We 3bet because our opponent is opening too wide, and A9s was part of a gto 3bet range anyway, so it's clearly +ev.
We're shoving because i expect to recieve an undefined amount of folds from both players while still having decent equity when called. There's dead money in the pot because the maniac coldcalled the cold4bet, presumably with a wide range. Assuming we have 29% equity when called by one player the indifference point would be roughly 40% folds.
Aug. 22, 2022 | 8:44 a.m.
I watched a video in which the coach said that when someone is overcalling our 3bets, we want to 3bet more linear.
Then he said that when we 3bet linear, we want to lower our sizing because it is more appropriate from a theoretical perspective.
What i dont understand is: if we lower our 3bet size and our opponent calls the same range, he's making a smaller mistake or no mistake at all by overcalling it. Wouldn't it be better to 3bet big and linear from an exploitative perspective ?
Aug. 18, 2022 | 11:07 a.m.
Aug. 13, 2022 | 5:19 p.m.
Polarizied cbet works best exploitatively when your opponent is x/raising a lot. Strong value and Strong Draws love to face a x/r while trash can fold without giving up much equity. You shouldn't be betting weaker draws and hands which hate to face a x/r in general.
In theory you should cbet polar only on some boards, when you have a clear nut advantage and your medium hands don't need much protection or aren't good enough to bet. Something like AK2 or T82tt.
People in Low stakes overfold to cbet vs any size, i wouldn't pick a size based on that. I wouldn't worry about bluff to value ratio either. I would just pick most backdoor flushdraws, backdoor straightdraws without any showdown. Add more trash if the opponent is overfolding and viceversa.
Aug. 13, 2022 | 4:58 p.m.
There can be multiple equilibria in a game.
The First solution is an equilibrium because IP is losing ev by calling. The last solution is also an equilibrium.
I think the confusion derives from the fact that raked poker Is not a zero-sum game and the definition of Nash Equilibrium changes compared to a zero-sum game.
Aug. 10, 2022 | 6:48 a.m.
Sorry i dont understand why the ev of x - x i 0. Shouldn't that be 0.5 for both players, since there is no betting going on (and they are splitting) ?
Anyway, as far as my understanding, rake doesn't influence frequencies of aggressive actions that much, because the higher amount of folds you get compansates for the ev you are losing when you do get called and pay rake. But it does change 3bet range composition as you want to be more polarizied and blocker-oriented when getting more folds and less calls. I just watched a video on GTOWizard youtube channel about preflop that shows this.
Aug. 9, 2022 | 10:06 p.m.
So after looking at my sims for way too long, i came up with some partial conclusions.
These 2 flops are both good for us, our equity advantage is significant but similar (55.7% on AJ2 vs 54.8 on KJ2r ), our nut advantage is also similar (BB lacks top and mid set, but has some top2). I think the answer lies in the Equity distribution.
The difference is, as expected, in the amount of Ax vs Kx in both ranges. Both players have in fact more Ax than Kx. On AJ2r we have 24.7% top pairs vs 17.6% of BB. On KJ2r we have 15.2% top pairs vs 11.8%, which is less of a difference in both absolute and relative terms. But bigger advantage in the top pair region doesn't justify polarization.
I think the most important difference is in the amount of Ahigh hands on KJ2 vs K high hands on AJ2.
On KJ2r we are more incentivized to bet our medium strenght hands because of the higher amount of Ax in bb's range and because we are beaten less often. We are now building a high frequency small bet range, which has to be balanced with nutted hands too, thus the drop in the overbetting frequency.
Aug. 7, 2022 | 9:33 a.m.
I don't agree with the open-ender, "ice-testing" hypotesis. I ran a simulation on KJ2 two-tone and it goes back to using the overbet size. Here there are still the open-enders but also the flushdraws which should reinforce the principle, giving even more reason to "ice-test" the turn with a smaller flop size, but this isn't happening.
Aug. 7, 2022 | 12:15 a.m.
Josh Lessner 15:13 Maybe creating a subtree is messing with the strategy. In the full tree SB has to make indifferent some calls on the flop by jamming the turn with a frequency. In the subtree this doesn't happen. I remember a video by Qing Yang showing this concept which says the strategy is not totally independent by previous action even if the situation is the same on a later street.
July 28, 2022 | 10:08 a.m.
A simple way to visualize it is this:
You have to call a psb OTR.
Without rake you would need to win 100/300 = 33% of the times to have a +EV call.
With 5% rake you need to win 100/285 = 35% of the times.
You need to win more often because the final pot will be smaller, thus you play a tighter range.