kingkong's avatar

kingkong

43 points

Comment | kingkong commented on Set up the HUD

lol thanks, but it's much more complex than that. They have the 'configure yourself' option.... with a quick guide about how to 'code' your own stats.... I'm still working on it.... sending one email a day to their support team..... I still hope I could create my first stat....

But I succeeded to download many from other people. I think I am missing the : flop check check turn check check and river bet stat. fold to the same, and barrel river after turn probe, and fold to the same. And cbet river after delayed cbet, and fold to the same. Something like that.

Dec. 25, 2018 | 4:45 a.m.

Post | kingkong posted in Chatter: Set up the HUD

Hi, I have a Mac and Pokertracker 4 and I want to get the stat : 'barrel river after turn probe'. It's not in their default. I tried to watch all of their instructions but it's really confusing for me. I also downloaded it but I think I can not open it because I have MAc.

Does anyone know how I could set up the Hud so I have this stat?

Dec. 16, 2018 | 3:51 a.m.

Comment | kingkong commented on heads up

Hi, where do you play heads up ?

Nov. 1, 2018 | 3:59 p.m.

Comment | kingkong commented on PIO Beginner Question

Hi, I studied the board Th9s3h 100bb deep heads up with default range and I find it confusing bc it seems like the difference between betting flop 75%size only or 28% size only is EV between 30.4 and 3.6 (for a pot of 50). But I m wondering if this difference is significant or not because it may also depend with other various assumptions like how I play turn and raise sizes etc.... also I think it may just depend how long i run the solver because I also tried betting flop 5 different sizings and EV was 30.4 which is not logical since it should improve EV.

Also I think playing a 75% sizing is easier for me. Well betting 28% is easy since you bet almost everything, but then you need to play vs raise or play turn it s more difficult.

Nov. 1, 2018 | 3:04 p.m.

Hi, you got a huge downswing between hand 17 000 and 20 000 relative to the progression you had at the time. I was curious if you had a strategy of taking more shots at higher stakes during this period.

Oct. 21, 2018 | 7:01 p.m.

Hi, it's really more clear now. Thank you so much for your time!

Oct. 21, 2018 | 6:47 p.m.

Hi, I know at optimal point B has to call 75% of the time (and fold 25%) because A bet 1 to win 3 and 1/4 = 75%. So A's bluff must win 75% minimum to be profitable, so B must defend at least 25% so A's bluffs are not profitable.

Am I oversimplifying it ? I feel like my method is easier for me to refer in game.

Oct. 17, 2018 | 9:28 p.m.

Hi, yes thank you it's way more clear now. However, in the first formula, I would think the pot to be 4 bet, since it seems to be described like the pot is 3 bet. So I would think the EV should be 3bet + 1 bet (4 units). And in the second formula, you seem to consider the pot to be 4 bet (since you make it 4x - 0,2) .

And in the book the formula is not even correct since it does not even say to multiply x by pot size in the second formula.

Oct. 17, 2018 | 9:20 p.m.

Hi, at page 97 it seems like two equations are put in the book out of nowhere and I can't make sense out of it.

The context is player A has a value hand 20% of the time, air 80%, the pot is 3 and we understand he bets 1. Player B has a bluff catcher.

Then the authors says x is Player A bluffing frequency, 3x is B ex-showdown equity, and then these 2 equations are in the book :

EV of B fold = 3x (sorry can't reproduce the symbols correctly)

When A bluffs more than 5%, B switches to calling all the time:

EV of B call = x – 0.2( sorry, can't reproduce the symbol for EV)

I really can't make sense out of it. If for example A bluffs 5% of the time, which is optimal, then 3x = 0,15. But how can the EV of B fold have any other value than zero ? The second equation, I also don't understand where it comes from. The result however makes sense with the first one since the result would be -0.15 for a bluffing frequency of 5%. But why do - 0.2 ? The only thing I guess is 0.2 must be A value range. But even then I can't make sense out of it, because it kind of implies B is losing on a call when he shouldn't (0.05)-(0.2).

I don't know if I should just skip the page and forget about it because I understand the idea that A must bluff 5%, value bet 20% and bet 1/3 pot, while B by the way has to call 75% of the time vs this scenario, fold all the time if A under bluff and call all the time if he over bluff. But I think it's frustrating of not understanding what the author means while everybody think this book is great.

Oct. 14, 2018 | 4:33 p.m.

Hi, I'm a little confused because I usually tend to do the opposite about the sizings. I think when I have a stronger range I bet smaller to incentivize calls, but a higher frequency since my range is strong, and when my range is weaker I mix checking and bigger sizing frequencies.

Sept. 21, 2018 | 2:01 a.m.

Hi, at 8:40 I got a little confused with the maths, because you do 240/790 = 0,30 so I would guess you are calculating the equity to call, but you say : he would need me to fold about 30% of the time to make this jam profitable.

I learned to calculate the EV of 5betting like this : (Winning when fold%fold)+(1-x)(Winning when called%call).

But if opponent has 30% equity vs your calling 5bet range and you would fold 30%, then his EV of 5bet would be 550$0,3 + (2000$0,30-840) = -75$

Maybe I did not understand properly also. Because I understand when you said you're not trying to make any two cards indifferent but are targeting a threshold of hands to make indifferent so hands below TT should clearly be a negative jam.

It got me wondering also maybe it's not just about making his range negative or positive 5bet jam but also if you're trying to make him indifferent between calling the 4bet and 5betting jam. For example in this hand the opponent had TT and he must be wondering if it would not have been more profitable for him to flat the 4bet.

Sept. 20, 2018 | 12:45 a.m.

Comment | kingkong commented on PokerTracker 4 Primer

Hi, if I add the stat '2 bet flop', does it include the 'check raise flop' ? since both are a raise of the flop. Thank you!

Sept. 16, 2018 | 9:58 p.m.

Hi, I liked your video. However what bothers me about PIO is it seems to only work if you know the whole strategy of the opponent. For example with the Q72 board, the OOP reaction on the flop to a 1/3 cbet size will be different depending of the opponent frequency and if opponent use more than one sizing in his range. It seems to only be a good model to use if you know very well the opponent strategy. Do I make sense ? For example if you play a first hand with an opponent and face a 1/3 bet, you could not really respond with the right PIO solution because you don't know what is his real 1/3 cbet range. And this is even if you could approximate the right pre flop ranges.

However I guess it should be very helpful to the IP on flop bc almost everybody just check all the time OOP. But as soon as you could build a leading range in good spot nobody would be really ready with a GTO solution in real game.

Sept. 13, 2018 | 10:46 p.m.

Hi, I'm sorry about the poker juice program, what would be the best way to understand what is written in the A, B, C, D, E columns...

for example at 4:08 when I read in the A column 44+... does that mean any set ? or it does mean any pocket higher than 4 ? 765+ means any rundowns of 3 connected cards including like 876, 987, T98 ? hh means any flush draw ? Does it mean anything specific if there's : before (like :hh)... sorry to bother with that.

I'm also wondering if you had to preselect the ranges manually yourself or if it's the program who judges that these ranges are relevant.

Sept. 9, 2018 | 3:02 p.m.

Hi, I'm new to PLO and about the first hand I'm wondering if after 3betting this hand and allow the EP to 4bet AAxx to 37.5 we allow him to commit a big enough portion of his stack pre flop with AAxx. I understand in this example you say you have a note he don't 4bet AAxx... but I'm wondering if you don't have this note ? I worry an EP range is very tight.

Sept. 9, 2018 | 2:45 p.m.

Post | kingkong posted in Chatter: PIO solver default settings

Hi, I am curious if someone knows how the default settings from PIO are chosen.

When making calculations they include default opening & defending ranges, as well as default bet sizings in the tree building column. y make sense, I'm just wondering if there was a GTO thinking to establish these defaults.

Sept. 3, 2018 | 4:37 p.m.

Hi, I'm sorry I don't really understand the simulation. Did you have to pick the hands from the CO and then Pio selected the 3bet range of the big blind ? Or it's you who designed the 3bet range from the BB ? Because I 3bet bluff from the big blind sometimes.

Aug. 25, 2018 | 11:12 p.m.

Hi, about the hand starting at 6:40 with A7s, on to the turn, you bet about 1/2 pot but say you think a bigger sizing would be better. But I don't really understand why a bigger sizing would be better. I understand from what you say that it is going to affect the SPR on the river, and you say you expect him to call a lot on the turn with some kind of draws.

But I still don't really understand why it would be better to have a bigger bet on turn. Do you think that the fold equity has a significant impact from a 1/2 pot to like a 2/3 or 3/4 bet on this turn ? I would say I have difficulty to put the Villain on a range in this spot. So I have difficulty comparing the options.

As played, it leaves you 75% Pot bet for the river. I think if you bet turn bigger then you leave yourself a small bet for river. Maybe then by betting turn bigger you are not planning to keep bluffing on the river but I would think also about the possibility of being unbalanced with betting smaller the turn for value and bigger for bluffs.

Thanks for the video.

Aug. 21, 2018 | 1:46 a.m.

Hi, I think it's interesting. I think if the player making the initial mistake (for example calling too wide pre flop) then would theoretically play like the solver he's not compounding his mistake but playing a range too wide would be very difficult to play well as a human.

Aug. 12, 2018 | 8:44 p.m.

Hi, the hand at 27:00 I would think you would lead the turn bigger sizing on J939 because I thinking you polarize with the 9. I'm also scare the smaller sizing has almost no fold equity and we have almost no showdown value.

Jan. 13, 2018 | 9:41 p.m.

Hi, I know it seems very trendy to cbet 30% on Kxx and Axx but me too I'm always scare opponent don't fold enough. (hand at 9:50).

Jan. 13, 2018 | 8:16 p.m.

Hi, I like your NLHE video!

Dec. 31, 2017 | 6:36 p.m.

Comment | kingkong commented on SB 3bet vs Button

Hi, I love the video. However I don't really understand why pio prefer bet 1/3 with K77 at 40:00. It seems to be the only flop actually where it does not prefer 1/2.

I usually think when you have a range advantage you prefer the smaller sizing. But equity is only 56%. And we see that huge part of the bets are Ax, pocket pair, air.

Could it be that we sometimes we like a smaller sizing even if our equity is not that good. It's kind of confusing to me. I guess pio could also bet 1/2 and check more and maybe it's not a big deal. But I'm interested because maybe I have a leak to prefer smaller sizing when I have equity advantage while actually you may prefer it when you have a 'thin' equity.

Dec. 27, 2017 | 7:15 p.m.

If I understand correctly you still have to approximate the bet size to the ones that snowie has available. For example the 99 hand at 30:04 you look at 0,25 pot, and see 0,09 EV but in reality the bet is 40%.

Dec. 24, 2017 | 11:44 p.m.

Hi, the 88 hand at 27:43 I understand Snowie say it's mistake but in real game this kind of spot many opponent will not bet only one time after betting 1/3 on KQx and will bet bigger on turn or river. So this kind of spot I would strongly consider the likelihood my opponent will bet turn before deciding to call. Because even if opponent bluff too much it's very hard to call 3 streets. And if they don't bet they mostly have some showdown value and 88 may not be good.

Dec. 24, 2017 | 11:40 p.m.

Hi, the video is interesting, but really I am surprised at how much the BB has AA to TT in his range. If it was my range, JJ and up would always be 3bet and TT would not flat much. Is my pre flop range really that wrong ?

Dec. 21, 2017 | 2:49 a.m.

Hi, thinking about the hand at 32:00, I was wondering if you had some thoughts about the monotone boards. People don't talk about it often but I think they're 'special' kind of boards because they really redistribute the equities and I thinking the 3bet caller has more suited cards and thinking they may be a good board to lead ?

Thanks for the video

Dec. 20, 2017 | 6:43 p.m.

At 8:00 talking about our checks on the river. Could it be that because we force pio to bet 80%, if he was to bet all of his value hands, there would be less EV because IP would fold more. So this is why he puts some strong hand in his checking range. And a smaller bet would yield more EV because would force IP to defend more vs a stronger range ?

Dec. 16, 2017 | 8:14 p.m.

Hi, I was wondering from which position you have this defending range.

Dec. 16, 2017 | 8:01 p.m.

Comment | kingkong commented on I hate folding

Makes sense. Another thing is most of the time after I missed my fold I want to win back quick and go to a bigger game quick and if lose again go to a bigger game and often play worse. And if the big game is not available I become angry.

Dec. 15, 2017 | 3:47 a.m.

Load more
Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Privacy