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?
July 21, 2019 | 9:11 a.m.
Hi. You open UTG, BB flats, and flop is 985r. You say our cbetting size should be a big size (which pio agrees with). My thoughts were that our size should be small as we have a big nut disadvantage (no off suit straights and 2 pairs). So why is my assumption wrong?
June 29, 2019 | 6:28 a.m.
This was interesting, thanks.
I was really surprised at the results of the AJ8r board. This board nearly pure checks but when we change the 8 for a suited 2 or a 10s, we can nearly pure bet 1/3.
I noticed that on A95s we have less equity but can still bet it a little more. So why is AJ8r so check heavy? Why does all the straight draws on board make us want to check.
June 28, 2019 | 6:59 a.m.
6:08 the overbet multiway on paired board seems counter-intuitive. Could you go over this in a bit more depth please?
June 19, 2019 | 6:51 a.m.
In response to your turn sizing instinct - what other hands are you wanting to bet for that size?
I would imagine all our turned two pair and straights, would like the bigger sizing. But now I think about it, oop should have a wide x/shove range that would discourage us having larger bets, right?
The whole bounty situation is super interesting, I look forward to you talking more about it. Is it possible that, on rivers, the gto play would be to never use shove size, and instead, prefer the shove - 1 size, since that will allow us to bluff more?
June 17, 2019 | 1:30 p.m.
I like the idea for this video. I am new to crev and am confused how it works. After you are finished inputting every range on every street, it gives you the ev for each hand at each node? For the turn, do you need to input the ranges for multiple turn cards? If you just used one turn, wouldn't that skew the flop ev results?
June 17, 2019 | 11 a.m.
Some good tips here, didn't think about stretching hip flexors before. Something I would add would be awareness of posture. I see alot of guys sitting for hours while slouching, shoulders hunched, back curved.
About the water. I find if I drink plenty of water while in a live tournament, I am often sitting there, bursting to go to the bathroom, uncomfortably waiting for the break to come. Sometimes having to skip a hand and run to to the bathroom. I find this annoying and distracting and it makes me hold back on the water. How do get around this?
Also what are your thoughts on listening to music while playing? Sometimes, when I am mentally exhausted, putting on headphones and replacing all the casino noises with my music can be kind of energizing. Do you think I am kidding myself and this is just going to lead to constant focus switching and weaken my game?
June 16, 2019 | 5:08 a.m.
I don't think a follow up video is necessary. Pretty easy to just plug these scenarios into pio ourselves and play around with them. Better for Ben to teach us something we can't as easily teach ourselves.
June 15, 2019 | 1:06 p.m.
On the last, folding AA on the 6Q9 6 Q board. You said having As is bad because it blocks busted flush draws the villain might have. But isn't bluffing with a flush draw really bad for villain? So wouldn't he be more likely to bluff when he unblocks the flush draw—making the As a good card to bluff catch?
June 12, 2019 | 7:44 a.m.
17:36 I don't follow your reasoning for AA Doctor having a low CB frequency on this board. At a glance the board looks great for our range; and I can't simulate this even with a very tight range for gizzetti (flatting AA and KK 50% and flatting QQ 100%). I'm getting results of range CB 50%+ depending on ranges and AQ seems to want to CB most of the time.
June 7, 2019 | 8:45 a.m.
I am curious about the sizing at 6 minutes, when we turn 2 pair after everyone checks. It feels intuitive to bet big. But there was a very similar spot in Sauce's latest video, where he bet half pot and said he could even go smaller, I asked him about it and from his reply I gathered that betting small (half or less) in these spots is the play.
I don't know much about correct multiway sizings. Maybe i'm over thinking it. Do you think betting small, (half pot or less), makes sense with our range here? I think with ICM there is even more incentive to size down.