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?