Have you considered building a limping range from the SB? Why/why not?
You made a couple of SB folds that surprised me, like K7o at 34:10. I would think if you aren't raising K7o there, then a limp should be a fine play. Folding feels overly tight.
May 29, 2020 | 12:56 p.m.
Thanks. I had the action right, I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around your last sentence. If the 9s is eliminated from his bluffing range on the river, doesn't that skew his range towards more value since his bluffing range is shrinking? Or are you saying that if he had the 9s and bluffed the turn, he would not continue to bluff with it on the river? If the latter, why?
May 28, 2020 | 12:33 a.m.
Hi Nuno. Great video - I love the deep theory ones.
On the JJT board when deciding about the river call you mention that you like having the 9s blocker because it unblocks Villain's bluffing hands. Your reasoning is that he would be bluffing the turn with a majority of his 9sx hands.
I don't understand the logic. Are you implying that his bluffing hands on the turn will largely become give-ups on the river, and that his bluffing region will be comprised of 0EV hands that decided to check turn?
I would expect 9s to follow through on river if it bluffed the turn. I'd also expect turn give-ups to just give up on river. Is my thinking flawed?
May 27, 2020 | 9:41 p.m.
Great vid and congrats on the baby boy. I've been loving your content lately.
At 37:30, Villain fires a block bet on river on an TJA7K board. You contemplate raising with K4s as a bluff but decide to fold instead. You ultimately decide that a weak Ax hand is a better bluffing candidate because it blocks more of his 2pair calling hands. I think this makes sense but I have a couple questions about this spot. I think I have leaks when it comes to bluff-raising rivers.
1) Just as Ax blocks his 2pair calling hands, are you concerned that it blocks his ability to bet with these hands in the first place? In other words, I would think he's more skewed to a polarized range of Qx or bluffs since you are blocking his middling strength hands and so blocking them from calling your raise has less of an impact.
2) I think Ax functions better as a bluff catcher than Kx, do you agree/disagree? Even though Ax blocks more of his calling range, do you think the EV difference of bluffing vs bluff-catching is greater than the EV difference of bluffing vs folding with Kx? One of the reasons I struggle in these spots is that it seems like the best bluffs tend to come from the portion of our range that is dangerously close to bluff-catching. I find I tend to just go the easy route of choosing to bluff catch and was wondering if there's any heuristics for determining when one play is better.
May 24, 2020 | 10:37 p.m.
Great video! Personally I get much more out of 2 hands of in-depth discussion compared to a couple hundred live play hands with much less discussion. Too easy for me to get lost in the action of live play while having some of the concepts go over my head because they're explained so quickly.
May 13, 2020 | 1:27 a.m.
22:30 - I was hoping you could follow up on what types of hands you would prefer to bluff with in DrLuck's shoes. My first impression was that his hand was one of his best bluffing candidates because the Q and 7 block all the straight combos, but you obviously disagree.
You mentioned he should use hands that block your value range, so Q and 7 seem good. Are you thinking hands like J8 and 87 that block your 2 pair combos because you will have those at a higher frequency than straights?
May 2, 2020 | 4:12 p.m.
I think I like CRAI on the JTo hand. I can't really think of a better holding to bluff, and I think you correctly pointed out that you'll get there with maybe all your AJ and some J9 too.
April 22, 2020 | 11:51 p.m.
In both models where you node-lock the opponents strategy, the EV of checking KTss goes up by 10 chips compared to the original version. This is true even when you node-lock the opponents strategy on the turn+river.
Any idea why this is happening? This seems to suggest that we can increase the overall EV of KTss by deviating when our opponent does not deviate. However this can not be true in theory. Where is this extra EV coming from?
April 14, 2020 | 8:12 p.m.
Wow I am really screwing this up and ruining my own thread. Turns out I uploaded the wrong image AGAIN.
This is the actual range I gave HJ. For real.
March 27, 2020 | 9:08 p.m.
Damnit, you're right. I've posted the HJ actual range below. This is what I ran the sim with and inspired my post. The range I posted right above this was incorrect and not what I ran the sim with.
March 27, 2020 | 7:06 p.m.
Hey BigFishzh. Interesting! I'm using some ranges I purchased that were solved in Monker.
March 27, 2020 | 2:05 p.m.
I decided to analyze a recent hand I played at 6-max 100NL, and I'm getting hung up on one aspect.
Here's the hand:
Folds to HJ 158bb who raises to 3bb. Folds to me in the SB and I make it 13.5bb with KTdd
Flop Ad Js 3c (28bb)
I bet 9.3bb and he calls
Turn 2h (47bb)
I bet 29.5bb and he calls
River 3d (106bb)
I bet 65bb and he folds.
According to my simulation, I played this hand pretty well. It slightly preferred sizing up bigger on the turn and shoving river, but my line was solver-approved.
I wanted to simulate this hand because I wanted to figure out if my turn bluff was a good play, and what my bluffing range should be. The results have me very confused.
Pio lists my best bluffs as KTs, JTs, KJs (in that order). To my surprise, it plays KQs as a high-frequency check (80%+).
I've been trying to figure out why KTs is almost a pure bluff while KQs is almost a pure check, and I'm stumped.
If we look at Villain's response to a turn bet, we see that a large majority of his folding range holds a T, and he calls with most Qx hands. So if KT blocks his folding range while KQ blocks his continue range while unblocking his folding range, I don't see why pio prefers KT as a bluffing hand:
From here, I thought that maybe KQs has a higher EV as a check than KTs does. In other words, is KQs too strong to turn into a bluff? It turns out this is false too. KTs has a higher EV as a check than KQs does.
What's also surprising is that if we check to Villain, pio wants villain to bluff us with a ton of hands that include a T, while checking back many hands that include a Q. When we check with KQs and Villain bets, we have a pure fold. I don't understand why we would c/f KQs when we unblock villain's bluffing range in this spot.
Anyway - if anyone could shed some light on this spot I would be very grateful. I feel like I am missing out on a heuristic here that may allow me to improve my game in general.
March 25, 2020 | 11:40 p.m.
Great vid, I am a huge fan of theory videos especially ones like this one that are backed by heavy amounts of data.
I thought it was surprising that the solver prefers check raising small on boards where we need more protection but prefers check raising large for value on more static boards. This feels counter-intuitive to me since it seems like the small check raise gives IP great odds to call and realize their equity. I would think we would want to size up to protect and size down when the equities are more locked in. Do you think this is indicative of generally incorrect thinking in how I should be sizing my bets?
Feb. 24, 2020 | 12:41 a.m.
In the AKhh vs J8hh hand, why does AKcc show up as a +EV call on the river for Villain? I find this counter-intuitive.
My assumption is that the solver chooses not to bluff on the river in Hero's shoes when Hero holds clubs because Hero wants to unblock clubs in Villain's folding range. Therefore, when Villain holds AKcc, this unblocks the non-club hands in Hero's bluffing range, making a call profitable. The only problem with this logic is that I think you can get into an endless loop where bluffing with clubs becomes profitable for Hero again if Villain will start calling with clubs.
What do you think, Ben?