2 Table $5/$10 Zoom NLHE (part 1)
Posted by Tyler Forrester
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 70 Comments...
If you want me to make a video about checking or betting 88 on J74 BvB. Like this post.
No! Your in-dept footage reviews are really good, so let's see more of it!
Great video, btw.
Yes, and please also explain how (if at all) the best play would change from different positions (e.g. BTN vs. BB, UTG-CO vs. BTN), even if you go over it only briefly.
Hey Tyler,
You probably hate this question, but do you win or lose w/out showdown? Do you think it's relevant?
I lose without showdown. If you want to maximize win without showdown, bet every street and raise (call if you can't raise) every bet. Since this strategy maximizes win without showdown and is clearly a terrible strategy, the win without showdown stat does not correlate to winrate only to loose aggressiveness.
Regarding this part:
If you want to maximize win without showdown, bet every street and
raise (call if you can't raise) every bet. Since this strategy maximizes
win without showdown and is clearly a terrible strategy, the win
without showdown stat does not correlate to winrate only to loose
aggressiveness.
This shows that the correlation is not linear if it exists, but not that it doesn't exist. I would imagine it to be closer to an upside U-shape if it exists, don't you think?
Also, I don't know that it necessarily correlates to loose aggressiveness, since a lot of crazy aggressive play can cost you lots of blinds without showdown, rather than gain them.
Okay the best strategies are always a bell curve around the player pool's nemesis strategy. The redline measures a difference betweeen our strategy and the player pool. We don't know where the player pool is in regards to the nemesis strategy so we don't know what our redline should like it. Making it an unusable metric.
EDITEDOkay the best strategies are always a bell curve around GTO.
If you define "best" as closest to GTO then that is true. It is also tautologically true (if you do this).
If you define best as highest win-rate, then this isn't necessarily true at all. In fact, the only way you could guarantee that your statement was true w/ respect to "best" meaning highest win-rate is if you knew everybody else was playing GTO.
I apologize for my imprecision. I've changed the post to the correct definition.
The redline measures a difference between our strategy and the player pool.
Doesn't every statistic do this? Is there something specific to the red-line that makes your argument valid?
It seems like by the argument you use, no stat would be a measure of how well or poorly we are playing (except for possibly EV adjusted winnings).
We know far more about winning players VPIP/PFR/3bet stats, then we do about their redlines. It's pretty telling when Sauce sits at 300/600 and every player has the same VPIP/PFR/3bet.
Nice vid, notice that u have Q2o of same suits in first second :D
and same positions , and co openers :)
Tyler - from your post above you clearly don't think having a downward sloping redline is an indicator of a leak(s). This is contrary to what I have heard from most people. Generally I was under the impression that a negative redline was almost standard at the micros but once you reach mid-stakes that it should be flat or upward sloping. What is your general philosophy on redline/blueline? (This makes me feel a little better about mine - I have always lost without showdown no matter how hard I work on it. But the negative slope has lessened every time I have moved up).
FYI, the average blue line goes upward while the average red line goes downward due to multi way pots: in 3 way pots where one player folds and two go to showdown, the folder will increase his non showdown loss and his money will go to whoever wins at showdown.
So non showdown losses can get converted to SD winnings but showdown winnings never get converted to non showdown, hence the unbalance.
The same reasonning as MW pots applies at a smaller level when 2 players go to showdown after the blinds folded pre (1.5bb becomes part of the blue line).
My 5.5bb winrate over 3 million hands at midstakes on Pokerstars is leaky because of my downward sloping redline????
I don't know how to phrase this but improving the redline might be the dumbest way to improve your poker game. You want a great redline---bet every street and raise every bet. How is this a good poker strategy? Why should I aspire to it???
Yes, high stakes regulars have better redlines, they get to pay less than 1bb/100 in rake while a midstakes pro pays 3bb and a microstakes player pays 10bb. This (1, 3, 10)bb is paid almost exclusively in non showdown pots, so as you move up in stakes your redline improves. This is not an indication of improvement, but of rake paid.
Yikes - I didn't say it was an indicator of leaks. I said I was told this, mostly in regards to my own red line. I would show my graph to someone and they would say it *might* mean I had some leaks. I don't know enough but do know I have spent some time looking for and plugging leaks without it effecting my red line and hearing you say what you said made me think it wasn't as "bad" as I was led to believe. That makes sense that it is more a function of rake than anything. Again I was just trying to understand this better not make a comment on your play because obviously I am not qualified and your green line speaks for itself.
A downward sloping redline isn't an indicator of leaks in your game and it isn't one in mine or anyone else's for that matter. I chose a farcical argument to illustrate how fatuous using the redline as a metric for improvement is. Thank you for your question :).
I don't know how to phrase this but improving the redline might be the dumbest way to improve your poker game.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that improving your red-line gets you better at poker. If anything, it seems that that improving at poker should higher your red-line, and I do think there are some rigorous arguments for this. Thus, it would be indication of improvement, but not a way to improve it directly.
Like I said, the correlation wouldn't be linear. It would be like improving at poker by studying balance and then realizing you need to 3bet with more hands than AA and KK, but 3betting more hands because the big winners have > 2% 3bet probably not being good.
The issue is that the stat isn't correlated with winning poker. It's only correlated with loose aggressiveness compared to the player population We don't know whether GTO strategy is looser or tighter than the player population, so we don't know what are redlines should look like.
If you can come up with a rational redline argument that improves my game, I'll listen. Until then I think its hogwash.
Correlation =/= causal relation. If the stat had a causal relation to winrate it'd be worth discussing.
Hey Tyler!
On 31:27, the 98o hand. From what I have seen in our videos you are not the type to be overly aggressive in the majority of spots and does KhJx have that great equity/implied odds against your usually double barrel range there ? What is the real impact of having Kh there ?
Thank you and the video about the 88s hand would be great.
Hi Raphael!
I think c/c two with KhJs is +EV in this spot, and it's possible that calling blank rivers would also be profitable. His Kh allows him to bluff raise heart rivers or lead heart rivers and the A,k,9 are good outs. Overall his play is fine.
Yeah, I like it too but did not have the precise answer for these questions. Just one more, in my mind hearts OTR are better for his range than yours, since you can bet all the weakish backdoor flushes and he can't call with all those hands. Is this right ? In this situation, BN x BB is right to assume that his defending range is more suited heavy than yours ? In EP x BB/BN situations is a common assumption but I am not sure about BN x BB.
Our heart draws should be roughly equal, because we will have 3-bet some pre or c/r the flop or c/r the turn. This balances the times I have a backdoor flush draws.
Tyler tells us he's tight, but if you play with him you'll know better. 29/23/11 and he bet-bet-bets every time! :D
Awesome vid Tyler, I agree with chael and prefer the live vids where you pull the CRev in for certain hands.
I also have a question like 'arizonabay' about something that bugs me and may mean nothing. In my games (100zoom mainly) I notice a lot of the regs have an aggression factor of ~2.5+ and am always thinking if I fall below this I might be playing too passively. I find myself trying to raise it by doing stuff like betting hands for no great reason (for example I may bet the A4hh hand in the vid on AJTQhh turn. IYO is it possible to have as good a winrate as the aggressive regs with a ~1.5 - 2AF? thanks
Yes it is. Especially if your opponents bet more often than they call bets. You will net more value from bluff catching your hands than betting them for value.
blueline nit
no heart for the game [x]
Yep, I just fold till I have AA.
An ironic post from someone who made a HU challenge to oblioo (and Tyler in a previous thread) then went AWOL or backed off when they accepted.
But let's not feed the troll...
Tyler = longtime midstakes crusher
Daniel = lowstakes rakeback pro
Why don't you challenge him to play heads up, Danny?
not rich enough chael - just a broke troll
Hi Tyler, very solid vid. Thanks.
I can tell I'm the minority in that I don't care to much for the 88 CREV. I think there's just way too many turns/river situations and it's pointless to model.
Instead, I would really like to a model for the btn/bb QT6hh 5dd hand, and cover a few different rivers. I'd also like to take a look at what we should be doing on a handful of rivers with a variety of hands that bet flop and possibly turn: {nutflushes/nf+backup, oesd with and without flush blockers, pair+fd, maybe even look at AK/AJ if villain is calling twice with KJo}
I think we have a ton of different classes of hands in our bet flop and turn range and it'd be much easier to figure out a useful strat compared to the 88 hand bvb starting on the flop.
Lefort's farewell videos cover a board texture and situation that is very similar to the 98o hand.
Good discussion on red line.
I agree with Tyler but would like to add that a negative red line could possibly be an indicator of leaks in a persons game and in particular not bluffing enough. I think this is a somewhat common error in a lot of low stake nit regs (there are of course a lot of low stake regs that do bluff enough or even too much but I'm speaking in general terms). I think this is partly why the red line debate has gotten so much attention since it is actually based on a quite common leak in many players. That said I don't think there is any proof that the red line must be positive in order to be well balanced. Also, if a player is bluffing too little the exact spot (streeet, board, situation etc.) is very broad and there isn't any universal recipe so trying to "fix" a too negative red line is like trying to fix a broken car. Could be a thousand different reasons.
Where is the hud ? ;)
Don't have a HUD installed on my laptop. It's not terribly important anyhow. It changes my strategy decisions against the regs very rarely.
Regarding the AJcc hand on K98r board, i feel like a check-raise here will show more profit then simply betting. He will fold out most 8x/9x and puts a ton of pressure on KQ/KT hands. Especially since we can continue barreling on a lot of turns.
Most players check back 77-22 on this board and this is the range they are folding when we cbet. We block the AQs, AJs, ATs of his bet/folding range on this board and he rarely has 9x or 8x. He has to cold call with 9x or 8x and then choose to cbet the flop. This is an unlikely parlay. He also has 99 and 88 which are never folding and KQ and AK which probably don't. The check/raise might be profitable, but I think a cbet is more +EV.
Hey Gogols, nice video and intresting discussion on the comments too !! You did put a lot of quality to the nlh content of rio. Congratz !
At min 13 i find a very tough spot to play 3way with QQ on JJx UTG, im agree with you that we could check or either bet the flop. I would like to have any of my lines (xC or bet) with too many I would like to see what would you do on the turn if you get called. For example, if gecko calls, would you consider xC turn + xF river with a hand like QQ ? We can just have at most AJo (KJo?) as our only offsuited Jx holding. I find very difficult to set a plan on the turn for our overall range ? What do you think about this ?
Thanks Juan!
It is a very tricky spot. As I was shooting the video, I found myself wondering if I took the best line when I bet the flop. Our turn equity isn't going to be great especially if the big blind calls. If the button calls, I'd check with the expectation of the turn being checked through quite often. If he bets, its going to player dependent. His turn bet in position should probably dictate our strategy. If it's about 70% it's going to be a call. If it is below 30, it will be a fold.
Turn is going to be card dependent, if it's a low card completely the rainbow, we should be checking frequently. If it's a higher card, putting straight draw and a flush draw on the board we should more likely to barrel.
At what point with the RFI stat does 3 betting hands like AK, QQ become more standard than calling with them vs UTG open's? Assuming you have no other reason from deviating from a vacum play.
My cutoff is about 8%, but other people need 15-20% to 3-bet AK, QQ.
98o on QT6hh5x
What do you think about over betting here? If you did, what do you think is the best size and why?
I think overbetting could be a viable option. However I would need to make sure his one pair hands had less than 40% equity against my range. I don't know if that would be true, if I overbet all my draws on this board.
that seems very unlikely if you would include all 89o combos.
Hi,
the 57 hand where you turn 2pair and he rivers higher 2pair (around 19:00). Would you have bet when checked to on the river?
I think on that river card I'd bet. It's one of the better ones in the deck for my hand.
Min 29.15 - 98o:
I think that fundamentally we wanna use here OTF a larger sizeing cause ranges are assymetric in our favour and the texture is drawy.... so I would guess you use here this size as an exploit?
According to your explantations i nth vid it makes for sure sense to to use here a smaller sizeing with your hand, but I do you think you get away with such exploitive sizeings vs mulad?
as for overbetting OTT:
I would guess that we only would like to overbet our nutdraws OTT and some of our toprange and the rest normalish large - hence using a mixed Betsize-strategy...
nice video!
22:23 J9s you said sb will xc most of his Ace high.
In sb spot, I never xc a-high also not AQhh. What's
your general plan when xc for example AQhh? xc-x-x
and hope to win at showdown. Or stab most river?
30:44
you said you hope he will fold 6x onthe turn. Do you think
he will almost never fold Tx? Do you think folding Tx is a
big mistake in bb spot?
If you never c/c anything worse the AQhh then I would definitely bluff rivers. It's the bottom of your range.
On the turn certainly. On the river is going to depend on his range composition. I assume some tx will have to call two.
Tyler, thank you for the video, I found it very informative. At 10:00 on the 47J56 board where we have 88. You check the river to balance your range so as not to be exploitable to a strategy by the Villain of shoving bluffs and 8s with impunity. My question is, do you exactly balance 50% of the time this situation exists? Do you favour betting to checking by some percentage, and in real time terms how to you accomplish keeping track of this. Thanks, and sorry if these are silly questions.
No Jeff they are really pertinent questions and I don't know the answers to them. I need an 8 to comprise about 8% of my checking range to keep him from shoving 960 into 80 (The bluff needs to work 92% of the time to breakeven.) This is the minimum frequency of 8's in my checking range. The exact frequencies, and the maximum frequency, I don't know.
How do that in game and randomize is challenging. Realistically you need to give have a rough sense of what your range looks like then use opponent type or a clock to balance the range.
Thanks Tyler, this makes sense, and is what I suspected, that we have to theoretically keep this in our checking range, but that it is a very low percentage as you illustrate. Is it in fact such a low percentage, that in a real-life, non theoretical sense, particularly in a zoom setting we don't need to include it at all? For betting to be exploitable, the villain would firstly need to use the very high variance strategy of shoving this board with so little to win in the pot relatively. I think most are not employing this as a bluff very often. I would suspect this play strongly favours the nuts, or at minimum an 8. Secondly, the villain would have to have a confidence level nearing 100% that you never check an 8 here to include bluff shoves with his nuts or near nuts shoves in his range.
So to summarize, while we need to check the 8, 8% of the time to prevent theoretical exploitability, are we given the above, and the real life difficulty of keeping track of our balancing exactly in these situations, better off just betting here? I realize in this particular case, in made no difference as he was never calling. Just curious.
Jeff, we can definitely be exploited by never checking 8's. There is some betsize (less than allin) that you would be uncomfortable calling with a 3 or two pair on this board. Villain could theoretically bet this size with any hand worse than the bottom of our river checking range causing us to fold close to 100% of the time and allowing him to realize a gigantic profit with his bluffs. Remember we never bet in this hand, so his hand range can still include all combos of air. We really don't want to allow the bottom of his range to realize a 70-80 dollar profit by betting this river. It's a massive theoretical error on our part.
You probably will then argue that we will know that our opponent always bet this betsize with air on the river, but the simple fact is this spot doesn't arrive enough for us to realize this exploitation in a reasonable hand sample. This implies we should play a strategy that makes our opponent indifferent to bluffing. Since our opponent can overbet the pot we need to have stronger hands in our checking range. In a pot limit situation, checking an 8 might be unnecessary.
I think I agree with this, just trying to play Devil's Advocate a bit. The challenge I have in this and other similar situations is making sure to find the correct balance of checks and bets in real time. I think, to approximate, what I may do, if I feel it is a situation where we should check less than 50% but more than 0% is check when the suit of the right card is spades. This should over time be close to 25% which while may be slightly high, is easy to remember on the fly. I know we can also use random number generators, maybe this is another option. Thanks for the replies. Very much enjoying the videos.
31:10
q 10 6 5
you bet flop and turn with 89 and give up river and suggest u should not bet turn if not betting again. we have to have some turn bluffs that give up river right? what are some factors to consider to work out when to follow thru and when to give up?
thanks
We definitely need to have some bluffs that give up on the river. Range composition is the biggest on betting the river.
20:34
If you were him and had the KJ hand and got reraised on river, are u always folding ?
No, I'm not folding. It's too unlikely our opponent has a better hand to be concerned with folding.
Great video. One of the best I've watched on the site. Thanks!
Thanks, Tyler. That was an awesome vid. I wanted to ask if u do coaching on 6max?
Hi tyler im interested to know what do you think about red line at this meta?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.