Seems like my feedback is might cross from constructive to just criticism on this vid but at 18 minutes what are we learning from visions here when this game tree is built off a btn opening range that's so much tighter AND a btn call vrs 3b range that's even tighter again? QJ85ss isn't even an open from visions here.
When we try to run simplified solves like this without accurate imputs we end up with results where small changes snowball into large effects in the game tree. In this case IP has far more 2p combos than solver thinks it has in this spot. Having more 2p combos on the flop allows IP to continue more judiciously, altering their range on the turn, thus altering what solver would shove into said range. Seems dangerous to try and take too much away from visions responses in spots like this without a deeper dive.
Aug. 1, 2022 | 11:22 a.m.
Not trying to be a party pooper here but I hugely disagree with Hunter Cichy on this hand. I think we have a very clear check fold to that sizing multiway oop when the 3rd blind bets out for a number of reasons and I don't think it's a particularly close spot. Protecting raw equity with this hand class is a trap I think a lot of players in live games fall into when at this spr we need to be much more focused on our hands visibility, or lack there of. Additionally the largest blind often has the least incentive for leads on a texture they don't have a clear polarity advantage, and this qualifies. While this board is "fine" for their range, it isn't 246 it's 2J6 and we just aren't going to see much betting out here by players even with middle set or wraps without bonus "stuff" like a pair or hearts.
When we see players make this type of lead in live games it's rarely theory oriented as and most of the time quite polar and "human". Our hand plays atrociously vrs this type of range as it virtually never improves, their bottom of range with the type of blockers that are betting out here will continue to bet when unimproved and we have potentially as little as 1 out vrs hands we trail.
The second issue is you build a theoretical based platform for justifying the flop call using all sorts of assumptions about his range then ignore that entirely on the turn and fold for purely exploitative reasons based on your feelings about his bet size. Ecstatic to see some live PLO content on here so hopefully I'm looking too far into this hand or other people can weigh in and maybe they have a difference experience with how populations plays here.
Aug. 1, 2022 | 11:06 a.m.
18 mins: Would be curious to see the solver output here for river bets. You mention FD blockers weight towards betting of course, but doesn't the fact that all of your FD blockers are also pairs negate that for your specific hand? While most Top 2+3FD blockers want to lead for value in this spot, your specific clubs blocking all non club pairs actually weight opponent towards more likely missed spades (or other clubs) without enough showdown value to check back. With your exact hand the Suit if the T would probably be the decider for me, if it was a club/spade this would be a lead, if it's not a check to induce.
June 12, 2022 | 8:27 p.m.
I personally don't feel Breaking up the action this often to double check fairly intuitive preflop play is a good video format. Would recommend either doing a video on solver preflop ranges or doing a video on live play with occasional solver verification.
May 12, 2022 | 7:29 a.m.
Again, "realistic" just very hard to quantify and hugely depends on where your game is at. In general running MTT specific solves on monker is very time consuming and inefficient, i'd recommend other forms of studying first until you more or less feel like your game isn't progressing without it.
May 18, 2021 | 2:44 a.m.
"Enough" is really hard to quantify. In my opinion visions is a step before Monker. If you haven't done solver work on your own I would definitely recommend visions before using Monker as it will allow you to study and improve at a more efficient rate. If you are looking to do more in depth dives into specific scenarios, Monker is where you want to be.
I do offer a free 1hr leak finder session with a purchase of visions via my affiliate link, so if you are interested in trying it out makes it a bit of a better value. Can find that info here:
May 17, 2021 | 1:26 a.m.
Q442 has crossed the line from "opening a bit wide ep" to "next stop, punt city". While I'm sure some of this is an intentional adjustment to take advantage of his perception that you are playing snug from the button and Rollz being oop, still interesting to see how far players are deviating pre.
May 12, 2021 | 10:04 p.m.
Hey Cory, like this concept a lot, for me your friends audio was very difficult to hear. If done in the future anyone joining in on the review may need a crisper mic.
April 16, 2021 | 4:40 a.m.
Doing an excellent job giving your opinion of sim results in practice, find that the most valuable part of most videos.
For the last hand table 4, you mention that you think calling there is printing more than solver "thinks" for a few reasons including qj combos not being checked enough on turn/q3 not raised enough on river. This seems like one of the most overbluffed spots by population there is. Wouldn't surprise me if in good games people are double the correct frequency and in weaker games even 3x+ just seeing the nut blocker and bombing.
March 27, 2021 | 1:48 a.m.
This is a fantastic video. Really enjoy these 30 minute dives into specific spots saving a huge amount of time compared to running something similar ourselves. Appreciate you replying to old messages, brought me back to this video that I initially missed
March 22, 2021 | 9:38 p.m.
Hey welcome. Like this format, I think you do an effective job describing the sims without showing them.
Couple things would love to be included in future videos: 1) discussing op's lines and hands at showdown. Think it's helpful to both discuss op's hands from a theory point of view as well as your own views on population tendencies in this pool and
2) you mention the adjustments to shorter effective stacks once or twice but don't remember talking about any adjustments deeper. Definitely would like to hear how stack depth is playing a role in your sizing when significantly deeper and if you are running deep sims for most spots or just making adjustments based on your knowledge.
At 32 minutes was a bit surprised by your comments on the QQ hand so ran it, getting different results. We aren't pure checking any QQxx with a bdfd, and while solver prefers to have a board pair we are still leading most of our random QQ a bit over 40% of the time. Possible you ran this sim with different positions?
March 11, 2021 | 10:28 a.m.
Hey Phil, how far into this challenge do you expect to go with the reviews? One of the things I'd love to hear you explain as this progresses is when you notice patterns/make reads and then make adjustments accordingly. I think we all agree you ability to adapt and exploit is one of the best in the world and these challenges give you time to make these type of adjustments.
Feb. 10, 2021 | 10:13 p.m.
May be more effective to post visions strategy questions in the PLO forums, not sure how many views from the rest of the community this sub forum gets comparatively
Feb. 3, 2021 | 2:09 a.m.
Really glad you specially mentioned the showdown value of AQ here, one of my main concerns with my point as well. After running a simple solve and thinking about it more I agree that we don't want AQ in our small size as a bluff here and rules out a number of potential bluff combos.
Second point it appears we are at a difference of opinions. Off 60bbs CO's QQ/JJ flatting range is quite small with the majority of QQ/JJ combos good enough to continue mostly 3bing. Additionally we block a K and two 9's, which are hugely prevalent in a QQ/JJ flatting range. Along with that, we see QQJ/JJQ getting checked at a much higher frequency than QJ no pair on the flop, so we can start to rule out some frequency of this already. With these things in mind a CO flat off a shorter stack does play into our evaluation of his range on the river and makes me lean towards more "misses" than value combos. Really appreciate the feedback, a privilege to be able to have these discussions with you.