SpankoPita22

Hi guys. There are a few concepts that I'm really confused by in checkraises pots. I remember watching Pete Clarke's key concepts video "After the Flop Raise", and in it BB bets almost range for a small size on turns that hit BB a lot, while polarizing and betting big on bricks where a lot of BB bluffs miss. For the record the flop in the video was A75r and turn was either a 2 or an 8 if I can recall correctly. On the 8 BB bets merged and in the 2 BB polarizes. So all of the above I understand clearly.

However I reviewed a hand of my own recently where I though the above concept would apply but according to the solution it's the opposite, BB polarized the turn hard and bet very infrequently.

The hand:

EP vs. BB (the villain was UTG but I tested the solution with HJ ranges as well in case he was loose).

UTG opens 2bb. I flat in BB with T8s.
Flop: 9c7s6d (HJ: 53% equity. BB: 47% equity)
BB: check
UTG: bets ~70% pot
BB: raises ~pot
UTG: Calls

Turn: 8d (HJ: 45% equity, BB: 55% equity)
BB: check
UTG: bets 33% pot
BB: Raise (I probably shouldn't have)
UTG: calls

River: 8h
BB: bets 10-20% pot
UTG: shove
BB: fold

I threw this in GTO Wizard and the turn is getting barrelled by BB very infrequently and it's an overbet. I'm confused because at first glance this seems contrary to Pete's video where a turn that favors BB (and equalizes equities) gets bet small.. For the record, if I change the opener's range to HJ, the equity shift is a decent bit less pronounced
on the turn but BB still polarizes turn.

Can anybody explain how this board is different to the example in Peter's video? Why are we polarizing turn? Vs. on A758 BB bets turn merged after a flop checkraise.

As a confusing aside, vs HJ is the only position where BB block bets river.

Thanks in advance.

Hi guys. First of all apologies for posting this here and not under the video I'm referring to. My subscription ended today and I didn't get around to asking the question. (I do plan to renew in the near future)

In the video referenced in my title, Peter says that he raises polar on the flop, this confused me a bit as that means we are raising polar vs a Merged range bet. In From The Ground Up he explicitly stated we react to to merged cbets with a merged raising range; and vs a polar cbet with a polarized raising range. Was this just a verbal mistake in the video? or was what he said correct and done by solvers? If it is correct then can anyone explain the logic behind it?

Thank You

Hi guys. I was wondering if there is any merit in overfolding to 3 bets in anonymous fast fold games and rooms where huds aren't allowed (ie: GG rush and cash)? Apart from losing some board coverage, would this theoretically maximize EV assuming the population has ideal 3 bet frequencies?

I have a question for People playing on GG about their built in HUD / tendencies of regs at these stakes. I keep seeing people with absolutely astronomical 3 bet % at NL5 and 10 but I don't know if I can trust the hud or not. More often then not if I were to repeatedly open the hud for different players and sample the 3 bet % the numbers are way too high. I don't know if there is something very off about the hud or if this is an exploitative adjustment a lot of regs are making. I realize the samples are small per player, but collectively it seems the 3b% is high for the entire population. Is this a fault with the HUD or are people in the pool really going ham with the light 3 bets? I've confirmed this with another player and he seems to be seeing the same kinds of numbers.

Hi guys. I notice the NL50 ranges for GTO Wizard are significantly wider than I would have expected for UTG and MP. They were done with monker. I remember seeing other people's preflop solutions from monkersolver and they were similarly wide. This is for an environment with 5% rake and 4bb cap. I remember reading that monker had rake errors but the support team for GTO wizard explained that they used the newest version which corrected this. Yet they look similarly wide to older ranges. Do these ranges seem okay to you guys?

I've been toying around with the GTO Wizard trial playing against the NL50 solutions and I've noticed significant differences between GTO Wizard and a solver app I use called Solver+. So far it seems GTO Wizard has preferred the more aggressive actions on the river. I'm wondering why there's such a discrepancy? Is it because the rake is higher at NL50?

I also noticed GTO wizard has no restrictions on sizings used vs other presolved libraries. Does this make it a bit less practically applicable? I would have thought they should have narrowed the solutions down to the best sizes in any given spot?

I'm just confused about which solutions to trust, while they are mostly the same EV wise the frequencies differ wildly.

As an example:

My solver says that checking the river here is the highest frequency action (but all other bet sizes are the same EV as checking). But GTO Wizard says the check is a mistake and that I need to overbet the river. Solver+ also prefers a cbet on flop whereas GTOWizard checks

Hi guys,

I was wondering if somebody has (or knows where to see) the older zenith poker ranges. They have a new range viewer but unfortunately he only takes BTC which where I am is a pain in the butt to buy. Would really appreciate if if someone who has these could share them ^_^

Thank you

Hi guys,

I've been looking for places where I can play against GTO solutions for free.

So far I've found learn WPT which has a few free ones every now and then, and GTO wizard.

Are there any other ways/places I can practice? I have GTO+ and realzie there is a play vs. the solves feature, does anybody know a place with a free library of solutions I can practice against?

Also this is a bit of a stretch probably, but does anyone have some method of looking up explanations for specific boards and why a solver chooses a certain play (short of asking on forums)?

Hi guys

Can somone explain to me why the solver chooses large flop bet sizes here at 70% frequency? It's betting about 95% pot

(BB 3 bet vs UTG open and call.)

From BB's pov

My first guess is nut advantage on a board where UTG has no sets or 2 pair.

I was wondering if give the choice of even bigger bet sizes, if the solver would choose to overbet?

This just seems like such a wild output.