close to 0% vs mp

because the reason that you check OOP very often is because villain has a stronger range on a particular board texture, or that both EV's are very close so you want to play a more defensive style and c bet closer to 0%.

however, when you have a much higher EV than your opponent-for example AK2, then it is pretty poor and lazy to check your range here, and it will be costing you a lot of EV because you can only get 2 streets of bets in as opposed to 3. don't get me wrong, you still probably want to be checking a lot too, and checking a lot on the turn, but you definitely want to have some bets, and probably some bigger bets. I haven't studied this exact board from OOP but im guessing that our strategy is pretty similar to, check fairly often but when we do c bet c bet around 1-2x pot. because villain has 0 sets and probably 0 two pairs (maybe small fraction of A2s, but that's it.)

so vs a range that contains pretty much 0 nut hands, lots of under-pairs and not many top pairs, to check range here would be a huge mistake imo. villain is gonna be betting very infrequently when x to- his Ax are usually weak ones that do poorly vs xr and continued aggression, his Kx has no reason to bet and his small pairs are a little too strong to bluff with and too weak to value bet. sure he can have some suited gut shots, but these hands aren't great barrels because his value range is pretty much AQo, and even that may mostly be 3 bet pre-flop. so if he barrels off these hands then he is way over-bluffing and we just call him down with any Ax hand.

and even when we check, we can check a hand like AA/KK/AK very easily, so going bet/bet/jam with AQ is way too thin, and probably -EV on the river as a shove.

of course there are other spots similar to what I mentioned, but you have to work through them for yourself :P

on some board textures yeah it is correct to x 100% OOP, but you should differentiate between the various board textures and identify ones which you should have some sort of c-betting range on and what kind of sizing's you wanna be using.

yeah but it depends, if you wanna 'dumb down' your strategy then how is it possible to push towards excellence in poker and move up towards the highest stakes??

as you said, if you wanna really simplify the game-tree and make your decisions much easier/simpler, then you could say-x 100% OOP, or c bet 100% IP for small sizes, or never lead post-flop etc etc. but then you aren't really getting any better or understanding how to play poker very well. you are just making large exploits based on population tendencies of fish/weaker reg's that would lead you to getting crushed like a napkin at the highest stakes.

which is fine if you are content at your current stake, or need to make x amount of $ per hour because you gotta pay bills. but, at least for me, I enjoy trying out tricky new strategies, making regs spew off to me, or playing cool lines. because i'm not content to just stay at my current stake I wanna become as good as I can possibly be and move up as high as possible.

There are def textures where you leave a fair amount of EV on the table by checking range. And this is if villain is adjusting only OTF. If they are extra keen or just loose they can start exploiting you preflop as if you check ragne 100% of the time regardless of the board they are guaranteed 4 cards and therefore realize a lot more equity then they otherwise should. Like think about it, what if you knew exactly what your villains next action will be? It would be pretty incredible.

Also its not just about playing vs world class players or whatever. Obv you should exploit and deviate from solver if the correct incentives are present. Thing is if you are playing vs loose passive villains they accidentally exploit your X range strategy. Strong players can realize what you are doing, and begin exploits preflop in order to exploit the extra equity they are realizing. Then C bets can actually exploit very hard. Its about understanding the game tree and the factors that go into making strategies and decisions.

The one in the OP is one of them and QJ+BDFD is usually a high frequency c bet I believe. X/r thrown in is gonna be fine too usually. Turn ya fire again. River usually is dubious to blast off once you have condensed ranges this much but maybe best bluffs are gonna be still fine. Not sure what the best bluffs would be though.

