mrdelivery's avatar


7 points

Hey all,

I've just begun incorporating Simple GTO Trainer into my studying, and while it definitely strikes me as a powerful tool, it does occasionally induce a drinking-from-a-firehose feeling. That may partially be due to my own approach to it; for instance, I'm currently drilling some SB vs BTN 3BP (Root) spots over 198 flops, but that might be too wide an array of situations to be learning very efficiently. Should I pare down my pool of solves to fewer flops? Should I work on types of boards at a time (A-high, K-high, two-tone, low, etc.), rather than a 198 flop-wide gamut? I'd like to get the most out of this tool, and wonder whether I might get some pointers from those who have had success studying with it.

Thanks in advance!

Nov. 18, 2020 | 1:48 a.m.

At 37:07, you play a hand with AsKc opened from the CO and then explain your justification for using a large sizing on the JT8ss texture. You began saying something about "When your equity advantage comes from the far right end of the distribution", but your train of thought got interrupted by the AQo 4B hand. Would you mind elaborating the point you were going to make about sizing, textures, and equity advantage?

Oct. 28, 2020 | 9:29 p.m.

DNegs98 I feel like I owe you money after reading this.

July 31, 2020 | 8:59 p.m.

This video really is great as a "Foundations" video; working with PIO in the beginning feels like trying to crack a code or understand a language without any means of decoding or translating, and this explains in a way that is intuitive for long-time poker folks new to solver strategy why a sim looks the way it does.

I'm hoping you could do another video in the spirit of this series and look at the effect of position on solver behavior. Nut advantage/equity advantage seem to behave differently for IP and OOP, and while a lot of top pros cut out the slack by three-betting aggressively IP, there are still lots of players who sub-optimally flat call open raises, and so situations arise where the player with the equity advantage is playing without the positional advantage. Would love to see a lucid video explaining the elements of situations like those. Cheers!

July 29, 2020 | 6:32 p.m.

I love it when Brits say "suited" with the glottal stop.

"Seven-five soo'ed."

Great video btw

July 26, 2020 | 10:09 p.m.

In this situation, I think the play would be to 3B with a strong, linear range, rather than wrenching your own range out of shape with low-equity hands like Q6s where you're really just hoping for an instant fold from a villain who you attest to calling down light. Even against weak players, packing your range with garbage just to increase the frequency of times you raise a weak range doesn't read like the soundest strategy.

Remember, even a weak range can continue against your 3B. And you're going to cut into your EV and oblige yourself to overbluff if you have stuff like Q6s, T7s, etc. in your own range.

If a player is going too far into the game tree with weak, low-equity hands, the way to profit from this is having a range more concentrated around strong hands, not less. Three-betting a linear 11% range like 88+, A9s+, A5s-A4s, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, AJo+, KQo is going to be a plenty profitable strategy against this sort of player; is a strong enough range that you don't mind one of the players yet to act to come along, especially if they misplay like most live folks flatting 3B OOP, and gives you a higher continue frequency compared to your random range when someone does happen to put the 4B in.

July 9, 2020 | 6:48 p.m.

Hey! A quick note from a viewer's standpoint: your mouse cursor isn't visible, so when it seemed like you were trying to direct our attention to certain parts of the range matrix, it wasn't super easy to follow. I'm still early in the video, but otherwise, I like the content!

July 7, 2020 | 7:42 p.m.

This doesn't feel so much like graduating from the concept of indifference as it does repackaging the incentives of exploitative play. Bluffing combinations that are meant to make V indifferent to calling with bluff-catchers is 0 EV under the assumption that V is assuming we are playing balanced and so is playing to be unexploitable; but if V is calling too frequently, then we understand that these 0 EV combos aren't 0 EV anymore. It's clearly -EV to ever bluff into someone calling with 100% of bluff-catchers. But we knew that already; that isn't using external factors to nudge a 0 EV play one way or the other, but is just exploiting the tendencies of a player whom we can predict.

Or, take as an example something you gave in your video; making a slightly -EV play to demonstrate that you aren't a nit, and to show you have big bluffs in order to increase the EV of value hands later. But if we have the image of a nit, we're already, in that first hand, expecting more folds than equilibrium, all else being equal. There's no reason to deliberately deviate from a decision we, in the moment, perceive as => 0 EV just for the sake of making a new and different table image. Whatever our table image is then and there, there is presumably some way to extract EV out of it given how people will heuristically react to it.

July 3, 2020 | midnight

Load more uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy