I like a lot of the advice. 

Nice thread. Are you switching games to something other than 200Z? 500? Regular tables? Curious as I've played all my cash hands at 100 and 200 zoom. Don't have time now but will try to post tonight re: advice and to compare some stats, I have a very similar sample at 200Z but I suspect we play pretty differently.

Thanks a lot for sharing your experiences! It's really good to hear for me that I get confirmed from a really good player that the optimal frequency for folding rivers is exploitably high at these stakes. I Always thought so, but somehow always kept levelling myself into, they know this.. they have to be bluffing more right, it can't be that the 3barrels are so tight from the population. Maybe I should start trusting myself a little bit more!

But yeah thanks again for sharing this, you seem to not hold back at all with sharing everything you know here, respect!

Great post.

What's your WTSD %?

Also, I'd be interested if you are willing to share your turn Cbet stats in and out of position?

Have a great break, hope to see you on the forums. Always enjoy your posts, and subsequent discussions.

tyvm.

how about turn cbet stats. I think my gap is too large in my own game...

I'm most curious about your folding to more river bets, as it's something I also feel like is reasonable vs lots of the player pool but I still find myself making a ton of "balance" calls. What are your river call efficiency (both standard and $) and river call win %? (Mine are 1.02 (lol), $11,651.3, and 41.3% over 85k hands).

Also, can someone give me a clear explanation of these stats because I feel like the numbers I've posted contradict everything I thought I knew about them. (1.02 seems to imply I'm winning very little on my river calls but I'm up a lot on river calls and some sessions with RCE<1 have RCE$>0, and winning 41.3% of the time I call river would seem to lead to a higher RCE than 1.02 if it's not calculated as ($won-$called)/$called.) Maybe I'm missing something obvious.

Your post is also a reminder I need to do a much better job of tagging hands, paying attention to the table, playing my A game more and generally just be not ridiculously lazy :/

Thanks for the list, I could add several more, but #6 is probably king! Is your SN outed?

very good, solid post !

Bit of a "bump" here.

Came back to this as enjoyed it the first time and wanted to re-read.

Are you able to elaborate more on point 7?

How do we limit things? By not having raising ranges in spots where HS guys might, so that strongest hands are still in our calling lines?

NICE post!!!

here are two question, 

1.what's your W$SD and WWSF

2.how many bb/100 you think in zoom nl50  is enough to move up to zoom100 

ty

update on graph?

Whats your 3bet stat from MP? What do you think is best to do from MP when theres mostly solid regs behind? Do you wanna be 3betting more or less? 
Very nice post :)

like 2.5%.  I'm not a good authority on preflop.  I know very good players who never 3bet from MP.  imo how solid you play your range postflop, no matter what 3bet fqcy you go with pf, will determine the bulk of your winrate in that line

Fold vs cbet IP and OOP? If you could show it per position that would be nice too.

8 lower your OOP flop c-bet (at least vs the solid regs) until you get better at visualizing equity distributions. Mess around with textures in flopzilla or use any of the other tools available these days. EDvis is a good one.

I worked a good bit on this and cbet now like 45% OOP. That said, I fold once I check above 80% of the time from EP/MP/CO. From sb weirdly enough (I open 60%) the fold once I check is ´only' like 60%. I try to work with flopzilla and crev but I have trouble estimating what hands I should cbet more or c/c more. Like sure u can see ur ev if u use checkdown options but clearly the game is more complicated then that. How would u start working on this? This is like a typical spot where I am totally lost. Like I have been considering ´just betting more weak hands' but that doesnt feel like the ´right' solution to me and I feel I should c/c more made hands especially.

http://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/classic-cbet-spot-50nl/

F vs C-bet IP/OOP: 46%/49%

my X/F flop as PFR is 44.5% over this sample.  Until you get a better grip on the relative strength of ranges over various flops, i think starting by checking your whole range is helpful on a lot of flops b/c it's easier to control your range.  when i've recommended this to students with high OOP flop c-bet, it generally lessened the amount of mistakes they made in large pots.  As for the flop XF'ing fqcy, you should start x/c'ing more 1 pair and backdoor FD/SD hands to get your defense up -- you're folding hands that are +EV to x/c or x/r

Hi,

On a board like Qc9c7d, if we are UTG vs a preflop BN call.

Range vs rang we have an advantage and for this reason I think I have to bet. But once BN call I have an equity disadvantage on most turn even with BN continu with 70% of his range.

So I start x/c a lot more but do you think it's a correct adjustment ?

I feel I can't x/r to much but is it true, what woud be your x/r percentage on this flop ?

And more generally, in theory when we have an equity advantage is it not a good reason to put money in pot ? I think than yes but I have problem to put it in practice.

