SikBluffBruh's avatar


2 points

" 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.

No exact stats if you mean hud. I never understood why ppl like them when you obviously cant use them live. Its like building a foundation around mud instead of concrete.

However, It was pretty obvious he was pretty abc solid super tight. Also...
Had been at table about 45 min and he hadnt 3 bet yet.

Appreciate that stat

Aug. 28, 2019 | 5:59 p.m.

Though Belrio41 I may not make much money with it postflop with the good examples you show...It would still be better obviously then losing money if preflop shoving is costing me no

The problem I still see with preflop is your examples sounds more like minimizing* loss by getting it all in vs actually profiting

Aug. 28, 2019 | 1:41 p.m.

Where is the money coming from then in this situation against this solid of a super tight player?
Not asking for the specific math, just a simple claim.

Aug. 28, 2019 | 12:48 p.m.

First hand Iseen him 3 betting in idk probably 50-100 hands I had seen while at table. Hadnt seen him fold to a 4bet bc there wasnt any going on either at the table.

His range for everything probably looks very similar to snowie, possibly even tighter

"In general, you should be fine getting it all in preflop with AKs, no matter who your opponent is"

It just seems like the money im making when I 4bet is really coming from fold equity (eg. he 3bets, I 4bet,he folds) ..The problem is it just seems his 3 bet range is just to tight for that math to happen.

Aug. 28, 2019 | 12:09 p.m.

Yea I wasnt worried too much about postlfop... Cooler/have to pay it off when he slowplays it & I hit with the pot this big.

My concern is preflop. Against this particular opp I already dislike 4 betting, and I really Hate it if im 5 bet'd all in.....when I can simply just call and play in position,keeping opponents range a a lot wider/ allowing him to maybe make a mistake while also pot controlling if I need to.

Aug. 28, 2019 | 12:02 p.m.

Post | SikBluffBruh posted in NLHE: Must I Really 4-Bet?...

Not to be too results oriented but can I just call the 3 bet and play a pot postflop with position.
My problem is my 4 bet pretty much commits me and everyone at table is abc solid/super tight.
Calling would allow me to keep hands I beat in pot and have them maybe make mistakes while pot controlling if I miss or make and need too.
Opp is going to call atleast one street anyway with most of his range he calls my 4bet with so long as no scare card flops (ace/king)
((VERY little flop cbet fold equity))

6 max $.05/.10

BB $12.87
UTG $8.46
HJ $16.03
CO $37.15
HERO $10.65
SB $10.38
SB posts $0.05
BB big blind $0.10

UTG folds
HJ folds
CO folds
HERO raises to $0.30
SB 3-bets to $1.20
BB folds
HERO 4-bets to $3.00
SB calls $1.80

FLOP Kh 9h Tc Pot $5.80
SB checks
HERO bets $4.00
SB raises to $7.38 and is all-in
Hero calls $3.38

TURN Kh 9h Tc 6h

RIVER Kh 9h Tc 6h 5c

HERO shows As Ks a pair of Kings Ks Kh As Tc 9h
SB shows Ad Ac a pair of Aces Ad Ac Kh Tc 9h & collected $19.82 from main pot

Aug. 28, 2019 | 11:41 a.m.

I never understood the mentality of table selection.

Unless one is completely satisfied with the win rate theyre at how does one ever expect to get better?

Maybe im missing something?

Aug. 27, 2019 | 11:19 a.m.

If re-raising ranges in those positions in this situation at 6 max are truly that tight then, yes(?)...Does this mean flatting jj-qq and then only 4 betting qk-ak / kk-aa then?

Aug. 27, 2019 | 4:49 a.m.

" But expecting this playertype to show up with JJ/AT at is kind of crazy, because it’s gonna be so reduced, for example some of them could get raise pre, otf, and at-jj much More likely to raise turn then call call, and go for a very thin jam. Is a passive player ever doing this? I havent seen it last couple of years. "

If hes so passive why do we really expect any different??

I expect to lose almost always here. But if were never calling here without a nutted hand then surely we can play the hand differently vs practically almost always folding river no?

Aug. 26, 2019 | 7:35 p.m.

What about a 4 bet to $20 and fold to either jam since were not getting odds or else keep pot a decent size postflop if we end up liking it...Raising to $20 should be plenty enough to deny equity to sub premium overs (qk/aq) as well as pp's lookin to flop sets from middle pos easily so we can atleast just go heads up at worst against button and look to play postflop. Thoughts?

Aug. 26, 2019 | 2:36 p.m.

Old thread I see but Hero has 33% against range he gave opp. And this is assuming hes playing perfect range really. I realize hes passive but hes still human and basically anything out of the oridnary from this guy gives hero odds. Him having AT alone gives hero 33%. Way more then plenty to call. Let alone JJ it jumps massively up to 42%. Can we really fold knowing this?

Aug. 26, 2019 | 1:31 p.m.

What a great response/example...

Completely makes sense that I could accentuate someones mistakes if their hand range was around the percentage where it was slightly too loose and so could help them make up for it.
Not saying I wouldnt have picked up on this subconsciously but you did mention something that I wasnt thinking of atleast off the top of my head and put it into words.

Fortunately these players at the tables I spoke of were still way too tight preflop I believe but ive already noticed a massive difference playing .10 bb this am. compared to .05 bb...Not sure if the difference is standard between the two limits or was just a fluke past few days but the difference has been massive.

Thx for the response

Aug. 26, 2019 | 1:02 p.m.

Youre the second person behind belrio42 to say theyd probably stack off if 5 bet all in...
Are opponents really 5 bet bluffing/getting it all in against us when they invested $9 or even worse $3 with anything other then close to nuts when Readless???

I guess maybe if we think theyll do it with ak/theyre a rec player then were getting odds but I hate it

Aug. 26, 2019 | noon

Hi all.
Im usually playing heads up sng's. But decided a few nights ago to get back into playing 6 max to strengthen up my game for live full ring.
I know that live full ring is a lot looser then online 6 max. But on the surface what are the cons of open min raising?
Especially if im able to open up a lot wider then a default 6 max preflop range (eg.67s utg) and am not being 3 bet because of it

For past few nights ive been min raise opening at 6 max and still getting the occasional steal/or 3 way pot....But for the most part still staying heads up... all the while getting to play a lot of pots with lower variance and postflop edge (I feel) against those players.

I would change this strategy if

A: I was being 3 bet often (id tighten opening range up BUT maybe/probably still keep min raise unless also still going multiway to often) ...

B: Started goin multiway to often in overwhelmingly favorable scenarios (finding myself having position all the time/having strong clear value hands/ having tough aggressive postflop players to often/ etc etc) which im losing too much value over I think in the first two examples and leaking/giving up too much in the last

In the meantime is there anything wrong or that im missing with continuing to min raise open at .05/?

Aug. 26, 2019 | 11:06 a.m.

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