cYde's avatar


33 points

Hey Kevin,

good video as always! The way I understand the "Create Subtree" function to work, is that it basically uses the ranges that arrived at the selected node from the original tree setup, to then establish a new equilibrium with the new parameters. Wouldn't it be necessary to re-run the whole sim with the new parameters and compare it to the "subtree sim" in order to be certain, that the original bet sizing options didn't influence the ranges in a too drastic way?

An example: if the original sim only had a block probe size for OOP on the turn (after flop went check check) and now you create a subtree with an overbet size for OOP, it seems quite obvious that this would be a high EV option for OOP on most textures, since IP's turn range is not solved for that option and might lack enough hands that can defend properly against the overbet. This effect gets stronger the more limited betsizes on later streets become. If OOP can never bet big on turn and river but is allowed to XR flop, then IP is incentivized to bet less on the flop.

I am not sure if I have expressed my thought clearly. But I was wondering if you have looked closer at this and know, whether my thinking here is wrong or if the effect isn't really worth considering.

Thank you!

Dec. 8, 2020 | 12:37 p.m.

Good format, really enjoyed it. And quite educational as well! Good job!

Nov. 9, 2020 | 7:10 p.m.

One of the best coaches on this site <3

Aug. 4, 2020 | 10:13 a.m.

The format is a really good idea but there is soooo much time wasted on very basic decisions preflop. It is Elite content and I assume that everybody understands by now that many hands often will be mixed calls and 3-bets. By including that commentary (aswell as commentary from the coaches that aren't even involved in the hand anymore), we lose out on so many more situations that will yield a way higher learning EV.
I think commentary from players who are not involved in the hand anymore should only be included, if they strongly disagree with a line or a bet size that is being used.
Preflop commentary should be limited to plays that represent clear exploits. A rough approach to their preflop strategy could be outlined by everyone at the start of the series (as I think was done here anyway) and clearified in the comments if there are questions.

I really appreciate the knowledge and the skill of all the coaches and that a new format is being used, but those videos unfortunately feel more like entertainment than educational and fall behind their learning potential by a lot from my point of view. Still love you guys <3

Aug. 2, 2020 | 10:18 a.m.

Great video - really enjoyed it! I would love to hear more about how to optimize studying time. You mentioned using scripting for that purpose. I haven't heard anyone talking about that yet. Maybe you can elaborate on that here or in your next video! :-)

In case you haven't seen it: when browsing through an hand in PiO you can see "runouts across frequencies" in the top right corner. You can compare that % with the one for your selected turn or river to see if there is a big difference.

March 31, 2018 | 6:28 p.m.

Hey Juan, great video! Really ejoyed watching it!

Two questions for you:
1) How does your limping range compare to a 2.5bb raising range? I understand that you invest less money preflop and therefore giving yourself better odds but you also always give up equity by never winning the blinds preflop. Which effect weighs stronger?

2) You said that your limping strategy is an exploit because most players don't adjust well to it. In which position do you feel people make the biggest mistakes against you? Would you ever choose raising instead of limping if you knew that e.g. both blinds are recreational players (no further reads besides that)?

Would appreciate your insights a lot! :-)

March 27, 2018 | 12:57 p.m.

Comment | cYde commented on $215 6-Max MTT (Part 3)

Hey John,

I normally enjoy your videos very much. This one was a bit "slow"... ;-) I understand if you don't wanna give away your exact ranges but I feel when most hands play pretty straight forwardly like in this video I would very much appreciate thoughts on other hands in your or villain's range.

Like what hand or frequency would you bluff 4-bet with? What hands would you shove in this spot? And so on... those are information that would be very valuable to me. I feel a lot of potential is being wasted here.

Looking forward to your next video though! :)

Feb. 7, 2018 | 5:26 p.m.

Comment | cYde commented on Specifically Poker

I believe that the pool (Zoom100/200) plays too straight forward in those spots. Therefore we can probably overbluff on many boards that hit our range better than their's. I also think that we sometimes have to make extremely weak seeming folds on the flop against aggression from any of the other players (like a big bet on a dry A high board from UTG). I rarely see any surprising plays here so having even a small idea of their tendencies makes a huge difference for my preflop decision.

Jan. 29, 2018 | 5:07 p.m.

