I think posting results is clearly always -EV for the coach, however the purpose isn't to generate EV, but to provide transparency to students.
Sure there are many factors in play with winrates including game selection and variance, but it can only help students to have the information available, so they can update their credences however they see fit. If I am already uneasy about a coaches advice + I see they post lackluster results, potentially over multiple years, then I can safely move on.
Dec. 29, 2019 | 2:09 p.m.
cool cool, I think I mostly like it because at my stakes people aren't likely to check river with value and will hence underbluff it, so it will make an easy and profitable spot for me hopefully. I will just try my best not to call off rivers with underpairs :^).
Nov. 8, 2019 | 6:56 p.m.
On the turn check backs in 4bp with 66 at around 27:00, do you not like a turn stab strategy because you think regs are finding too many x/shoves with overcards/fds on the turn? Or is it there is just more EV with range here to protect showdown value, and make more EV with bluffs/snapping bets with overpairs on the river?
Nov. 8, 2019 | 11:25 a.m.
Button has 20% 3bet over 80 hands, CO 11% 3bet over 14 hands. It's zoom so not much dynamic. If they are using a HUD they most likely perceive me as aggressive since I run fairly high 3bet and open 100% on the button unless non-nitty regs are in the blinds.
Thing is what he "should" do is 3bet QQ+/AK, and what he "should" do is not jam 88 into two uncapped ranges. So in my calculation of the situation, the question is how do I weight is more likely? Is it reasonable to discount combos of QQ+/AK by half and give me the 35% equity I need to call? Or do we give credit to people making the exploitative adjustment of flatting monsters vs. BTN.
I think it is mainly an empirical question, problem is no ones gonna have a database with lots of hands where they cold 4bet a squeeze and got back-jammed. I have 2 hands where this situation occurred in my database. Villains had 33 and T8s. But mainly I'm extrapolating my experience from back jams in just regular squeezed pots here, which are generally weak hands.
Oct. 4, 2019 | 6:23 p.m.
I'm not talking about making an exploitative adjustment here (because in practice people are bluff jamming here imo). I'm bench-marking the fact that, if Villain uses a jam entire range strategy against us and we fold 50% of our range, we can be exploited.
If we are playing optimally, we cannot be exploited by the entire set of strategies a Villain could choose. We don't need any knowledge of what Villain might do.
Oct. 4, 2019 | 5:46 p.m.
Do we really credit CO for flatting pre with QQ+, AK here often?
I feel like lots of peoples flatting ranges are just filled with every pocket pair they see and they get mad and want to flip with the aggro guy keeping them from set mining.
Oct. 4, 2019 | 8:59 a.m.
Thing is I expect my range (for simplicity say QQ+ AK) to have a significant equity advantage on this board, so letting villain jam his range into me and break even is a disaster.
Couple this with the fact that even his jams have some equity vs. my overpears, and I think I gotta be calling some AK.
Oct. 4, 2019 | 8:35 a.m.
UTG: $3.72 (Hero)
Oct. 4, 2019 | 3:10 a.m.
BB: $4.27 (Hero)
Oct. 4, 2019 | 3:02 a.m.
In the conclusions, you say the more polarized the IP cbet range is, the better leading becomes. Didn't the results say exactly the opposite? I assume this is a typo.