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.
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.
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.
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.