Great explanation thanks.
Feb. 8, 2020 | 11:39 p.m.
Yeah I know that's the case in general, I suppose I was just surprised on this specific texture, I would have expected the fact that we have more two pair plus than villain, and more backdoor draws, to make more of a difference, compared to vs BTN where he has all the same strong hands as us, as well as pretty much all the same draws.
Feb. 7, 2020 | 1:24 a.m.
I'm looking at our check/raise frequency when we defend the BB.
I ran two sims on a Q65 rainbow board - UTG vs my BB, and BTN vs my BB.
In both cases I gave the PRF only a small sizing.
So, on the BTN, he bets 86% of the time, and we check/raise around 15%, which was close to my guess.
Then I tried to guess how this would change vs UTG.
My guess was that his cbet % would go down, which it did, to 77%.
But I was sure that my check/raise % would go up, since my range has some two pairs that he never opens from UTG.
But in fact, our check/raise % drops to only 13%, despite us having some Q6s/Q5s which he can never have.
Obviously there are more factors in play than that, and his UTG range has a higher density of strong hands, but I'm still surprised that our check/raise % dropped in this scenario, am I thinking about this the wrong way?
Feb. 6, 2020 | 7:56 p.m.
Thanks guys, I've been paying attention to this spot more and one thing I've noticed is that PIO often goes thinner for value when it bets 120% than I would have thought, so it seems like 200% would be missing out on these bets, and the appropriate bluffs, which isn't something I realized.
Nov. 4, 2019 | 7:23 p.m.
Good video thank. Quick comment on the production - there's times when you are scrolling through combos to illustrate a point ( eg at 32.46) but we can't see your mouse, so we just see the combos flash up really quickly and its impossible to take in.
In future if you are highlighting an area of the grid it might be better to just take one or two specific combos which illustrate your point rather than scrolling through lots of them.
Nov. 2, 2019 | 5 p.m.
Lets say we cbet the flop BvB, and the turn is a total brick, IE the classic PIO spot to overbet the turn.
I've noticed many coaches go for a slight overbet, something around 120% of the pot.
What I'm wondering is, why not bet larger, closer to 200% of the pot?
We have a polar range, after all, and betting twice the pot, in a 100bb situation, makes it easier to get stacks in on the river, while still leaving enough behind that we have FE.
For example, 100 deep, we open to 3x, so the pot is 6. We bet 2 on the flop, he calls, now the pot is 10.
If we bet 12 and he calls, the pot is 34 and we have 83 behind.
But if we bet 18 and he calls, the pot is 46, and we have 77 behind.
Obviously both of these are arbitrary bet sizes, and we could bet 75% or 150% or 250%, but it seems the most common turn overbet is around 110-120%, whereas the one that makes more sense to me intuitively is 180-200%.
I'm curious what the reasoning behind the smaller overbet is, and if there are big drawbacks to the larger one, either in theory or for exploitative reasons.
Obviously we can balance any size, but I don't understand why we would choose one over the other.
Oct. 25, 2019 | 12:35 p.m.
Or maybe I'm overestimating how much we need to defend vs a 3bet, I see from your 3bet flat range that you are only defending around 50 combos by calling, at the moment I'm defending almost twice that!
Would love to hear more about how you construct your 4bet range, at the moment I am 4betting 70 combos, all from the top left hand corner of the grid, and I can't see how to add to this without having way too many bet/folds.
Sept. 22, 2019 | 7:25 p.m.
You mention the possibility of playing a 4bet or fold strategy in CO vs BTN situations. Would we not end up with far too high a 4bet%, or too high a fold to 3bet?
If we open say 25%, and need to defend almost half of that, we would end up 4betting something like 11-2%, much of which will have to fold to a 5bet.
I suppose I'm struggling to see how such a strategy would work, we would have to stack off lighter I'm guessing? Curious to hear more about the idea.
Sept. 22, 2019 | 6:49 p.m.
Yeah the trouble is I play a lot of volume on sites with no hud so I don't have the ability to do a population breakdown. Even so I would imagine you would need a huge huge database to find enough 4bet spots.
The problem with using my own ranges is that I am never considering 4betting 75s or A8o, but I know these do show up every now and then in villains range.
I suppose what I'm trying to figure out is how to weight a range to reflect my assumptions that the villain's range will be somewhat similar to mine, but that I can't rule out them showing up with weird stuff at least some small percentage of the time.
