matlittle

The small and big raises both seem to be less bluff-heavy (though it's a small difference in data). The sweet spot for bluffs is around 3.2x though that doesn't necessarily mean you should call the sizing.

From the last sentence here I'm guessing none of the raise sizes are bluffing enough hands compared to a solver to warrant an over bluff? Are all sizes significantly under bluffed?

Thanks Matt! I always look forward to your contributions.

Thanks, very kind of you to say!

It's hard to get a good read on this situation in the data, because it's reasonably rare and there's lot of different board textures represented in the turn-raise data along with several player types

That's a good point. The board in question was extremely draw heavy and will of course be the reason behind the extra large raise size the player took. You can filter in H2N by board texture, but of course this will diminish your sample size significantly.

You can also filter by player type, in particular for this example you could use a Rec filter, a Reg filter, and a Reg filter with WWSF > X, where X is your boundary for what you would consider an aggressive reg. Again though, this would of course bring about sample size issues, especially if filtering for board texture too and would make it impossible without a massive hand sample.

Small caveat I would say is HJ/LJ closer related vs CO/BTN since incremental difference in OR range (and ultimately BB defense) is much smaller in EP vs LP.

Great point! Hadn't really considered that but you are completely right. HJ/LJ almost identical spots, but a decent different between CO/BTN

Think the player was perhaps a recreational player? Not sure what the purple tag means? I would imagine it's a value jam vs a rec and a check vs a reg on the river

Hello Tyler, enjoyed the analysis. These turn raise spots can pivot quite drastically on a few combos given that they are such narrow raising ranges at equilibrium. I think I saw that you recently started using Hand2Note - it would be good to look at how humans raise the turn data-wise in these spots vs how solvers play, so that we have a better idea how to react.

In the 2nd hand, when your opponent raised to larger that optimal sizing on the turn, I am never sure how to read this. For some players they are panicked with vulnerable value hands like you suggested in the video. Some players though will raise this massive sizing because they don't want to raise-fold a combo draw. If they raise smaller and get shoved on, they hate the idea of folding so much equity. Perhaps this is a question for Hand2Note too - comparing small raise size vs big raise size, and referencing each vs solver strategies.

This is a play at EQ.
I'm not seeing it on GTOWizard AI, I used both standard BTN flatting range and a much wider range that a rec might use. I know you use PIO though, so maybe PIO is doing it with some frequency.
I also node-locked a high rec stab frequency, plus a slight overfold vs the check-raise and GTOWizard still is just check-calling with no spade.

EV difference between call and raise is not massive for some combos like AoKh though, so if you are able to use bet sizing tells to generate future EV then it might be still a good play. I would also argue that you could do that after just calling the flop too though, as this player will likely bet their hand strength on the turn if you just called too.

Thanks Frankie, good summary! Like you, I am trying to treat BTN and CO as similar spots, and MP and EP as similar spots to make studying a little more efficient. Are there any board types on which this type of grouping breaks down and the cbet strategy is sufficiently different to warrant studying both EP and MP, and both CO and BTN?

You can tell PIO what the preflop actions and sizings were before beginning to construct the postflop tree?

he just basically passes it off as unnecessary and what happens preflop doesn't matter once the flop comes down in a GTO sim

If you're looking at a postflop sim, the things the solver will have considered are:
Pot size
Preflop ranges of each player
The options you give the solver for postflop bet sizes/raises
Who is in position

The solver won't have considered:
The preflop action - i.e. who raised/called, who the last aggressor was etc (it doesn't care about the action, only the ranges for each player)
What the preflop raise sizes were (it only cares about the pot size, not how the pot got to be that size)
There is no option to put these pieces of information into the solver for a postflop sim, precisely because it doesn't consider that information when running the solve.

I think this is probably what the developer was trying to tell you

If bigger size is their only size I’d be pretty polar as in the first scenario, but be less aggressive frequency wise with the trashy 3b’s.

I was under the impression that recreational players would under-4bet, and call too much to 3bets (although my Hand2Note subscription just expired so I'm not 100% sure). My thinking was that this would lead us to change from the polarised 3betting strategy that we see from solvers for this scenario, but I'm not entirely sure how.

So the more marginal hands with less playability postflop?

30 min I see you have been paying attention to only running it once vs short stack recs as you want them to play deeper or bust.

I am running it once all in vs short stacked players too - do you think it's best to run it once against full stacked recreational players too, with the upside being that they will be forced to play deeper if they win, plus they are more likely to tilt if they lose than you would be?

Another question about playing vs recreational players:
At 16.20 on the bottom right table you decided to call the A5s in the SB in the hope that the recreational player would play too. I am also looking for spots to flat more hands when recreational players are behind me and 3betting might push them out of the pot. My question is how your 3betting range would be constructed here? I know that strong value hands still want to 3bet. Seems like all indifferent hands (medium strength hands) at equilibrium become higher EV as calls than 3bets with the rec behind. So then would your 3betting range be constructed of only the very strong hands?

