2.5 years after the fact, I have to say--this is some of the best FT (and just generally speaking) analysis I've ever encountered with regard to tournament play--even by your standards. I've watched this whole series a few times at this point.
Sept. 3, 2019 | 12:22 a.m.
You've given me a lot to think about, thanks for the replies--I've deleted my 2 examples as I agree that they both sort of missed the mark in their relevance.
I get what you're saying now--I think. Correct me if I'm wrong--the point you were making is that as payjumps are shallower (and therefore, as there's more other players that can bust before us, and also therefore with less "big money" in immediate view that would incentivize us to simply play cEV), ICM makes $EV and cEV diverge the most.
Then, as payjumps are deeper (and therefore, as there's less other players that can bust before us, and also therefore with "big money" for 1st in closer view incentivizing us to sway more toward cEV with our ranges), ICM makes $EV and cEV diverge less.
Does that sound about right?
Aug. 29, 2019 | 1:46 a.m.
Hi--not related to this video specifically, but something I'm curious about--how do you "roll" for your mixed strategies? I use a calculator on my desk that generates a random number with the press of a button, but I kind of wish there was something that would appear on my dock or desktop always, switching numbers every second. Thx
June 10, 2019 | 4:05 p.m.
Such a terrific video. You "humanize" the PIO results very well. Would love to see a ton more of this and still need to go back through your library and watch the others. I'll preface the following with a disclaimer that I'm very much a recreational player, but it astounds me how far from PIO's turn strategies mine lie. Would have never known were it not for this video--and as a side note, I think this is what convinced me I need to purchase it and start toying around.
June 1, 2019 | 9:45 p.m.
One thought I had while watching the AA vs. AKs hand around the 23:00 mark--there's a lot of hands villain has that would call our jam, but that very well may shut down on a wide array of flops. We were very fortunate that he flopped TPTK, as who knows how he would have proceeded had he not. At the very least, we wouldn't have gotten nearly as many chips as we did. But had we shoved pre, there's no escape for him.
Same goes for something like JJ (for villain) when a Q/K peels off. I guess what I'm saying is that since we assessed his raising range pre to be pretty tight/value heavy, we potentially lose a lot by trapping in this fashion.
May 24, 2019 | 5:02 a.m.
This seems, partially, like a more general concept on GT and Nash Equilibria--in response to those aspects of it, I'd just recommend a bit of research on the concepts (as applied to poker, or even more generally). Basically, there's two coexistent notions of playing Nash, and playing away from Nash for exploitative reasons. PIO will, of course, only ever provide the Nash.
As far as node locking a particular SB or BB strategy--I'm not well versed on PIO (I'm a recreational player--I don't own the software as of now), but my gut tells me that even if it's possible, there's very little point. You'd never know every aspect of a comprehensive BB or SB strategy, so you'd just be making assumptions to the point where the PIO solution would have little practical value. And even then, you'd just be solving for the Nash solution given that particular strategy--not the maximally exploitative counteradjustment, which is what I think you're hinting at.
May 22, 2019 | 9:50 p.m.
Apotheosis--this dialogue between two people format--very conducive to quality videos--being able to bounce ideas off one another, and to have one person be the genesis for an idea/question that the other might not have brought up, has made these past 2 videos very enjoyable
May 11, 2019 | 3:20 p.m.
Forgive the stray thought, but one thing I'd love to see a coach go through is a PIO assisted exploration of what hands we, as a mid-late position opener, can flat vs. a 2.5x 3b from someone who has position on us.
So often I feel like I'm doing a bit of guesswork with fringe hands in this spot and totally unsure as to whether I'm overfolding, overflatting, or over 4betting
April 17, 2019 | 3:54 a.m.
Thanks Pedro. If anyone is curious, the question sparked a good discussion over on 2p2, where one user ran some PIO sims. Worth a look IMO:
March 9, 2019 | 12:45 a.m.
I think 22-25 people were left, field was 600 or so entries, $45000 for 1st in a $180,000 prize pool (WSOP online tourneys seem to be quite top heavy). No reads on villain at the time of hand.
UTG: (24 bb)
LJ: (50 bb)
HJ: (24 bb)
CO: (53 bb)
BU: (18 bb)
SB : (21 bb)
BB (Hero): (35 bb)
Pre-Flop: (120) Hero is BB with A♠6♠
fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, SB calls 0.5bb, BB shoves
Only dynamic was 10 hands ago SB had limped and folded to my 3.5bb iso.
My question is, should we jam here or check back pre? I think that raising non all in is bad because we can't call any jam from villain and as such we're throwing away the equity of our hand.
I find myself in these spots a lot, and I think at ~15bb or under effective it's a clear jam, but at what stack depth do we start to check back and play flops with A6s?
March 5, 2019 | 6:20 a.m.
Around the 46:45 mark, you're talking about having J8s and saying that if you know a limpshove isn't coming, that you might have to be calling in that spot--later, you mention that we're seeing a limpshove, but it seems at that point your commentary is on SenorPokes on the right-hand table, despite the J8s hand being from the left table. I just want to make sure I'm not going crazy here hahaha
Jan. 10, 2019 | 6:32 p.m.
I think he means that the fold is better if he's holding a heart, as this reduces the number of combos the opponent can have of FDs, and thus increases the probability that opponent is holding a value combo. As such, the fold becomes better, as it's less likely villain is holding a FD combo that Ben could float turn and bet river, or raise turn, to make fold.
Or, I'm totally wrong :) the comment from him confused me as well.
Jan. 5, 2019 | 12:03 a.m.
New to Pineapple, came across a spot that gave me trouble. Maybe there's a standard approach.
Initial 5: KK QcJc 2
I believe I went with KK/2/QJ. Was also considering QJcc/2/KK for the most aggro approach.
This was first to act btw.
Oct. 16, 2015 | 5:30 p.m.
you can arrive at ~.3 using the "standard" formula as well should you so desire, assuming that's what the alpha bit is expressing:
to call: 3850-1111=2739
odds: (5581/2739)= ~2.038
equity needed to call=(1/(1+2.038))=~33%
Assumption: The c/r is a bluff, and so any call we make will win the pot with 100% frequency. Thus there is an equality between the rate at which we call and the rate at which we win. Then, from King Viktor's standpoint, if we're calling over 33%, we're showing a profit vs. his bluff, and so the bluff is a losing play.
Sept. 18, 2015 | 9:43 p.m.
Can't wait for the wide BB defense video series. It's something I engage in, and while certain peels are clearly profitable, other closer ones I'm unsure about, and there isn't much material on it out there.
Will this series be theory/math based (to form a foundation) or HH review based?
Aug. 5, 2015 | 5:36 p.m.
In the middle of watching at the moment so no specific comments, but I've watched most of your content and it's really, really solid stuff. It surpasses a good portion of the Elite MTT content I've reviewed so far.
but what in the world is a gruaiggorm?
July 15, 2015 | 8:28 p.m.
This of course assumes he's shoving "correctly" here, but even barring that (as I agree he's almost certainly shoving far more than 8% here), we'd have to make some pretty strong assumptions about the degree to which his pushing range here is too wide to have KTo enter our calling range