jensour It's clearly just a smokescreen being used as a reputational hedge:
A) "I'm only playing 100NL online because I'm a live player, and just using online for practice to improve my technical game"
B) "I'm a high-volume online player. Just starting out at 1/2 live to build up my live skills since I'm inexperienced live"
Two contradictory mirror-image claims of playing such low stakes in each respective domain since it isn't his primary area of focus. Clearly BS b/c he hasn't had any success sufficient to move up from low stakes in live or online.
Sept. 24, 2020 | 11:27 p.m.
As a long-time RIO customer, I think it's reasonable to request coaches that are qualified to teach and presented accurately. In a comment on June 2, 2020 you said that you play 1/2 live. Don't act like I'm pulling this out of thin air, this is what you said yourself.
If you're playing 1/2 live, that is strong evidence that you aren't a successful live player. I don't think RIO should present you as an authority that should be listened to about live poker when you are at the bottom of the live totem pole and haven't achieved success.
Sept. 22, 2020 | 5:41 a.m.
I don't mean to be rude, but posting a video called "Conquering the Live Poker World" by a 1/2 player (according to his post history) laughable. Why is Akshar stuck playing the lowest and easiest stake in the world if he has useful insights into live poker? It strains credulity.
Sept. 21, 2020 | 9:23 p.m.
Flop A83ss, You're BB vs. CO open with 82s
Facing 1/3 pot flop cbet you said you wish you had raised. I was surprised since this seemed like a pretty standard x/call spot to me. How would you be splitting your 8x and 3x between call/raise? And if you're raising a lot of 8x on the flop, then doesn't that leave your x/call flop range way too weak?
Jan. 5, 2020 | 4:32 a.m.
Davidnw1982 I agree with you that bluff frequency is more important than getting the exact combos right. My point was just that if we bluff K9 (which the solver pure checks), that indicates we are likely overbluffing since we are probably betting the worse Kx at a high frequency. The reason being that there isn't a blocker quality specific to K9o that made us want to use it as a bluff so we can infer that the weaker Kx will be bluffed at a frequency greater than or equal to K9o
Jan. 2, 2020 | 5:59 a.m.
1:00 - I was surprised to see you bluff K9o after flop and turn went x/x. Seems like we are overbluffing here if we are bluffing a hand that strong. In the sim I ran, K9o is a pure check, and the solver is bluffing weaker SDV hands like K4-K2, Ten-High, and worse (river lead range for BB player is below). Was your play more of an exploit vs. a BTN range that you suspected was too weak to defend vs. river overbet?
Dec. 28, 2019 | 12:52 a.m.
Thanks for doing this thread Ben. I've learned a ton from your videos and think you're a brilliant guy.
My question is: What software should I use to learn a preflop GTO strategy for 6-max NL holdem? I've done a ton of post-flop solver work that's help me move up to 200NL where I am a consistent winner. However, I've never used preflop solvers like Monker, and the preflop ranges that I use for my sims and gameplay are mostly estimations based on the ranges I see good pros use in RIO videos.
I would like to learn the GTO preflop ranges, as this seems like a necessary part of my game to sharpen as I hope to move up from 200NL to high stakes. Could you give your advice for the best software/tools for developing a theoretically sound 6max NL preflop strategy? Also, any advice on using these tools or tips for running preflop sims effectively would be much appreciated. I've never seen this covered well on RIO before. Thanks, and happy holidays!
Dec. 25, 2019 | 7:43 a.m.
17:30 You say that BTN prefers to bet Ax with lower kicker because they unblock more folding hands. Can you explain this? It seems backwards to me since the higher kickers like T/8/7 block more continuing hands than the lower kickers like a 2/4
Dec. 23, 2019 | 5:07 a.m.
Is it safe to play MTTs on ACR? I've heard so many bad things about cheating / bots on the site, so I'm hesitant to play on there. However, as an American, it seems like ACR has the best MTT schedule to play in terms of prize pool size. If you have any experience/strong opinion on whether it's safe to play on ACR, I'd love to hear it. Thanks
Sept. 30, 2019 | 12:46 a.m.
If you're a strong player then your EV scales up with stack sizes as the complexity of the game and room for edge increases. Imagine on the extreme that you were playing against OtB heads up with 1BB stacks. His edge over you would be extremely small.
Sept. 26, 2019 | 7:27 a.m.
While railing Stars high stakes games, I've seen some elite HS players buying in for 40BB. Can somebody explain why they would do this? At this table, OtB was buying in for 40 BB, which I don't understand because presumably he's giving up some EV since he's an elite player that will have more of an edge deep-stacked.
I remember in a podcast Ben86 said players do this in PLO because you can get all-in 3 ways as a shortstack with your equity protected and have the other players make each other fold. However, 3-way all ins are way less common in NLHE and I'm sure the EV sacrifice from playing short isn't worth the very rare EV gain of being all-in multiways.
Sept. 25, 2019 | 5:59 a.m.
14:55 You have Qd Qs on Ad Jh 6d 9c. When considering betting, you state that one reason in favor of betting is that your hand "matches a bunch of your bluffs". Can you explain this concept? Why is the fact that you will have bluffs using QT/KQ/QdXd a reason in favor of betting Qd Qs?
16:40 You call a river bet in position with Ah 4h on 8d 2d 7h 7d 4s. You say this is a good hand to call because you "block the Ace-highs that try to show down". Why is this relevant? I don't understand how you blocking a portion of their OOP checking range will affect the composition of their betting range and weight them more towards bluffs.
Sept. 13, 2019 | 9:41 p.m.
Excellent video Francesco! You consistently put out some of the best NL content on RIO, and this video was no exception. I was a big fan of this format because most of your videos are theoretical, so it was great to mix it up with some more practical applications of theory/exploitative play to specific hands.
Sept. 9, 2019 | 5:55 a.m.
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.
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.
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.
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
Turn Qc 9d 4s [2h]
BB bet 15 BB
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.