Thanks for your response.
Regarding the first question about the turn sizing your argument does have a flipside? When your turn sizing is so big that it leaves you with a pretty small SPR you cant bluff the river so much. Do you think that Im getting something wrong here?
About the flop Cbet sizing. I agree that big(pot+) is mostly used on flops where there is draws which isn't completed. I have done a lot of Pio work on this topic myself. Im pretty sure that on very specific flops like this Pio regards hands like AQ-ATs, KQ-KJs, QJs, AKo, AQo with bdfd like "draws" understood in the way that BB has a lot of nutted hands on the flop but also hands that is very likely to be much weaker after to additional cards. Therefore Im pretty confident that Pio would prefer to play hands like QQ-99 very fast(pot flop and all in turn with various frequencies. What do you think about this?
Nov. 14, 2018 | 7:48 p.m.
I dont think I complexly agree on this. Of course its a problem that you are unlikely to have have two pair here but the turn is nonetheless very good for your range so we can expect villain to check back here a lot. I haven't run it in Pio(I should do that) but a small sizing lead seems like a good idea and you have plenty of bluffs here to balance out your range. SB strats varies a lot here in my opinion but I think many SB check-call strats will contain some very strong hands with some frequency.
Nov. 14, 2018 | 7:33 p.m.
Another one for you :-)
At 33.30 you are discussing what size to use for the turn barrel, and you choose 2/3 pot. (You 3bet from the BB against a CO open with A5s, Cbets 1/2 pot on 443r with a bdfd and the turn is an offsuit J). You end up with 2/3 pot saying that a smaller bet will be a mistake. Why do you think that? I would say that a smaller size like 40% pot would make perfect sense on this super dry board setting it up nicely for a river jam.
About the flop - what is your thoughts on betting 110ish % pot setting it up for a potential turn jam balancing it out with a value range consisting primarily of the JJ-99 region?
Nov. 11, 2018 | 2:42 p.m.
At 26.30 what are your thoughts about developing a leading range in these kind of spots where you check-call OOP and the turn is favorable for you? Like the aces in this specific hand.
Nov. 11, 2018 | 2:26 p.m.
Thanks for experimenting with the format.
I have a couple of comments on your analysis that I would like to hear your thoughts upon.
Hand 1. I want to question the turn play. I think you are having a way to aggressive betting strategy here as you a debating whether to bet 3/4 pot and overbet. At the same time you dont mention anything about which hands you bet here as a bluff. Obv ranges versus limpers may vary a great deal but you dont have any nut flush draws on the turn that might want to go for a big sizing. In general it will be very difficult for you to find bluffs in this spot. Furthermore this turn is pretty bad for you and extremely good for IP so you should be checking a lot here I think. You dont talk about developing a checking strategy here - only to bet your good hands which obv will be super easy to play against and leave your checking range weak which will be a bad idea against competent opponents.
Hand 4. I want to question a couple of the assumptions being made here. First of you have to sizing here, which is 60-70% pot and 1/3 pot. I think this is a mistake because Im pretty certain that Pio will throw in quite a bit of 110-100% pot bets on this texture. The archetypical value hands will be QQ-JJ and AT-KT without bdfd and as bluffs we will have a variety of draws and backdoors draws.
When discussing whether river is a call or fold you almost seem to forget that here will have a decent amount of Tx and all the sets. So we have plenty of strong hands in this node. Furthermore you also mention JJ as an example of a bad calling hand - the problem here is just that we choose a big sizing with JJ with almost 100% frequency so its not really relevant. Blocking the flopped buttom set is not relevant either as villain will raise this combo a lot on the flop. So what is left is that here block AT which is great but with a hands like KK we are likely to block more Tx depending on the suits and him calling KTo preflop.
But your strategy is perhaps to continue betting your trips and sets on the turn? In that case you will need a lot of weak stuff?
Oct. 30, 2018 | 8:10 p.m.
Im currently reviewing my preflop game with extra focus on when hero gets 3bet OOP. I have for a period of time adopted Andres Artentinos default ranges from his course but I dont think they work very well due to too simple handselection(dont playing mixed strategies) and flatting with a very high frequency compared to 4betting.
My plan was to first study PokerSnowie and then Monker. And when possible use PioSolver.
When I dig into Pokersnowie I encounter some pretty weird results.
For example when we have narrow range spots, Snowie prefers to have a very narrow value range(AA) and then bluffs. A LOT of bluffs. For example UTG vs SB, UTG almost exclusively have AA in its 4bet value range. And then it 4bets and folds to a jam 82%(!!!). And explanation for this could be, that the EV of SB 5 bet jamming range is very low when called since it playing against AA all the time. But simple math shows us that 5bet jamming with 12% equity is very profitable, so this explanation doesnt really hold.
Its obv 100bb deep and the we choose the sizings Snowie prefers - 2.25bb --> 8.25bb -- > 24bb
Now we get to the part where it gets weird....
Again we focus on strat versus a 3bet but this time in position. CO open -- > SB 3bet --> CO 4bet. Here CO value 4bets a broader range of AA-KK, AKs and a lot of AKo. SB then jams AA, all AK, KK with some freaquency and all(!!) Axs, some medium pocket pairs and AQs-AJs very rarely calling the 4bet. In itself an unusual strategy. Did I say that CO value 4bets AKo - it doesnt. It 4bet folds AKo against an extremely large 5bet bluffing range... This is just insane and doesnt make any sense. Btw CO 4bet folds 75% in this spot.
We see the same thing BTN versus SB where SB 4bet folds AKo, JJ and TT... Doesnt make any sense.
And now we get to the part where it gets really weird...
Against a 4bet Snowie prefers to make a 1/4 pot raise(24bb --> 41bb) and not to shove. This cannot change that much you might say. Wrong. It somehow changes everything. When Snowie 5bet 1/4 pot the strat versus the 4bet(in the BTN vs SB example) looks like this: 68% fold, 13% call and 18% 1/4pot raise. When we change snowies strat options from 1/4 raise to all in the strat vs 4bet looks like this: 33% fold, 5% call and 62% all in....
Am I missing something? Is there a good explantion for this? Or should I just delete Pokersnowie from my computer?
Sept. 24, 2018 | 9:13 a.m.
Great material as always.
You play a 4bet pot at 17.00 where the flop is K93tt. You argue that the flop favors the caller here and that he probably should have some leads.
I dont quite understand this as the 4better should have a much higher frequency of the very stong hands like AA-KK and AK. The 4better should also have hands like QQ-TT way more often which have a pretty high equity versus a 4bet calling range.
As you mention the 4bet caller will have more KQs-KTs but that doesnt amount for enough combos to make the flop favorable for him(giving him a equity advantage)? His equity advantage should also be pretty significant because he certainly dont have a nutadvantage here. In addition - if he starts leading these toppair hands, some flushdraws and some hands like AsJx he will will be left with a very weak checking range.
What do you think about this?
Feb. 19, 2018 | 9:48 a.m.
I just ran a sim for HJ vs BTN on 862r, which you encountered in your video. I think FlaXmarZ was referring to this spot. I gave IP tree Cbet szings - 33, 52 and 82. Pio chose the small sizing 82% of the time, almost never betting bigger.
I would like to challenge your logic on how to select the cbet sizing in these spots. I dont think how strong our overall range is(do you mean equity?) affect sizing that much. Instead I think it plays a huge rule in determining our frequency. In this exact spot IP dont have a nut advange because both players have all the sets and OOP also have 86s - therefore not allowing IP to choose big sizings with a high frequency. In addition IP needs a lot of protection and therefore wants to bet with a very high frequency so far as IP's equity-advantage allows IP to do so.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this :-)
Feb. 17, 2018 | 10:39 a.m.
Great work :-)
Feb. 15, 2018 | 11:24 a.m.
Im sorry I have to respond by starting a new thread again but for some reason I dont have the opportunity to reply to your post.
First of all I have to make a couple of remarks 1. of course we have to use I own reasoning when dealing with Pio results but overall I have the approach that it is a really good idea to pay close attention to what Pio tells us and try to make sense of the results we struggle to understand 2. our 3bet strategy depends heavily on the CO strategy. This is an important point. If CO uses a 2x sizing we can call a lot of weak hands. This makes it nesessary for BB to flat the open with stronger hands like stronger pocket pairs(even jacks) and suited broadways with a high frequency. By having these hands in our range we will be able to retain a higher equity across boards and thereby retain ev with our weaker hands. If CO opens to 3x the calling range tightens up dramatically which affects the 3betting range - we can now 3bet a lot more of our suited broadways and decent pocket pairs. The point is that the BB 3betting range is extremely dynamic and depends a lot of the factors it encounters.
Tyler wrote: "We need to understand that allowing OOP to call 4-bets is going to do two things:
1) Tighten our value range because the OOP is going to gain EV from calling 4-bets. The EV gain can't come from the bluffs, because the bluffs are 0 EV (so they will move negative and be removed from the strategy). The EV gain has to be lost from our value range. Calling with value hands is now a better option, because that EV has remained static and the EV of 4-betting has decreased
2) Make our 4-bet bluffing range more mixed to cover more board textures and force some threshold hands to be 0 EV calls, (this could include adding hands like AJo, AQo, QQ or JJs at small frequencies)."
I think you misunderstand a couple of things here:
What happens as BB is allowed to call 4bets is that CO are 4betting wider for value. You argue that CO is tightening up his 4bet value range which I am confident in isnt correct. In the ranges I have build CO 4bets QQ and JJ for value with some frequency(and I work with a CO opening frequency that is tighter than yours). You mention these hands as part of the bluffing CO 4bet bluffing range - do I misunderstand you here? Because these a clearly value 4bets.
CO are creating a 4bet bluffing range that are doing good versus the BB 4bet calling range. CO uses hands like AQo and AJo which doesnt perform that well as a call as many may think but do great against 4bet calls. Choosing to 4bet bluff these hands will have the effect that BB will have a hard time calling 4bets with suited broadways for obv reasons. This makes it important for the BB to 3bet suited connecters and pocket pairs with some frequency as they are performing well against the 4bet range and BB therefore are able to defend proporly against 4bets. Its also important to 3bet these hands in the first place as it allowes us to retain ev on low/medium connected boards and also gives the BB a higher frequency of suited combinations.
Feb. 5, 2018 | 10:09 a.m.
Thanks for your reply. I think that you are mistaken when you say that the IP 4betting range isnt influenced by whether OPP has a 4bet flatting range or not. Logically IP would include some 4bet bluffs that play well against a calling range and also 4bet a bit wider for value because this part of IP's value range will still do very well when called and has a roughly breakeven call against the shoving range.
When I look at the CO 4betting range versus BB 3bet Pio has made for me, these assumptions are to a large degree confirmed. Here the blocker effect isnt the only factor when choosing 4bet bluffs, so Kxs isnt 4bet way quite as often as in your sim. Instead Pio here 4bets around a quarter of my AQo and AJo combos - I assume that is because they 1. block the shoving range well and 2. has a lot of equity against the OOP calling range - which Kx doesnt have. Pio also plays QQ and JJ as a mix because of the ev the gain against the calling range.
In addition to this I have roughly the same results in regards to AA-KK and AK and Axs.
When you construct the OOP 3betting range in the way you have done, you will miss an important point if you choose to include calling 4bets. I suspect you will see Pio calling a lot with hands like 87-54s and low pocket pairs(Pio mixes between calling and 3betting preflop) and folding all ofsuit broadways ofc and mixing with suited broadways depending on the sizings you choose. So not having these suited connecters in you range will influence how well you are able to defend against 4bets.
Feb. 4, 2018 | 12:25 p.m.
I love the idea with this video a lot!
