Hey guys - don't forget to PM me your email so I can invite you to my Free Content dropbox. Lots of cool tips and updates!

That's so good that it makes me sad people will see it :(. Good job

If I may say so, I think this video is outstanding.. Good work Nick :-)

Okay so cbet 1/3 100% so its easy to 12 table. Got it

Hi Nick,
interesting approach, excited to see more of that. A bit more content in a future video would be much appreciated.

Could you upload that tree please?

I see two problems regarding how you set yourself up to being exploited here.
1a) You said it is not easily to exploit if you only check your air - how is this true if you check only to fold?
1b) Also you open yourself up to heavy exploitation on the turn as your range becomes weak - check/fold there will be quite high. What is your plan on how to proceed on turns with such a wide range?

Something interesting happened to your range composition @ min 18. After you cut the overbet (which was effectively never used) the combos that use the small bet fell from 56 to 9 combos. How do you explain that and what does it tell us?

Thx

Hey Randomator - thanks for posting,

1a) You said it is not easily to exploit if you only check your air -
how is this true if you check only to fold?

Basically the hands I'm checking are so weak that IP can't bet enough worse hands to do damage.

1b) Also you open yourself up to heavy exploitation on the turn as
your range becomes weak - check/fold there will be quite high. What is
your plan on how to proceed on turns with such a wide range?

My XF % is not openly exploitable, I just have to check more ott if I want to continue playing well balanced with my wider get-to-turn range.

After you cut the overbet (which was effectively never used) the
combos that use the small bet fell from 56 to 9 combos. How do you
explain that and what does it tell us?

The model still needs to be resolved after the cut -- see centgas's Q below.

Hi Nick, great video.

How come the turn bet went from 28% bet 230 to under 5% when you removed the option to shove?

more of this kind of stuff pls

Love it!

Great video, Nick!

Makes me wish I was still a NL cash player so that it made sense for me to dive into this.

sick vid, does anyone here use Pio on a Mac? Ive been hesitant to start because of deciding between the different options for Mac users to use Pio. Does anyone use Parallels and its fine?

Hey Nick, to clarify, this is a simplification of GTO play of this spot right?
So not a spot where we try to exploit opponents.

Outstanding Nick.This really resonated with me as I have definitely fallen into the trap of attempted implementation of overly complex strategies from Pio. It would be really good if you could do a series where you look at Pio solutions on flop,turn and river and show the simplified takeaways (again showing the process you used, as in this video).

Usage note: PioSOLVER 1.8 has a "force OOP bet" flop option which could replace the first node locking example in the video.

Really enjoyed the video Nick. As someone who is still pretty new to using PIO, I would definitely enjoy seeing more videos like this.

Nice video Nick. Another approach to this spot is to just keep reducing cbet size till you can bet 100%. This should yield a higher ev in my experience.

I don't watch much NL stuff anymore but this is brilliant.

Well done.

I'm surprised IP does not bet 100% vs the 6% checking strat. Since it seems IP can capture the whole pot on the flop. Why does he construct a checking range in your opinion Nick?

I thought about it for a few minutes, i think it's irrelevant to spend any more time on it due to the subtleties .. it's such a small amount of difference in EV compared to just betting range. The furthest I can see is that IP might benefit from allowing OOP air to pair at some fqcy, thus allowing IP more efficiency when polarizing on future streets. Not even sure if that's a true thing though.

top notch my dude, has anyone ever told you how much of a cexy man you are? Your a rlly rlly hawt ghuy, and we r lucky to have u for a coach.

your voice is soothing to listen to i almost nodded off as couple times during this vid.

damn good video, definitely need way more of this. Top 3 I've seen lifetime.

Great vid!

To simplify a comment i made in your blog/expand on your chess analogy, a stronger chessplayer is more likely to think linearly only when totally necessary, which saves a lot of energy. Since most errors are made in the thicket not in the branches. Chessplayers (of all levels) are more likely to lose a lot of chess equity by only considering A and B and missing C or D altogether than to fail to visualize the ninth move of A. "zwischenzug" or "in-between move" is the easiest tactic for a very strong player to miss. That's why chess computers were very strong even when they could only see a limited number of ply ahead. Horizontal thinking>vertical thinking.

I find this relates to solvers that in skipping to a future street without thinking through the flop output (and locking the node accordingly) yields confusing, possibly counterproductive results. Another simplifying tool I like when playing around with solvers is working with shallower stacks.

Hey Nick,

I really appreciate the angle you took with this video. You really examined the internal psychology war that rages in every grinder's mind, and did it in a way that was fluid, visceral, and just really wise. The fact that you took your commentary that one step further was frankly eye opening. Whenever I watch a training video I'll hear something like, "this is not optimal, but it will make your life easier to do things this way," I take in what they said and will to some degree admire the intrinsic value of such an approach, but almost immediately my immaturity will get the best of me and I'll daydream about becoming the ultra pro man some day. In particular, your comments about coming to a place where one can dissolve resistance to such temptation via thinking of it in terms of that by playing simpler, you are not playing dumber, rather you are playing smarter because this is the best possible outcome for you. Acknowledgement of one's level/potential is really that individual's Nash equilibrium. Just thought I would extend my compliments and reiterate that your explanations went above and beyond in this video in a way that is quite rare. Thanks man.

What do you think of using PioSOLVER to find patterns? See what kind of variables cause you to cbet with a polarized range and see what kind of variables cause you to cbet with a merged range with a high frequency. How does position affect it? How does equity and nutted combos affect it?

Personally I've been struggling to learn GTO and apply it to my game. I can't tell if I'm getting exploited all the time when I'm underbluffing and overfolding at the lower stakes. Often times I feel like I'm just guessing when I bluffcatch. I'm stuck using old fashioned thought processes like: "What worse hands will call me?" "What better hands will fold?" "How many streets of value do I want?" "What's my plan if I get raised?" "Does my bluff represent a strong hand" "What sort of hands does he have that can play this way?" It's hard to come up with a new poker schema that can be used in practice, so the idea of simplifying models resonates with me.

Pattern hunting in the way you described is an option with the solvers, but it's a skill in itself b/c of how careful you have to be in coming to conclusions. It's really important to focus on isolating only one variable at a time, and that's not easy to do.
Overall it sounds like you might be too theory oriented without a strong enough theory context. The good news is you don't need to close that gap by getting better at theory. You can use what you're good at already with theory to develop a better exploitative plan. Solvers can help you with that. What you need is a database that will give you vision over your pool, so you can start categorizing the alias and exploring what lines they leak in most (by comparing those frequencies to solver frequencies). You can start mapping your environment with only 200,000 hands. It's enough to get you vision on the most major environmental flop/turn leaks in your, and that process will continue to motivate you in the right direction, just keep following the trail of incentive.

Hey Nick @ 14:08 you are comparing the EV's of the simplified and solver strategies. How much would the difference have to be to make it so you didn't use the simplified strat?

theres no real metric, I use my own of about 3-5% pot

Hi Nick,
In oop spots where you do the modified range bet and opponent checks back, in general how do you continue OTT? Are you doing allot of delayed betting in these spots?

Awesome video Nick, especially the stuff about being biased in EV comparisons between the optimal solution and the simplification, rather than a wildly flawed implementation of the optimal solution and the simplification. Keep up the great work!