I think our hand plays better as a call on the turn. Villains primary bluffs are AQ and AJ and againts those we're better off shoving bluffs that benefit more from getting folds from those hands, so I'd consider shoving a hand like Q8 with hearts or diamonds.
Aug. 18, 2019 | 5:09 p.m.
If you already have developed a good strategy
Yes, but that's a big "if". And the problem I'm having with advocating the usage of RNG is the fact that most people who aren't already making good money (hence the arbitrary line of 100k a year I laid out) generally don't have that good strategy developed, and they need all their mental capacity in trying to figure out that good strategy.
I think using an RNG can actually make things way easier for you.
I think what ends up happening often is that when you review a session of someone playing micro/small or even midstakes is that you discover several mistakes that are simply due to lack of understanding of the fundamentals and/or there are flaws in hero's mental game that causes him or her to make some substantial errors in their approach. And if you give someone like that the option to use a RNG, what I fear is that it will serve as a kind of false security, providing a system where hero feels now more comfortable doing plays that he views as being "mixed strategies", when perhaps in reality the decision is actually a pure strategy, or perhaps some exploitative notion could turn that mixed strategy in equilibrium into a pure strategy.
To sum up, if you're struggling at micro/small stakes, the problem is probably not the fact that you're not capable of implementing proper mixed strategies, and I think you're better of using your limited mental sources into things that have an actual impact on your winrate.
Also, I believe OP is playing NL10, based on some hands that he has posted here on forums. I just don't believe that RNG is something one should bother with at that stage of poker development. I just figured that someone had to adress this.
Aug. 17, 2019 | 10 p.m.
Disclaimer: Don't use RNG unless you're already an elite player who actually needs it (for balancing purposes againts other elite players). If you play againts people who make less than 100k a year from poker, you're making things more complicated than they need to be.
Aug. 17, 2019 | 2:31 p.m.
I recreated the sim, this time with 12% 3betting range for villain:
This is what villain should be doing when he has the option to either bet 66% or check on the flop:
And this is what we do againts the strategy above:
So a pretty similar result againts 12% 3betting range than againts 9,84%. Only this time 99 makes -0,4bb instead of -0,9bb (I didn't put in additional 0 this time).
Aug. 17, 2019 | 2:22 p.m.
I gave villain this range preflop:
It's a 9,84% range, which I think is pretty close to what an average NL10 player would 3bet.
If you think about your overall range and the fact that you're defending roughly 60% of your range by calling, you'll notice that 99 without a BDFD is not a part of the top 60%, because it has a hard time improving and villain has a lot of overpairs and top pairs in his range. Therefore pretty much any draw is better than 99, also any 8x and 7x is better because these hands have more outs againts top pairs and overpairs.
Aug. 17, 2019 | 2:11 p.m.
(a) I get that, but you really just have a similar problem with AK and AQ, and these hands are definitely strong enough to raise, so I would just add AJ/KJ in that list with the idea that we're way ahead of limpers range with these hands aswell. In 4 way pot AJ is very similar to AK in a sense.
(b) I actually thought we had a club, lol. I'm definitely folding without a club and even with a club.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 5:06 p.m.
Flop seems like a fold indeed. PIO agrees:
I added an extra 0 to stack and pot size, so calling our exact combo is roughly -0,9bb in EV. BDFD helps a lot, making it a +0,9bb call.
Turn is highly mixed with 99 between checking and betting 66%, some 33% aswell. When betting 33%, we fold to a shove, and when betting 66%, we call the shove.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 3:46 p.m.
I'd bet smaller on the flop or check. In multiway pots you're supposed to put in less money on average, so we should be much more conservative with hands such as this and polarize our range and/or use smaller sizes when we bet.
Villain is basically repping a set, straight or air, maybe some two pair sometimes. Againts this range I'm not very eager to bluff, because we have a hard time making him fold hands that we beat and we actually have some showdown value to check.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 3:27 p.m.
In a spot where you have very little air in your range, you should mostly bluff with those hands.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 1:56 p.m.
UTG is very loose rec. I made it very big preflop because he limp/calls a ton. SB isn't relevant here, but he has something like 35% VPIP limp/calls a lot too.
I have a very tight range from the BB here -- 88+, AQ+, KQs. Weaker hands I'll just check.
That range seems too tight againts a very loose rec. Why not add stuff like AJ/KJ in the raising range if villain limp/calls a lot of hands?
Checking is perfectly viable here, but betting for value/protection in a multiway pot with two recs is also attractive. I dislike my bet size here, but half pot can't be bad, can it? I think I would prefer something smaller, or something a little larger which allows me to shove turn if needed.
Yeah I like either a small bet or a check. For a multiway pot, betting half pot with second pairs feels a bit excessive. With an average pot share of 33% instead of 50% (3way vs. HU), we want to put in less money on average than in heads-up pots.
Turn seems like a fold to me. Pot odds and the polarized nature of villains range really screw us over with a hand like this.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 1:50 p.m.
Yeah, you want to have a strategy that is simple enough to execute consistently and also works againts your opponent. I would start by implementing a super simple system first and then expand from there.
So yeah, go for 33% range bet. Many flop spots are very indifferent between different options so you have a lot of room to decide a strategy for yourself, assuming your opponents aren't capable of exploiting specific strategic choices for your range.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 1:36 p.m.
In theory, you're probably supposed to call most if not all pairs except 22 on the turn. Villains sizing is good and it's gonna work really well againts vast majority of players, because people overfold hands such as this one when ranges are wide. I think againts a good, aggressive player, we probably have quite a profitable call here.
Aug. 16, 2019 | 1:30 p.m.
We have nutflushdraws in first two spots so I'm not folding. Third one I would fold.
