alogical's avatar

alogical

45 points

Comment | alogical commented on Boxing vs. MMA

If you believe this you must be pretty excited to see the odds for Mayweather today!

Aug. 26, 2017 | 9:45 a.m.

Comment | alogical commented on ExPro comeback.

I will be following your journal for sure. GL mate.

Aug. 18, 2017 | 10:13 a.m.

Comment | alogical commented on Boxing vs. MMA

bet to hedge your disappointment!

Aug. 8, 2017 | 12:13 p.m.

Comment | alogical commented on Popular Content

Online poker has shown a decline in popularity for a few years. More people watched training vids in 2014 so they garnered more likes. There are new ways to get better at poker that don't involve watching vids. RIO survived where other training sites went under because it had better coaches and galfond is an excellent ambassador for the game. That is my take FWIW.

Aug. 7, 2017 | 7:57 a.m.

I wonder if there is anyone in Mexico or Canada thinking of moving to the US to play on Ignition?

July 28, 2017 | 11:25 a.m.

I intuitively assumed the same as you for Q2 but I think thereheis successfully demonstrated why overall EV does not change for a fixed, unexploitable call frequency in the toy game example in this thread

July 27, 2017 | 10:10 a.m.

Yeah, you're right. Total EV remains the same, calling EV increases and villains bluff ratio is what makes us indifferent to deviating from equilibrium. If we do not deviate he can bet 100%. I am humbled.

July 26, 2017 | 6:34 p.m.

Comment | alogical commented on What to Study?

I mean this in a nice way -- just get on with it. Spreadsheets, flop subsets, different scenarios -- sounds great, so pick a spot and go. Then pick the next one. Take your cue from the RIO pros and record the pure GTO line, the line adjusted for real world tendencies (node locking), and the simplified strategy that you can more easily implement without losing much EV.

July 26, 2017 | 11:44 a.m.

TIL you can flop 90% equity in PLO and get the money in.

July 26, 2017 | 11:29 a.m.

Villain deviates from GTO -- > we are no longer indifferent to calling --> Our static calling range picks up EV.

Villain maximises EV by having a ratio of value to bluffs. Your GTO perfect bluffcatching solution demands the smallest possible amount of bluffs in that ratio.

GTO is not about making villain indifferent to any action. Whisper his name, but Doug Polk has a very good layman's explanation of this confusion about indifference in GTO on youtube.

July 25, 2017 | 6:41 a.m.

@Disharmonist -- We sort skill from variance with a robust evaluation process? You feel helpless with it. I understand this because I have experienced it. Learned helplessness I believe they call it. Our minds are tricky.

July 21, 2017 | 1:15 p.m.

its part of a multi-street strategy in a 3bet pot where there are many ways to get stacks in by the river. Working on being balanced is fine. There are definitely more than 2 reasons to bet.

July 20, 2017 | 7:11 p.m.

Comment | alogical commented on Strange river bet

i like his overbet. You should call the strongest part of your checking back turn range, which is?

July 20, 2017 | 2:44 p.m.

Comment | alogical commented on KK on flop

its usually a set or a combo-draw from a reasonable player.

July 20, 2017 | noon

c/c flop is fine, betting also fine. Villain should be calling with a big chunk of his range whether you bet small or not, reasons for betting small is apparent on drier textures than this but not as much with early position ranges OOP on the whole. Small turn bet not a good part of overall strategy -- really face up and doesn't build pots when you want to build pots. Small river c/r also pretty face up. There are spots where you want to triple barrel a lot and this particular run out looks good for that.

July 20, 2017 | 11:28 a.m.

You should post your reasons for bluffing the river taking into account how much of your range doesn't get there and how wide you naturally want to value bet.

July 18, 2017 | 8:22 p.m.

I understand the criticisms here from the perspective that there are clues that you may be experiencing common mental game issues. Also, consider the selection bias when exploring the longevity of online poker in a forum of committed poker-heads. For many reasons, known and unknown, there is a good chance that you have made the right decision and that it took courage to get there. Good luck mate.

July 18, 2017 | 6:09 p.m.

If you pay Jonna102 $10,000 he will show you.

July 18, 2017 | 6:52 a.m.

CREV is inexpensive, will do what you want, and there is a big update coming at the end of the week. The update after that will apparently allow scripting for running the eq. solver. on several flops.

July 18, 2017 | 6:48 a.m.

It makes villain less comfortable folding a big chunk of his range on dry, unfavourable to his range flop textures and complicates his game plan. A big turn bet denies a lot of the equity invited to continue on the flop and keeps small c-bets part of an uncapped overall multi-street betting strategy.

Interestingly, because I have been knocking around poker for a while, I seem to remember this being part of the high stakes player and ebook author bobbofitos' general strategy back in the day.

July 15, 2017 | 3:24 p.m.

i think i am supposed to say obvious troll is obvious here.

July 10, 2017 | 5:46 p.m.

I suppose there is a non zero chance that by some force of genius psychological wizardry and marketing this does encourage many more recreational players into the game. I am not in that camp of optimism, unfortunately. The higher the rake the less room for robust competition between thinking players.

July 7, 2017 | 1:53 p.m.

Cool video. I feel these sort of videos are doing the community a great service by emphasising areas of development that are important in the wider world as well as poker. It makes me happy to use poker as a way to express personal growth, restraint and even compassion.

July 7, 2017 | 12:36 p.m.

Comment | alogical commented on ExPro comeback.

I think with humility you have shown you will do well (again). From my perspective after going away and coming back to poker, the ability to test and play around with GTO in software changes everything. If the online sites can maintain the integrity of the games, solver work and a striving for psychological robustness and flexibility are the only important things in my opinion.

July 4, 2017 | 9:01 a.m.

Thanks RIO!

July 4, 2017 | 8:35 a.m.

Actually if you look at snowie ranges, for example, it does gravitate towards linear OOP and throws in low suited connectors IP.

July 4, 2017 | 8:33 a.m.

I like your questions but to properly answer this would be to outline a full preflop game plan. Its just semantics but a "polarized" 4 bet isn't truly polarized in my opinion in that it will have decent equity Vs a flatting range whether that flatting range is linear or not (even as it allows us to fold to a shove).

July 3, 2017 | 9:18 a.m.

Thanks fellas. I don't think it is for me. I crave detail and there are programs that do detail better.

June 25, 2017 | 2:24 p.m.

In the snowie faq they have a write up explaining the inconsistencies that occur between the move advice given and the range displayed for villain:

First of all it has to be noted, that the evaluation (the move advice) is NOT based on the hand range of the opponent. The evaluation is the output of a neural network and has evolved during training. The neural network has been trained over trillions of hands, against various counter-strategies. Therefore these evaluations are very robust and can be trusted most.

Surely this is an admission that snowie is some distance from nash equilibrium? And what about this idea:

two slightly different neural nets that play almost identically may have significantly different hand ranges

I can only see this as true if 1) there are literally different snowies with slightly different EV evaluations causing strategies to diverge by the river or 2) some sort of rounding error causes the villain range advice and hero strategy advice to diverge as the hand progresses.

Either way we have to put a limit on how much attention we pay to range advice in close spots because we can never have the confidence that we get from a true equilibrium solver and therefore miss out on some of the nicer ways to visualise a hand range, such as the nice charts and graphs we get in Cardrunners EV.

Thoughts welcome.

June 24, 2017 | 8:27 a.m.

Playing with a shared roll would not increase risk of ruin, mathematically speaking. You would run into liquidity issues if you kept adding players i.e. not enough buyins to cover all the tables in play.

June 21, 2017 | 9:25 p.m.

Load more
Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy