rjlynch's avatar


25 points

really interesting video!

Nov. 8, 2013 | 7:26 p.m.

Member video uploader? :-p

July 25, 2013 | 4:30 p.m.

Great video, really enjoyed hearing your thought processes in real time. thanks!

July 20, 2013 | 1:42 p.m.

They probably like playing poker against tough opponents. It's a lot more fun imo

June 26, 2013 | 4 p.m.

really liked this format. 2 tables of zoom seems like the optimal hands/discussion ratio

June 23, 2013 | 2:12 p.m.

You struck a good medium wrt video speed here. I personally wouldn't want you to go any less in depth

June 11, 2013 | 4:05 p.m.

"A nut low hand that can get enough folds to warrant a bluff will have a greater EV when bet than checked" - ah sorry I messed up what I was trying to get across in this sentence/statement

June 8, 2013 | 1:23 a.m.

June 8, 2013 | 12:51 a.m.

When deciding what to check I would pick hands that gain the most from checking compared to betting. Ignoring balance considerations; a strong hand that can often get called by worse will gain too much from betting to consider checking. A nut low hand that can get enough folds to warrant a bluff will have a greater EV when bet than checked. A hand that can continue profitably once checked yet isn't making a huge amount of EV from a bet would, I imagine, likely be a good candidate as a hand in our checking range. 

on the 442 board AK/AQ seems to fit in the last category I mentioned (though I still prefer a bet) and our nut low hands fit in the second category as they likely are a +EV bluff yet a zero EV fold.

Posting between hands is hard!

June 7, 2013 | 11:31 p.m.

No, on those boards where my range is not so strong then I prefer to cbet hands with more opportunities to barrel, as I think check folding 32etc has a higher EV than betting.

Hope that amkes sense, I'm still playing

June 7, 2013 | 11:17 p.m.

Interesting, I would rather bet KJ and 32 over AK if I had to check at least one. As betting those hands can get folds from better (AT, AJ etc) and they have a harder time realising their equity when checked,  but I haven't thought about it properly as I'm grinding!

June 7, 2013 | 9 p.m.

neither I'd probably bet the flop with my whole range. However I imagine you will realise a none zero % of your equity (I assume you meant that not EV) either by check calling/check raising if villain is betting often or getting to see the turn if villain checks back. As such, if I were to have a checking range, I would rather use the hands with the highest EV when checked compared to bet. And I speculate that AK/AQ will have a higher expected value against villains whole range when checked compared to toal air like 87s etc

June 7, 2013 | 4:18 p.m.

Discounting removal effects and also combanatorics, cbetting AK/AQ and cbetting total air folds out the same range on the flop (his flop folding range). AK/AQ have higher equity on the flop and so given that they fold out the same range as total air I would rather use them in my checking range (if I were to have one) as they have a higher EV when checked than total air. You are now arguing that they have a higher EV when bet than checked, which I agree with. But if you had to have a checking range it makes sense to pick hands that gain the least from a bet and have the highest EV when checked.

Hope my wording wasn't to confusing! I'm not the most articulate poster!

June 7, 2013 | 12:18 p.m.

On 442rbw as the 3bettor I would cbet 100%. It's probably not optimal but I think it's likely pretty close. The board favours our range so much I can't see how he can do much to exploit us. Also it avoids the problems you outlined above.

"Why should we decide to check AK/AQ type hand compare to the nut low of our range that we could easily X/F" - Because the nut low portion gains the most from making his range that folds fold.

June 7, 2013 | 11:14 a.m.

I think your post flop thought process is ok and 66 is likely a call down here. However I think you should fold 66 preflop in this spot and call with hands that are going to flop more playability. On the button I think calling 66 is more reasonable but your co opening range should be tight enough that you can fold it.

June 7, 2013 | 10:50 a.m.

"Equilibrium is reached when the strategy is "complete", and doesn't
change anymore. Adjusting could be a part of that strategy (and I would
expect that it has to be)."

Adjusting is a change in strategy from one strategy to another not part of a strategy. Once both parties are at a Nash equilibrium then they are no longer incentivised to deviate. If one player is no longer playing GTO then the other party can adjust to exploit him by changing his strategy but he is now no longer employing the Nash GTO strategy (which does not change).

June 6, 2013 | 7:34 p.m.

"How can it be known how many Nash equilibrium strategies there are?"

There could be more than one *i think* but they will all have the same expected value.

"How can we know the answer to these questions without a true complete GTO strategy that will "never" exist?"

A lot can be shown to be incorrect in theory even if it is difficult to show what is correct in theory.

"I'm still not sold on ideas that separate exploitative play from GTO,
which is why I have so many questions... and I think this is a great
topic for discussion. Thanks for all of the input!"

Exploitative play is based on adjusting to opponents tendencies to increase our EV. Equilibrium is reached when adjusting back and forth yields no further increase in EV for either party.

June 5, 2013 | 7:08 p.m.

"Is it possible that at least one of them is focused on exploitative play?"

I don't think it can be (at least in heads up pots) as it would by definition not be an equilibrium state as one party could improve their EV by changing their strategy to exploit the exploiter.

June 5, 2013 | 6:59 p.m.

"From my research into what a Nash equilibrium is, it seems to mean to
make the most +EV play at each opportunity. It seems like the general
consensus is that the Nash equilibrium for poker seeks to be
unexploitable. In theory that could be the same thing. I
believe that trying to exploit our opponents is a necessary part of
being unexploitable. How big of a role that plays is up for debate, and
I'd also like to hear if someone has good reasons as to why that's the
wrong way to look at it."

Trying to make the most +EV play with each hand against some kind of super opponent who can out adjust you perfectly (the Nemesis) leads to the nash equilibrium. Deviating from the nash equilibrium with a certain hand in your range in an attempt to increase your EV leads the nemisis to exploit your new strategy there by reducing it's EV to be at most the EV of the nash equilibrium in that spot.

Trying to exploit your opponents who are trying to exploit you back eventually leads to an equilibrium if you are both equally good at it. However trying to exploit your opponent's strategy is not a necessary part of being unexploitable and in fact is the opposite!

June 5, 2013 | 11:44 a.m.

However if you're playing against a robot who can't deviate from gto then always folding your 0ev bluff catchers or always playing paper won't change your expectation

June 5, 2013 | 11:28 a.m.

"It's just math guys !I disagree. I guess in a way,
everything is math, but it seems like you're implying to just throw out
psychology and anything else that makes poker a game of understanding

I read Ben's post as saying that as game theory is just maths then it isn't open to opinion, what someone says is either logically consistent with the theory or not. I don't think he's implying to throw out psychology etc and never play exploitatively.

June 5, 2013 | 11:25 a.m.

if they only pick paper, or always fold their bluff catchers, which are indifferent to calling or folding, then we can deviate and gain an advantage

June 5, 2013 | 11:14 a.m.

with Td8d on the river at ~17:45, what are your thoughts on over betting here?

May 28, 2013 | 3:12 p.m.

Comment | rjlynch commented on antivirus

microsoft security essentials is the best I've used. Has a low ram imprint compared to most AV. Also running firefox with noscript installed is a good security measure

May 18, 2013 | 2:14 a.m.

"if i bet this river with this hand, i must to bet this river with some
high equti bluffs (i guess KQ of hearts,QT and so on) and give up with
gutshots and stuff like that"

I think you nailed it.

"if the heart rolls off on the river, i think it's a better spot to check with entirety of my range."

nope, still fire your value and bluffs and (likely) just put hands like 99 into your bluff catching range

May 15, 2013 | 6:44 p.m.

I'd rather start my bluff catching game on as late a street as possible

May 15, 2013 | 3:51 p.m.

The problem with adding strong hands to protect our marginal pair check calling range is it causes our flop cbet to dramatically drop off. In addition bluff catching with hands like 55/66 is going to be difficult to execute across multiple future streets. Having villain fold bare broadway combos likely works in our favour when we hold low pairs.

May 15, 2013 | 3:48 p.m.

Comment | rjlynch commented on NL200 standard spot

I would bet turn for sure. If you dont open really loose in the hijack and aren't cbetting the flop really often I think you can bet fold this turn with AJo and still defend enough of your range to not be exploited.

May 14, 2013 | 4:30 p.m.

As utg on this flop I would rather just bet my entire range. I think vs btn's pf call your range is at a pretty big advantage here and the ease of executing a 100% cbet out ways the benefit gained from splitting up into sub ranges that take various different actions.

If you pick a drawy-er flop it becomes a lot tougher to construct ranges.

May 14, 2013 | 4:22 p.m.

Comment | rjlynch commented on 600nl, 4 way 3b pot

I like the idea of raising here and trying to elicit some folds from the players left to act. Though its a pretty tricky spot and I could go either way.

May 3, 2013 | 7:14 p.m.

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