tinyelvis58's avatar


76 points

Thx @KRab42. Just finished the 3rd vid of your series and really enjoyed them. Can you throw out a quick example of a texture where gains will be greater?

Simplified Summary of Kevin’s vid for multiple sizing (for those who didn’t watch):

A). Look for EV gain when using multiple sizings vs a single size (play around w diff sizings)
B). Look for multiple sizing strats that target different hand classes (ie if a bunch of hands all have 3 sizing mixes this will make things very complex and difficult to execute)

-watch vids for detailed explanation

March 23, 2020 | 1:57 a.m.

You’re overall equity in conjunction with what DNegs98 commented is going to help dictate your strategy.

March 20, 2020 | 12:58 a.m.

As a heads up, Kevin Rabichow bet sizing videos are great at explaining the theoretical q being discussed.

March 18, 2020 | 2:56 a.m.

DNegs98 Great point! I like the ABC player analogy.

March 12, 2020 | 7:08 p.m.

Thx BigFiszh So it's a matter of weighing 2 options that have same GTO EV:

a) playing a simpler strategy that is easier to play against but also easier to execute
b) playing a more complex strat that has the same optimal EV but a higher potential EV due to it being more difficult to play against (flip side being it's more difficult to execute and if played incorrectly would sacrifice a lot of EV as well).

Do strats with multiple sizes vs single size always have the same EV when played optimally? Are there scenarios where there is a significant gain in EV when executing a multiple size strategy correctly (excluding variable of opponent playing poorly, only looking at equilibrium)?

March 12, 2020 | 6:41 p.m.

All good points. Thx

DNegs98 Kalupso If using multiple sizings doesn't add much EV, than what's the point of anyone implementing? Say I could implement 4 sizes perfectly (which I obv can not), why would I ever do that if there is no EV gain from one size? Clearly super elite high stakes players are trying to do this, so what is their purpose in doing so?

My original thought was you should use the strategy (in theory) that has the highest EV.

March 12, 2020 | 3:03 p.m.

This equity difference on 862 is one of the main variables as to why we can’t cbet with impunity as opposed to 886 where we have a pretty decent range advantage.

March 11, 2020 | 10:06 p.m.

Hey guys/gals. I'm trying to use PIO to conceptualize when/how to use multiple bet sizings vs a single size as part of my overall strategy. I understand there are pros/cons of each side of the coin (i.e. single sizing simpler to execute, multiple sizing harder to play against...). What I'm really trying to figure out is how much EV difference there is between strategies and how to interpret those results. Here's a quick example to demonstrate my point:

Simulation: 100bb Button Open vs BB defend on Tc9s8s (pot 700, 9700 eff stack)
Scenario 1: 4 flop sizes (30,60,90,160), IP EV 427, OOP EV 273, x56%/bet 44%
Scenario 2: 60% flop size only, IP EV 427.3, OOP EV 272.7, x 61%/bet 39%
Scenario 3: 30% flop size only, IP EV 426.9, OOP 273.1, x 46%/bet 54%

We can see that all 3 strategies have IP EVs that are extremely close (427, 427.3,426.9). Obviously the x/bet frequencies are going to be different as our sizing options change for each scenario. When looking at all of these scenarios it seems as if we should use the simplest option to execute as there is an immaterial EV difference between each.

Am I missing something here? Am I looking at this correctly?

Any help would be much appreciated.

March 11, 2020 | 6:11 p.m.

What's IP/OOP equity on 862 and 886 respectively?

March 11, 2020 | 4:33 p.m.

Thx BigFiszh . This is an insightful response. The thing that I struggle with is in a live setting nobody is playing gto. As you point out, small deviations in gto can have massive strategy shifts. In the given example a Cbet of 50% vs 95%. Since nobody in the game (or very few) are playing gto, how can I effectively use pio to help develop my strategy?

March 10, 2020 | 2:07 p.m.

Thanks all. This makes some sense although is a little counter-intuitive as to the degree of strategy change. I made slight change to the models and the main differences between the 2 are as follows:
1. One model slowplays 2pr approx 75% IP
2. The model that fastplays 2pr+ at 50% has all raising in the bigger of 2 sizings 40/60% (vs split in original model).

The results remain the same - Cbet 96% vs higher raise % and cbet 50% vs more slowplays. All for a doubling of 2pr fastplays and a shift in raise sizing.