If you regularly get many calls to your opens, I would increase my sizing. Try opening 30 next time with your good holdings. And AK is a huge mistake not to 3bet. You definitely don't want to play multiway with a hand that gets it's value mostly by flopping a top pair (which is really good in HU pots but way worse in multiway pots).
Aug. 15, 2019 | 1:12 a.m.
The problem with dividing our range into value and bluffs on the flop and on the turn is that our value hands don't have 100% equity and our bluffs don't have 0% equity. In another words, things are too grey rather than black and white for a clear distinction between value and bluff.
2 to 1 bluffs to value on the flop
1 to 1 bluff to value on the turn
1 to 2 bluff to value on the river
This used to be a decent heuristic for having a somewhat balanced range over multiple streets, but it's technically not quite accurate. So yeah, what you said about AQ having equity on 3322 board is correct and makes simple formulas of value and bluff not accurate.
That leaves us with a somewhat unsatisfying answer to your question: it's too complicated for any simple formula. If you're interested in solving hands theoretically, solvers such as PIOsolver are your best choice. But be careful, even with solvers, implementing a perfect, theoretically valid strategy is damn near impossible, so you better come up with useful heuristics and simple enough strategies to implement, rather than trying to copy a perfect solution.
Aug. 13, 2019 | 4:40 p.m.
I would tend to default to calling Kx and better and folding the rest. There's a pretty major difference between Kx and let's say 98 or TT, because Kx-hands block significant part of villains valuerange. When we have a king in our hand, our opponent has 17 combos of KQ/AK/KK, whereas when we don't hold a king, villain can now have 27 combos of KQ/AK/KK!
So basically I would need some major read to fold a king and also some major read to call with a bluffcatcher worse than a king.
Aug. 13, 2019 | 3:59 p.m.
I'm okay with your line but not for the reasons you laid out. The stack to pot ratio is less than 1 in a 4bet pot with aces, you should not be afraid of getting check/raised virtually ever.
The reason why I'm okay with your line is because your hand requires very little protection and the stack to pot ratio is so small that we don't really have a rush to put money in. By checking we give room for bluffs. That said we generally want to bet good hands and not be afraid of getting check/raised or whatever.
I would just shove river as played. It's only 6 into 8.
Aug. 13, 2019 | 1:36 p.m.
For me this is a complicated question and I don't have a clear answer for you. What I would say though, is that if we want to design an exploitative preflop strategies, we not only have to take into account population preflop tendencies, but also postflop tendencies. For example if people have massive leaks in SRP as opposed to 3bet pots, we are more incentivized to call opens instead of 3bet and vice versa. So it's not clear to me based on preflop stats only what type of strategy I should be executing. Postflop skills is another factor.
Aug. 12, 2019 | 6:10 p.m.
Sure, if they call inelastically. However, them calling as inelastically as you're suggesting is highly assumptive and it's very easy to take that too far and just end up shoving too often while losing value againts weaker hands that would call a smaller bet but fold to a shove.
Coming back to the original hand, are you really saying that villain just calls a shove with hands like pocket pairs below J or stuff like AQ with a backdoor flushdraw? T9? Or are you saying that they fold those hands to a smaller bet?
The problem with shoving really is the fact you end up missing a lot of value from worse hands and only end up stacking hands that you end up stacking anyways on many/most runouts (QJ/KJ/AJ...).
Pardon me for assuming, but I feel like the desire to put all the money in on the flop is the fact that we're forced to make tough shoves/calls/folds on some runouts (maybe like 20-30% of the runouts are something other than clear triple barrels for value), and you want to avoid these situations by shoving when we still have a really strong hand. I very rarely see (good) players shoving for 3-4x the pot OTF in a 3bet pot, and I haven't seen a solver using that line very often either.
I will give it to you though that againts an inelastic calling range we're supposed to bet as big as possible, that is true for sure. I'm just not sure how often that applies at the tables.
Aug. 12, 2019 | 5:57 p.m.
Yeah, that type of showdown is more common than you'd think. I tend to just calldown all good "bluffcatchers" when a fishy player is executing a funky line such as this one.
Aug. 7, 2019 | 4:58 p.m.
Please refrain from discussing anything related to GTO in this hand, V is not playing GTO. This is a exploitative decision. Thanks.
You can't exploit unless you know what is optimal.
I'd call probably
Aug. 7, 2019 | 2:03 p.m.
On the other hand, we see solvers check raising most combos of TP+ in a bb vs MP situation when MP is betting 1/3 with range on range favoring dry or semi wet boards. If the main intention was balance and range protection, this would be counter intuitive because BB's calling range is very weak in these situation as it doesn't contain most combos of two pair plus.
What is important to realize here is that not only we have a direct incentive raise for value and protection, but we're also protected to some degree by various turn and river combinations. So it's not like we have an incentive to have a perfectly protected range on the flop in this situation, because we're protected to a certain degree by the turn and the river card. PIO has figured this and multiple other factors out.
In addition, I was wondering if solvers would employ a lower EV play for reasons that aren't quite obvious
I don't think this question makes complete sense because there is no such a thing as "hand in isolation" when it comes to equilibrium play in poker. You could answer your question by saying yes, but then the question is "lower EV play compared to what"? We have to keep in mind that what PIO does is play againts himself as long as it's no longer capable of increasing it's EV for either player. This means that whatever result solver gives us, according to PIO, the solution is the highest EV play for both players, assuming that both players are capable of exploiting eachother perfectly.
Aug. 7, 2019 | 1:40 p.m.
I was curious about the QTs flop spot (4:25-5:00) so I solved it in PIO:
Apparently QT with a BDFD makes some money when IP bets 9 into 5. QT seems to like calling more than a hand like KTo, which is losing roughly 0,2bb by calling. Nutted equity is really important here I suppose.