Hey Daniel,

I enjoyed the way you analyzed those hand, great video! I got a few questions:

1) Your simulation has OOP bet 30% or 120% on the turn. Are those sizes that PiO frequently prefers to a more "oldschool" sizing around 60% pot? And doesn't that mess with OOP's check/raise frequency on the flop too much because it doesn't leave an intermediate sizing to bet on the turn after the check/raise?
2) Is it possible that OOP's flop check/raise frequency is "that" high because you didn't give OOP the chance to lead turns? Intuitively it feels that there are turns that favour OOP like a 7 or a 4 that would enable OOP to realize more equity with his check/calling range by leading out. With the game tree you built IP can exploit OOP by checking a lot on those cards being additionally protected by the "only 120% pot" that OOP can bet on the river.
3) I wonder how you construct your defending range from the BB in this scenario. I am aware that our pot odds are very good with antes in the pot. But especially against a very good opponent with a reasonable range and that big of a stack size it is hard for me to imagine how to make a call with 82s or 76o +EV. Did you analyze your database to see what you have played +EV in the past or do you run simulations with solvers?

Jan. 22, 2018 | 1:38 p.m.

Comment | cYde commented on Guidelines to Calldown

I am not sure if I understood both of you guys correctly but isn't it so that the producer of this video ( explained how we should defend 1-a of ALL hands that we come to the river with and you claim that it's 1-a of hands that beat a bluff? I am now confused what the correct approach of this situation is. hope you can help me with that!

Dec. 16, 2014 | 10:40 a.m.

Comment | cYde commented on ICM Intro
I guess enzyne is saying that you didn't account for the times when we call with 77 and lose. In that case we can neither shove 85,8% nor the 23% if we fold but 0% because we busted out of the tournament. I don't see where this outcome is weight into your argument. It's the same issue that Stephen brought up and I wasn't able to understand your answer if you have already explained it.

Sept. 27, 2014 | 2:39 p.m.

Hand History | cYde posted in PLO: 5/10 HU - Flush river in 3b pot
None: 0
The game just started, villain is a reg and he might perceive me as weak as I normally don't play him.

Sorry about the format, trying to figure out how to convert properly.

Sept. 23, 2014 | 10:53 a.m.

You fire the turn to get him to fold his weak Jx type hands but after you have hit your king on the river you value shove against the exact same hands you were trying to fold out ott. Was your intention to fire twice against the QJ/JT hands as a bluff or did you just not realise that your reasoning for betting is not persistent?

Good video, like the format and didn't get bored at all.

July 19, 2014 | 11:46 a.m.

Cool, didn't know that. Thanks!

March 21, 2014 | 6:34 a.m.

Thanks for the video. Any chance you could talk faster in the next one?

March 21, 2014 | 3:26 a.m.

Comment | cYde commented on 10/20 6max AA easy call?
Why do you necessarily want to bet AA on a board that hits villain's range better than our's?

Nov. 14, 2013 | 4:53 a.m.

If BB's range consists mostly of pockets (half of them flop a FD on this board) and CO's range contains a few pockets too, why not bet the flop to fold out those hands that have decent equity against us? It doesn't matter too much that we have AK here as we rarely realize our equity but we are gonna check it down against BB's QcQx (not knowing the Turn on the Flop) or AK sometimes or might have even a profitable shove on the Turn if just BB calls the Flop bet (depending on his coldcall range). That combined with our blocker so that it's less likely that BB has AK himself, I rather bet AK here than 7h6h. That is assuming that BB and CO fold Pairs with a FD on the Flop. If BB calls Flop with AQ+ and Pairs with FD, we should have a profitable valuebet as well.

Oct. 16, 2013 | 9:33 a.m.

Hey, thank you for this video. I have a few questions:

~24:00: You are talking about betting your whole range vs regs. Are you talking just about the 7 7 5 flop or this kind of situation in general?

~25:50: You openraise/4-bet all-in with 44. To which stacksize do you prefer this play instead of raise/folding or even complete/shoving? What would you expect villain's 3-bet/calling range to be in this spot?

To which stacksize would you consider to 4-bet-bluff OOP and IP if that makes a difference to you?

~37:46: You openshove QJo for 14 BBs. Pretty basic question but how do you determine optimal open-shoving-ranges in those kind of spots?

Thanks in advance!

May 24, 2013 | 11:31 a.m.

Can you explain to me why you check/raise the flop instead of leading? I think a check/raise in this spot looks pretty strong and even if the action goes bet and raise you can't get in a significant amount of your stack. Plus you don't have any additional draw to your set if the board changes. As played I would probably fold to the river bet because the river completes two straights, we have the Kd therefore block some TP + turned flushdraw type hands that he would call again with (-> shifts his range more to wraps) and ourself don't have any blockers to the straights. As we don't complete any KK** but only KK** with some kind of connectivity pre we usually have some blockers in our hand and I don't think that villain thinks that our range contains a lot of bluffs (and quite a few would have made the straight) so would have to bluff against a pretty strong range. So I guess I fold this hand and would call with a KKJ8.

April 18, 2013 | 7:35 a.m.

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