I understand that we would cbet more as we can just fold vs raise more often and play against a capped turn range. What is surprising to me is the degree with which we can cbet more (from 50% to 96%).

As an aside, vs a x IP plays as follows:
Node 1 (slowplays 2pr) - IP bets 45%
Node 2 (fastplays 2pr more often) - IP bets 55%

March 10, 2020 | 1:37 a.m.

I need help understanding PIO results of a SRP LP vs Button flat on A82 rbw board. I ran 3 scenarios using the GTO sim and 2 nodelock adjustments for IP response to cbet. I was very surprised to see how oop cbet % decreased drastically between the 2 nodelock scenarios detailed below. The sim was run using 33%/66% oop cbet size options in a 200bb game. LP opens 23% and button flats 14% (represents the live games I play in). Any help would be much appreciated:

Original GTO sim I rancame up with a 70% oop checking range. I then ran 2 nodelock models for IP call/raise/fold range:

Model 1: I adjusted calling/raising ranges mainly by calling more pocket pairs and Ax (not raising Ax/pairs as original sim shows the GTO strat)
Model 2: I adjusted model 1 further by raising 2pr at a higher frequency and slowplaying less (i.e. IP raises sets/2pr 50% (original model has sets raising 50% and 2pr 25%)

My results were very surprising:
GTO model - OOP x 70%, IP Call 66%/Raise 13%/Fold 21%
Node #1 (slowplay sets/2pr) - OOP x50%, IP call 71%/Raise 7%/Fold 21% (i.e. reduce raising range)
Node #2 (same as node1 while playing 2pr+ w/ less slowplaying IP) - oop x 4%, IP call 70%/Raise 9%/Fold 21% (i.e. strengthen raise range/weaken call). OOP also folds 90% of range to a raise vs this range including AK, AKs (80%)

Main Question - Why does oop strategy change so drastically by changing it's betting frequency from 50% to approximately 95% between Node 1 & 2. Does it make sense that increasing the raising frequency of IP's strongest value hands should increase our cbet strategy to this degree? It seems PIO thinks so, so what is the rationale behind this?

I've attached 2 screenshots. The first one shows OOP strat under both scenarios and the second shows IP strat under both scenarios.
Based on comments these are a little difficult to see but main point is both IP strats are exactly the same vs a bet outside of 2pr raise frequency (approx 25% in slowplayed model vs 50% in non-slowplay version). Sets are raised at approximately the same frequency.

March 8, 2020 | 1:13 a.m.

Great vid John. Question regarding hand 1 J9 on K9JK3 (4:05)

If V is limited to Kx "only" for value, do you expect him to fold some Kx to a river CR (vs jam or current sizing)? If V is never folding Kx (since it blocks your entire CR value range), then on the river we should theoretically call or fold. If V has QT/AJ/AA type hands for value then that could potentially be a hand he should/could fold. If V is playing optimal then he should theoretically fold some Kx but...

Basically, in practice do you think people are ever folding a K here? If so what are the best Kx to fold/call?

Any thoughts on where my analysis here may be off point?

Appreciate the help. Keep up the great work!

Sept. 19, 2017 | 3:26 p.m.

Hand 1 (18:40) - Flat 6789$ss (hypothetical) vs Bryce 30/60bb 3b

By flatting 6789$ss w/ 40% preflop equity needing 44% hot/cold are you saying that we'll realize over 110% of our hot/cold equity vs a short stack oop?

If so do we overrealizing by flopping a pair+ and open jamming thus getting it in w/ ok equity vs AA and denying overcards equity?

Sept. 2, 2017 | 8:11 p.m.

Great video Zach. So if I'm understanding correctly 5 ways you need 20% equity pre to break even and you have 21%(slightly less than 20% needed due to dead money). Are you concerned about getting backraised some % of the time or is nobody in the game backraising w/out AA?

In games I play in and I'm sure some you play in some people are looking to stick it in pre w w good looking cards that do poorly against AA. In this case you would be forced to fold 100% of your preflop equity?

2nd question I have is what is the point in even raising this hand? If everyone's calling range is inelastic (i.e. Anyone who vpips will call your raise anyways) all you're doing is building a pot oop at an equity disadvantage. Is this just to balance an AA raising range?

Any additional videos on live multiway pots (specifically on ep ranges and ep ranges vs button straddle) would be very helpful.

Sept. 2, 2017 | 7:22 p.m.

