowie recommends doing that when opening the SB for 3 bb and facing a 3-Bet for 9 bb (the green hands are the ones Snowie wants to min 4-Bet) :

Usually I think there are pros and cons to Snowie's preflop strategy, but the one thing I think Snowie does well is measure the EV of its hands, and the interesting thing about BVB when facing a 3-Bet is that Snowie thinks the EV of min 4-Betting is worth far more EV than calling or 4-Betting bigger (just 4-Betting to 23 bb rather than 18 decreases the EV of every hand significantly).

E.g. 55 when facing a 3-Bet gives that result (just a random example, same thing applies to every hand Snowie chooses to min 4-Bet) :

1) Has anyone tested that strategy and if so how good is it in practice?
2) Does anyone know why Snowie thinks min 4-Betting is worth so much more than any other move (sure that puts the opponents hands like J8o in an awkward situation but the difference in EV is truly gigantic)?

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

June 29, 2019 | 5:06 p.m.

Thanks for the answers, basically I'm a 25 NL Zoom player so I'm big on the opportunity cost and have always cut hands that are bordeline breakeven in order to get more hands in per hour IP, which I feel like is the best way to go at these stakes.

For instance in the CO with 3 high 3-bettors behind I don't bother opening 76s, which in theory is very bad if the flop comes let's say 543, but since I'm IP I don't really care cause I can just check range, realize equity and not be too worried since even though I never have the nuts I still have overpairs and sets and my opponent only has 2 streets to apply pressure.

I'm currently building BB ranges vs opening ranges by 5% increment (14-18%, 19-23%, 24-28%, etc.) and size (2.3bb, 2.5bb and 3bb) so I can start working on Pio OOP and am wondering if the same principle of cutting 0.00-0.02 EV hands in order to get more hands in apply OOP as well.

My guess was being balanced was probably more important OOP since I won't have as many overpairs/sets, won't realize as much equity and and my opponent will have 3 streets to apply pressure, but spending time playing hands worth 0.00-0.02 EV in theory in an environment where in practice most of my money comes from triple barreling overpairs in 3-Bet pots and having a whale call me down with some medium pair feels idiotic (these situations don't happen very often but at this stake they do happen, however if you're playing 27/20 and trying to squeeze all the EV you can out of every theoratically breakeven hand you'll almost never see them).

But since so far I've only worked in PFR and 3-Bet situations I'm very ignorant in BB situations so I wanted to check how more experienced players might approach playing those 0 EV hands in the BB. I should have mentionned I'm only at 25 NL though, my bad.

June 25, 2019 | 4:38 p.m.

Hello,
1) I'm trying to copy Pio Cloud BB Ranges (screenshots at the end of the post), are there a few rules of thumb that can help in order to do that (for instance I'm rounding everything to 1/4 and am wondering if there are further ways to simplify that)? Like how do you approach trying to copy a somewhat GTO BB Range?

2) a lot of hands are 0 EV so I'm reluctant to play them, is that necessary to do so (espacially since the rake in the Cloud Ranges is lower that mine)? Or does that only apply to some hands and not others? I imagine cutting hands that cannot make straight isn't a big deal but I don't know if I can do that with those that can.

For instance :
Vs a 15% 3 bb Opening Range A9-A6s are 0 EV and so are AJo and KQo.
Vs a 20% 3 bb Opening Range K8s-K7s are 0 EV and so are ATo, KJo and QJo.

I want to cut all of them (especially since Pio only plays them at some frequency so I'd have to waste time looking at the RNG only to fold them some of the time unlike the +EV hands that are either called or 3-Bet so are never a waste of time) but don't how big of an impact cutting the offsuit broadways would have. And if it does have an impact is it better to keep them or cut them and also change the entire range to make it less unbalanced.

Those are the 2 example ranges I'm talking about.

BB vs 15% OR 3 bb : media.runitonce.com/post_img/3fb0b33a-9687-11e9-892a-ce244252800b.vs+15%25.png

BB vs 20% OR 3 bb : media.runitonce.com/post_img/600dbd62-9687-11e9-892a-ce244252800b.vs+20%25.png

Thanks for reading, any answer/thought would be appreciated.

June 24, 2019 | 1:55 p.m.

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

Hello,

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

Hello,
(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)
2)
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.

Hello,
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
Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy