I think a RAM upgrade would end up being cheaper in the long run. Unless your cpu is really weak and you intend to do a lot of solutions in a short time period I would stick to the RAM upgrade. But then again I'm not sure how much cloud rental costs, if you need to do only a few solves it might be cheaper.
Sept. 21, 2020 | 12:04 p.m.
Hi guys, I'm having a lot of trouble finding 6max cash opening ranges for 3bb RFI's. All the ranges I've found are far too wide for 3bb and more suitable for 2.5bb. Does anyone know where I can find reliable ranges like these?
Sept. 20, 2020 | 3:10 p.m.
Thanks, Ive since come to the same conclusion :)
This was NL20 on a very soft poker club
Sept. 18, 2020 | 8:36 a.m.
Thanks so much for explaining. Regarding that turn fold, does all this still apply given that villains stack was only 30ish BB in a 3bet pot? His turn bet ended up being about a 60 percent pot shove. Also if I node lock the solver to play pocket pairs the way I would, or the way you suggested, its calling with all of them on the turn, which was a 9c.
One thing that confused me is that if I make the turn an Ace, it calls all the pocket pairs but 100 percent folds 99, this is a bit of topic but I was wondering why.
I did the solve btw, will share after work, both the node locked version and the GTO version as well as the Ace turn
Sept. 14, 2020 | 4:15 a.m.
Doh! Thanks so much for pointing that out! Can't believe I omitted such an important thing :p
And I really appreciate you sharing this range, I had a hard time finding 3bb open ranges.
I'm gonna redo this solve when I get home
As far as playing micros goes, is it more profitable to just call this down and hope villain makes mistakes over several streets and keeps barreling? Or given the SPR is it always better to shove? My thinking was, there wasn't much stack remaining for me to lose on future streets and I would expect villain to barrel twice, but if I had shoved I feel like my fold equity might have been high hence not getting his whole stack. I'm not sure if that's a flawed train of thought or not though.
Sept. 13, 2020 | 5:26 p.m.
Still practically the same output
Sept. 12, 2020 | 2:54 p.m.
Anybody know why it's reraising all these pocket pairs? Especially 88? What would villain be calling with?
I'm also don't understand why it's calling gutshots in a low SPR spot. This really confuses me, the only logic I see in calling with a gutshot with so little stack left is to donk turn as a bluff after OOP checks, which I assume won't be happening often. But the again my postflop play isn't very strong so I might be thinking about this wrong.
Also I realize I forgot to remove my 4 bet hands from the range, if that would make a huge difference I will rerun the sim.
Edit: Sorry, the image got super blurry after uploading. I raised 3x from CU, BB 3bet 4x, I called. He led for half pot on the flop and I called. He shoved his remaining $5.15 into a $7.35 pot and I called.
In the solver blue is Re-raise (shove), green is Call, red is Fold
Sept. 12, 2020 | 1:54 p.m.
Thanks for explaining, you're right, I was comparing SB 3 bet to SRP and forgot to uncap the button. And that's the reason I used the exact same SB range, too see how SPR affects aggression for SB. I could have just as easily used a small 3 bet size I suppose. Definitely not realistic plays as I mentioned in the op but still was curious as to why BU doesn't cbet ^_^. I'll have to uncap it and run the sim again, I'll use a min reraise or something this time
Button range is pokersnowie if you're wondering
starting stack sizes were 90, starting pot was 21
Aug. 30, 2020 | 6:48 a.m.
Thank you for clarifying :) this makes sense. I will have to double check if it indeed playing non-backdoors more aggressively later when I get a chance.
Aug. 30, 2020 | 6:43 a.m.
I solved 2 spots with GTO+ that made me scratch my head and wonder if I made an error with the trees.
1st 2 images, BU raises 2.5x, SB flats the entire selected range and then checks range on the flop (this is an atypical play, but I was doing it to compare to a SB 3bet only strategy to see how SPR changes things). I was surprised to see that button is almost not c-betting (and checking most of its range) and I'm wondering why.
In the third image, this is a 3 bet pot. BU raises 2.5x SB 3bets 4x and then has the choices of checking, cbetting 33%, 66%, or 150% (and BU has a bunch of different possible reraise sizes ranging from 33% to 150%). My question is why does SB play the backdoor nut flush draw + top pair hands so aggressively (preferring to overbet)? I showed this solve to someone and they were surprised and told me a check is preferred in this spot. Is it because SPR is low + you want to get value from worse pairs / there is a nut advantage + strong blockers to the nuts?
Aug. 29, 2020 | 12:47 p.m.