Comment | tinyelvis58 commented on 3Betting QQ

6% Range on Poker Juice Below

*Do we feel in a full ring game someone is 3B 4463/6779 ds type hands oop? All double suited Ax hands 7+, etc.

While these hands may be good 6max online hands, do they apply in the live full ring setting?

(*!RRR:2%6h, AA:(xxyy,KQ-65,KJ-64,KT-74):xxy, KK:(2%6h,xxyy), QQ:(xxyy:2%6h,xxyy!A:4%6h), JJ:(xxyy:4%6h,xxyy!A:6%6h), AK!RR:(xxyy:6%6h), Axxy!RR:(xxyy:6%6h), *!RR![6-]:(xxyy,xxyy!A), OORR:((xxyy,xxyz:25%6h)!JJ+), $0G:(xxyy:50%6h, xxyz:50%6h), $1G:(xxyy:30%6h,xxyz:50%6h), (AQT9-, AKJ9-, AQJ9-):(xxyy:16%6h), (AKJ8-, AQ98-, AQJ8-):(xxyy:8%6h), (KQJ-,KQT-,KJT-)!RR:(xxyy:12%6h,Axxyy:20%6h), (KQ9-,KJ9-)!RR:(xxyy:8%6h,Axxyy:16%6h), (4556+,4456+,6654+):(xxyy:12%6h,xxyz:10%6h), (3556+,4457+,4476+,4463+,6643+,6653+):(xxyy:10%6h,xxyz:8%6h))$nt

Sept. 1, 2017 | 1:22 p.m.

Comment | tinyelvis58 commented on 3Betting QQ

Range below is just about 6% of hands and KQQ6$ds has 42% equity against this. At 52:30 you're coming up w/ 52% equity. Next comment highlights PokerJuice 6% 3b range includes a lot of lower pair/connected hands that QQ is going to have good equity against. I'm assuming these hands make up the majority of the equity advantage you're showing.

What hands go into this range is obviously going to be a key assumption.

My 6% Range


If I add Good Double Pairs I'm Getting approx 45%

Sept. 1, 2017 | 1:07 p.m.

Ok thx. Don't have pio yet unfortunately.

July 18, 2017 | 2:01 p.m.

So if we're betting KK/Qx/etc don't we open ourselves up to getting cr a ton? I guess I'm just confused with what hands we'd be checking back here if not KK which on the surface seems like a good candidate.

July 16, 2017 | 9:28 p.m.

46:23 - You decide to cbet KK on AQ6hh button vs bb. Can you explain why this is an "autobet" as opposed to a check back? Is it just b/c the bb range is so wide you get value from Qx/6x/Fds etc? Do you use the same sizing w/ KK as you would w/ Ax?

July 16, 2017 | 11:30 a.m.

Thanks Steve. So would you say ratios/MDFs are approximate guidelines but on certain boards given reasonable pf ranges some players just can't defend MDF and some balanced value/bluff ratios just aren't possible? In other words, those approximates are an average across all flop/turn/rivers and certain specific flops/runouts don't allow for the simplified models to hold up?

June 7, 2017 | 10:58 a.m.

Comment | tinyelvis58 commented on Leading Turns

Thanks Juan.

So is it safe to say that defending 1-A is a general guideline but when we're at a significant equity disadvantage the GTO solution is going to be defending less than 1-A? Is 1-A an average across all flops so we should construct our preflop range to defend approximately that much but on certain flops the solution will be to overfold? We're always going to be out of position when defending the bb so does that mean we always defend less than 1-A?

June 7, 2017 | 10:51 a.m.

Hey Steve,

I know this video was made a while ago and just wondering if you had any new insights as the concept is still applicable. My main points of confusion are:

1) If we have an approximately balanced range of bluffs/value and bb is defending less than Min Defense Frequency, what does that mean? At this point do we switch to bet a ton more air since we can profit with any two? Or by switching does that now open us up to being exploited?

Basically I'm confused how balanced ratios, MDF, and GTO are all related.

I'm also confused in spots where we don't have enough bluffs. Say I'm UTG in a full ring live game and raise 77+,ATs+,A5s, Suited bdwys, KQo and the flop comes ATJrbw. We have a ton of value here and not many bluffs unless we want to start bluffing merged w/ hands like QT/KT. In a spot such as this does GTO dictate that we just size down since we're so value heavy (i.e. 1/3 or less sizing on each street)?

