I hear what you're saying. I've been playing poker a long time and am not unaccustomed to variance, although having played against weaker players for so long I believe I've developed good strategies for mitigating some of it when my opponents aren't playing optimally. As for the tracking software, I was mostly alluding to the fact that I don't have it. I think in anonymous pools its probably not worth the trouble, anyway. Moreover, when it comes to using tracking software in conjunction with statistical analysis to quantify variance, I'm not really interested. However, I realize that some people on here are. Therefore, I was mostly posing my quandary towards such players who themselves have been playing on Bovada for statistically relevant periods of time. Really what I'm looking for is peace of mind as it's extremely difficult contending with variance while simultaneously questioning the validity of the software. I'm cool with executing and running bad but I hate feeling like the game is somehow rigged.
May 1, 2020 | 6:01 p.m.
I'm a high stakes live player living in the US. Previously, I played a lot online but have hardly done so since Black Friday. Nevertheless, I continue to maintain my game using PIO, Monker, this site and the like. I've recently been trying my hand at Bovada.
Going into it, I had reservations about whether the site works the way its supposed to. Having played on it, my views have only been reinforced.
Admittedly, I have made money. Nevertheless, I remain very concerned.
My first observation is that the quality of play is very low in both zoom games and mid stakes NL and PLO games, lower than I anticipated in fact. A lot of my winnings seem to be the result of blatant mistakes on my opponent, mistakes that I might not even expect from fish in bigger live games. Given my impression of online games generally, I was expecting these games to be tougher. I don't know how a lot of players would survive were they to come up against tough pros. This to me implies that these games are not viable in the long term. Therefore, it makes me suspicious of another prominent trend on the site.
Now, I don't currently have tracking software and even if I did, I'm not sure it would work on Bovada. That said, I'm very used to variance, even the online variety. Still, the frequency of preflop coolers I've experienced since my initial winning period seems extraordinary high in the NL zoom games, especially in situations where they're entirely unavoidable. For instance, I've faced the situation: BU open SB (me) three bet, BB cold call (which happens a lot on this site) and BU jam; many times on the site and every time I've had QQ and the BU has had AA. Since it's zoom I don't always get to see what the BB cold called with (although in generally it seems to be a wide variety of hands). I've also faced the situation the of AK vs AA CO vs BU or CU vs SB where I have AK and my opponent has AA. Notably, my opponents always jams in these situations as well, which is not consistent with theory and invariably ends up costing me more than I might otherwise lose. I have not won a single one of these spots despite the fact that I've faced them more than a dozen times within a few sessions. Although it happens far less frequently that I have preflop coolers against my opponents I definitely have held far less than 80% of the time. Very likely less than 50%, in fact. These trends seem blatant enough for me to call foul. Add that to the fact that I think the play is too weak to be viable in the long term and I see a lot of incentive to ensure that new players or weaker players are distributed favorable situations, particularly when they initially start playing.
This is the first time I've really thought about calling foul on a site; and I had previously played on Absolute (as well, of course, as PokerStars and Full Tilt). I'm typically less paranoid than most but feel it's prominent enough for me to reconsider playing. I'd very much appreciate any informed opinions.
May 1, 2020 | 5:50 a.m.
Distinct decrease in quality in your last few videos; much prefer your videos that utilize graphs and aggregate reports. I think low stakes videos with long analysis of largely inconsequential hands is not a positive trend in some of the elite coaches’ content
April 27, 2020 | 4:34 p.m.
table 2 24 minutes: What percent of the time do you feel that you are four betting here? I believe that based on a 4-5% four betting range this spot is supposed to be potted 85%+ by IP and that the only high frequency 1/4 pot pets are total air (backdoors such as the T879 $ds) mixed with some small measure of AA:ss for balance. It feels like this hand is supposed to be bet larger on the flop.
April 3, 2018 | 5:54 p.m.
Pretty good video. I appreciate how you use the solver to demonstrate principles many players might find counterintuitive such as leading with a reasonable frequency on paired boards. You also do a pretty good job finding reasons to explain those frequencies in human terms. Along those lines it would certainly be interesting if you continued these hands along future streets and demonstrate how villians’ potential misadjustments (e.g. raising the lead too frequently) might cost them EV.
Feb. 22, 2018 | 2:56 a.m.
I agree with your assessment that villain might very well raise a reasonable number of queen on the turn and be somewhat inclined to check them back on river. Nevertheless I think you might slightly overestimate how many queen high flushes he has on turn given his line.
Obviously his raise preflop narrows his range somewhat. That means, I think, he will have more AQ+ with Q high hearts hands in his range. In my experience players are more inclined to bet this hand for value on these flops then check them back for protection, correctly I think. All that together implies that opponent will not be betting river with queen high fluhes very frequently at all. Combinatorically having two hearts in your hand is more relevant than having the lone queen of hearts, then. River is likely a fold. Still, good analysis. I’ve enjoyed your recent videos