Aug. 26, 2019 | 3:30 p.m.
I want to study some spots where I 3bet and call a 4bet in PIO, but one problem I have is that people construct their 4bet ranges so differently - some people are linear and use stuff like KJs, others are a little more polar and use AJo or A3s, and others are totally polar and use A6o or 75s.
Of course in any individual pot the chances of these combos showing up are very small, but because stacks are so shallow and ranges so narrow in 4bet pots, having or not having a few combos of offsuit aces or flush draws or trips or whatever can really change things.
Basically what I want is to have generic 4bet ranges for villains that will cover most possibilities, at least to some extent. Curious to hear what people's experiences are with stuff like this.
Aug. 26, 2019 | 2:39 p.m.
At 20.00 you check back three streets vs someone you describe as a tough opponent and win with K high vs his 85s which didn't bluff. The board was J44Q3.
I would always bluff in his shoes, and would make a note that he's not fighting enough for small pots if I saw this showdown, which would make me bluffcatch less vs him.
Am I misunderstanding this spot? Maybe the BB just has to defend so many hands that he can't bluff them all, were you surprised to see 8 high check it down here, and am I too aggro if I bluff everything T high and worse in his shoes?
Aug. 15, 2019 | 5:05 p.m.
IMO these videos would be much better if you pre-screened the hands for interesting spots, or at least filtered for hands that reached the turn. There's not much value in reviewing a hand where you 3bet, cbet flop and take it down.
Aug. 9, 2019 | 2:24 p.m.
Cool video. Pretty wild that IP is 4bet shoving AKo and TT-JJ a lot from BTN, and AKo and QQ from CO. This isn't something I see in game. Do you know does this happen at all vs a 4x sizing, or is it just because of the 5x sizing?
Also, if you are doing more preflop videos I would love to see one about defending vs 4bets, its a situation I struggle with because the player pool constructs their 4bet ranges so differently - some people are 4betting too much, some too little, and their hand choices vary as well, so I find it difficult to know how to construct a generic 3bet/flat range when facing a 4bet.
Aug. 9, 2019 | 1:57 p.m.
Yes you are right, here is the river calling range vs 3/4. So he's rarely folding a pair and sometimes calling AK, which means I still really want to vbet AA always!
July 21, 2019 | 10:20 a.m.
You seem to be assuming that QJ or QK will be folding a lot vs a large bet, but always calling a small one. But when he checks twice, Qx is near the top of his range, and I would expect it to call a reasonable amount vs any reasonable bet size. Sure he probably calls more often the smaller we bet, but its not like betting 3/4 means he just snap folds his bluffcatchers.
July 20, 2019 | 11:05 p.m.
I reran the sim with a 33% river sizing, and I see that AA is pretty much always bet, and in fact the larger sizing isn't used.
What I'm not quite clear about is how 75% is a polar sizing when the turn checks through. We have an overpair in a relatively small pot vs a villain's range that contains a lot of bluffcatchers compared to nutty combos.
For example, lets imagine the runout is different, and we bet the flop and get called, and the turn is a total brick.
In this scenario, AA bets for a large sizing always.
Going back to the original hand, villain has checked twice, so surely his range should be even weaker than when we bet the turn on a brick?
In other words, I'm struggling to see exactly why AA is so much weaker on a Qs9x7x 8s 2x runout where the only bet was 1/3 pot on the flop, than on a Q97r2 turn.
I suppose its because villain is going for a check/raise a lot on the river, but I don't fully understand this either - when we check back turn we mostly have give ups and showdown value, so with his nutty hands I would expect him to lead river for a large sizing to charge our A9s/QJs type hands.
July 18, 2019 | 2:41 p.m.
Thanks for the replies. I gave OOP the option to lead river for 33% and 90% in the original sim.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the idea is that OOP is supposed to lead his good but not great hands very often, and so when he checks he has give ups and check/raises, which is why we don't want to always vbet AA?
July 18, 2019 | 2:35 p.m.
I just ran a sim for a BTN vs CO 3bet pot. The button cbets AA on Q97r, and mostly checks it back on an 8 turn which brings a flush draw. On an offsuit 2 river, PIO sometimes checks and sometimes bets AA, and I can't understand why.
Especially the way the hand played out, I would have thought it would be well above our value threshold.
Is it that in theory if we bet all our potential value bets we don't have enough bluffs, and therefore villain should always fold his bluffcatchers?
