I was an elite member on RIO for a while before I took a break from poker and cancelled my account. Very excited about Phil’s poker site but never actually made the effort to try it out.
Downloaded the client recently and I notice that there is not much traffic. After some deliberation and the incentive to get HM3 for free, I finally decided to make a small deposit and see how it goes. However the options available for Canadians are very limited with only credit card, EcoPayz and MuchBetter(first time hearing these vendors).
I’ve been using direct bank transfer for deposits and cash outs on other sites and it works great with no third party or fees. The credit cards in Canada don’t work for deposits as gambling transactions are blocked? I have 2 credit cards with a major bank and a smaller one, both failed.
Signed up for MuchBetter and then saw the 20%+ negative reviews in the app store about stolen money and issues with the service. Looked up EcoPayz and it’s the same 20%+ reviews about scams, lost money, long waits and ridiculous fees that some people seem to encounter. Needless to say I’m deterred before I even played a hand.
I feel that adding more deposit options would help draw more players to the site. Personally I don’t know what stakes/volume I’ll end up playing there but I’ll at least give it a chance. Not sure how many of you are in the same position. What are your experiences with deposits/withdrawals? Also what withdrawal options are available for Canadians?
Dec. 12, 2019 | 7:37 a.m.
Interesting topic and the heuristics make a lot of sense. Curious to what BB's general turn strategy is after XR so aggressively on the flop. I guess it would continue with a high frequency small bet on low/medium connecting cards again and mix overbets on high cards?
One thing that I noticed is that the percentages for BB response vs p33 doesn't add up to 100% on the excel spreadsheet at the beginning (6:00). So something isn't right on the aggregate report.
Aug. 29, 2019 | 5:13 p.m.
Hi, nice results and great content plan. I like your live play videos and the way you explain your thought process. The idea of an intro, main body and conclusion can organize it even better!
KK vs 99 hand around 44 mins. You expect to mostly lose when getting called and said it's fine because we can have some bluffs that want to shove here. Shouldn't we be building our range around value hands, rather than bluffs? If we expect to "mostly lose when called' then KK is clearly not strong enough to value bet for this sizing, and if that's due to our opponent over folding then the correct exploitative adjustment should simply to over bluff without changing our value threshold?
I do agree that a block is better for this region of hand strength especially given your read of his range.
Would you be implementing 2 sizes on this river or choose one of the following:
1. Shove with say sets+ for value and bluffs like KQ and Axs as you mentioned and check with hands like KK which might face a tough decision on the river.
2. Block bet with a wider range that includes hands like KK for value and our bluffs.
I think we don't lose value with our nuts if we only block and still get folds from his missed draws and draws with weak pair. He may still hero fold a J sometimes too.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the above.
Aug. 12, 2019 | 6:16 a.m.
Please no live hands on a RIO Elite video... I believe most Elite subscribers are online players who may or may not mix in some live play.
Live poker is exploitative and it has to be due to the pace of the game and lack of hud/database as well as generally weaker players.Content specifically catered towards live players will only be applicable to said live players. But good content(theory, analysis) based on online play will always apply to live games.
The analogy is kind of like studying solvers to get a baseline understanding of equilibrium strategy to which you can adjust based on reads to exploit deviations from opponents. Live players should use the theory/practice they learn from studying/playing online and adjust to the specific game conditions they are in.
For example, nobody can give you a perfect RFI range/size for a FR live game. It all depends on game conditions. Do you get 3b too much from maniacs? Then stop opening hands that you have to fold vs the 3b. Do you get 6 callers when you have AA? Then size up!
July 25, 2019 | 5:04 a.m.
Great video! Surprised how much value it has even to a 6max only player.
On the topic of turn aggression on paired boards, I think IP tends to skew passive here as well in analogous 6max situations like BT vs BB. Not going as thin for value and not bluffing enough with air type hands. However, I also think that the OOP does not XR as much on the flop and tends to overfold outright. Given that the OOP player's turn range contains more strong hands and less air type of hands on the turn, IP's passive strategy here has a lot of merits as an exploitative adjustment in my opinion.
What are your thoughts on this?
July 13, 2019 | 3:45 a.m.
Nash's Existence Theorem guarantees that as long as the strategies are finite and there are a finite number of players, at least one Nash equilibrium exists (possibly involving mixed strategies). Poker fits the above conditions and a Nash Equilibrium is what solvers try to approximate.
1. It's possible that there are multiple Nash Equilibria in the subgame and you happened to find a different pair each time?
2. It might also have something to do with the underlying algorithm and accuracy settings. If the solver works by minimizing an objective function, it's possible that it might get stuck in a local minima. Since you didn't solve it to completion you might have gotten 'stuck' in a different local minima each time. Maybe letting it converge to a smaller Nash distance might help on getting a unique solution.
Just some educated guesses, maybe someone more familiar with the actual algorithm that PIO uses can help shed some light haha
Curious to how big the discrepancy is, are they actually different strategies?
April 14, 2019 | 1:04 a.m.
Nice video! Some of the results seem a bit counter-intuitive and might require turn/river play to justify. Maybe you have some insights that can enlighten us?
ON THE FLOP
1. With an SPR of 10 on the static board we see the preferred sizing being 120% pot. 3 street GGOP sizing here is 89%. On a static board where ranges are relatively polar I would expect a preference for the 80% bet size given your betting abstractions since this is closer to GGOP?
2. With an SPR of 10 on the drawy board we see the preferred sizing being 33% or 50%. This is a lot less than GGOP sizing. I would expect a preference for a larger bet size than GGOP given that ranges are less static so we want to charge draws now?
Jan. 11, 2019 | 6:20 a.m.
Hey, just joined the site recently and really like your videos. The explanations are logical and the pio sims provokes some interesting discussions.
In the first pio analysis, SB 3betting range seems high, though I don't have knowledge of the 500 zoom games. I think AJ checks on the river because the kicker doesn't play so it has the same hand value as A2, but it blocks the most out of OOP's calling range that you beat(QJ, JT etc).
What I find puzzling is the fact that hands like AJ and AT has some slowplay for OOP on the turn while hands like A2 is a bet. I understand that we need to be checking some Ax hands for balancing reasons but would expect to bet the Ax with higher kicker and check the lower ones instead. Is the reason because IP is bluffing with small pairs facing a check and calling with broadways facing a bet? Which makes small Ax hands get called by worse more often thus better betting and AT AJ type of hands getting bluffed more often when checked to thus better calling?