May I ask where you got your ranges from? Seems like every GTO solved range is somewhat different.
Dec. 1, 2019 | 5:09 a.m.
Please keep making vids like this. I really like the pacing, and incorporating pio.
Was pretty surprised at the j5o iso vs button limp. I don't know the gto for this node, is it similar to bb vs sb limp? I wouldv'e thought we have alot less fold equity so need better hands.
Nov. 11, 2019 | 6:13 a.m.
I've been playing with HRC recently and think it's only really good for basic hands (push fold). The advanced hands with open raises just isn't good enough as it allows flatters to always realize their equity which isn't true. In reality people have flatting ranges from all sorts of positions/stack sizes these days to maximize their ev.
What are people's thoughts on PIO preflop and monker solver? Does monker allow for ICM?
Nov. 4, 2019 | 8:08 a.m.
Why do you think the guys on the right are playing so shallow?
Oct. 23, 2019 | 10:24 a.m.
Only negative is that I need 1 minute of therapy for every 'um', 'errm' and 'er'.
Sept. 25, 2019 | 1:39 p.m.
Hi Jeremy. With regards to the formula, when we add another 50000 chips to pot for min SPKO, does this not assume we realise all of those 50000 chips i.e. win the tournament? We win an immediate $125, which is 25k chips and the other $125 goes on our head. We only realise this $125 of we actually win.
Would it not be closer to something like (25K + x25k) where x = % we win tournament?
Sept. 22, 2019 | 6:44 a.m.
3:08 I would have expected a small turn bet after facing XR flop X. Villain will still XS his sets and we fold out the weak parts of his range anyway with a small bet. If he's polarized, shoving seems like not the correct sizing. He can play his sets as double XR along with some bluffs (A6dd, 86dd) a little bit of Kx (like K5s) etc.
Sept. 18, 2019 | 5:51 a.m.
At 33:50 top right, you say you want to bet 25% pot with your 66 because if villain folds all his air with 6 outs, its a huge win. How do you justify this play? His air hands have just 14% equity in the the pot, is that really worth us risking 25% of the pot, when we will just be getting the money in bad sometimes?
Sept. 15, 2019 | 6:24 a.m.
At 24 minutes you bet 85% pot 3 way with your set of 88. You say you bet big because you have polarized range. This makes alot of sense. But I have this idea I think I picked up from watching Sauce that optimal sizes in multiway pots are small, due to players' low defence frequencies. So I've been adopting the small size usually 30% in multiway pots even though it makes more sense to me to use a larger size to match my polarized range. Would love to hear your thoughts on this topic because it confuses me alot and i'm not sure which strategy is better or it it actually matters that much.
Aug. 5, 2019 | 5:21 p.m.
Re my ranges, I don't have a preflop solver but have ranges solved for rake at 500z, I also have ranges solved for rake at 50z and vs a 3x we call 2.26%, so would imagine vs a 2.5x at 100z it will be somewhere between 3-6%, I usually just use the 500z ranges, hoping opponents will make more mistakes than me to make up for the rake. But I should probably just tighten up a little. (Even though the 'reg' in this hand spewed it off with AJo :)
was this by node locking an OOP cbet or optimally with the 10% raising frequency?
No node locking or forcing cbets. But the sim (correct flop play) seems very sensitive to our exact range composition, to a degree that is impossible to know in game. It seems like the best takeaway, as you said, is not to raise nutted hands that don't need protection.
However I find it interesting, common logic is 'no need to raise ip with low spr as we can get stacks in by river by just calling'. Yet it seems like the bigger oop bets, and thus the small the spr, the more often we raise instead of calling. For example, if oop is forced to bet pot or check, ip now raises 25%.
if your range was tighter and lets say JJ-88, as well as some suited broadways AQs/AJs then imo OOP would favour the smaller sizing. I could be wrong though I haven't ran any sims on this exact board/scenario.
You were right.
Aug. 3, 2019 | 8:56 a.m.
My range for flatting vs utg is 6% mix of all pairs 22-qq, all suited connectors 45s-kqs+, suited bw, suited ax, and some off suit kq, aj-ak. I feel like I have to continue my suited connectors, pairs, ATs+ at some frequency. Is that kind of range really too defined to defend vs squeeze? Doesn't it become even more defined if I start pure folding hands like T9s and 66?
Re post flop play. Today I ran the sim again, must've changed the composition of the ranges around a little because It gave me an ev of 60%. And it started raising flop about 10% of the time, and failing to do so, would cede about 0.7% of the pot. But it chooses the JJ and QQ (and bw gut shots) in my range instead of the sets, 2 pair, which goes with what you were saying about protecting our call range.
Also I kind of disagree with what you said about his cbet size. Against a 2/3 sizing, it's not as simple as folding all our underpairs and AQs. In fact when I node locked all those folds in, it costs us over 5% of the pot. The big sizing forces ip to play a mixed strategy with those hands which is harder to execute than the pure call vs the small size. I don't really see either defense strategy being easier than the other one, so I feel like we should just choose the sizing that is used at equilibrium, which is the big sizing.
Aug. 3, 2019 | 7:39 a.m.
With the flop play, what you said makes sense. However, If I remove all underpairs from my range, the equilibrium now starts to raise about 12%. This suggests that there is another reason it didn't raise initially, since the points you made still apply.
Aug. 2, 2019 | 8:04 p.m.
BN wins and shows a full house, Nines full of Tens|a full house, Nines full of Tens.
BN wins $216.62
Rake is $2.50
Aug. 2, 2019 | 6:24 p.m.
At 23:16, BB defend vs CO, 688T4 with a flush, you stab river with KQo, was curious why you choose the 4x pot size. I get the over bet, but I wouldn't think to go so big. Why choose this size over a 2x pot? Also arent our blockers pretty terrible for this? Not having a flush blocker and blocking hands like QT, KT, KK, QQ, that we can expect to get folds from?
July 31, 2019 | 1:46 p.m.
Really like this format. Part two imo.
I'm trying to understand the first tree at 6 mins. We shove the kh on the turn because it unblocks his bluffs, makes sense. But then I notice we never shove KQ (of hearts as well as other suits), and shove every combo of KJ which I assume we have every combo of apart from hearts. This makes zero sense to me. Can anyone explain this?
July 30, 2019 | 8:29 a.m.
At 25:50 table 1. You 3b sb vs co with 88. Flop 235s, you opt for 1/3 Cbet. I thought on these boards we want to size up, especially with vulnerable hands like medium pairs. Or do you think flop sizing doesn't matter that much? Why do you use small size here?
Also after opponent checks turn, what do you think about block betting? If we decide that we want to bluff catch here vs a 3/4 size bet, would that make us want to block bet more than if we were going to mostly check fold river? Since we avoid having to make a marginal bluff catch, not sure if that makes sense or not.
July 22, 2019 | 5 p.m.
Sounds like theres alot of good info here, but I can't for the life of me figure out these graphs. So looking at the graph at 11 minutes, for overpairs, 50% of overpairs bet at near 100% frequency, and the other 50% just fall somewhere between 0% and 99%? Why do some plots have thin tails and some thick, and some both?
July 21, 2019 | 5:21 p.m.
I like this video. I like to know what kind of caliber poker player i'm watching, but i've never heard of most these guys. They all live cash pros?
Also I am left a bit confused at the 2463 board, where you said it makes sense for Young to lead his entire range for small on the turn. Why does it not make sense to have a bigger betting range where we can put more money in with sets and flushes?