SikBluffBruh's avatar


4 points

Is your last response Pierre in regards to my over-calling question? Bc there definetely is a known frequency to over calling, I just dont know how to go about figuring out the math behind what it is. However you will definetly hear players make statements like "if you start calling with x hands youre going to be over calling too much"..
Its the same statement used as over bluffing but the opposite obviously

Jan. 18, 2021 | 2:57 a.m.

" Do keep in mind that this does not keep in mind future play. If these betsizes are done with more action possible (such as on the flop) then the frequencies are not so easy to calculate. "

If turn and river bet are both full pot bets would it just be .33x.33? ....... (11%)??

Jan. 17, 2021 | 5:15 p.m.

" However, his main concern (at this point in his explanation) was to avoid ending up at the river with a range that contains many more bluffs than he can profitably bet. "

Well how is he figuring this out ? Is this just manual math hes done in specific spots over and over and just memorized it or???

Do you know the formula to go about figuring something like this out?

If both turn and river bet is full pot would it just be .33x.33? ....(11%)?

Jan. 17, 2021 | 5:11 p.m.

Well if thats the case, then why in Polks hand does he state bluffing 4 or 5 combos out of 26, meaning only bluffing 15-19% on a pot sized bet when youre stating you should have 33.3% bluffs in a pot sized bet?

Also, on the flip side what is the math behind over-calling?

For ex, with top pairs\mid pair\low pair etc, youre going to call some but fold others, examples of better ones to call with may be higher kickers\blockers etc,
But how can we figure out the math behind the total amount needed to call before one can claim youre over-calling?

Thanks for your response

Jan. 17, 2021 | 4:48 p.m.

So im wondering how one I can figure out the math behind how many bluff combos to value combos so im not overbluffing.

I thought it was that you wanted to put how many ever bluffs in your range to what pot odds youre offering opponent.
For example, if im betting half pot & giving opp 2:1, opponent would then therefore need to win atleast 33.3% to break even so id want my bluff to value range contain 66% bluffs and 33% value bets.

But after watching one of Doug Polls videos for example on YouTube, it appears im figuring something wrong.

in a particular spot in the video Polk states using about 4 or 5 combos out of about 26 value betting combos ( about 20% ) in the particular hand hes in, yet hes betting 14k into a 11k pot, giving opponent just less then 2:1 or about 36 % well say.
So obviously im making a mistake on something here as bluffing 4 or 5 combos would contain only about 15-19% bluffs instead of the 64% hes giving his opponent according to pot odds ...

The video is called "feuding poker players fight over a 100 k pot" Doug Polk on youtube if anyone wants to further clarify this specific spot im questioning.The part im talking about specifically starts at 10:17

Jan. 17, 2021 | 8:59 a.m.

Is it a annual memership like HM3 or a 1 time purchase? Ive looked on PTracker site trying to find out but see nothing about it being annual.

Jan. 10, 2021 | 1:29 a.m.

So I solved a spot using a gto solver and am wondering if any of you care to speculate on why in this particular solve its telling me to double barrel bottom pair oop on a T97,5,K board after going xx flop.
The river is supposed to be double barrled with many different kicker combos turning the hand into a bluff bc the solver shows absolutely nothing in poisition that loses to the 5's calling, while everything that beats them calling...

Why do this when it can use other non-made hands that got there like 8high or Qhigh to bluff with?

Jan. 10, 2021 | 1:17 a.m.

Just curious which software you all prefer .

Holdemmanager 3 now requires a annual subscription unlike in the past where it was a one time purchase.
My sub just came up for HM3 so im thinking about purchasing pokertracker this time as ive been highly dissatisfied with HM ever since I first purchased it.
HM didnt keep track of games played on the winning network (ACR) properly for me and had to manually input so much info after each tournament played for it to work correctly.
Anyone ever had this issue with Ptracker?
Is it a 1 time sub?
Whats your thoughts about whichever you own?

Jan. 7, 2021 | 9:46 p.m.

"You can run a sim with multple betsizes to see which sizing it prefers and the EV of that size."

Yes where can you find the ev difference of each size so I know which size is best to use?

Jan. 6, 2021 | 2:57 a.m.

Yes, I didnt know iI just needed to insert the commas, Thank You.
However, now I notice it takes too long to run one sim using two diff bets sizes, so I mys well run one sim with one bet size and another with another bet size, exactly the way ive been doin all along. Unfortunate.
P.s. Is there anyway to tell the difference between ev between what bet size is better?

Jan. 6, 2021 | 2:55 a.m.

" Why not make one solve where both betsizes are available and see which size is preferred? "

Apparently Piosolver does this,
can GTO+ not do this as well??

" Do you mean running a solve with 2 betsizes and seeing within that solve the difference of EV for each betsize option? "

Yep absolutely, this is what im trying to get at

Jan. 3, 2021 | 10:48 p.m.

Post | SikBluffBruh posted in NLHE: GTO+ bet size comparisons?

So I own a gto+ license but not a piosolver.
Apparently pio will allow you a comparison of highest ev actions between bet sizes.

Ive tried and tried to find out if this is true by searching online if gto+ can do this as well without having to run a whole nother sim imputting a diff bet size but cant seem to find a answer anywhere.

Is there a way?
Not only would running another sim be time consuming but i would have to switch back and fourth between each sim.

Its crazy how many articles ive tried to find online and in forums etc of "the biggest differences between pio and gto+" and no one ever mentions this advantage for pio.

Jan. 3, 2021 | 8:30 p.m.

Hey Robbiish.
Since my game focuses primarily on heads up nlhe sngs ive been thinking deeper about this post and after re-reading it, the part about having higher ev with a bigger raise stuck out to me this time vs your other comment.

So I ran the solver again and looked at the ev differences and yes, the ev does very slightly* go up with some of the more premium heads up hands (Ex. Qts kto etc) when you rfi bigger.

But the remaining hands in your entire range also slightly lose ev.

I even took it a step further and ran a opening 5x raise, compared, and seen the same results,
Premiums gained ev again slightly more while also losing ev on the remaining entirety of combos.
An interesting note tho about opening to 5x the solver really starts to mix up raising and limping frequencies with MANY* hands. (Ex. Kk will raise 73% of time and limp the rest)
Im sure its pretty obvious why...
But if not id imagine its bc the higher you rfi the more polarizing your range will tend to get.

Anyway, I dont think theres enough swing in ev one way or another to really say one of those rfi's vs another is better without adding up all the total ev for the entire ranges vs one another.
Which would mean me having to add and subtract each hand manually in the holdemresources calculator since the calculator doesnt do it automatically.
Im not going to do that but just based on the eyes I dont think one is really going to be that much more profitable then the other.
Tho in real life id use the 5xrfi strategy last out of all 3 options bc that strategy would be most difficulyto employ bc like I said, it really starts getting tricky with raising many* certain hands x% of time while limping them the other % of times.

One last thing to remind you guys and factor in that I briefly mentioned before is that holdemresources calculator does not take into effect your true "equity realization" like the more sophistocated solver "simple preflop" does. Now im not sure how "simple preflop factors in actual accurate* true equity realization when it doesnt run every single postflop board and action. But my understanding is that, considering any effect of equity realization is more accurate then only considering raw equity.

Dec. 19, 2020 | 12:34 a.m.

Thank you for writing out the thorough explanation\math.

Dec. 17, 2020 | 11:43 a.m.

Here ya go bro. Opening range of 2xbb in one pic highlighted, and opening range of 3.5bb highlighted in the other.
For what its worth imo my default is 2xbb raise heads up and bump it up to 3x when im confident opponent is just abusing calling every hand &/+ the more comfortable I am against opponent, stack to pot sizes etc. etc.
(hu sngs stack to pot sizes constantly changing)
But even if played cash I cant imagine opening to 3.5 unless its a pretty loose fish/bad player

Dec. 17, 2020 | 11 a.m.

" If you use a 3.5bb you have to open a tighter range."

Weird bc according to holdem resources calculator of a gto solution (barring some minor bottom of range equity realization hands) it shows that the gto solution is opening wider with a 3 x raise vs 2x.
(Im sure will be the case for 3.5 as well if I ran it)

Dec. 17, 2020 | 12:41 a.m.

Post | SikBluffBruh posted in NLHE: Finding correct frequencies

Hi, im just wondering how someone can best manually, (without solver), mathematically start finding some what accurate betting frequencies, (whether for value or bluffs balance etc)

Mighy it go something like " Opponent I believe has 50 combos of bluffs he will bet on river if I check and 50 he will value bet so I need to check\call 50% of my value hands and lead the other 50% of value hands (I lead turn in this particular made up "example).

This is a rough simplification but wondering basically if this is how its done, based on math

Dec. 17, 2020 | 12:35 a.m.

" It is not a scientific or purely mathematical point. "

Seems like Y could still find a gto solution by tweaking his range and or postflop strategy to counter x for bluffing too much, as well as for Z when Y calls wider simply using math/nash including still not being exploited preflop....
& too the point that neither could proftiably counter against Y.

I do appreciate the example though

Sept. 6, 2019 | 4:49 p.m.

" However the devil is in the detail. A nash equilibrium is defined as a situation where no single player can improve their EV by unilaterally changing their strategy. If two players do it, however all bets are off – the key word in the definition is unilaterally)."

I dont see why the third party being cooperative in POKER makes any difference, maybe for other games that are more scientific and infinite. But thats not the case with poker which can be entirely math based and limited.

Can you simplify to me why if we know opponents strategy (or ranges), while also knowing they are going to play a gto strategy...why there is easily not a gto solution against them no matter how many opponents there are so long as they dont adjust (open themselves up to being exploited while also opening us up to exploitation if we dont adjust).........?

Whether or not there is 3 or more makes absolute no sense to me what so ever.

If three players players A, B, & C play rock paper scissors for money, using a GTO strategy..

And so A, B, & C equally randomize what they throw so not to be exploited bc every other player will also be throwing equally randomly.
then each player will win 33% of the time while being paid 2:1 on their wins thus breaking even for a GTO based strategy.

you could take this example and apply it to many many multiple opponents/& or poker as well. As long as you know every persons range and that theyre playing a GT.
I dont see whats making it even questionable a gto strategy exist for 6max,9 max, etc

Sept. 6, 2019 | 1:31 p.m.

I don't know what you mean exactly by "cooperate" but if we know what their squeeze range (along with other players ranges in the pot+ranges+that theyre playing gto) is and that they are playing gto vs our range then we should be able to still find* a mathematical gto solution vs them at 6 max

Sept. 5, 2019 | 3:18 p.m.

" I'm still not buying in to the idea that snowie ranges are so exploitatively tight that we could just go crazy againts them. Maybe you could provide an example of a snowie strategy that you think is highly exploitable preflop? "

Oh idk, take the example like belrio42 mentioned below. Where we make our range a range that's very* loose to where all 5 other players who are using a snowie like range are not comfortable/experienced on how to play against us and do not/fail to adjust. All the while weve already solved/studied how to play proper gto against their ranges (snowie).

Would that not exploit them heavily?

Sept. 3, 2019 | 3:10 p.m.

I think what hes saying Samu is if I change my range from a range they are playing optimal (GTO) against, (ex. loosening it up drastically) unless the the opposition adjusts correctly and quickly*, their previous/(still current) optimal strategy will no longer be optimal, and can be exploited

Sept. 3, 2019 | 2:53 p.m.

" I don't know about others, but I use Snowie ranges often because they're free, pretty reasonable, and pretty convenient. "

Gotcha, appreciate the response.

" As for Snowie's tightness, there's nothing wrong with playing a bit tight at the micros/low-stakes. "

Are we sure about this? This used to be the case in the past. But in the past players were MEGA loose at low stakes. But they've tightened up significantly. Online poker is tough as nails today...even the micro stakes. a .01-.02 cent game is almost certainly tougher to beat then a live $1-2 game.

