$500 Zoom: 2 Tables w/ the RNG
Posted by Sauce123
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...
Whee Sauce123 back on the zoom streets! Like in the dark!
like in the dark for your like in the dark :P
great vid!
on minute 26ish(99 hand), on what turn cards would you a consider folding? if you were villain, what hands do think should be a call against your river shove?
27 minute 2nd table with 99. Can you(Ben) explain reasons behind river shove? Hand have quite bunch of showdown EV, and I don't see people folding 2 pairs there or raising flop with 1 pair (Ace type of hand). Therefore you have T9/65/76 type of stuff as your bluffs
great pace and content video!
Jeff, I'm trying to fold out Qxcc.
jonathan, I'd fold turn cards >T where I don't have a straight draw.
You completely mispronounced "pourquoipapa" 's name. The name is french; it means "Why father?" And, is the name of a song by Louis Bérubé.
But, on another note! I have a general theory question for you Sauce!
If we don't have a lot of fold equity on a given board, should we generally elect to bet our strong hands or should we generally check our strong hands to protect our range?
How I see it...:
Poker is about getting money when we bet and they call with worst; when we bluff, and they fold; when they bet with the best of it, and we fold etc... so on that note it makes complete sense to get value from our strong hands as we will have a lot of action, especially from their vast "middling" range. On the other side, we have low fold equity, and we cannot bet too many bluffs profitably, and the board is likely favorable for our opponent, thus making sense that we mostly check our range for balance/protection.
What do you think?
Thanks!
While the song by Louis Berube was no doubt the intended reference, for context I'll link you to a clip from the excellent BBC miniseries Wolf Hall where our hero Cromwell is introduced Lady Anne's beloved dog Purkoy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyGMYn-rE9g. "Anne Boleyn had a lapdog called Purkoy, which came from the French 'pourquoi', meaning 'why?'. The little dog was originally given to Sir Francis Bryan, Anne's cousin, by Lady Lisle as a New Year's gift. She'd given the dog to Bryan on the advice of John Husee because the Lisles needed Bryan's help."
As for your theory question, if you don't have a lot of fold equity on a given board, you should generally bet a large number of good hands for value. A good example of this is in 2-7 triple draw where the action goes RC | 3/3 X , in this case nearly all of OOP's hands are continuing against the bet, and so IP bets a range of almost all value bets. Bluffs make more EV as a X because they do not get fold equity by betting.
What's confusing you is probably that you're worried about protecting your check behind range, but given that hand values are so close that there's little fold equity from betting, it's almost always the case that the check behind range improves frequently enough to defend itself.
new layout? lol
Looks laggish and tilting a bit
~17minute, 4bet spot, this board favor 4bettor range in my opinion. We will have 88-AA and 87s I'm pretty sure as well AK/AQs broadways type of hands. However his range is much stronger, because our range is wider - isolating rec.
What kinda bluff raises you will have and what type of hands you look to punish/make folds in his range?
Jeff, it's more about protection than value at this SPR. If he's TT-AA, AQs, AK, that's 15 combos of pocket pairs and 20 combos of high cards on this board. His flop EV is very high so he'll bet the flop nearly always, so analytically you can see that if we XR to 133 to win a pot of ~280, it would be a big mistake for him to fold all of his unpaired combos. We can mix XR with most hands in our continuing range, choosing stuff as weak as Axs but often choosing random PPs we're going with.
go to settings-table appearance-table graphics and you can disable the shitty new graphics engine there
U played 99 hand perfect.
32:20 w KJs bvb,.. i dunno what u used to, but 3x oop 250bb deep isnt huge at all imo,... in todays meta people even use 3x oop w 100eff stacks,.. you missed a EV+ call there i think :P
Yes I am curious about this spot, what is the correct 4 bet sizing here oop?
Ben, thank you for the video, top shelf as always
Thanks captain, you’re correct, that was a punt by me. Hadn’t looked at that spot in awhile
at 31:43 you mention going with a "bit smaller sizing holding KsTd on a Js6s5s Qd board" and then continuing that the player pool 'plays too capped on this flop..."
you were PFR in SB and BB flatted, the checked back Flop
two questions:
1/ "i am going to go with a little smaller sizing, sometimes I overbet..." turned out to be 75%?
does this mean that since overbets are the big ones, and 75% is the 'smaller sizing' that you are not really going lower? I would have thought 75% to be on the larger or at least medium size?
2/ When you are two tabling would you mind saying "on the left" or "on the right" when talking about a spot rather than "On this one..."
I am old, and zoom tables go really quick for me, let alone two at the same time. I cannot see your mouse. Many times I can figure it out, and admittedly I can always pause and rewind, but "left" or "right" would make my life a lot easier...
so, "Please" .....if that helps :)
TK
Really like all of your videos, like everyone else, but the "rolling" concept is a fresh take for me, so thanks for that !!
