Analyzing Hands with PioSolver
Posted by Steve Paul
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 25 Comments...
Really enjoyed the video. Thanks for your work SP.
A couple quick questions...
How did you transfer crev ranges into piosolver?
Where can I get this software?
There are places in both crEV and piosolver where you can get the range in text format - not at my computer right now so not exactly sure where but you can probably find them with a bit of exploring.
Free version is here: http://piosolver.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/piosolver-free
Other versions you can navigate to from there (or just google piosolver)
Given that you're starting the tree from the turn the Starting Pot size input into PioSolver should be $71, not $33.
Well that's unfortunate! Luckily I didn't mess around with stack sizes so the effects on the analysis are pretty small (except for the one spot where I look at using two sizings, one of which is jam, on the river)
That's true, most of the analysis would have been much the same, although naturally the EV gained from including a river overbet jam option would have had a much smaller effect had the pot to stack ratio been larger.
The accuracy of the solutions shown themselves aren't that important anyway, it's the process used and the takeaways that provided the value in this video. It was very interesting to see how often a jam was used at such a large pot to stack ratio and just how much of an effect it had on EV relative to commonly used sizings
Enjoyed the vid Steve, thanks! One thing that interests me is the actual steps you would take to implement the take aways from this video into your own game when it comes to building ranges. There's a reasonable amount of videos that solve for a specific situation like this but the takeaways are always very general. The hard part is not the solution but being able to use the findings effectively in your own game. I realize players probably don't want to divulge their strategies, but what upcoming work would you be doing, and what tools would you be using to build on what you said "you can make the choice to use one size and get very good at using that size" (rather than making a lot of exploitative adjustments). Would you be building a range for a 150% PSB now in situations like this one? And using the smaller turn bet sometimes now? Is something like analyzing a bunch of somewhat similar type scenarios a step you would take (using PioSolver)...?
Good question. To answer your last question first, yes. I think it's important to look at more spots to get some confirmation for the ideas suggested by this analysis. I think my first focus after this would be on improving my river overbetting game, as that seems to be where there's the most EV to be gained.
Also, exploitatively I think the small turn bet is very effective against a lot of opponents and based on the small overall EV changes I saw in this hand, that's something I'm comfortable trying out without doing much away from the table work (though it's something on my to look at list)
I've tried PioSolver a bit recently and I'm glad you decided to make a video using it! It seems to me that a video using that program was missing for sure. Really good job, I liked it a lot and would like to see more similair videos!
Hey very nice video, a little fyi: you can solve for different bet sizings and raise sizing at the same time depending on the ram you have so you dont have to make many runs, that's why there is a button called "Estimate tree size" so you can make sure your pc can handle it.. also if you click on the "Strategy and EV" instead of the "strategy" option in the Browser you can see the EV of each combo for different strategies
Cheers!
cool thanks!
Forget to ask btw, in the first bet-size scenario iirc we're checking A2 some percentage (bottom straight) sometimes, why is that? When we bet some worse hands for value 100%
Also, PioSolver will add in slowplays strictly to balance it's overall range. This is probably the case but I'll wait on SP to chime in.
Also as SP mentioned , some of the worse value hands block combos of things he can have.
What's the timestamp on that? I can't seem to find the right spot. Regardless, it would seem the most likely answer is card removal although that seems like such a crazy check back I'm not 100% sure.
22 minutes in! It's not very often we check it but still, I find it a bit interesting.
yeah that's strange...card removal is the only reasonable answer but still not something I would ever expect to see
Generally speaking about betting small in position when checked to on the turn after calling flop cbet in 3b pots, there seem to be a couple prevalent spots which strongly favor betting small.
Scenario 1: turn does not dramatically affect distributions.
When PFR now checks to us after cbetting flop in 3b pot here, he is often still relatively polar given the starting distributions. We prefer to bet small against a polar range (invest less $ when he is check raising, do not need to bet large against his check folding range bc it is very weak). Discussed frequently in theory lit like Applications of NL (Janda).
Scenario 2: turn dramatically improves in position range, much of PFR's range is now bluff catchers.
Bc of shallow SPR in 3b pot, we can bet small at a very high frequency on extremely favorable turns, which leaves us with a larger bet on the river with our polarized range vs opponent's bluff catcher heavy range. This can actually be more effective with our range than standard GGoP sizing, where opponent must only face a normal half pot sized bet on the river with his bluff catchers. This also allows us to bet small on the turn with our marginal hands and simply check them back on the river (avoids checking back the turn marginal and giving our opponent a polar vs bluff catcher spot with a large bet on the river).
Scenario 1: Agreed. In the true nuts/air vs bluffcatcher we have no incentive to bet the turn but in real poker we get some value from protection. You just need to be careful not to bet so frequently that it becomes correct for him to always check turn.
Scenario 2: I agree with most of this. We gain substantially from being able to bet our marginal hands small to get protection and a cheap showdown (ie avoid letting him make profitable river bluffs and larger value bets). As written I find this part a bit misleading though:
The problem is not that opponent only faces a normal half pot sized bet on the river. The problem is that our marginal hands lose a lot of EV betting bigger on the turn. GGoP is best for a polarized range, but the presence of marginal hands in IP's range may make small turn/big river more effective overall for IP.
You sound like my doctor... who also happens to be a guy who knows his shit. Enjoyed it.
lol
lol :)
I have one question, if both players are playing perfect strategys with different sizes, why does the ev of one player be low than the other in some cases? (ip goes allin river for example).I assume that when you are playing "GTO" the ev of the opponent is always the same...(ip goes allin river for example).
EVs are going to depend on ranges and position.
Nice video Steve, enjoyed it. I would welcome more software based videos.
As far as choosing a software to work on, is there any specific reason you chose Pio over GTO RB or simple postflop?
I'd just recently heard of it and was interested in looking more into the hand. So nothing in particular mostly just coincidence. I was pretty impressed with what the free version can do though.
great video, only recently saw it but really look forward to more similair videos. it inspired me to work for a few hours off the table:)
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.