I'm feeling a little confused by the term protection you use alot to justify the sizes. You say the more protection our range needs on a board, the larger our cb size should be. But then you say on the AK3 board we use the big size instead of small range bet because "our range just sort've 'naturally polarizes' and which we don't need much protection".
Jan. 28, 2020 | 6:33 a.m.
So i'm the guy who punted off over 2% of the pot in my first attempt on that JT6 board. Can anyone beat that? Found this video really helpful, thank you for exposing me as being a nit. Don't know why I never tried doing this before.
When you are about to node lock a strategy do you always think about your global % and then sort of tweak the individual hands around that baseline?
Jan. 25, 2020 | 7:46 a.m.
Not sure if I should be concerned about this or not. What does a standard red line look like? I heard people talk about how a positive red line is a good thing. Is there truth to this? Pretty sure mine is just a steady downwards slope. Does anyone know what the top players' red lines are doing?
Jan. 24, 2020 | 12:31 p.m.
Enjoying the series so far.
You mentioned that, vs the ip range with all the draws, oop wants to x/r to 'get more money in before the board changes'. But why would a made hand want to do that? If the board does change (flush comes in) the more money it has put in, the worse off it is. Why wouldn't it just wait until the turn, and start piling in the money on bricks?
Jan. 12, 2020 | 2:50 p.m.
Hi, I just found this series, really look forward to watching future parts. One thing that doesn't make any sense to me though. As IP range got stronger the over bet frequency kept increasing. However OOP overbet frequency peaked at 30 then started decreasing as range got stronger. This seems like a very interesting meme, I hope you can help me understand.
Jan. 11, 2020 | 10:42 a.m.
Hey Benjamin how do you deal with pio outputs that you don't fully understand? I'm always torn between trying to figure out the underlying mechanic, or just intend to remember the output and move on.
For instance in 4b pots oop can just shove JTx flops instead of cb smaller. Is it important to try and figure out why? Or is that just a waste of time? I know whenever I try to figure out these things, I barely ever come away with anything useful.
Jan. 8, 2020 | 5:04 p.m.
Hi. I was thinking about what you said about needing to randomize. But theoretically in an anonymous game where noone adjusts to our strat, why wouldn't we just always take the lower variance option if we assume the two options are similar ev? For example never making 0 ev bluff catches, never making the 0 ev river bluffs, and calling instead of x/r (if we assume the two options are similar ev).
Jan. 1, 2020 | 7:23 a.m.
ON a couple of turn spots (J63J after cbetting and the A745 after you x/r with flush draw) you identify that pio will use normal bets and overbets, but you decide to simplify by just using one sizing, and both times opting for the small size. Wouldn't it be a higher ev strat to simplify by only using the overbet size?
Dec. 29, 2019 | 1:28 p.m.
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.
SB lost and shows a pair of Nines|a pair of Nines.
BN wins $216.62
Rake is $2.50