I suppose I'll add that the way I think I should proceed moving forward, is to develop the skills you mentioned by playing sessions that isolate the use of that skill. I'd like to split off a session or two at the end of each day and play fewer tables, perhaps at lower stakes, and (1) get better at recalling/applying range estimates, and (2) find situations I can mark for further study so I have fewer spots where I must analyze something in-game.
Jan. 5, 2014 | 5:55 p.m.
You cover 2 examples in this video: a polar river situation (to introduce alpha) and a nuts-versus-air situation (to show how in a polar-versus-bluffcatchers situation, the polar player has incentive to increase his betsizing to infinity).
My question is simple:
What advice would you give to someone who feels like he understands these and more advanced concepts well but has trouble applying them at the table?
I followed along with ease during this video and others, but when I watch your other videos, specifically your live play two-parter, I notice how much slower I am in game, (1) estimating ranges, (2) applying reads so they're usable, and (3) applying the right concept to come to a decision about what to do with my hand.
Jan. 5, 2014 | 2:08 a.m.
-The better you can get at understanding how both ranges interact with the board, the easier this gets. From watching Ben's "stream of consciousness" style live video versus Syous, he seems to be able to regularly explore whether or not he can roll with one or two sizings on a given river (and a few flop) spots.
Noting that he said he made that video after a day of playing, I'm sure it's possible to do more than this.
-I've gathered (from various resources that try to apply GTO to HUNL, and a few small sims I've done) that past 2-3 sizes Strat-versus-Strat EV tends not to increase that much. Assuming three main sizings: underbet blocker types (5%-35% pot, like Sauce's turn leads HU when the board pairs), "standard 55%-90%" and "large 95%-infinity", the difference between trying to play a river range at optimal in realistic HUNL river spots with 1 and 2 sizings can be huge (3-12bb/100?), from 2-3 sizings maybe low single digits in bb/100 or less (fractions of a bb per hand).
-None of this takes into account huge Strat-versus-Strat swings in EV that can occur when your opponents play in a very exploitable manner, so for example versus fish trying to get your huge value sizing as thin as possible (and tracking the meta changes that go with it) might override my second point.
-Re: "assuming your range isn't too merged": I don't think it's that important your range be as polar as possible, you just need to break off the part you're going to play for the huge betsize, and rearrange the rest of your range so it plays reasonably well without the nutted part (of course you lose some of the bottom too).
I find in practice, ordering my blockers properly is kind of complicated. I'm not quite good enough to do anything more than the method you outlined.
Jan. 5, 2014 | 2 a.m.
Thinking about this a bit more, I think we can be confident this sizing is not a mistake provided he doesn't do it too wide with bluffs (quite easy to do in practice). That's basically it. Even when you are uncapped, there are solutions out there for games where you have a certain low percentage of nutted hands.
Phil, rewatching the video, your comment that he was unlikely to bet TT for value was helpful.
Given how much equity the bettor's value range has (90%+), this turn spot isn't far off from a toy game: two-street polar-versus-bluffcatchers. I know that MoP covers the clairvoyant version of the game. Are you familiar with the solution structure? I've been meaning to re-read the book so I can understand things like this.
Oct. 24, 2013 | 12:19 a.m.
Near the beginning, around 5:00, D2 pots on a KKJK and you mention his valuerange is pretty narrow (aces, quads), and talk a little bit about how you perceive ranges that use that sizing.
I know our hand is a clear fold, and you speak a little about how you think people construct said ranges, but I was hoping you had thoughts on how to best exploit people who use chose to use this sizing (either as a split strategy, or with a smaller sizing too). I think most midstakes regulars tend to be too value heavy with the large sizing, and on certain boards (not this one), overuse blocker value and be too bluff heavy with the smaller sizing. Basically constructing polar or merged ranges "by feel".
I know it's hard to discuss this productively without research, but you mentioned you had other thoughts in the video and just didn't go into detail. Thought I would inquire.
Oct. 22, 2013 | 5:56 a.m.
Thanks. That helps. It's hard for me to know what sizing reads you have on villain, but him betting pretty big on that river and being not very good is a valid reason to exploitatively abandon your turn plan and fold.
Anyway, your conclusion is that you're still not sure the best way to play your range on that turn right?
If we assume villain is playing fit or fold on turn (as you said his light peel range might be lighter than the average player but is still pretty narrow), we should have an exploitative polar betting strategy and checking back with our particular hand makes a lot of sense (it has the most to lose if we are forced to bet/fold it).
Versus opponents who will have a c/c range and a c/r bluffing range to combat our wide barrels on this board, this hand might be the very bottom of our bet/call range since it has equity vs the bottom of his c/r value range (trips)?
Oct. 18, 2013 | 1:25 a.m.
With the AAs6s7, on 3s7sKdKcJd, your reasoning for checking back the turn was because you thought you were in a wa/wb spot, and could get called by bluffs on the river. on then next street you say you don't like your river call because you block hands he could bluff with. your only comment on the J river is "I can't really put him on jacks". Would you agree that it's still slightly better for his range than yours?
Just seems like fuzzy reasoning all around. I'm inclined to think betting turn is still better but am not sure. I wish you explained your reasons for checking better. "Samerrrr" being the action player, you might just be missing a bet from weaker high pairs + fd.
Oct. 17, 2013 | 10:02 p.m.
You're likely to have a bunch of motivations for making videos, a primary one being enjoying the video-making process. If I remember correctly, you will only be making two videos a month. Whatever the number is, I feel that the topics that are most interesting/stimulating to you and advance your game the most, should be the topics you make videos on. I don't feel it's a huge loss to have some high quality discussion buried in comment threads, as any serious student of the game would take the time to study the them anyway.
I have a strong preference for the most in-depth, detailed stuff you can put together, and don't feel as if I am in the minority of elite subscribers. Your slower approach to this series has been well received (I think in all 3 threads, exactly one person wished for a faster, more cursory video review), and similar long-form detailed content from other coaches has been rated highly in the past. Basically, don't waste a video on replying to comments when you can show us more.
I personally would love to see an advanced theory video on the implications of various asymmetric distributions (likely HU) on sizings/aggression frequencies, on earlier streets if not the river.