Betsizing (part 2)
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 30 Comments...
nice video :)
can you upload the excel sheet?
RLP :)
Glad you liked it and thanks for the reminder on the spreadsheet: Link to spreadsheet
Beast video
Where is the 1st video in this series? I can't seem to find it.
It's from February, here's the link: http://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/steve-paul-intro-to-betsizing/
Thanks !
do you think we should be betting all of our "nut" hands? it seems like the amount of traps such that we no longer want to value bet is a formalization of the idea of "showdown value." do you think we should maybe be betting a percentage of our value hands as opposed to all of them? i'm not too sure about the math behind this, but maybe you've thought about it.
We're looking at the river here so IP obviously needs to bet all his nut hands. OOP I think certainly should not vbet all his nut hands. If he does then IP can value jam all value hands + bluffs vs a check. There's no way that IP puts in more money vs a bet than a check in this case so OOP will be incentivized to check some traps until that equalizes.
wait it's certainly not obvious that when OOP traps sometimes, IP needs to bet all his "nut" hands, since these hands are not really "nut" hands anymore.
or maybe i'm just missing something?
Imagine that ip doesn't bet some of his value hands. That implies that the EV of betting a value hand is equal to the EV of checking that hand -- otherwise he'd adjust and bet all of them. That implies that IP's "value" bets are not actually value bets, they don't profit from betting as opposed to checking.
If IP cannot profitably value bet any hand his correct strategy is just to x back 100%. In this case oop's traps are missing value and he will adjust by leading some of them until IP starts value betting frequently enough that the EV of checking a nut hand and the EV of betting a nut hand is equal.
thanks a lot for that explanation! that argument makes sense.
One thing I've wondered is what makes a player much better than another. You seem to have a good grasp on game theory. Exactly what makes people like Ike or WCGRider much better than you? Have they just run more of these analyses in many, many more spots? Or is there a different way they approach situations?
That's a pretty broad and difficult question. In my case, the last two years I've averaged playing 1 hour a day and apart from making theory videos I've put in very little work away from the tables. Not surprisingly that means a lot of people are better than me at playing poker :)
More generally I think it's mostly just hard work. The better players on average work harder at their games and are more effective with the time they put in. I think the work I did for this video is pretty useful but if I don't then put in the time to integrate the knowledge into my ranges/game then I haven't really gained anything winrate wise. General understanding of poker theory is useful and can allow you to play reasonably but to really play well takes a lot of work improving the accuracy of your quick assumptions/estimations.
Put simply, one player is better than another because on average he/she makes better decisions. They do this because they've spent more time/have been more effective with their time away from the table and have also played a lot of hands.
Excellent video. Enjoyed it.
Thanks!
Looking at the equations seems pretty reasonable from an analytic standpoint, but how do you suppose one would approach these situations in real time? We obv dont have enough time to run the math for each individual hand, especially when multi tabling. Is this more of a theory kind of analysis, or is there a way to implement this while playing? Thanks for the vids.
Well you're certainly not going to get any exact answers at the table. But I think these types of situations come up pretty often (one player has a very bluffcatcher heavy range but some traps) so messing around with spots like these can be pretty useful for building intuition to make better in game assumptions/estimates.
edit: this kind of builds on my answer above about being a better player. You do a lot of analysis away from the table, and then you rarely get into exactly that situation. But all that analysis makes you much faster/more accurate when you have to make quick estimates/decisions at the tables. So if you spend an hour or two with this video/spreadsheet, you'll almost never get to say "aha he's trapping 5% so with 10x pot behind,the optimal bet size is 2.5x pot with my range", but you will (hopefully) be better at identifying spots where overbetting adds a significant amount of EV to your river strategy.
How much and in what ways does the results change when oop has bluff catchers and some traps but we have a portion of our range which is the nuts and beats all his traps.
Ie he flats bb flop K45, Q,9. He can have his bluff catchers of KX and Qx, his traps of 44, 55 but we are the only one with Kk
I think it affects the EV of his raise very much, so he should size it smaller and smaller for sure depending on the percentage of nuts in our range. I mean this answer is very general and common sense, but we'd need an exact situation to come up with numbers, but I'm noob in excel. Steve or You could make a video about this :D
To answer people's questions about how to apply this, I found the applications to be very easy to see.
1) I was surprised how low of a trap freq was required such that we shouldn't value bet non nut hands. (13% deep stack situation). I decided to be cautious of value betting too thinly vs players capable of bluff raising and trapping.
1a) I then wondered how adding some nut combos to IP would effect things given I'd say this is most often the scenario.
2) I reminded myself that most rec players and even very good pros who are balanced in many areas are under bluffing in this spot as oop. Repping a trap and cr bluffing their bluff catcher is not something that they do often. So we can still value bet exploitatively even with higher trap frequency
I will definitely look more deeply into this! Both of your comments make a lot of sense. I had a feeling I wasn't going to be doing any calculations at the table, but I can see how it would translate, such as using a HUD online and knowing how to react to certain stats, and then going to play live and having a basic feel of how to react to different tendencies. Thank you both a lot!
We certainly can't talk about indifference when it comes to watching this video. :D
About the 1 nut combo for IP... It should affect villain's ch/raise strategy when we're deep(in practice ranges are very narrow in these situations), so the best raise size for him might not be to shove, which will affect the best size for our nutcombo. Is this correct? I mean we would need numbers to take a look at it, and this situation would become like the 2nd sheet when villain had traps and bluffs to raise with. At that point we'll have the trap(1nutcombo) and raise with some of our thinner valuebets, which are indifferent to call villain's raise.. Well that's too complex for me. Hope you get what I'm saying(or it makes sense).
Thanks for this great vid.
Glad you liked it! :)
Yes, you're right that as stacks get really deep (or ranges get pretty narrow) that our 1 nut combo would start to affect villain's ability to shove his value x/r's, which may affect the best sizing for the nut hands. I mostly wanted to show the result that jamming with the nuts is not always EV maximizing - it's such a well known result from nuts air vs bluffcatcher that I think a lot of people apply to real poker as well.
When calculating MDF, do we take the c/r % and substract it from the % we should defend to get the calling %? I'm a bit confused on that.
Very good video
Roughly speaking yes. In practice calling and raising are not equivalent (since when you call villain gets to realize some equity)
So if we are talking about a river spot, then it is accurate?
yes
Great video (as all of yours are). Are there any plans to do a bet-sizing installment on flop sizing?
any video suggestions where some one gets into that topic in a more practical way? Review, life play...
Exceptional video Steve. Probably one of the best I have ever watched on RIO( and I have watched a lott). My no limit concepts definitely feel a lot clearer to me than they were before :)
Some questions that this video raised in my mind are, how is our flop play affected based on the nut combinations oop can have but ip can't( similar to the case you dealt with on the river). And how do blockers influence our bet siizngs and frequencies. Have you made any videos on these topics or plan to do so in future? If not so, can you please suggest me some videos on rio which deal with similar tops.
Thanks a lot !
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.