WM2K nice post man, completely agree with what you had to say. if we just auto-check on every board OOP IP just gets to realise a bunch of equity and some of the more marginal -EV/breakeven flats pre-flop are now slightly winning. for example, lets say the the lowest pocket pair for calling pre-flop otb vs utg was 88, now it's probably +EV to flat 77 because instead of trying to flop a set from the first 3 cards, he now gets to try and flop a set from the first 4 cards. slightly increasing his EV and giving him very nutted hands when he does hit that is gonna extract a lot of value when OOP goes OB/OB vs our flop x back and we have flopped/turned a set.

korn1337 lol just commenting someone's point of view 'is wrong' based on one players c-bet stats is pretty arrogant. Linus is clearly the best player in the world just now, so backs his post-flop skills vs any reg and has clearly designed a bit of a different strategy than other regs. but that doesn't mean this will be effective in a month, in 6 months or in a year.

i'm not saying that we shouldn't make exploits in game, or, for example, c bet 100% for small sizing's on particular boards because villains aren't defending enough vs that sizing.

what I said was that we don't wanna dumb down our strategy such that we, for example, x 100% OOP, c bet 100% IP or check 100% post-flop without the post-flop betting lead. and I don't see how you 'proved me wrong' in any of these cases?? clearly Linus is on the more aggressive side, but I didn't see any pure strategies in those c-betting frequencies. 70% or whatever is on the high end, but it is not 100%.

and even when I said about how we can c-bet on certain flop textures 100%, we have to be EXTREMELY aware of our strategy, and if villains are starting to exploit us we have to be ready to instantly bin this strategy and learn the more optimal/balanced one, or a completely different exploitable one. because if we continue to c bet 100% on ALL board textures in 3 bet pots, villains can just study us for one night and node-lock some board textures, and check how to respond to our strategy. then, bam, our strategy has gone from good to very poor overnight vs this villain and he is making much more EV than he should be because we now have a massive leak.

OTB crushed for years and he had a MUCH MORE passive strategy from OOP that involved lots more checking. so perhaps we should wait and see if Linus' more aggro strategy will be as effective for as long of a period of time before jumping to large conclusions based on small sample sizes/periods of time.

and, as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat :))

I don't see how you hand example has any relevance to my last response?? I was talking about how it's bad/lazy to simplify the game-tree and play a static strategy and then you attempt to counter my post by giving some extremely complicated strategy example that bots probably wouldn't even have the capacity to implement.

this is what I said in the post before your latest reply:

if you wanna really simplify the game-tree and make your decisions
much easier/simpler

but, at least for me, I enjoy trying out tricky new strategies, making
regs spew off to me, or playing cool lines

I believe that implementing a 300% pot c-betting strategy would qualify as a 'tricky new strategy' and not simplifying the game-tree.

korn1337

"There are def textures where you leave a fair amount of EV on the
table by checking range." Definitely in theory

no, in practice too. if you auto-check AK2r as the pfr OOP for some silly reason then you are leaving A TON of EV on the table. because now you only have 2 streets to get value on, and if you just over-bet turn/jam river then he can just call such a low frequency on the river that you aren't getting any kind of value with your nutted hands. because if you 15x pot jam on the river he probably has to call like 5% of the time or whatever, and instead of getting 2 streets of value with AK, you got one, and because the pot was so small on the river he just gets to fold A5s 90% of the time without being exploited. as opposed to having to call it maybe 70% (these are random rough guesses btw) if you actually bet the flop/turn prior.

If every regular would sit down after the session and learn over a
period of more than a week and many hours a correct response to me
over checking OOP in a HU SRP. Yes it wouldn't work. But this is far
off from reality

so you just basically pray that nobody studies how to counter your game-plan, because when they do, you're fucked. and then you would actually have to learn how to properly play various board textures OOP instead of trying to simplify them to a 2 street game. but also, how do you know which regs have studied how to play vs this and who haven't?? maybe you need 2/3/4 different game plans vs all of these different regs?? you don't. but they know EXACTLY what your game-plan is.

Even a very explo strategy like having a balanced limping strategy in
UTG is working against good regulars

was working. it's actually very easy to play against, you limp behind medium strength hands that don't wanna get limp-raised, as well as the odd trap, and then raise your stronger parts of your range as well as some more 'polarized' hands such as A2s-A5s.

korn1337 Ya I m not at all suggesting to go for an GTO strategy at all. Just saying that literally checking 100% of the time as PFR OOP is both easy to pick up on (esp with HUD) and reasonably simple to exploit. + if your villain can expect you to completely remove an option from node (outside of say bb vs IP PFR where checking 100% is very very close to optimal anyways) your game becomes quite predictable and your villains can plan accordingly. Even Linus betting 80% OOP (does this sample include 3bp btw?) means that he is checking some and I m sure he s prepared to make his strategy more dynamic if required or the correct incentives are there.

Of course the weaker your opposition the more you can take extreme strategies like this. Or anonymous pools. But even then doesnt take that many orbits before its fairly obv what you are doing. I have def picked on new villains stabbing 100% or checking 100% relatively quickly.

On top of this doesnt take THAT much work to figure out a the few boards where range asymmetry s are such that developing a substancial c betting range is a good idea. The patterns are fairly clear and make some sense.

Demondoink I d imagine the preflop adjustments vs someone you know is checking 100% are substantially more extreme then adding another pocket pair to your range. Probably add all pairs. How often do you hit a set over 4 cards? and you are that much closer to showdown? A lot of hands are already very close to a call and wouldn't take much to put them over the top.

WM2K yeah agreed the Linus c-betting stat just seemed to be for ALL c-betting opportunities and not just, say OOP in srp vs the hj/co/btn. also, I think it's more reasonable, but still not great, to be c-betting a higher % bvb in a srp than it is to be auto-blocking utg vs btn on every board. I don't do either tbh, but population prob under-defend with a wider bb range bvb than they do a much tighter range otb vs utg. so that probably explains a little of Linus' higher c-bet %.

not sure if the adjustment would be so extreme, due to the fact that we can still get squeezed from the blinds when flatting on the button, but if we knew blinds were always folding (somehow) then yeah I could see something like that taking place.

korn1337

me:

"but then you aren't really getting any better or understanding how to
play poker very well. you are just making large exploits based on
population tendencies of fish/weaker reg's that would lead you to
getting crushed like a napkin at the highest stakes."

then your response to this exact quote:

nope, you're wrong with this one. Filtered for 6 max (6 players only)
nl5k+ mostly battling the best in the world.

you did say i was wrong...

of course i stand by what i said about c-betting 0% OOP is bad, but i'm not saying you are wrong for choosing that strategy, it is easier to play and if you are a winning player then it doesn't really matter what i think does it?? because your goal is to make $. but i think its kinda bad because your opponents already know what you are going to do in the flop, and get to realise more equity, and you get in less money with the nutted parts of your range. these are the reasons that i think it is bad. you don't have to agree with me, however.

i think it is pretty well acknowledged by all of the current high stakes regs that Linus is the best player just now, so i am just going by their opinions because they are the ones battling vs him every day. Trueteller doesn't play very much any more, and OTB doesn't put in nearly as much volume either. and you can check their results for this year, Linus is crushing and OTB is down, not sure about TT tbh. although all 3 are sickos obv.

anyways im gonna stop replying now, i think we have just gotta agree to disagree here. as you have your own strategy and i have my own, and that's the way poker works-everyone plays differently!

korn1337 well 3bb/100 is a very big EV loss given the fact that that is a good win-rate at most stakes. as you say, that is playing vs PIO, and that humans are gonna be much weaker than PIO, but it doesn't work like that, as you are also much weaker than PIO. so you will be playing nothing like the optimal strategy and thus cannot just dis-regard this 3bb/100 loss saying that villains will be playing worse than PIO, because you aren't a bot either so you will be too.

korn1337 hahah i just sit up in a darkened room with my phone at my side waiting on it to vibrate with RIO replies hahah.

i see what you mean, but again, it is completely impossible to know the exact strategy on each street with every combo and on every turn/river card vs each different range despite the number of times that you have studied these lines. so let's say that you gain that EV back and are winning, it doesn't mean that you cannot gain a much higher EV by having a betting/checking strategy.

as i said, i'm sure it's possible to make this strategy +EV, i just think it is possible to have a more 'optimal' one that is higher EV.

korn1337 i'm in the UK and it's not that late here haha. anyways GG, we can agree to disagree xD