dpsd05

Very nice series, looking forward to the next parts!
In what stage of the tournament do you think ICM impacts preflop ranges & postflop play enough to change drastically those heuristics?
For example at FT or final 2 tables I guess our strategy will depend a lot on the specific situation (stack & payout distribution) but how different is it at the start of the tournament vs. end of late reg vs. at some point ITM?

Hey,

Thanks for your answer, its very clear and i understand what is the goal of the video.
My question is mainly technical, its more about the input of the sims and less how we are going to use the output, but maybe I didn't word it right in the first comment.
Exactly because we trust monker to give us a balanced output even in minimal frequencies and , as you already know, this can be effected a lot from not obvious parameters (at least at first sight) such as lack of leads for OOP, x/R sizing, how we build the tree for future streets etc and i wondering if a 4 part splitted range (X,b50,b75,b100) can also affect the output in a degree that matters to our decision making.
To be clear if a identical sim with 2 part splitted range for IP X and b75 for example is going to give us the same thresholds as those on the sim of the video after IP b75?

Thanks :)

Hello Horse of Hell,

First of all thank you and congratulations for every video you have made, you have clearly upgrade the quality of plo content on RIO..
My perception is that regs rarely split to two sizings for double barrels and almost never to three this in combination to clairvoyance of solver and the very low frequency of b50 for the IP makes me doubt the accuracy of conclusions we extract for the real world games from those sims.
What do you think?

Thanks

Nice one, good ratio of solver to footage.
At 7:30 on the Q98 top right hand, at what SPR would you consider having also a pot size cbet to commit on the flop? Or that's not a thing on straight flops even at lower SPR?

Yes you are turning Tx into a bluff at this point. It's a very common theme on turn cbet spots where you want to be really polar to choose the turn pair as a bluff. After cbeting big OTF, BB shouldn't have any worst hands other than FD's and you can apply a ton of pressure. On the specific board you have a huge range adv. and QcTs makes a great job of blocking turned two pairs & straights while not having any diamond and thus unblocking flop bdfd's (same for t8cc, t7cc). I imagine that you would like to have a Kx or maybe your worst Ax to consider taking your SDV and XB.
I haven't run the spot, that's my thoughts based on every similar hand that I've seen :)

Once again very well thought out analysis!
One question regarding the last hand about probirs flat w/ AKK8ds.
I've noticed a bit of a trend lately in HS NL mtts from some strong regs to deviate a lot from ICM in such spots where a double up can give a big boost to future EV.
So my thoughts are that maybe we can trust monker ICM EV calculations when it comes to deviations like very tight RFI w/ out an A or different/ more polar 3betting range construction but in spots where future EV can be a big concern not so much?

Very good points. Totally agree with the ever-changing nature of the table dynamics in tournaments, I mainly was curious about this because it seems that something like a 2x-2.5x sizing is used as a default by everyone on almost every occasion when effective stacks are >10bb even at high stakes and it doesn't seem intuitively correct.
Again great vid and I'd love to see more of that in the future :)

Great format! ICM heavy PLO situation in general seem very unintuitive and hard to study.
Do you think there is any merit to choose a pot size RFI sizing in most spots, especially not as chipleader, since we want to play pretty tight and we probably not folding vs the ultra shortstacks when they jam over our RFI anyway?
Maybe even having limps from earlier position in order to be able to VPIP hands w/ out an A in them (like Akus' TT99ds)?

That should be the rake.
Don't know what is the rake structure in the particular sim, but it can have huge impact at the winrates.
Monker doesn't seem to agree that more rake is better :)

These are two spots that I checked and indeed solver gets in a clickback war and still finds a fold 22% vs a jam.
I think the day that I will face a turn 3bet bluff, I will quit poker so I don't know how implementable it can be in game.

Very intresting and unintuitive spot!
Do you think there is an argument to be made that this play will gain even more EV in real games than in solver, as OOP won't expect that response and will probably have higher turn cbet% in the first place?
Also I run some of these hands with the option to minraise 3bet turn for OOP. It seems that OOP always prefer to click it back than jam and it gains back a fraction of the EVloss from the minraise.