Sept. 3, 2019 | 2:27 p.m.

So whats making Snowie's 6max preflop range so commonly suggested?

Sept. 3, 2019 | 1:24 p.m.

" You say that the snowie ranges are tight. I'm not sure if they are? Compared to what? "

Compared to the past...I think this is the tightest times Ive ever seen these kind of starting ranges suggested. Hands Down

" That said snowie preflop ranges are considered to be pretty good and in fact I often recommend them as a starting point for players who are asking advice for preflop."

If snowie's range has nothing to do with even the thought of being close to GTO....Then what makes it so commonly suggestable?

And what would stop a player from playing a highly looser range/inputting it into a gto tree against a table of players whose range is pretty identical to snowies and just wrecking them since snowies suggestions are going to be to tight on how to counter?

Sept. 2, 2019 | 10:21 p.m.

But I thought snowie's 6max preflop range was considered very close to preflop gto I should have stated so thats why it is suggested to go ahead and use.

If not why is it the suggested preflop range to use?...Especially if regulars already know the mass population regs use it and has exploitable holes in it because they are playing SO tight.

Also, What is the difference between nash equilibrium and gto/solved?

Sept. 2, 2019 | 4:07 p.m.

" Poker Holdem No Limits is not GTO solved not even for heads-up although we know that for heads-up there is a GTO strategy. "

" And if we knew human players are generally not capable of playing perfectly by e.g. only 3 betting 65.734% of the time with a certain holding from a certain position against a certain position against a certain raise size etc. "

So its not really that it cant be solved for 6max, its that its simply unknown....and furthermore practically impossible to ever completely remember and apply in real time as a human...correct?/just to clarify

Sept. 2, 2019 | 4 p.m.

Post | SikBluffBruh posted in NLHE: "GTO PREFLOP RANGE"

I have a question about gto preflop range that everyone is talkin about today...(basically being pokersnowie's range)

Lets take that 6 max preflop range....How is that considered GTO? Isit considered GTO only when its being applied against completely identical ranges. Or is it considered GTO against ANY range?

Its an extremely tight range.

GTO means being unexploitable right, well if everyone is playing THAT tight a range at our table why cant we just loosen up to the point the table isnt defending our raises/and reraises enough be it preflop or postflop? Am I being naive that the numbers wont allow ME to loosen up to that point to be able to do that against a table of 5 others (since so many opponents) even though their ranges are that TIGHT?

Or, no, I am correct and players who loosen up just enough to the correct point could exploit them...Its just that-that pokersnowie range is a suggested GTO range because thats what generally the mass population at 6 max plays today???
(( Tho would seem hard to believe that the overwhelming majority of the reg population is playing that range all the way from low stakes to high stakes.))

What Am I Missing?

Thank you all as im really tryin to learn about solvers lately and will be purchasing one very very soon

Sept. 2, 2019 | 1:54 p.m.

Post | SikBluffBruh posted in Chatter: Solvers Destroying Pc's Ram??

Just diving deep into solvers lately, learning as much as I can before I decide which one to purchase...

Im not seeing any info though on what one means exactly by when they say it uses a lot of ram.
Does this mean it uses a lot of ram building the tree/&or solving and once its completed the ram is restored? Or is the ram forever used until I delete the tree/solved hand?

My biggest concern is that I wont be able to free up space on my laptop until I restore it and that is something I am definitely knowingly not wanting to go ahead and prepare to have to do.

Thanks in advance

Aug. 30, 2019 | 9:23 a.m.

No, maybe I dindt explain myself well.

What I meant by minimizing loss is I might for example have a average ev/stack size of $7.00 if I fold to his 5 bet vs calling it and then having say $8.00 average ev/stack.

So I understand your point there.
But thats still not profit when I had $10.00 at the start of the hand

Where as if I just call the 3-bet and play a hand as big as ak in pos against a super tight abc player I might end up with a average ev/stack size of $10/$10+


Aug. 28, 2019 | 6:05 p.m.

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