For your graph, how much that make as $/hour ?

That board is going to play relatively close to a symmetry, espcially if you give BTN QQ.  I think the more ranges depolarize (drawy boards are good examples), the more you're going to want to start balancing lines like b/xc.  otherwise you just end up c-betting at a really low fqcy and i think it could potentially make BTN's life too easy.  

regarding your significant equity disadvantage one you bet OTF and get called .. this doesn't mean you're actually at a range disadvantage .. since you should have the more polarized range, which you will assuming BTN mixes sets as raises OTF.

to answer the $/per hour for the graph .. i think it's between $50-$60/hr after I adjust the EV, but before any rakeback.  

good post arizona.

Once we have BTN raise sets and some FD or gutters - the top of the graph wouldn't be as symmetrical and it would resemble more the classic polar vs bluff catcher situation. But that's not entirely accurate either as a lot of the hands that look like bluff catchers in this graph are actually good draws. I think button would still have a raw equity advantage but hero should still be able to barrel at a high % assuming it is not one of the worst turn cards. 

+1 to the shift in the distributions once we have button mixing sets as raises OTF.  

it also seems like a pretty good spot for us when we c-bet a hand like KK/AA/AQ and peel a completely blank turn, which happens like 1/3 of the time.  i think we can probably start potting or overbetting turns pretty effectively in those spots, based on the composition of button's range.  So this makes me think that unpolarizing the c-bet could be good.  As we moved more toward a range disdadvantage my guess would be that a higher fqcy of our previous small bets would turn into better checks.

another option is just to use a smaller c-bet sizing OTF as our only strategic betting option.  this would allow us to put less money into the pot on an early street, on a board where the dynamics favor the IP (draws).  We can still start shoveling money into the pot with stuff like overpairs if we catch blank turns.  

I would kill if you could make some vids about this with crev/flopzilla. Also great discussion guys, I will start with checking even more on some connected boards and betting more on dry boards with weaker hands.

Arizonabay, seing your graph, that mean than if villain keeps on the flop his best hand in his calling range he does have a big advantage on turn, and if he don't he is neutral with us on turn.

Given that, for me it looks like even with a small advantage on flop we are by betting putting us in problematic spot if villain raise flop, or in problematic spot turn if he call.

Did what I have say is true ? because sometimes in poker things are not in the same way than my logic.

If yes, would you agree than betting, even with small equity advantage is probably bad ?

If yes what can we do here ? can we go for a large x/r range. if we x/c can we do some strange donking range on turn ?

If feel theyre is something to do because all what I do in my standard line suck on turn wheras we have a small advantage on flop and if we can't take advantage of that we have at list to not be in trouble most of the times.

Or maybee it's just normal than beeing OOP a small equity advantage isn't suffisant to compensate the value of position ?

i think the main argument for unpolarizing the c-bet in a lot of these spots would be that c-betting at a very low fqcy (which happens by c-betting a very polarized range) makes you too easy to play against OTF.  

Betting small with a wider range when things are closer to a symmetry is sort've the in-between strategy of the 2 standard alternatives:
1) c-betting often using a large sizing / unpolarized range (you have to bet some hands that don't really want to bloat the pot so much.

2) c-betting rarely using large sizing / polarized range (all your value hands invite the large c-bet sizing)

whether or not it's actually better to use a small c-bet range on a board like Q96tt UTG v BTN, i dont know.  It just seems like that spot contains a lot of the qualities that i would use as a supporting argument for small c-bet sizing for UTG

That being said, even if betting small were actually better in theory, MSNL players might be better off just checking range in a lot of spots -- if you could justify there was a tendency in the player pool to play poorly in their flop check back line.  

for instance, i would argue that most players at 200nl zoom on stars are very exploitable to large turn/river bet sizings after they check back flop vs my PFR.  So exploitatively i'm inclined to play more in this line (by starting by checking range) than install the small c-bet strategy

It seems that it shouldn't improve your expectation, even if that's the case.  I can see the merit to it,though.  

yea i guess the bias would be that being able to overbet turn often might not even be an exploit .. it's just something that happens b/c i checked too many premiums OTF.  Tyler has mentioned that what he sacrifices by checking range in a lot of spots, he gets back and then some by being more familiar with how the turn/river should play in those lines

i feel pretty confident that whatever flop strategy you choose (within reason), it should be the one with which you can control your ranges best.  i think you'll maximize ott/otr from just being well balanced more consistently, even if that strategy is dominated by a more complex strategy in theory

First of all gg, not only for result but even for your mentality

Second excuse me for my bad english :D

I wanna ask you some question because some of my ideas about the game are similar to yours.