Any help on this would be much appreciated. Maybe a followup video would be helfpul.

Thanks and keep up the great work!

June 5, 2017 | 1:20 p.m.

Comment | tinyelvis58 commented on Leading Turns

General GTO question using hand 1 as an example. If button bets 1/3 pot on the flop, in theory shouldn't we be defending 75% of our range? In the example given we defend 56% (8% x/r, 48% call). This is probably a basic question but trying to understand GTO and am having trouble reconciling this difference.

Really enjoy your videos. Thx for the help.

June 4, 2017 | 2:32 p.m.

To expand upon that if we did have Qx we'd probably be check/calling a high % of the time I would think. We'd also rather have a heart in our hand so we can block his fds from floating/jamming.

On the flipside, from a purely exploitative point of view, if villian isn't going to do anything about it (i.e. play back w/ air) then it doesn't really matter. Vs good players if you cr hands like this too often over time (tough to get a flop cr after defending bb sample) you will get exploited I would think.

March 11, 2017 | 8:42 p.m.

Enjoyed the vid. Question on 79cc hand (25:36) --

You decide to call here it seems because it's "one of the strongest hands we're going to have". Is this a good reason to call?

We have 15 better flushes in our range comprised mostly of Axcc. Villian's bluffs are 6 combos of QcJ/JcQ of which he probably doesn't play like this every time (maybe 50% of the time so 3 bluffs). Additionally he has 25+ flushes that beat us. If he has 25:3 value/bluff ratio than we're only good around 10%. If he has 6 bluffs we're good around 20%. We need to be good around 30% here to call.

I understand we want to play unexploitable but it seems in a multiway pot like this we're just not going to be exploited very often by folding this particular hand (even if it is high up in our range).

Keep up the good work. Enjoyed the analysis.

Feb. 27, 2017 | 3:48 p.m.

Interesting vid John. I'm trying to understand the optimal betsizing strategy you outline at 15:30 (I'll check out Tyler's vid to help understand more). Can you explain from a top level why if you have 70% equity vs villian on river you wouldn't want to value bet? Intuitively I feel like if you have this much equity vs someone's range you should be value betting. Is this not a bet because when called we're not good greater than 50% (i.e. we need 80%+ on river to be good enough of the time to vbet)?

Jan. 6, 2017 | 8:46 p.m.

$3500 Live MTT, 250/500/50 -- Button (20K eff) opens 1200, sb (pro) 3200, button 10K, SB flats JJ w/ intention of stacking off on non AK boards.

Button is very AK heavy so assuming 100% AK and a few different weights on QQ+ (i.e. 40,50,60,100% in model). This situation just occured and I'm trying to calculate the EV of the play. In calculating the EV, I want to take into account preflop decision into the postflop decision (i.e. clearly w/ all the dead money in pre this is going to be very +EV post).

I used pro poker tools to look at interactive hand stats on the flop and see how often A/K flops. Then I separate EV calcs into 3 different buckets of (a) Fold A/K flops, (b) JJ vs overpairs on low boards, (c) JJ vs AK on low boards

I was wondering if anyone could check out my analysis and see if I did this correctly. If there is a better way (i.e. software) to do this analysis please let me know. I've attached a picture of the model I put together and also have the excel file w/ calcs if anyone wants that. Additionally I am unsure if the EV of folding pre should be 0 or -3200 (when comparing to other options of shoving or getting in post).

Without getting too deep into the actual play, my opinion of the spot is getting in 40bb w/ JJ vs this type of range while slightly +EV is a mistake in a tourney where you hold a significant edge and a structure of 60m levels. On the flip side this pro is definitely a better poker player than I am so I am trying to see where he is coming from and learn from it. Hopefully after this analysis I can invite him in to comment.

Nov. 28, 2016 | 3:57 p.m.

38:35 -- You defend 22 sb vs bb 3b. You then proceed to check/fold 593 rbw to less than a half pot cbet. Can you discuss why you decide to peel, what boards to continue on, etc? Are you just set mining here? My intuition says peeling this hand pre if you're going to fold on a such a favorable flop is losing $. My intuition also says you're a lot better at poker than I am so just curious as to your thoughts on this spot.

Thanks and keep up the great work!

Nov. 15, 2016 | 2:05 p.m.

That makes perfect sense. Very well articulated. Thanks!

Nov. 14, 2016 | 2:11 a.m.

Load more
Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy