Dan A's avatar

Dan A

111 points

Samu Patronen This preflop range for CO player is absurdly tight, which could be skewing your results. Seriously never 3betting JJ CO vs. HJ??

Aug. 20, 2019 | 6:30 a.m.

Comment | Dan A commented on Stop Deluding Yourself

Yes, you're right. It's pointless to compare the EV of using 1 sizing vs. 3 sizings if you aren't holding your opponent's strategy constant. I think Saulo just made a mistake here. To test the difference in EV for SB to use 3 sizes or 1 size, the BTN player should have the same bet sizing options in both simulations.

Aug. 20, 2019 | 6:21 a.m.

Comment | Dan A commented on To Block or not to Block

Question about the high SPR scenario. You say we shouldn't block with bluffcatchers because villain can jam and give us horrible odds. However, villain can jam vs. check and give us horrible odds as well. Is it worse to block-bet fold just b/c you lose EV from putting money into the pot and then folding?

Aug. 18, 2019 | 4:21 a.m.

awesome video, I love the idea of looking at one spot and how several board textures affect our strategy in that spot + tying it all together at the end

Aug. 17, 2019 | 5:56 p.m.

8:15
The 3Bet to 11BB SB vs. CO with ATo seems a touch too loose to me, is this standard?

I’m surprised you called this a high EV board for CO since SB will have more overpairs and sets, as well as less of the low pocket pairs and suited connectors that miss the board. Ran a sim on this hand, and the solver said this board was 35% higher EV for SB than CO, and had SB cbetting 91% of the time almost always with a small size. Can you explain your reasoning for checking ATo on the flop?

24:49 squeezed pot where you have QQ and fish bets half-pot flop, jams turn

board Jc Js 7s As

You mention that villain screwed up post-flop bet sizing, could you explain a little more? What bet sizes should villain be using instead and why?

Aug. 11, 2019 | 6:30 a.m.

BB range

Blocking 44 could be a possible explanation, although BB takes this line with Q9s and Q9o very often which is far more combos than 44, so I doubt this is why BTN calls more 4x than 9x.

Aug. 11, 2019 | 12:38 a.m.

Thanks for the video Juan, I really enjoyed the mixture of theory and exploits in your analysis. A few hands I have questions about:

25:30 T9 on QJ958
Would you bluff with this small river raise size or is your size here an exploit? I feel like a solver would never make such a small raise here, but that's because the solver will call more vs. a larger raise than most players would. If you would bluff with the $20 raise size then what hands would you pick? I'd imagine some AdX and KdX

31:00 3-way pot AKQ88
Preflop would you have any calls as the BB player facing BTN open and SB 3bet? I feel like with the BTN behind, the BB wants to play 4B/fold.
River: What bluffs would you use here when x/raising? KxJh or QxJh make some sense to me.
Also do you think the BB player should use the 1/3 pot river bet size?

36:05 BTN vs. BB SRP Q92r
Surprised you folded 66 to flop x/raise here after cbetting 1/3 pot, I would think this is a clear call. Can you explain?

Aug. 10, 2019 | 8:08 p.m.

I was doing some solver work and noticed this counter-intuitive result that I could use help understanding. The hand is a SRP BTN vs. BB. Board Q942 rainbow. Here's the action:

Flop Qc 9d 4s (5.5 BB)
BTN cbet 1.8 BB
BB x/raise to 7.3 BB
BTN calls

Turn Qc 9d 4s [2h]
BB bet 15 BB
BTN?

BB turn barrel range
BTN turn range vs. BB bet

I was really surprised to see the solver preferring to call 4x over 9x as the BTN player. At first I thought the 4x hands were preferred because they had an overcard like A4/K4 vs. the 9x hands like 97s, 96s. However the solver chooses to call and raise even the 4x hands like 64/54/43 over 97/96. Next I looked at the BB turn barrel range to look for blocking effects that would make BTN prefer calling with but nothing jumped out at me. Finally I looked through many other turn cards to see how BTN strategies shift, but consistently across almost all turn cards (aside from a 9 turn) the BTN was calling and raising much more with 4x and 9x.

Could the issue be that the 9x hands like J9 have kickers where if they make 2pair, villain will make some straights with their range so BTN is more likely to get coolered and lose a big pot? When the 6x hands like 64 make 2-pair, villain won't make any straights so BTN's EV is higher. This is the best explanation I can come up with.

Aug. 10, 2019 | 7:57 p.m.

Sorry about that, I knew I should have kept it short but so many interesting spots kept coming up that made me curious. Here's a shorter version:

12:53 Qs Jd 7d Jc 2c, CO opens 2.5x, you call BTN 8h 8c, BB calls. Flop x/x, Turn x/x, River you value-bet 1/2 pot and say that it's read-based. Can you explain? This seems thin betting into 2 players and blocking 87s. Is the idea here that BB will have enough 7x for you to value-bet 88 on the river? CO could have TT-88 as played, but maybe your read is that players aren't checking enough strong hands on the river so you can go for thin value.

24:10 Ah 9s 8s Kd 9d. You open HJ Kc Jc, BB calls. Flop cbet 1/3, call. Turn x/x, river BB bets 1/2 pot, you raise his bet 4x. I was surprised by this raise since the only bet/calls you're blocking are K9s and it seems better for you to bluff with 8x while using your strong Kx as calls. Not sure if BB is calling K9o preflop but I would assume not. Was the play more read-based that this player will bet-fold Ax too much?

July 28, 2019 | 8:02 p.m.

with white magic

July 28, 2019 | 5:47 a.m.

11:48 Blind vs. Blind 3B pot 9s 6s 3h 7d 9h, you have As Qc in BB. Flop x/x, Turn 2/3 pot bet, you call, river. You say you wouldn't bluff AsQx on the river if checked to. This seems close to me, would you check back AQ because you can draw enough bluffs from the 2-overcard+gutshot hands that floated the turn like JTs, QTs, KTs? I'd imagine these hands are doing some flop betting, but I guess you think you would have them at a high enough frequency in this line that you don't need to bluff AQ here? Not sure if you'd also have some unpaired 8x in this line that has worse SDV than AQ and you can use to bluff. I'm no expert on 3bet ranges blind vs. blind and don't know how much A8/K8/Q8/J8 stuff is in there.

12:53 Qs Jd 7d Jc 2c, CO opens 2.5x, you call BTN 8h 8c, BB calls. Flop x/x, Turn x/x, River you value-bet 1/2 pot and say that it's read-based. Can you explain? This seems thin betting into 2 players, especially since you block 2 combos of 87s that will makeup a big portion of the CO calling range. Is the idea here that BB will be wide enough preflop that they'll have enough 7x for you to value-bet 88 on the river? CO could possibly have TT-88 as played as well, but maybe your read is that players aren't checking enough strong hands on the river so you can go thin for value.

23:00 BTN open, you call SB. Flop Js 7s 6s. You say that you'd have some leads on this board which I thought was interesting. Is the idea here that the SB flatting range has a higher proportion of suited hands than the button open range, so you should have leads because you'll have a flush more often?

24:10 Ah 9s 8s Kd 9d. You open HJ Kc Jc, BB calls. Flop cbet 1/3, call. Turn x/x, river BB bets 1/2 pot, you raise his bet 4x. I was surprised by this raise and ran a sim on this spot. In the initial sim, Kx was never bluff-raising the river and calling around 90%. This made sense to me because it's a good bluffcatcher, and also doesn't block many of villain's bet/call hands. The only hand that you're blocking here with the bluff is K9s and the solver instead used 8x hands as bluff-raises because they block way more value combinations (A8s, K8s, 98s). When I modified the sim to give the BB player K9o preflop, the BTN started raising river 5-10% with KQ-KT which makes sense because Kx now blocks more of BB's value. Not sure if K9o is calling preflop but I would assume not. Was the play more read-based that this player will bet-fold Ax too much?

Thanks for your typical excellent analysis in the video.

July 27, 2019 | 6:29 a.m.

Absolutely loved this series, but can you please make your screen bigger/more zoomed in? The pokertracker analysis at the beginning is so small that it's unreadable. Also if you could put the tables side-by-side how you used to instead of stacked on top of each other, that would make it much easier to see.

July 27, 2019 | 1:13 a.m.

RunItTw1ce The results are being poorly reported because "AI beats humans" is a sexy headline. The computer scientists claim that the AI beat humans by a small margin after you evaluate the results with "Variance Reduction Techniques" that they came up with, but in the raw results Pluribus lost 700 BB.

July 23, 2019 | 6:02 p.m.

Pluribus lost 700BB overall

July 22, 2019 | 11 p.m.

Ravzar Like any board, you'll have hands that you'll call on early streets and fold on later streets. What's unique about the rainbow boards you've identified that make them tougher to play?

July 22, 2019 | 4:20 a.m.

Comment | Dan A commented on Showdown Value Bluffs

Great video Uri Peleg , one of the best theory videos I've seen on RIO.

Could this concept of making Showdown Value Bluffs apply to any turns where there is a flush draw on board? Thus, the low paired hands would want to make it worse for the hands that are 2 overcard + FD to call right? For example, barrelling 22 on Ks 6d 4c Qd

July 22, 2019 | 1:28 a.m.

Patrick Cronin Great video, really enjoyed your analysis. I have a question about the JJ vs. 65s hand.

You repeatedly say that 65s should be a river x/jam because of its blocking qualities, and say that 65s is a better x/jam than 76/A6/K6 because 65s is "double blocking". I disagree here that 65s is a better bluff-jam than 76/A6/K6. What value hands does the BB player have that contain a 5 and would be bet/calling the river? 55/85 aren't betting flop and turn, and 85 is likely too weak to bet/call river. Maybe you're playing 52s this way as BB?

Meanwhile 97, AA, KK would all likely be played as bet/bet/bet by BB and all could bet/call river so it seems like having 76/A6/K6 are better river bluffs than 65 for SB player. It just seems like having an A, K, or 7 blocker is better than having a 5 blocker for the IP player when they x/shove here since A/K/7 all block bet/calls.

July 20, 2019 | 3:17 a.m.

How do you know Linus is Mr. Pink?

July 19, 2019 | 2:30 a.m.

There's no chance you have 20% equity here, and the implied odds aren't great. You only have a nutted hand on 3 cards, and there are some reverse implied odds for when your opponent boats up.

July 17, 2019 | 10:10 p.m.

Post | Dan A posted in NLHE: Sam Greenwood 4-way River Bluff

I just watched this hand from a Triton cash game where Sam Greenwood wins a big pot with 4 players by bluffing on the river. While Sam's bluff on the river makes sense since he's at the bottom of his range and has more AcX than his opponents (aside from BB), I really don't understand his flop call. Sam calls flop with 6-high and a gutshot with no BDFD. Given that 3 players call in front of him on 332cc, it seems very likely that at least one player has a FD which means he only has 3 clean outs to the nuts. Can somebody explain his flop play? It seems like it's certainly a losing call, even with fish in the pot.

July 14, 2019 | 3:24 p.m.

Why do you think this is Linus/where can we find information on who the human players were?

July 14, 2019 | 5:13 a.m.

I would love to see a theory video about constructing a strong NL preflop strategy. Such a video could be an overview of the different solvers and software tools (e.g. Snowie) that can be used to develop preflop strats, and could discuss the pros and cons of each one. Then the video could explain how to effectively use these tools to construct preflop ranges and could show a couple examples of constructing ranges for certain spots in order to show the best process. There are tons of theory videos about postflop play, but no good recent videos about constructing preflop ranges.

July 10, 2019 | 2:38 a.m.

Could you just post a photo of it so I have a better idea?

June 29, 2019 | 4:29 p.m.

Can you post the preflop ranges you used here Jeff_ ? 50% call for the BB vs. CO open with no antes seems wide to me, but maybe I'm just not defending wide enough in this spot. Also with lower rake at high stakes, I understand you can defend a bit wider.

June 28, 2019 | 3:36 p.m.

Comment | Dan A commented on 500z Bluffcatcher

I ran this hand through a solver at 100BB stacks and here were the conclusions:

Flop is standard, QQ with a spade and no club mixes 3bet at 45% frequency. At deeper stacks, I would imagine that the 3bet percentage goes down as QQ is less happy to stack off deeper.

Turn is a very bad card for BB. None of his flop x/r bluffs improve, and Hero still has all the strong overpairs, Tx, 75s. BB wants to check at a high frequency on this turn b/c it's bad for BB's range. Villain correctly identifies that when they do bet, they want to use an overbet sizing at a low frequency. Facing turn bet, the solver mixes between call and jam with the QQ combos that unblock spades, and mixes call and fold with the QQ combos that have a spade and no club. This makes sense because the QQ combos with no spade have a much higher EV facing the turn barrel since it becomes more likely that villain is bluffing. So your particular combo is a mix between call and fold.

River: I think the comments above get it wrong when they say you should be afraid of Tx here. AT, KT, QT, JT should almost never take this line of x/raising against the large flop cbet and overbetting turn against your range that contains so many stronger hands. This would be way overplaying Tx, so you shouldn't be too afraid of trips. According to the solver, calling with your combo is worth close to 0EV within a margin for error.

Without specific reads on villain, I don't see why villain can't show up with plenty of bluffs on this river. Every draw that villain is x/raising on the flop is air by the river (FDs, J9, J8, 98, 86, etc)

June 28, 2019 | 3:31 p.m.

UPDATE: Thanks so much for all of the advice recently. I've played a few more sessions against this opponent since I started this thread and have gone on a $1,700 upswing at 200NL, $300 buy-in. The main strategic adjustments that I've made have been:

1) Opening tighter, now I only open hands that won't fold to 3bet. These open then fold to 3bet hands were just burning me way too much money, as many people have said in this thread.
2) 4betting much lighter for value. When villain is calling hands like A2o vs. 4bet, I really need to just push my equity advantage and create large pots that I will play with a much stronger range in position.
3) Limping my weak hands that I want to play smaller pots with. This allows me to raise more hands profitably since I can limp hands that aren't strong enough to call vs. 3bet, but are profitable putting less money in preflop.
4) Running better (kidding)

Overall, I really appreciate everybody's advice. I'll post more updates if anything significant happens, but I'm really grateful that RIO is such a helpful and generous community with information. I had no idea I'd get so many thoughtful and intelligent responses from everybody in such a short period of time, and am very grateful. Based on playing this unconventional heads-up match, I've had these two main takeaways that could help you playing vs. fish/unconventional strategies:
1) Be willing to make huge adjustments from your GTO strategy and stay open-minded. I was reluctant at first to make huge strategic adjustments and get outside my comfort zone. However, I needed to stop approaching this match like I would approach a match against a strong opponent. Instead I needed to really think about exploits instead of trying to imitate a solver. It can be hard to make way different plays than you are accustomed to making, but being flexible and willing to make outside-the-box +EV plays is a key driver of a high win-rate.
2) Be willing to embrace variance in +EV spots. Part of my struggles early in the match came from an unwillingness to make moves like 4betting KTs to 26BB for value. My normal game is 6max 200NL online, so it felt uncomfortable to be playing $100 preflop pots over and over again with deep stacks and "weaker" hands like KTs than I would usually have deep after 4betting. However, variance is something that should be thought about outside of the game rather than in the game. You want to think about variance in terms of whether you are bankrolled to play a certain game given your std dev and expected win-rate. Variance calculators are very helpful for this. Once you have accepted that you are bankrolled for a game with a certain variance and large swings, then you need to go into the game not worrying about getting stacked or losing large amounts of money. Instead, you should purely be thinking about executing the most +EV strategies once you have opened a table or sat down in a live game.

June 22, 2019 | 3:07 a.m.

Comment | Dan A commented on Pursuit of Balance

Benefits of facing the overfolding pool: This pool gives you very frequent +EV hands because you can profitably bluff in any hand. You also can exploit the pool by value-betting less thinly and thus not value-cutting yourself as much as when you play a GTO villain.

Facing overcalling pool: At first I thought that this pool is worse to play against because you can only exploit by value-betting thinner, so you wouldn’t be able to exploit in situations where you don’t have good SDV. However, you can also exploit opponents by giving up with bluffs all of the time, and not making -EV bluffs since villain will overcall. Your exploits in this pool also lead to you winning bigger pots because when you value-bet thinly as an exploit you win bigger pots than when you bluff exploitatively since the villain doesn’t put more money into the pot when they just fold.

Overall there are benefits to both situations and I’m not sure if your exploits against the overcalling pool or against the overfolding pool would generate more EV. In practice, I’ve actually played online games where villains consistently overfold, and recently I’ve been playing private games where the pool way overcalls. Based on this experience it seems more profitable/easier to play against the overfolding pool but I’m not completely sure.

June 22, 2019 | 2:53 a.m.

I like this idea of limping for your reason that we aren't giving up much preflop fold equity. This point made me think on a more basic level about why we raise preflop on the button HU instead of limping. The reasons are twofold: 1) to grow the pot with strong hands that we will be playing in position, 2) to deny our opponent's range equity by making him fold. Against this villain that is 3betting so often and folding so infrequently, my 2.5x open raise isn't accomplishing reason 2.

June 15, 2019 | 9:57 p.m.

Very smart points here belrio42 . I've done some work in equilab to look at the equity that a lot of my hands have against a 75% uncapped range. Since I open to $5 and he 3bets to $15, then I need 40% equity based on pot odds, but also I'm in position and have a skill edge so I might only need 33-35%.

I also agree that I really need to think outside the box and open up my 4bet range. It feels weird to 4bet a hand like K7s for "value", but K7s has 52% equity vs. his top 64% range. Thus, I just want to be growing the pot for situations where I will have an equity advantage and being position.

June 15, 2019 | 9:54 p.m.

Yeah, I agree and this is the direction I've been going in. I've expanded my linear 4betting range to what I posted above, but need to expand it even more. You're right that it's just not worth it to open hands where I'm going to an additional 1.5BB 75% of the time by raising and then folding to the 3bet

June 15, 2019 | 9:50 p.m.

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