My stat FOLD against BTN steal is 48% from BB but only 49% against BTN steal and SB call. yours? you hit me telling to defend more in MULTIWAY pot.

Can you profitably (lose less than fold) call SC from SB against a normal reg that opens 14-18% from EP/MP? (I actually defend from BB)

Can you profitably call AXs Agaisnt EP/MP from SB or BB? (I actually fold)

And KXs?

Does this change against a raiser from EP/MP+ a caller?

Ty!

Hi,

what's your winrate and raise first by position?

Hello and thank you for sharing this information.  I would like to ask you about btn vrs co situations? How much do you defend your btn versus basic 25% co open? 

sub for later

It's been fun for me to look at this thread almost 2 years later. Thanks to whoever bumped it. I still agree with a lot of my old advice in this top 10, which surprises me, b/c i feel like i've changed a ton as a player. The things that i'm most skeptical of are:

-my extremely high fold vs river c-bet. It was pretty bias of me to think that this type of over-folding exploit is right for any environment where you don't have total clairvoyance over villain strategies. I think i was on the right track with folding too much, but probably over-applying it. I think I'd probably find a lot more spots to call down at present, mainly b/c i have a stronger understanding of how specific runouts interact with villain's range in ways that make it hard for him to control his frequencies.

-My low PFR/VPIP. I work with guys across a lot of different sites. With the new ability that we have for PIO to solve for BB preflop defense vs BTN open after SB folds, I can say with high confidence that almost every environment is incentivizing higher BTN and CO RFI than are advocated. 50% btn and 30% CO RFI are way too low for 200nl environments. + I see environments where BB folds over 50% vs SB steal. The defense frequencies seem to get better as you approach 1kNL pokerstars, but they're still probably too passive. To guys who are working their way up the ranks: get your RFI up from these positions.

Given my winrate was 3bb i was probably doing a lot of minor stuff wrong, and some big stuff wrong . I was also living in mexico which was naturally tilting. It's cool to see that what likely contributed the most to my improvement were the perspectives i was starting to operate from around this time. I was becoming more dedicated to exposing my biases, which was bringing me face to face with how much i was projecting onto my environment. GL zoomers!

How high do you think we could push CO and BT RFI without being
immediately exploitable in terms of not being able to defend (somewhat
comfortably) vs 3-bets?

you willingly leave yourself completely exploitable to 3bets with your high RFI, under the assumption that you're printing money b/c people are not defending well. Not defending well is a function of both folding too much and not 3betting enough.

2x from the BTN seems to offer the most disproportionate steal success from the samples i've been shown across various sites. Solver only folds something like 15% on BB vs minraise when BTN opens 50% and SB folds.

Anyway the exploit you are advocating is so high frequency that even
the worse regulars in the field will be able to adjust to our high
fold to 3bet.

i would advise you to investigate this assumption for its credibility. Is it grounded in experience or projection?

Two years ago you wrote:

"Flop c-bet IP/OOP: 46%/25%"

I'm curious how these have changed. Seems to me like frequent small IP betting is a lot more prevalent nowadays, partly due to Solvers. OOP I'm not sure of.

Thanks!

What do you now recommend for SB steal vs BB? In last two years there seems a lot more limping from SB (from solvers and also HUSNG experience transferring over to cash games).

1. 3BB or smaller sizing?
2. SB limp strat?

Thanks for this post Cloud. I think there is no way around me going into this in depth, and I'm glad to bc I think it's highly relevant to the community.

I'm going to start with 2 assumptions:

1) Player pools across virtually all environments, except the very best environments (stars 2k+), are exploitable all over the grid. Anyone who works with PIO consistently, and couples it with mass alias stat review can confirm that things are way off.

2) Environments with detailed HUD availability, the ability to purchase hands, etc, are de-incentivizing hard exploits. Simply b/c many of those exploits are unsustainable due to HUD transparency. (Ex would be Cloud's counter-point to my advice that high steal success is incentivizing high RFI -- he said they'll just start 3-betting us a ton, so what's the point)

Assumption 1 is pretty rock solid, b/c it's rooted in solver work to verify equilibria, which is then compared to empirical data taken from player pools. Do our models still involve a good deal of initial range assumption. yes. Does this make them GTO? No. Can we tailor our models to be highly relevant reflections of environmental trends? Yes.

Assumption 2 is technically correct, but short-sighted. Players are nowhere close to being able to replicate well balanced strategies. This means that when someone counters your high RFI by 3-betting you a ton, they are NOT de-incentivizing you from taking hard exploits. They are de-incentivizing you to take the SPECIFIC hard exploit of raising wide and then folding way too much vs 3bet. My point:

In any situation, unless the player pool is willing to show us that they are capable of replicating something close a well balanced strategy, we NEVER lose incentive to stop exploiting them. We've only ever lost vision over the efficiency of the next correct counter. We lost this vision b/c we collapse to a very assumptive train of thought. usually something like:

"I'm not capable of identifying which regs are targeting me with explo 3-bets, and this lack of vision is going to de-incentivize my exploits"

That's a contradictory thought. If you're getting played back at enough on average to de-incentivize a high RFI, your actually saying that the majority of players are now 3bet exploiting you. Which means you have way more vision than you're letting on. On top of this,
a) you have at least a 25,000-50,000 hand window before your stats press to the point where people start adjusting to you. That's free $ you're passing up.
b) you have access to "vs Hero" stats in your HUD. It's way easier than you're saying it is to figure out who's countering you.

the argument to go quietly into the night is, counterintuitively, more insistent than to press on with exploits. It's insistent b/c it's not been properly challenged for it's contradictory nature.

Worst case scenario is, a very good reg node-locks your 70% RFI and uses that "minimal-exploit" strategy vs you. I use the term minimal instead of maximal b/c i don't know what else to call it. The node-locked 3-bet strategy exploits you just hard enough to ensure that you have absolutely no counterstrategy as BTN, unless you want to go back to your origin point of imbalance, which was your high RFI. The ACTUAL strategy that an exploitative opponent implements vs you is going to be much more raw and re-exploitable, b/c players are bad, even when they're smart enough to exploit you. he's likely going to fold too much to 4-bets. Or just not 5-bet enough. Or you can take him for a ride down postflop lane, where his wide OOP range will fall apart, b/c he's completely unfamiliar with how to control it. You have tons of recounters. You're in position. You're intelligently pushing the envelope. You're plowing over your limit and moving on.

Too many guys trying to come up the ranks are too concerned with staying between the lines. We have this allegiance to balance because we perceive benefit in it, and we're correct to do so. But we're completely bias in our assumptions of how efficiently we're implementing balance, due to our general disorientation around the complexity of the landscape.

-if you're a guy who is uninterested in using hard exploits, and you're not already winning a lot of money, you're NOT PLAYING WELL BALANCED. So change. who cares if you stir shit up at your limit. who cares if people think you're a fish. 90% of my opponents think i'm a fish. They berate me in chat. who cares. You're there to destroy your limit and move on. Your dream was never to play 400nl for the rest of your life while you delude yourself that you're well balanced. So get in your spaceship, and get the fuck out of there. If I see another MSNL player post a thread where he says he usually balances 2 sizings on this flop, but went with the smaller one (this time!), i'm gonna say something blunt that's probably going to perceived as mean. Bc you don't bro. You don't balance it.

If you asked me what percentage of the community moved up more than 1 limit over the last 12 months and stuck the landing, I'd snapcall the under on 10%. My guess would be less than 3%. Thats a problem. The first impulse is to point the fingers at the coaches. But I genuinely believe that the coaches on the whole are polarized toward authentic service. The problem is that there is not enough information available on how to become an independent learner. There's not enough equality in the student teacher relationship, and both parties are equally at fault for that. Poker players should understand incentive better than any other professional. As a community, we're ignoring the most major incentive we have right now: we're being massively incentivized to change the way we learn.

I'm putting out a product at the end of the March for anyone who wants to handle this for themselves. It will be 4 hours of lessons on some of the most important take-aways i've gleaned from working with solvers. It will be prioritized toward bringing you up the ranks as fast as possible. It will be very reasonably priced, b/c ssnl guys deserve tools just as much. It will leave you confident in your ability to explore PIO on your own in a way that stacks your progress, and because of that it is a launching pad.

I'm going to put out a video to outline the product in further detail. You can also check my RIO blog for updates.

For those of you who buy, i will help coordinate you with other members who have messaged me with interest in starting their own skype groups to further their PIOsolver studies. I'll pair you by stakes/current playing environment for maximum relevance.

A lot of you have been serious about moving up for some time. A lot of you are hurting from a general lack of direction and frustration. If you commit to the product, you will be on the leading edge of the learning curve, and well on your way to blasting through your current plateau. To anyone who says i should hide this information, not give it away for cheap, you're a bitch and you should re-evaluate your motives. There's more at stake here than the quasi-benefit you perceive from a distorted sense of personal interest. Everyone can relax, theres no magic pill. There are just high quality tools and lessons that should be made available to people who are serious enough to commit to them. To those guys, you have my infinite patience and support. I look forward to helping as many of you possible.

So thankful you post 3x??
=P very nice tho :D

good suggest for zoom player.

Hi Nick

What was the product you refer to that was coming out in march?

Asdfghjkl1

PDNV i think is the acronym.

google nick howard, pio night vision, or something like it, you will find it