47.5% in default game (2 blinds, no ante) - that's not correct now as the book is outdated but let's assume it's correct.
You should open wider (say 60%) in 2 blinds with antes games.
And you should open tighter (say 35%) in 3 blinds with antes games.
So it's not contradicted at all.
March 27, 2020 | 5:12 a.m.
When studying with solver, what if a solution comes up that requires a lot of mixed strategy? Like betting and checking with almost every combos, almost no pure check, no pure bet (or no pure bet with certain sizing). How do you simplify and put it into practice?
Dec. 19, 2019 | 9:34 a.m.
For the 88 hand, do you think a typical 500z villain would ever XR A4, 55, 66... here for value/protection? Usually I tend to call if my hand beats some combos in villain's value range. Or do you think because you bet big on the flop, villain XR range would be more polarized, and that's why 88 and AQ (as you said) have the same SDV?
July 15, 2019 | 12:35 a.m.
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm looking for a RIO video that shows how you review a database for MTT player. There are a lot of similar videos for cash games, but MTT is different (needs to filter by stack size, and some of the stats such as WTSD are skewed due to how often we shove and get called).
Any suggestions? Thanks!
July 14, 2019 | 5:15 a.m.
53:22 Last 2 hands:
On the left: I understand your reasoning, but what kinds of hands would you check call here to defend? A5 seems so high up our range. Do you check the river with most of your Qx?
On the right: what are the bottom of your continuing ranges if 88 are folded? What about 99, TT... which shouldn't be too different?
Very interested in your exploitative style. I can watch other coaches if I want to see pio simulations.
July 14, 2019 | 5:02 a.m.
23:10 is this a spot that you would check range? I think you do check raise some flush draws on the flop so you can still barrel this turn (maybe even bet the whole range for small size), and I think 66 would be a nice inclusion into the betting range. Cause if you only barrel the turn with flushes or bluffs then you will have problems when the river pairs the board. Maybe check with low sets (33 55) and barrel with top set (66) - get some value from lower sets and prepare to win a big pot if the river pairs.
July 2, 2019 | 3:56 p.m.
12:37 you go for a 1/3 pot thin value bet on the river with small Ax and get check raised on. It seems solver really dislikes to bet IP on the river with anything less than 1/2 pot, as it reopens the betting for the opponent. Are you exploiting the opponent (e.g. you think he's not gonna XR too often) or is this a standard size you use in this spot?
July 2, 2019 | 8:28 a.m.
What tool are you using to automate bet sizing? Starshelper?
I also feel like folding 88 HJ vs CO is a bit tight, but you obviously know better than me. Do you prefer calling with 88 more than hands like KJs ATs or vice versa?
June 30, 2019 | 5:46 a.m.
I'm not really asking about whether or not I should bet or should check a marginal made hand, but which hand between 2 marginal made hands is better to bet/check. Even if both of these hands are better played as a checking (or betting) hand, there must be one which should be bet more frequently. If you increase (or decrease) your betting frequency to exploit your opponent, then that hand will tend to be the one you add into your betting range before the other one.
Let's rephrase my question differently. Can you think of a board + 2 marginal made hands with similar strength, where you would prefer betting the one with additional draw than the one without? And vice versa, can you think of one where you would prefer betting the one without draws? What are the main factors that changed between these 2 cases (board texture, type of draws, opponents...) to make you switch the decision like that? Just give me one example that way, and I think it would be much more helpful and clear for me than discussing too much about pure theory.
July 25, 2016 | 2:17 p.m.
I also don't think that "betting vulnerable hands" and stuffs like that has a lot to do with "playing in a balance way vs exploitative way". For example in a A22 spot, I think it's clear that in most cases, betting with 77 is a better default strategy than betting with KK, whether you are trying to play inexploitably or not.
July 24, 2016 | 6:50 p.m.
I agree with you that playing in an inexploitable way is overrated. I even wrote an article titled "The obsession with being inexploitable" in my blog recently, to criticize players who care too much about being inexploitable (e.g. always shoving with Nash-equilibrium range even when they are up against a nit, when they should have raise-folded instead).