Hi TK,
@1- I think anything between 50% and 2x pot is pretty reasonable here, I was preferring larger sizings because I think IP ranges tend to be more capped and condensed in the medium/weak range than is optimal at this node.
@2- I'll try, sometimes in editing they highlight the table I'm talking about which can also be helpful.
Ben
great vid.
at 7:30, u talk about only having small size on 5532 cuz want to protection bet multiway.. dont we get two sizes here or is that only in headsup pots?
You can play two sizings in MW pots as well, but it adds less EV imo
Nice video. If you care to elaborate: On 9-4-2ss do you agree more with your assumption that our check raise should be higher, or would you tend to side with the solvers check raise range in a harder game like 2-5 zoom?
Also, in this spot, it would be more important to throw in check raises with cards under a 9
right?
I'd like to look more closely at that sim in the future. It might be sensitive to assumptions. It does seem like XR freq decreases quickly as cb sizing increases.
Great video as always Ben.
My question refers to your 3B sizing and defense vs 4Bs. Given you use a bigger 3B size to de-incentivise calling for rake reasons, how would you react vs 4Bs (likely big size), and how would your range change? I guess you do very little calling, although what about hands such as KQs, AQs, AJs, 99-TT?
Vs bigger 3B sizes, people should do less calling and more 4B or fold. Do you think this is representative of the pool? And would you intuitively think they do less 4B bluffing vs a bigger size?
Also, do you use a big 3B size ip as well as oop?
Sorry for all the questions, just very interesting spots and how different regs have different strategies and thought processes.
I’ll refer this message to my colleague dr monker. U can reach him at his office on solver street.
.... or I can say something hand wavy and qualitative but I really think u need to see a specialist for this sort of condition.
Ok, I'll audible to a less snarky answer. When you're trying to optimize the EV of different preflop raise trees, it's important to ask the best available solver, which is Monker atm. It's not reasonable to ask me to share the EVs of various semi-proprietary quant work I've done because it would negatively effect Monker's business and would reduce my EV at the tables. I encourage you to watch my videos and perhaps the sizings and ranges I'm constructing will be useful hints when doing your own sims. I make frequent and fairly large mistakes in my videos as well, because I'm not primarily a NLHE player, so viewer beware!
I think it's more reasonable to ask for hints as you've done, but doing so puts me in the unenviable position of having to obfuscate about the numbers so I usually choose not to answer.
This is of course all my own take and I'm quite upfront about this stuff as compared to most coaches. I can definitely see how others would have different reasonable takes and if anyone's tilted about how I do things complaining to RIO staff is the best remedy (I'm an independent contractor, I don't have any stake in the business).
Ben Sulsky - I can't pretend to understand the awkward dynamic between you and Gary, but I went ahead and filed a formal complaint against you to the Federal Department of Secret Sauce Recipe Sharing Refusals. You should be receiving your physical copy in the mail shortly. And even though you may be an "independent contractor," Mr. Galfond has ways of making you talk =D
At about minute 16, QQ in the BB vs a BTN min-raise. You elect to 3-bet really large. A pot-sized raise would be to $32.5, but you went for $60. I understand that your comment that you're 3-betting large to avoid rake, but this seems a bit too large to me. In my games, I usually add a big blind or so when I'm 3-betting OOP.
I have two questions:
(a) What kind of range are you 3-betting with for this size?
(b) You say that theoretically speaking, you should also go for a big size. What factors go into 3-betting to this size? I'm guessing being OOP and having some fairly deep stacks. Does the min-raise sizing matter?
I'll refer you to my two posts above, re my view on data sharing regarding preflop optimizations. At some point I'll prob do a monker video to better explain how to generate reasonable preflop outputs.
Ben, that would be awesome, when could we expect “at some point”? weeks, months,...? Big thanks for all the content, I am always excited whenever I see new video from you.
@7:00 with K6dd on the 33524ddd board, can you elaborate a bit on sizing(s) choices on the river please ? With this combo in particular I thought going bigger (overbet) would yield more EV ?
My understanding of the spot is that we would check a lot because he makes a straight or a flush very often, and when we bet we would mostly bet bigger than 75% pot, is that wrong ?
We'll have a value region with straights+ in it, mostly 6x, betting fairly large. I'm not really sure how this spot plays, we certainly have more FH combos than our opponent as well which might suggest some overbetting. In practice I think overbetting will work well here because players won't raise flushes and will call Ax with a diamond blocker frequently.
Hi Ben, 32 mins sb 3b Btn KJos. on AsKh9h, you opt to check. As far as i understand sb has a substantial equity advantage here. Would pure cbet here not be a reasonable or better strategy ?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.