HU PLO 150bb
BTN 3 BB 9 AdKdKsQh BB ca
BB 4, BTN 18, BB ca
Tu 7c (54,123)
BB x, BTN 30, BB ca
Riv 8d (114,93)
BB x, BTN 93, BB?
Currently running this spot but want to know what your suspicion is for positive blockers at this node as oop.
Dec. 18, 2019 | 5 a.m.
Any tips on implementing studying takeaways to the table? Basically through studying you're going from unconscious incompetence -> conscious incompetence -> conscious competence. But getting that last but of internalization into unconscious competence has always been a challenge for me. I've mainly played, but perhaps it's more about deliberate pratice, ie: fewer tables and literally talking to yourself outloud through each hand.
Dec. 16, 2019 | 10:11 p.m.
Yeah this format is excellent. Would love to see more of this.
Sept. 25, 2019 | 4:57 p.m.
Cool video Sauce.
One sort of overarching question I have is how exactly one can determine if a play is bad or not (and to what degree) when solvers include so much mixing.
Charlie's line here is a pretty fringe spot and given the fact that it did occur in a very small # of hand sample size makes me feel that the likelihood that he is bluff heavy with this line is actually quite high. (Am I making a mistake by assuming this from this sample size? Seems like we should rarely ever see this line being taken w/ this combo, and we watched 1 MTT and saw it happen.) From a Bayes perspective, if we had seen this line with a near pure jam combo, we wouldn't be able to make strong assumptions about his bluff frequency, but given we did see it with this combo, it feels like that should shift our assumptions more drastically.
It sounded like in the video you're more looking for instances where a player makes an overarching strategic error, like chooses a sizing that PIO does not like, or chooses frequencies that are out of whack, more so than the actual combos being used (due to so much mixing).
Aug. 25, 2019 | 7:21 p.m.
27:00 about Oop not preferring small sizings when pushing a polarity advantage and not an equity advantage.
One counter argument I would make to this is that in low SPR scenarios, with linear sizing maxing the polar ranges EV, those sizes might end up being quite small across many streets. For instance on monotone boards at low SPR we might see something like 25-33% pot linearly across 3 streets. Thoughts?
Aug. 22, 2019 | 5:48 p.m.
BTN 3 BB 9 BTN ca
Tu Jd (36,82)
Giving options of B50, B67, B100.
Here B50 is maxing game value for BB. It's betting volume is only 26.15 compared to 33.5 for B100 (and about 0.5% pot worse than B50)
June 18, 2019 | 5:53 p.m.
I'm running some monker spots for PLO and comparing game value to betting volume. I've found a few instances where maxing betting volume is not maxing game value.
What are the actual benefits or value of maxing betting volume?
June 18, 2019 | 5:49 p.m.
"Betting volume" is a cool concept, glad you touched on that. I liked the pace of the video. I like the more intense ones as well of course but this provided some nice contrast in that it felt a bit more relaxed.
April 15, 2019 | 9:33 p.m.
Is it standard to bluff every pair on river as BB or do we want to select certain pairs with better blocker effects to sb's xc's? Seems like blocking 7's is going to be better than pairing say a 3-5 due to blocking more of the top end checks.
Nov. 24, 2018 | 11:59 p.m.
There's likely certain cards that make snowing better than others right? For instance like (5-8) with one of our suits would be preferable to like a Q/J? 5-8 should reduce good badugi's in our opponents hands + pair up well with our own good badugi improvements. Obviously frequencies will matter here and we can't over do it.