I have always played in an exploitative way all my life, so you don't need to worry for me about playing too defensively. However, understanding about balanced and inexploitable play is also very important, first to have a way to fall back on when you are in a tough spot, and secondly so that you can recognize and identify weaknesses from other players more quickly / easily / correctly.
Discussing strategy in an exploitative way is useless unless you are given a context, because depending on each opponent, the correct and optimal play may be vastly different. My questions are about in a standard spot versus a standard opponent, and I don't see anything wrong with building a default strategy. You can always deviate from this strategy when you see fit, it's not like you have to follow it to the letter.
July 24, 2016 | 6:45 p.m.
LOL There is nothing wrong with the words "vulnerable" and "afraid". And it also has nothing to do with "playing a well balanced strategy" or "using exploitative options". Matt Janda discussed how the vulnerability of a hand (versus villain's folding range) is an important criteria to decide whether you should bet that hand, in his book "Applications of NLHE". And I doubt you could call that book is about "defensive paradigm".
July 24, 2016 | 5:58 p.m.
What are you talking about? Everyone has a few "quick and dirty rules" to simplify the decision process simply because they can't possibly remember every single way how a range interacts with a board.
And having reads and what not has nothing to do with what we're discussing here.
July 23, 2016 | 2:10 p.m.
I disagree a little bit. In poker, it's the destination that is important, not the journey. The destination is: "How can I make quick and good decisions at a poker table". Doing detailed analysis of board texture and hand range, is only 1 way to reach that destination. Remember simple, "quick and dirty" rules is another way. Compared to the 1st way, these rules may be slightly less correct in certain exceptional cases, but it has a much better advantage in that, it is much simpler to remember and apply in real world practical situations.
That's why it's good and all to do the analysis as you suggested. I have done so many times and very familiar with the process. However, I believe that reaching simple observations and conclusions from these analysis is at least as important.
July 22, 2016 | 5:55 a.m.
It's impossible to analyze all ranges on all board textures, and even if you could, it's impossible to remember the raw results.
Studying specific cases away from the table is not very useful unless:
- you encounter the exact same situation
- or you can find some simplified ideas so that you can easily remember and apply to other board textures in the future
For example, even without making a detailed analysis of board texture, I could see that in general it's better to raise with 6c5c on Kc9s2c4c than raising with QcTc, because you are more vulnerable to a 4th club card. This is the kind of simplified observations that is more useful for you than an exact analysis of how a range interacts with a board.
July 21, 2016 | 2:25 p.m.
In that example of Qc7s5d flop, you said you would tend to bet 7c6c and check Jh7h. Can you think of an example when you would prefer to check a marginal made hand with backdraw equity OOP, but would bet a marginal made hand with no draw instead?
July 21, 2016 | 4:58 a.m.
What you said is true but there should still be some kinds of guideline, so that you have something to fall back on when you are in hand and can't do detailed range vs range analysis.
In the 2 examples I gave, assuming 100bb stacks vs a reg, what would be your default line for each of those hands? You are OOP in both cases.
July 20, 2016 | 8:01 p.m.
I'm trying to build a default strategy for my flop betting decisions, and would like to hear your opinions.
Between 3 marginal made hand (decent equity vs villain's entire range) on the flop:
1. Hand type A with low chance of improving
2. Hand type B with backdoor equity
3. Hand type C with immediate draw
Which hand is a better candidate to bet?
Reasons to bet these hands: For value (vs weaker hands/draws) and for protection vs villain's folding range (over cards...)
Reasons not to bet hand A: Although we have decent equity vs villain's entire range, we have bad equity retention vs villain's calling range. On a bigger pot on the turn, we would have to check fold many turn cards OOP, or check back IP then fold to a river bet often.
Reasons not to bet hand B: We are less vulnerable vs various turn cards so we can afford to give a free card more often.
Reasons not to bet hand C: We are also less afraid of seeing a turn card
1) We raise from SB and BB defends. Flop: Qc7s5d. Hand type A: Jh7h, Hand type B: 7c6c (backdoor straight and backdoor flush outs so we can continue on any clubs including over cards, any 7, 6, 4, 8)
2) We raise from CO and BTN calls. Flop: 976r. Hand type A: A7o, Hand type C: 87s (immediate outs for an OESD)
July 20, 2016 | 10:41 a.m.
Thanks, great answer. I need to study with a GTO solver a lot more often now.
In the mean time, I suppose I will try to open up my defending range mostly vs late position stealers than worry myself with early position raisers.
July 10, 2016 | 8:52 a.m.
How wide are we supposed to defend vs open raise from other positions than BTN? We still get good odds, but villain's range is stronger and we don't need to defend as often to prevent him from profiting with any 2 cards because there will be more people to defend.
I have seen many pros defend very wide (with the likes of K5o, 83s...) vs a raise from CO, HJ, LJ... But in Mathew Janda's Applications of NLHE, he suggests an unexploitable range relatively tight to defend (~8% vs LJ and HJ and ~14% vs CO). So if we defend with the likes of K5o, 83s... does that mean we no longer are unexploitable and rely a lot on our postflop skills?
July 5, 2016 | 8:45 a.m.
Disagree with not shoving/4-bet call with TT in the last hand. You are OOP with 34bb, and TT is not exactly a good hand to "see the flop then evaluate" cause ~65% of the time there will be at least an over card. You will be forced to play passively and check call to bluff catch most of the time. TT is too strong there and I think the stack sizes were perfect to 4-bet shove/4-bet call.
July 2, 2016 | 10:41 a.m.
I actually prefer slow-paced, in-depth analysis. The live commentary is usually too shallow and more appropriate for beginners. When you truly understand deeply every spots, you will be able to make your decisions fast anyway.
July 2, 2016 | 6:14 a.m.
I don't think my question is that "unspecific". It's similar to asking how to judge your win rate in NLHE, where we all agree that ~2bb/100 online or ~5bb/h live is some good/realistic benchmark for a solid winning player.
Playing vs the bot is not useless, unlike in PLO/NLHE... where most of your decisions are opponent-dependent. In OFC, only a few of them are.
OFC has not been solved afaik. I've used openfacesolutions for ages and they only provide solutions for the last few streets. Some other bots are just terrible, especially the First Five.
Typical completion is NOT easy to check. I have found some answers online but most of them are personal anecdotes. If you can better sources, feel free to post them here.
June 29, 2016 | 9:37 a.m.
You guys non believers are all online players right? You don't play live much? Playing live is very different from playing online: live reads and playing exploitative style are so much more important than building a balance unexploitable style. When you play online, you frequently come across unknown players, with very few read, that's why using unexploitable strategy is necessary and recommended. Of course those moves by the super LAG that I mentioned were not done on a regularly basis (like you online guys do routinely with certain hands like a "system"), but still with a much higher frequency than a TAG player is used to. The point is to get involved with a fish in as many situations as possible, then outplay him postflop. If you are good enough, you should be able to overcome the position/hand strength disadvantage, because we are playing super deep. Of course using this strategy against a good pro or with a shallow stack will be suicidal.
I am a winning and experienced player (currently ranked in top 10 of Asian Poker Tour Player of the Year). Sure, I am not at the level of the RIO pros yet, maybe worse than many of you guys, but I do know to distinguish between a brainless aggro fish, and someone smart who makes unorthodox moves to exploit their opponents to the max. I can give names of very respectable winning players in the live circuit who employ this super LAG style frequently. But I am not here to discuss whether this style is good or not. I know with first hand experience that this style works in the early stage to exploit fishes in the live setting much better than playing TAG. If you know someone with a similar style so that I can study, great, thank you very much. If you are unfamiliar with this style, I don't need to hear your rant about how this is just a fishy strategy.
May 2, 2016 | 2:43 a.m.
Thats just aggro fish mate : )
Unfortunately, their consistent results suggest something different.
Learning a solid style is good and all, but completely dismiss other weird styles just limits yourself. I guess the old pros all called Stu Ungar an aggro fish when he first appeared. Then all the post-Moneymaker online players are also aggro fishes for that time. Defending blind, raise folding with < 12bb stack were ridiculed not too long ago, now it's very common. Don't let your creativity be clouded by what is considered "standard play". A play is only bad if it can be proven wrong mathematically.