Hi guys, was wondering if anyone has tried this free training site?
Kind of finding the material questionable so far. For example:
He uses 2 different open raise sizes (minbet and 5x), with the 5x being used with parts of his stronger (Broadways) range. Sure he's playing anonymous zoom but he mentioned he would use this at regular tables as well. He also 3 bets pretty huge like 5x or more because "people call too much at micros" and sizing up is a better exploit than 3betting light. From my experience people overfold to 3bets at micros, am I wrong?
June 13, 2020 | 11:59 a.m.
I was wondering how these compare? From a price standpoint GTO+ is a clear winner, but I was wondering what PIO has to offer that GTO+ doesn't.
I was also wondering if node locking is much easier in GTO+ or not because I heard it's a major time consuming PITA in PIO. Also does node locking require a lot more RAM than standard GTO solutions?
(Also are there any solvers out there that allow simply entering bluff/value/fold frequencies as opposed to manually selecting combos when it comes to node locking? Would save a of a lot of time)
June 6, 2020 | 3:51 p.m.
Hey guys, I ended up grabbing the lab. The core section looks pretty meh and I wish they had more examples and more in depth explanations since it's a bunch of stuff I know already. But beyond core looks pretty good.
What I'm wondering, does Lab get updated often enough to stay current? And is there anything in Upswing Lab that can't be found in their free articles?
I got kind of disappointed when the core bet size module just said to choose 75% pot for all 3 streets in SRP's, which is way more basic then what I've learned from free Upswing articles. I hope beyond core rebuilds on that, explains why 75% isn't good everywhere, and re-explains why to use different bet sizes.
Also, where can I access their archived stuff like the flush draw rules?
April 25, 2020 | 6:24 p.m.
Hi, I completely agree. I got the impression that the creators of pluribus are getting a disproportionate amount of credit for something the snowie guys have already achieved years earlier, or so the PDF says. I'm posting this because it seems unfair that they should steal the spotlight like that.
Here's a working link
I'm curious to hear people's opinions on whether the two AI's are on par with each other, or if pluribus is superior as it's creators seem to imply.
April 20, 2020 | 6:09 p.m.
Thanks for the in depth explanation, I really appreciate this :)
Here are some upswing articles ranging from simple to advanced:
If stuff like this comes in organized module format then I'm sold :)
Edit: If the articles cover all the paid material in the same detail then I'll settle for articles! :p
One thing I really didn't like from upswing is their "20 rules to _" pdf's, I found these to formulaic without much of the kind of logical explanations I love from upswing's articles. I hope upswing has logical explanations for various strategic lines like the articles do?
April 20, 2020 | 5:55 p.m.
Thanks guys! :)
April 20, 2020 | 5:50 p.m.
Thanks so much, this is super helpful :)
Core basically sounds kind of useless? Does beyond core follow the same organized approach as core? And also, is the content as good as their free articles (explained super logically with reasons behind everything)
April 19, 2020 | 3:33 p.m.
I found this pdf from the PokerSnowie people discrediting a lot of the claims made by the creators of Pluribus. Mainly that Pluribus the first bot to win vs. several professionals / do well in multiway pots.
Worthwhile read. Wondering what your thoughts are? Did you guys know this?
April 18, 2020 | 1:22 p.m.
Tried Poker Genius, the AI advisor suggested open limping QJo UTG... Some of the AI profiles always open limp.
In summary the AI is outdated.
Still wondering how Advanced Poker Training stacks up vs. online micros though.
April 18, 2020 | 12:24 p.m.
Hi guys, I was wondering if Snowie's strategy is still relevant today or is it becoming outdated? When was the last time it's strategy got an update?
It seems a bit too tight in some spots?
I'm playing NL2 - NL10
Was also wondering if anyone has tried any of these AI training tools:
http://www.acepokercoach.com/ (are these the same guys who made DriveHud?)
https://www.advancedpokertraining.com/ (Tried this and it was quite fun, but I'm wondering how well it represents today's micro players)
https://www.poker-genius.com/ (this one seems interesting since you can program your own AI)
April 18, 2020 | 10:07 a.m.
Hi guys, does anybody here subscribe to Upswing? There is a deal right now that cuts the first month's price in half, I never felt like $100 for the first month was worth it, but $50 is looking pretty attractive.
I have FTGU and Essential on here, but I find the lack of structure a bit difficult, and the fact that everything is in video format makes it hard to adhere to with a busy schedule.
Is upswing still worth it or is it becoming outdated? Can I just get all the same info from their articles and youtube channel? I'm playing NL2 - NL10