Francesco Lacriola I like these simple concept theory vids a lot. Helps shift mind from trying to blindly replicate solver. Quick question:
If playing in a live game with the following scenarios what would be some general adjustments you would make to preflop GTO charts: a) Time rake (rake doesn't affect preflop ranges), b) 3 blinds, c) Much less 3b/squeezing and many multiway pots
My guess is as follows: Open/3b more linear, reduce sc openings especially from EP, open bigger
June 20, 2022 | 10:33 a.m.
Luke Johnson in full disclosure I have a discord discussion on GTO Wiz channel trying to understand this (not saying one is right or wrong). A lot of the feedback has to do with nobody seeing their own sims that pure 3b bdwys and some other pure 3b that your model incorpoarates. I guess if bb pure 3b bdwys the most common boards would be Cbet in your model at a much higher freq.
Again mainly trying to o understand how vastly different strays (that are both winning) would do against each other and implications on how much we should rely on these models.
Appreciate the discussion and response. Thx
Feb. 9, 2022 | 3:04 p.m.
The bb 3b under the wizard strat is 13bb as opposed to 12bb.
Either way I believe this highlights how different villians will play vastly different strats/ranges. It’s interesting to think about how this affects our own strat and who is actually getting exploited?
If you’re playing against an assumed range and it’s actually vastly different are you getting exploited? If you’re cbetting too wide vs a tighter range than assumed I’m assuming it’s a Leak. Or vice versa if bb assumes a different button range and they are folding too tight vs a Cbet (since you’re cbetting at a higher freq than you “should”) are they leaking?
This is where GTO makes my head explode. Is it only as good as the model assumptions?
Feb. 9, 2022 | 2:35 p.m.
Luke Johnson Response from GTO Wizard as to why the cbet freq and assumptions differ
“I am fairly sure it is because of the larger 3bet we have used, as this is what GTO likes. The range composition of 3bet will be different than the smaller 3bet, thus also altering the calling range. Calling range now consists of more middling hands, because 3bet is more polarized with bigger 3bet size.
Also there is a possibility that the aggregated reports from other sources, like excel sheets are not weighted by the amount of real flops which will of course make the averages very different. - “
Feb. 8, 2022 | 11:19 a.m.
Luke Johnson all GTO wizard preflop ranges are said to be solved using moniker allowing for preflop calls. Obviously everyone doesn’t use these ranges so strats will all be different. What about their ranges are not correct? Not arguing just generally curious .
Feb. 7, 2022 | 1:42 a.m.
The ranges are different. Luke ranges 3b more of the broadway hands and SCs and calls more Axo, k7/k8o, etc. I’m assuming this makes it more difficult for bb to defend on flop and thus allows button to Cbet a higher freq.
Feb. 3, 2022 | 8:34 p.m.
Great vid Tyler Forrester . At 44m you speak of PIO using small pocket pairs at correct precision on AK2. You say PIO is both strong and weak and it’s weak bc this sort of exploitation (using these pp at correct freq at each node) is almost impossible. Almost every sim I look at has some actions that is incredibly difficult to execute and humans/population aren’t really doing.
That being said how do you use PIO effectively if a lot of what it’s saying is just noise? In this case you need to balance 18 value combos so are you just doing that with a different bluffing range?
I ask this because taking away practical insights from a model and what to apply/not in my own game is an area I struggle with. If you’re not using these pairs like in the sim then are the future nodes of the sim essentially worthless/noise?
Jan. 28, 2022 | 3:22 p.m.
QY delivers GTO principles in an easy to digest format. While he can’t give all of the answers, he can give the necessary tools to help your own study process become more effective and efficient. My only regret is not reaching out to QY earlier which would have saved me hours of time/money trying to study GTO on my own.
Dec. 31, 2021 | 1:50 p.m.
I just finished QY's 10 session course and it was a game changer for me. I've tried to study a lot of GTO/PIO sims over the past year or so and was having difficulty making sense of it all. I spent a lot of time staring at solver outputs, taking extensive notes, and trying to mimic the solver. QY helped explain the "why" behind solver outputs and theory. He was very patient and never made me feel stupid for asking certain questions along the way. While I still have a ton to learn, QY provided the tools/method necessary to become a better player. I can now develop a more efficient study/game plan after taking this course.
This was completely worth it (for me) and my only regret was not signing up sooner.
Aug. 21, 2021 | 1:21 p.m.
You mention developing a flatting range w AQ sb v btn at 200bb deep. 200bb+ ranges and strat are an area that I haven’t seen much training material on RIO. Obviously this is very applicable when playing live. Any chance you can make a vid about this in the future?
June 21, 2021 | 2 a.m.
Nice vid Luke Johnson!
11m mark: you say easy call w 8c8s on QcTcTh2cJh when facing half pot river bet after b/c/x/x/x/b line. Can you expand a little as to why this is a call and what bluffs villian has (assuming all his value beats us on river)?
After running in GTO wizard it seems as if best bluffs are Kx bd/89o that didn’t bluff the turn. Yet 88 is about break even so if opponents are overbluffing turn with these hands then I’m assuming this is a losing call (def not a slam dunk). Thoughts?
June 14, 2021 | 2:06 p.m.
Great vid Patrick!
17:45 - You make the comment that in theory you should 3b less vs small opens and more vs large ones (and that people get this backwards). Can you elaborate on why that is the case? Is it because you are risking more to win less when you 3b a small open?
May 29, 2021 | 12:40 a.m.
I'm running a sim for HJ vs Btn flat. Specifically I'm looking at J9cc as the button given following action:
Button calls pre, Flop Ts9d5s xx, Td x/xr/Btn call, River 2h overbet from oop and Button is deciding whether to call/fold.
When analyzing the EV of this hand in PIO, the EV of a call on the river is 55.2 and the EV of a fold is 0. PIO is calling 66% and folding 34%. Shouldn't we always call if the EV of a call is greater than the EV of a fold? (Not sure it matters but the pot size is 1294 and the Button is facing a bet of 710). Can somebody help me clear up this confusion?
May 29, 2021 | 12:13 a.m.
Checking hands that allow villian to bluff more often on future streets makes sense and is something that I'll keep in mind. Appreciate the feedback and agree that overall frequencies significantly outweigh PIO lines by different combos.
Regarding comparing EV between different options what is a good threshold for a meaningful difference. For example, AA pure bets the turn (x .8% of the time). EV of preferred overbet size is 127.15 while x is 126.2. So x is -.95 chips w/ a bb equaling 10 chips (so approximately .1bb or -10bb/100). KQhh x vs overbet size is 98.77 (x) vs 98.55 (overbet) equaling a bet EV loss of -.22 or -2.2bb/100.
May 8, 2021 | 5:39 p.m.
In this sim, bb pure folds KQo and pure continues AQ. QJx bd is pure continuing (mixing raise) and QTx/Q9x bd is continuing with calls around 50%. We 3b all of these combos pre around 25%. So you're correct in that AQ makes up largest percentage of oop Qx range but backdoors don't affect that % while holding hearts allow for a greater amount of Qx that we dominate (i.e. QJ-Q9x - though small # of combos). QThh uses a similar strat checking back turn 70% while betting QTss/QTdd around 70% and only x back 30%. QJx bets all combos at similar frequency with hh actually betting a little more often.
Only thing I can think of is some of the Kx bd that peel flop (KJx/KTx/K7x/K6x) would fold turn and bluff river some of the time.
Making sense out of PIO drives me into paralysis analysis sometimes:)
May 7, 2021 | 9:43 a.m.
We’re betting KQss/dd. We’re checking KQhh. I would think hearts unblocks flop calls allowing us to dominate QJ/QTx bd hands villian calls on flop. I believe your rationale gives an arguement for checking spaces/diamonds (not betting as pio does).
Am I misunderstanding?
May 6, 2021 | 3:50 p.m.
Looking at an EP vs BB PIO Sim on 8c5d3sQc. EP cbets 30% sizing flop. EP overbet barrels turn.
Can someone please help explain why KQhh/QThh/KhQ have a high % turn x back while KsQs/KdQd are barreling turn a high %?
May 6, 2021 | 9:47 a.m.
Good video with one piece of teaching feedback:
Instead of just reading what PIO says you should/shouldn't do with a hand, can you elaborate as to the why? And then go into how you deviate.
For example, on 875 rbw, why does IP raise K6o more than A6o? Are villians peeling hands like K3hh/QTo here pure? If villian's don't react in this way how you deviate from a 80% x? These are just some random examples (no need to necessarily answer).
The main thing I wrestle with when studying solvers is memorizing strats (impossible) vs taking away some rationale. I bring this up since I'm sure some others are in a similar boat.
Keep up the great work!
May 3, 2021 | 1:04 a.m.
@9:15 - After you xr 934hh w K9 you say your barreling range is TT+ and you x Js turn. Do you have TT here in bb vs HJ often (assuming not). If not what type of hands would you be barreling? Bd fds, Jx, and Bdwy bd sds?