Hello Callum, welcome to RIO and congrats on a good first video!
In one of the first few hands you decided to 3bet T8o BB vs SB against a recreational player. In this exact hand you chose to 3bet because the recreational player chose the small 2x open size - how far will you extend your 3betting range in this scenario facing the small 2x size from a recreational?
If the recreational player had opened to a more regular size here (between 2.5x and 3x), what would your 3betting range be like here? Would it be very polar like the GTOWizard ranges, or would you make it more linear and with hands with higher equity and playability expecting the recreational player to call too much vs the 3bet?

Hello Luke,
Just wondered what the logic was for the check-raise with AK on JJ9ss vs the recreational player at 24.30? I can understand betting or check-calling, but I'm a little confused as to why you like check-raise here?

I'm also still a little confused by why TT is shoving the turn in the last hand and 99 is calling. Perhaps it's just because it's a slightly stronger hand so gets a little more value, given that SB can have TT and 99 themselves?

Hello Max, one important thing I have learned from your recent videos is that I need to barrel turn and river more often with bluffs in 3bet pots, because like you say people are calling too many middling hands on the flop (especially on certain boards). The last hand in the squeezed pot was another good example.
From my experience, people are calling too many hands preflop vs the squeeze too - would you agree with this? I think it's mainly with too many middling hands. Presumably this would make us want to barrel even more with bluffs?

You need to change the settings on your GTOWizard so that the box for each hand is filled proportionally to it's weight in the range, and then you will see the answer to most of your questions here. Here is a picture of my sim for the same spot after BB checks the river:

BB only has a small amount of 8x to get to the river - some A8cc (which we obviously block by having that exact hand) and tiny tiny fractions of K8 or Q8. The turn overbet is basically 3X plus bluffs, and a merged A8cc (and some Ac8). There's not much scope to push 8x off a chop therefore.

Any idea why AA checks more than KK-JJ on wizard? Blocking the A8 XR? But also AA would block some of the A3s combos...

The non-quad calling range for BB is fractions of A8 and KJ. There is more A8 than KJ in the range, so AA blocks more calling hands that overpairs beat.

I enjoyed the depth of analysis a lot, I learn a lot more this way than by doing more hands in less depth!

Interesting analysis in the first hand whereby you correctly point out that most players will be capped on the flush/straight completing river. In this example you chose to overbet - is that simply because the river completed draws (which you think will be too under-represented in villains range), or do you use the overbet to bluff most river types including bricks too given that players presumably don't check back enough middling/strong hands to call brick rivers too?

Great video Jan, really like the concept of grit!

Assuming that we are playing somewhat similar to a solver (in terms of bluff to value ratio with our betting range) I would have thought that the solver fold frequency for villain would be directly comparable to the database fold frequency.

Would it not be the same for a solver though? Value hands get more folds in the solver too

In particular it would be interesting to hear about the board types in SRPs or 3BPs that people tend to mess up the most, the types of boards/runouts that lead 6 max players to over/under bluff, and the lines (e.g. checked down pots) where these players tend to over/under bluff.

Hello Kevin, was interesting hear about the types of mistakes that 6max players generally tend to make when playing heads up. Given that you have experience across both formats and have worked with 6max players learning heads up, I think it might be a good topic for a whole video.

I'm curious about the 5th point of B) Look At Mass Database Analysis.
You said that your value hands will block your opponents calling range, and so the data might appear as though people are overfolding as a result. I was a little confused about this point. A sim will incorporate blocker effects from value hands into the folding frequency of the opponent. So if we compare database folding frequencies to sim folding frequencies, I don't see where the issue arises?

At 33.30 on Q52ss4sJs with AT
The recreational bets 1/2 pot on the river, and you opt to raise small to bluff. I am under the impression that recreational players are probably way over bluffing the river here, is that the reason for your raise? As far as sizing goes, you mentioned that the small sizing should be enough, is that because recreational players tend to have way too many bluffs so that even a small raise is +EV for you?

Hello Max, good to see you back!
At 18.30 you called the BB with Q4s vs a 3.9x ISO and a fish. I would have thought this type of hand would be way too weak against such a large sizing to warrant calling, especially when you are not closing the action? Do you have any data on what sort of range it is +EV to call with here?

I also wanted to ask about this hand. You mentioned that people will way overcall the flop, I assume you mean with the pocket pair region, i.e. TT-66? I nodelocked CO calling all of those pairs, and the result is pretty extreme, with BTN barrelling turn with 100% frequency:

I've done quite a bit of research on probing and you're right that in most scenarios one sizing captures nearly all of the EV.

Toying with the idea I'd say around 5%

With these percentages, are you referring to 5% of BB's EV, or 5% of the pot?

Do you think when 200bb deep there are boards where there is enough incentive for us to develop a 2 sizing strategy for flop cbetting? How about for stabbing the flop IP vs a check?
If so, which types of boards do you think this would be most valuable on?