If so, can we safely ignore this vs humans?
Here is the output for the river. To recap - we 3bet BTN vs CO, cbet 1/3 on flop, check back turn, and are now deciding whether or not to bet river for 75% pot.
July 17, 2019 | 1:42 p.m.
Thanks for the great replies. I sometimes find it difficult to take a step back when looking at PIO output because the results are so complex, but I'm starting to understand it more.
It seems like this board, as PrankCall said, is one we want to be polar on, which makes a lot of sense - SDV type hands don't want to bloat the pot when the board is going to change so often on the turn or the river, and so we c/r strong hands and hands that give us nutty hands on various runouts.
On this board it looks like we c/r 13% or so, but its pretty much all TPTK + and draws.
And from looking through some sims I've run previously, it seems like PIO isn't c/ring bottom pair nearly as often as I thought - I think when you first find out about it its so different to the way poker used to be played that instances of c/ring bottom pair stand out in your memory because they are so unusual, so I suspect I that notice their presence far more than their absence, which is an interesting cognitive bias!
July 16, 2019 | 4:06 p.m.
Is the reason for betting Q2 specifically that the 2 doesn't block any of his obvious continues - Tx, 7x, 65, KJ, 98, etc, making it a better stab than say Q8?
Also, I've been trying to think more about how to study PIO in the way you suggest by understanding combo choice, but often I end up just seeing that "Sometimes PIO does X, other times in situations that look similar, it does Y".
I posted a thread about it here, if you have a chance to have a look and have any tips that'd be great.
July 13, 2019 | 3:42 p.m.
I often have trouble understanding nuances in PIO's strategy.
For example, I just looked at the following simple situation:
Button opens, I defend BB with Ac5d.
Flop comes Jd9d5s.
Button bets 1/3.
Now I know from other spots I've looked at in PIO that it often likes to check/raise bottom pairs, especially vs a smaller sizing.
And I felt in game like having a diamond would make it a little bit more of a check/raise than not having one, since it gives us a small bit more equity, and blocks a few more of his continues.
But when I ran the sim, I see that A5o, with or without a diamond, is never a check/raise on this board.
So now I'm struggling to see how to apply this to my game.
Sometimes PIO check/raises bottom pair vs a small cbet, sometimes it doesn't. Its hard to know what to do with this information in game.
I'm curious to hear how people go about understanding these situations.
July 13, 2019 | 3:39 p.m.
Yeah for sure of course I adjust based on exploitable reads, and I understand that GTO is only a framework for understanding the game theoretically, based on which we deviate when facing real opponents.
What I find interesting about the chess analogy is that even in a game which has been as extensively studied an analysed as chess, there are still opportunities for massive deviations from optimal play while playing against the best players in the world.
Much of the conventional wisdom around exploits in poker revolves around understanding the equilibrium and then deviating slightly based on our reads, so if we think someone is a little hesitant to pull the trigger, we fold a few extra combos of bluffcatchers on the river, that sort of thing. Or maybe we defend a few extra % in the BB vs someone who we expect to let us get to showdown too often.
But it sounds like the chess thing is more along the lines of what Nuno mentioned - having a limp only strategy at six max. IE making plays PIO makes 0% of the time, because we have thought about the implications of this and villain won't have.
July 9, 2019 | 1:49 p.m.
Apologies for posting in the HSNL forum, but I thought this was interesting in the light of the latest Uri Peleg video.
Uri talks about how at HSNL there is much more raising in 3bet pots than PIO would suggest, and I read the link below just after, and thought it seems relevant.
Apparently Magus Carlsen is better than ever after studying the chess equivalent of PIO and using it not to perfect a GTO style, but to do the opposite. If I understand it correctly he is sacrificing a large % of his EV in order to bring opponents into a situation he has studied which they haven't, because it deviates wildly from "GTO".
Would love to hear some thoughts about how this applies to poker.
July 7, 2019 | 2:35 a.m.
At 12.20, you mention the possibility of raising QJ7r when we call a 3bet BTN vs SB and face a 1/3 pot bet. From what I can see PIO never takes this line (less than 1%).
Of course PIO isn't everything and there could be good reasons for raising, I'm just curious how you would go about adding a raising range and why?
FWIW PIO has SB cbetting 1/3 over 95%, so the raise isn't going to be likely to exploit overcbetting. Is it that that you expect him to underdefend vs the raise, or that our value hands should be able to get more money into the pot by raising?