Against recreational players it might be better to just think in terms of "what does my hand want to accomplish".
Usually your nuts want to get stacks in by the river (see geometric sizing)
Strong and vulnerable hands want to bet bigger early
middling and vulnerable pairs wants to bet smaller for protection against overcards, but not so big that you're rarely winning at showdown.
Weak hands with showdown value (very weak pairs, A high) usually want to check and try to get to showdown.
Hands with no showdown value want to bet as big as you need to make fold the opponent's portion of the range that you're targeting, while keeping your outs "alive" if possible (retaining equity). Strong draws usually want to bet bigger to build the pot for the times you improve.
These are just guidelines and the correct action will depend on the actual texture, spot, and player profile. I would adivse to play few tables and think deep at every decision point as you'll improve faster. 2NL can be a great training ground to learn how to exploit weak players.
Feb. 5, 2023 | 4:23 a.m.
BN: $119.60 (Hero)
Feb. 1, 2023 | 11:19 p.m.
AKs is rarely if ever folded preflop at equilibrium
Jan. 30, 2023 | 9:49 p.m.
yep he got AA most of the times
Jan. 30, 2023 | 9:44 p.m.
Okay, I'm applying for the cfp.
One question about the vid: you advice to rangebet a lot of flops in SRP IP. Yet on your blog you showed how the pool is overfolding against delayed-cbets by a wider margin. Shouldn't we look for more opportunities to exploit that by checking more often OTF?
Jan. 24, 2023 | 3:27 a.m.
Great video. This is all very consistent with what i've seen in a course by Uri Peleg.
I would be very interested in multiway situations, like:
- Opening ranges with a loose rec ip or in the blinds
- Isoraising ranges vs various vpips when ip/oop
- Defending vs iso when in the blinds
- Defending against 3bets after we isoraise
- Squeeze spots with a rec involved
I know it would be way more difficult to run sims like these tho, but maybe with monker or simple prelfop could be done
Jan. 24, 2023 | 3:12 a.m.
Hi Patrick I have some questions about NachosPoker:
- What makes it different from others cfps like detox ?
- I live in Italy so I can only play on Italian sites, which consist of only italian players (or at least living in the italian territory). How relevant the data gathered from Ignition would be in such pool ?
Jan. 17, 2023 | 1:04 a.m.
Would you still 4x if you had regs behind who 3bet aggresively ?
Honestly i didn't think much about his calling range, i don't have info about him being sticky or not, also because this is a zoom hand. Main reason i shove is i don't want to x/f with a 70% pot bet remaining, he'd probably check behind most of the pairs I beat, so jam looked like the best option. Didn't think about block either. I would be really uncomfortable blocking at this spr, what would you do facing a shove ?
Jan. 11, 2023 | 12:46 p.m.
- I would use a bigger raise size given the stack depth.
- on the flush completing card, utg is typically gonna have a nut advantage, because he has a higher proportion of Axs. So usually this spot is a high frequency check.
- Recs could do anything, but i think folding is ok
Jan. 9, 2023 | 11:39 p.m.
Gtowizard offers preflop solutions for free (also against differents sizes, up to 2.5x).
Look at the 50NL simulation as the rake structure is closer to your games. NL2 has higher rake than 50NL tho, so all you need to do is to cut off threshold hands (hands that are mixing calls and folds) and always fold them instead.
Use the range-building function to train.
Jan. 9, 2023 | 7:10 p.m.
Very interesting topic.
- What about mindonks? In my experience when they bet 1bb they often fold to a raise.
- When I am to donk myself, I often find myself clueless about how to continue on turns/rivers.
- You see solvers mostly using block sizes as donks, does it ever make sense to donk bigger with a polarized range ?
- What about river donks? Are they still overbluffed?
Jan. 9, 2023 | 6:55 p.m.
MP: $40.33 (Hero)
Rake is $1.37
Jan. 9, 2023 | 4:06 p.m.
Turn size is fine. I would call the shove. Folding here would be a huge deviation, and to make huge deviations you need huge reads. Opponent can flip over KQ,KJs, QcJc,AcJc,AcQc.
You need to make peace with the fact that you'll often lose your stack, that's part of the game. Otherwise you will start making bad, tight folds that cost you EV and make you very easy to play against.
When you call the shove you need around 30% equity, so it's natural that you'll lose more times than you win.
Jan. 7, 2023 | 6:30 p.m.
The comparison i mentioned was not about the 2 sims, it was about comparing the ev gap (0.04bb = 4bb/100) to the overall winrate. You do agree that a 0.04bb of ev is minuscle, but of course a 4bb/100 in a player's winrate would be massive. So it's not like picking one strat over the other is causing a 4bb/100 differnece in the player's winrate. This was my doubt since I witnessed Uri Peleg make this conversion multiple times.
Jan. 5, 2023 | 11:03 a.m.
Some coaches like Uri Peleg like to convert EV as shown in a solver into bb/100 and implicitly comparing this number with a typical overall winrate in an attempt to stress how important some exploits can be.
Example: He compares a simplified strategy with a complex one, see the ev difference is 0.04 bb and he says this gap corresponds to 4bb/100, which is correct in the sense that every 100 hands we get into that situaion and pick the simplified strategy we are losing 4bb of ev if we're playing against the solver.
But we're getting into that situation just a small fraction of the times, so my question is: Is this conversion of any use?
I mean, we're folding around 75% of hands preflop, and an overall winrate includes every single of them. So my intuition says that comparing the two is misleading.
Jan. 5, 2023 | 3:29 a.m.
billylean That's result-oriented thinking. You don't really want to think like that. Serious players think in terms of EV. Here checking preflop is a clear mistake. Your holding both wants to make the pot bigger as it has an equity advantage against any limping range, plus folding out some overcards is also valuable. On the flop you have a nutted hand and the SPR is very low, so you really want to build the pot.
Jan. 1, 2023 | 12:46 a.m.
My guess is whenever you change the range composition, you open yourself to being exploited on some degree.
In your experiment QQ and JJ are equivalent because they have the same equity (0), plus they don't interact with opponent's range in any meaningful way. But I think in real scenarios this would be very uncommon.
I'll add 2 more scenarios more similar to a real game.
Scenario 4: You're deciding whether to cbet or check in position. GTO wants to bet with a 30% frequency. The betting range is composed of 30% top pair+ and 70% no made hands. You decide to bet 30% overall but your betting range is 100% no made hands. Is this expoloitable? Of course.
Scenario 5: You're deciding whether to cbet or check in position. GTO wants to bet with a 30% frequency. The betting range is composed of 30% top pair+ and 70% no made hands. But each combination is betting at a different frequency based on whatever reason (equity, blockers, protection,etc.) You fail at picking the right frequency with each combination but your betting range still results in 30% top pair+ and 70% no made hands. Is this exploitable? Probably, but on a lesser degree and the exploit is harder to find.