Why do you choose a 5bet or fold strategy for the BB? I think the results you get from the sim isnt very useful because of this. In todays games calling 4bets is a very common strategy, and I think your results are flawed a lot by this choice.
Another thing - I dont understand your selection of the BB 3betting range. BB should be mixing a lot(you have 100% or nothing) and should be 3betting a decent amount of suited connecters and one-gappers aswell as suited aces. Especially the offsuit broadways should be calling with some frequency and probably also some of the suited broadways(mostly the weaker ones I assume). These factors will contribute a lot to board coverage and make more precise and above all realistic results.
I love your approach thought and how you present your results!
Feb. 2, 2018 | 11:38 a.m.
For a theory video I would reallly like you to analyse the central concepts that guide how you choose your postflop betsizing - especially on the flop to narrow the subject a bit.
Im currently spending a lot of time and energy on this subject myself. To be able to compare my own work with your ideas and principles would be hugely inspirational to me!
Feb. 1, 2018 | 11:56 a.m.
You are cold4betting AQo vs a sb 3bet and a CO open, saying that this is one of the more standard cold 4bets.
Does this mean that you cold 4bet AQo 100% in this spot? If you do, arent you worried that you will 4bet bluff too much?
Jan. 25, 2018 | 12:14 p.m.
As always I enjoyed your material.
You often choose to probe for a quite a small sizing. Intuitively I struggle to make sense of this because 1. it doesnt allow you to bluff much 2. villian range are weakened as he checks back the flop making his very good holdings less condensed.
I will be very happy if you would explain the theory behind the small probe sizing so I can understand :-)
Jan. 23, 2018 | 10:28 a.m.
As always Im a big fan of your content.
I have a question for the first hand. You say that villian should mainly be looking to Cbet rather large on a T94r flop, whereas he should be betting small on a KQ4r flop.
But you dont elaborate on why. Can you comment on this a bit?
Jan. 22, 2018 | 11:22 a.m.
Thanks for your response.
I dont agree in that Pio is useless in these kind of spots. Obv Pio isnt 100% accurate because of the player left to act and Pio's inability to take that into account. But I think it fairly easy to make a very close approximation if you take BB's 4bet frequency into account.
I look forward to your next video!
Jan. 4, 2018 | 11:09 a.m.
Great format! Also very useful explanations. I would love to see more of this :-)
Can you give a little more indepth explanation on why we are choosing a approx 100% checking strat on the last flop? How and why will it change if there wasnt a flushdraw?
Jan. 1, 2018 | 7:55 p.m.
First of all decent content and I think you format is better than the typical 500NL zoom videos.
But you are speaking a lot of what you are doing(ex now Im raising AK) which basically is a waste of time and very little of why you are doing things. It would be very helpful if you would explain your thought process a lot more.
A practical example from your vid could be this: 16.25. You fold 87s from the SB versus a 2x from the button and you tell us this: “this one is interesting but I will say this is a borderline fold”. And thats it.
I mean – if its interesting don’t you think it deserves a bit more explanation? I myself is very curios to hear your logic behind folding in this spot – it would take some pretty extreme assumptions for Pio to fold here.
Dec. 30, 2017 | 10:45 a.m.
Im doing a lot of work with PioSolver trying to find patterns to implement in my own game
One of those is the following. On two-tone boards where player X bets/raises and the turn completes the flush, player X chooses between check and bet small(1/3pot).
BB vs BTN. BTN opens and BB calls. The flop is Jh8h2s and BB check-raises a BTN cbet. BTN calls. The turn completes the flush and BB chooses between 1/3pot and check with a frequency that depends on the specific card.
SB vs BTN. SB 3bets a BTN open and BTN calls. The flop is Kh8h6s. SB cbets and BTN calls. The turn completes the flush and BB chooses between 1/3pot and check with a frequency that depends on the specific card.
PioSolver very rarely choose a bigger sizing in these spots.
To implement a given strategy it is pretty important to understand the underlying reasons. So guys - do you have an explanation for this? :-)