geek's avatar


2 points

Nick, can you elaborate on how this backwards induction method works using GTORB?

Oct. 23, 2014 | 9:39 p.m.

Comment | geek commented on Improving on "1-A"

How do you estimate which bluffing hand needs to be indifferent?

Oct. 23, 2014 | 9:28 p.m.

@steve Post links to both HEM and 2p2 threads here to gain support, its unacceptable wrong stats not to be rectified just because people are used to it.

July 8, 2014 | 10:21 p.m.

1 If you happen to remember or have the book around, can you reference a specific toy game, chapter or page that I can take a look at.  This seems like a good decision shortcut that I would like to explore further.

2 Yes, I am just like you, but I have a suspicion that more hands in less detail might be a better approach, so wanted to check how you approach the review process.  I feel i get carried away in 1 situation and have no more time/energy left for more hands/situations.

June 4, 2014 | 2:34 p.m.

J8s hand:

I like your use of the Poker Ranger turn equity evolutions.  However, I am really surprised you say we should fold flop vs more typical opponents.  Are you not concerned that if we start folding pairs on this board, we would be folding at an absurd frequency to flop cbets?

Can you share more details about your thought process as to how many turn cards you want to be able to continue on or how much flop equity you need to have a more easy flop call vs a variety of opponents?

June 4, 2014 | 8:35 a.m.

Hey Tyler,

Always nice to see other people's workflow with CREV.  Was not aware about the 10 layers limitation :)

1 I need more details/explanations on the following topic if you dont mind:

On the CREV hand you break down rivers and observe the equities of the river starting distributions of both players on different cards.  Can you break down in more detail the process you go through to go from this simple equity number to drawing conclusions like 50% equity = we must call a bet?

I guess you assume both players play in a balanced/reasonable way, but am still unsure how exactly you draw the conclusion with no knowledge of the polarization of the 2 distributions or villain's betting/checking strat.

2 Somewhat related to the discussion above by other members.  What is your opinion on using CREV to quickly(15-20min) answer a more specific hand question as opposed to going on a tangent and spending 1h+ to break down the hand into a bunch of detail.  You use CREV quite often, so do you prefer more hands in a quick/very rough way or less hands in a more detailed way?  What is roughly your average time spent on a CREV hand sim?

June 4, 2014 | 8:09 a.m.

You do not think that a very low turn bet % on a turn middle card pairing is not a good indicator for an equity advantage/polarization of hero's range?  Is there any other stat, metric or CREV data category that you would consider to spot the best situations for such turn leads?  

I tend to agree with you that the added EV in most spots by this lead play can be overwhelmed by the newfound complexity/mistakes, so I am trying to find quantifiable ways to spot the few very best situations/opponents where the EV gained is worth the effort.

June 2, 2014 | 9:35 a.m.

I agree there is a need for a separate section like at 2p2.  Currently, good theory threads are all over the place due to the lack of such section.  That prevents people interested in such topics to quickly notice such threads and participate.  Also, there are some very good theory discussions currently here, so the quality and aptitude of posters definitely warrants that.

June 2, 2014 | 8:06 a.m.

"-HSNL thread "Challenging a Fundamental Principle of Game Theory"

Could you provide a link to that thread, cant seem to find it?

Nice vid and appreciate the curious/humble approach.

June 2, 2014 | 7:44 a.m.

ty for detailed response, highly appreciated!

June 1, 2014 | 11:09 p.m.

double post

May 30, 2014 | 4:42 p.m.


In your ballpark opinion, how low should villains turn bet % frequency be on a specific turn card before donking becomes a highly desirable EV option for our turn distribution?

May 30, 2014 | 1:17 p.m.

Tyler, great video despite the subpar opponent

Re CREV hand:

1 In your opinion, how low does his turn cbet % needs to be so that donking becomes a highly needed option.  

2 If you decide to donk, what turn donk size would you use and would you bet your whole flop XC range or certain part of it?

3 14:50min River decision/sizing 

"If we need to bluff him on the river we should take a size that folds 1 pair"

"So any sizing below 2x pot"

In the first sim, we see he has 11% high card hands most of which are not really bluff catchers as some of our best bluffs probably include a pair or Khi.  

MOP says that he should call 1-alpha of hands that beat a bluff.  Would you exclude the 11% high cards from this calculation?

For example, if you bet pot on the river, would you expect him to call 50% of 89% or 50% of his whole river range?

Similar discussion on the topic:

4 If you could go back after doing the sim, what size would you choose for your river bet with your hand?  Would you have a different size with other parts of your range?

May 29, 2014 | 11:20 a.m.

1 His WWSF is 47.5% and W@SD at 57% which sums up to 104.5 which is greater than your ballpark of 100.  I would imagine higher SUM is better?  Why do you think its worse than 100?  

2 What would you consider good flop and turn cbet ranges since you think his are very low?

May 5, 2014 | 5:56 p.m.

Comment | geek commented on Toy Gaming (part 3)

Yeah some multistreet game theory videos/concepts are highly needed.

April 29, 2014 | 8:06 a.m.

Comment | geek commented on Balance Riddle

Ben, you are right its phrased that way, but what about spots where bluff catching with high card hand like AK is best due to card removal of value combos, despite the fact it could potentially lose to the highest equity bluff in villain's range.

April 22, 2014 | 7:56 a.m.

Completely agree that SBvsBB play deserves its own theory video or maybe two as it is important to explore it from both Sb and BB perspective.

March 14, 2013 | 12:26 a.m.

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