That's great, thanks for the reply. It seems like I'm too conservative on these boards because of an availability heuristic about the worst case scenario (We turn top pair while he turns a straight) and I'm not paying enough attention to all the times he just has a second best hand.
I'll be looking to do some PIO work soon, and situations like this provide good motivation to get a move on, cheers!
Nov. 22, 2018 | 6:17 a.m.
Forgot to say that we have no flush draw or backdoor flush draw blockers.
Nov. 22, 2018 | 5:05 a.m.
This is from part one of the review, its at the 24.00 mark but its a simple cbet situation so no need to look it up, I will describe it here.
Its blind vs blind, BB has 40 bbs and we cover.
We open AKo, he calls, and the flop is QJ3 with a flush draw. We bet 40% pot, Jason says "Yeah this is a great board for us and Alex makes a bet, totally fine".
I don't think I understand this spot - I can see that its a great board in that we have overpairs and top two sets, and TPTK, none of which he will have, but I would usually check a lot here:*
The board is very dynamic
Villain has a wide range
We are deep enough that if he calls flop, we have two more streets to come
And with our hand in particular, I would check because*
We have SDV.
We can often improve, but the cards we improve on are also good for his range
The board is very dynamic
We have poor visibility vs a wide range
I usually play cash so I'm not used to these stack sizes, I must be missing something here, can anyone fill me in?
Nov. 22, 2018 | 5:02 a.m.
30:46 - we 3bet A9s, check back 874s, call a 9 turn and an overbet on a brick river.
You say its a gross situation but there's not really anything we can do but call. Do we not have quite a lot of overpairs, some 99 and JT, and even all the A9s combos that don't block his flush draws? Or are you betting your overpairs on this flop?
Nov. 16, 2018 | 6:33 p.m.
And a similar question when we 3bet vs UTG and the flop comes J52r. I haven't studied in PIO so I'm obviously missing something here - I usually cbet 1/3 with range, since I am uncapped, why is a larger cbet at a lower frequency best?
Nov. 15, 2018 | 10:51 p.m.
At 20:30 you 3bet BvB, and the flop is 443r.
You say that you have to size up a little on this flop, and end up betting around half pot, could you explain why?
I would have thought that since we have an uncapped range preflop, and we are more likely to 3bet bluff with 4x than he is to call a 3bet with 4x, we have a huge advantage, and could therefore bet small with range, could you explain where I've gone wrong?
Nov. 15, 2018 | 10:46 p.m.
Online 2/4, 100 deep, no HH unfortunately.
We open KcJc from the HJ to 9, CO 3bets to 27, we defend.
Flop Td9c4c, so we have overs, a gutshot, and a flush draw.
We check, he bets 20 into 60, we make it 95, he calls.
I have 8 value combos - 6 sets, and 2 x 2 pair. So I figure c/ring 87s, QJs and KJs is good, that'll be 12 combos of bluffs.
Turn is a 4.
On the turn, I ended up shoving, but this where it gets tricky. He should know that we have plenty of potential bluffs, and still only 8 value combos, so its easy to overbluff here. But if we check we have to check/fold. So should I just shove my highest equity bluffs, and check the rest hoping he gives up?
I presume betting small isn't an option since we have polarized ourselves on the flop. Any feedback much appreciated.
Oct. 17, 2018 | 7:37 p.m.
Ah ok, no worries, GL man!
Sept. 19, 2018 | 3:11 a.m.
Hey man, cool thread. Just a question about your videos. I'm a six max player who plays HU to start tables. I'm wondering are any of the videos geared towards people with less HU experience, or if you would consider doing a video about HU fundamentals?
I play quite a lot to get tables going but I don't even know the basics! At the moment I open BTN about 65% and 3bet about 20%, does that sound reasonable?
Sept. 18, 2018 | 7:16 p.m.
Vs an unknown I think you have to call, he could have anything up to and including value cutting himself with AK.
You will usually lose but you don't need to be good very often for it to be a call.
July 25, 2018 | 8:30 p.m.
"I found from doing DB analysis that flatting 3-bets OOP is losing me money and I'd be better off folding every time. That's why I play 4-bet or fold OOP."
Another way of looking at this is that you should work on your postflop play in 3bet pots OOP.
4bet or fold sounds pretty ambitious, I don't see how you can avoid either folding way too much or 4betting way too much.
July 25, 2018 | 8:27 p.m.
I found that very interesting too.
There's a HRV app here, not sure if its any good or not but it sounds interesting:
Dec. 14, 2017 | 9:42 p.m.
Hi, I just had a thought that came about because it was triggered by the Josh Waitzkin video posted upthread, so here seems to be the natural place to post it and hopefully get some discussion going.
I was thinking about two related ideas, the idea of flow, and the idea of unconscious competence.
It seems that being in both these states is beneficial to a poker player (or in any discipline really).
So I started thinking about how to apply it to poker, where there are so many variables. It seems like the more things we have down to the point where we don't have to think about them, the more likely we will be to tap into our intuition, or failing that to have time to slow down and really think things through.
So an obvious spot to try to simplify things is preflop. Lets say in NLHE 6 max, if we were to decide to always opened identical ranges, for the sake of argument 18/20/28/45/45 (the numbers don't really matter except to have a baseline).
If we were to stick to these numbers, we would be giving up some immediate EV - when there are two nits in the blinds, we should be opening way more than 45% on the BTN for example.
But perhaps we would gain something by sticking to these numbers - we could train our opening to the point of unconscious competence, which would allow us to get into a flow state more often.
The thing is, if we don't do this and adjust our opening ranges to each table, then we are guaranteeing that we will always be in a state of some uncertainty preflop. We profit from this uncertainty when we open wide and steal from nits, but is it possible its just a distraction, and by always opening the same ranges we would benefit by having more mental energy for later on in the hand, less uncertainty over the course of a session, and, gradually and over time, a more intuitive understanding of our ranges since they would always be the same?
Dec. 1, 2017 | 2:28 a.m.
You lose to a maximum of 5 combos of sets, which are discounted because he might have raised them or 4bet QQ preflop. He can also have KsQs, so you lose to 6 combos in the worst case scenario (unless he's bad enough to raise/call 33 from UTG preflop).
Its also nice that you don't block any of his potential bluffcatchers (TT,JJ,KJs, KTs,QcJc).
So this looks like an easy value bet to me, I would go AK+ for value here.
June 3, 2017 | 2:55 p.m.
Good video, would love to see some more complicated ideas in future, I think anyone who has watched that will get the idea and seeing you do the same thing with calling ranges instead of shoving ranges won't really add anything, whereas looking at designing a drill to practice cbetting spots as the PFR BTN vs BB or something could be more interesting.
Incidentally, do you know of any way of randomly generating a hand from a given range?
Lots of programs will generate a random flop, but it'd be cool to be able to generate, for example, a random flop and a random hand from my SB vs BTN 3betting range.
May 5, 2017 | 10:22 p.m.
Thanks for the replies, yeah I will have to look into PIO, just using flopzilla at the moment to train myself to estimate combos on various board types, I'm sure I'll end up doing more precise stuff in future.
One question though - so if we raise our 15 value combos, we should raise 30 bluffs ( assuming a pot sized raise), but this doesn't tell us if we should have a raising range at all.
One a board like this which favours our opponent so much, is it possible we shouldn't have a raising range at all?
March 1, 2017 | 10:19 p.m.
I've seen a rule of thumb that on the flop in position we should have roughly 2 bluffs for every value hand. I'm wondering how that changes when we are at the double disadvantage of being out of position and having a weaker range.
I know there's no exact numbers for this, but I'm just wondering roughly how to think about it.
For example, CO opens, we defend BB, flop is Qs9s5c.
I put some fairly reasonable ranges into Flopzilla and it seems that our ranges stack up as follows:
Of his 294 preflop combos, 96 are top pair or better, and 24 are overpairs or better.
Of our 303 preflop combos, 59 are top pair or better, and 17 are ahead of his overpairs.
So clearly this a board we shouldn't be too aggressive on, right?
But lets say we want to raise 99,55, and probably Q9, keeping our worse two pairs, top pairs, and mid pairs as our bluffcatchers. That leaves us with 15 nutty combos. We obviously have a ton of potential bluff combos, it'd be easy to find 30 combos that are to some extent semibluffs. But this seems a bit excessive when he has such a stronger range overall, so I'm wondering roughly how many combos we should be looking to check/raise to balance out our 15 nutty combos?
Feb. 28, 2017 | 7:01 a.m.
Good to see coaches posting results.
I Have to say i find the video quality pretty good overall but I've been a lot more suspicious of random coaches since reading this thread:
Dec. 21, 2016 | 11:26 p.m.
You mention the possibility that villain might 4bet TT or even 88 preflop, CO vs BTN. I haven't played on stars in a while but this sounds insane to me, are preflop ranges really so aggro? Do you mean 4bet/call or 4bet/fold? Either sounds bad to me unless I'm missing something.
Sept. 21, 2016 | 8:30 p.m.
QJ on the KQ2 board, you say that if the board was rainbow we should be betting our middle pairs some % of the time, why is this? I would have thought that we should be using middle pair as check back pretty much always. Do you mean just some very small % of the time so that we are uncapped on Q turns?
March 18, 2016 | 7:40 p.m.
I've been keeping the diary for the last two days of play and I have a question.
Is there a reason you don't track the same specific emotions each time?
What I mean is, instead of listing the emotions you feel as they occur to you, having a list and filling in the scores, something like:
What I mean is that instead of sometimes listing sadness at and sometimes happiness, we could just use happiness, and mark it as 2 or 3 when we are sad.
Hope you see what I mean, I feel like it might make it easier if each time we are tracking the same emotions, but maybe you have a reason for not doing so and having different categories at different times?
Anyway, the idea of keeping track seems good, already got me to quit one session where I was kind of tilted but didn't realise until I started filling out the diary so that's a good result already!