Didn't find this video particularly useful Tyler. I just think the pace was way too slow and no interesting spots came up. It's a shame as I find the majority of your videos very interesting and insightful.
Hey Tyler, I enjoyed your video once again :) The rake discussion is definitely something I'd like to hear you talk more about, especially with the new stars changes. I take Henry's point that it's slower, but that's why there's the 1.25/1.5x speed!
There's one question I'd like to ask:
At 6:54 you flat in the BB with Q8o and mentioned that it's the PF raiser that eats the difference. Could you elaborate on this a little further? I only ask because I saw Daniel Dvoress say:
in terms of the actual equilibrium high rake should affect the caller/the blinds much more than the opener. High rake skews things away from a zero sum game and it's the blinds who decide whether or not to enter the game where both parties lose - and it's up to the blinds to pass appropriately. Fundamentally it's no different from a game with ICM pressures - in an SNG you are leaking equity to the other players by calling, in a high rake environment you are leaking equity to PokerStars, but for the players involved it's all the same. So it should really be only the callers that get screwed
Thanks Zenful!, I appreciate the insightful question. I'm not sure I'll be able to compete with Daniel's prose. Daniel is right about the Big Blind being the gatekeeper, but the preflop raiser gets hurt more when he opens looser or smaller.
The idea is that when a player opens looser or smaller, he forces the blinds to defend more by calling. This moves the equilibrium into a game with higher rake as every call generates rake where every fold wouldn't. The preflop raiser loses in these situations because at the tighter equilibrium those hands would be just be folded by BB.
For example the BB would lose -1 Big Blind to preflop raiser with Q8o by folding. Now at equilibrium the Big Blind loses -.9 Big Blinds to preflop raiser and both players pay 5% rake to the house. The Big Blind strategy has improved in value so he certainly didn't eat the rake with the strategy change.
In fact with a little math we see that its preflop raiser's strategy value that fell more precipitously. He was winning 1 bb here when I have Q8o, now he is winning .75 bb. He gets hurt more in this high rake environment by over raising or raising smaller.
No offense taken Tyler, thanks for such a comprehensive response. Was not expecting such a next level response, you're a credit to this site. My understanding of the effects of high rake environments has improved dramatically, and so has my results so if you're ever in the UK you are owed a beer and a cheeky nandos (google this)!
That's really interesting, quite a significant change from 1bb to .75bb. This means in high rake games we need to be really perceptive of regs who are defending their bb wide as this could cost a lot over a decent sample.
So in effect does this mean in high rake environments there is an effective trade off between the effect that Daniel mentioned, and the one you've discussed above?
I'll take you up on that offer the next time I'm across the Atlantic :).
My argument is really extension of Daniel's thoughts. In ICM play, a loose call can penalize the raiser as much as it penalizes the caller. Think about the scenario where a a tournament gives out a 1000 tournament packages in prizes and there are 1001 players left including several who will be all in the next hand. I jam AA expecting all rational players to fold, but am called by 72o. Now my chance of winning a package fell from 9999 : 1 to 6:1. A major change in EV. Even though my opponent took 9999: 1 to 1 : 6, we both lose in this scenario.
It's is the same with rake. Both players can lose even when either player makes the mistake.
At around 14:00, in a 5 handed game (one new player who hasn't posted), UTG opened 3x and you folded AJo, I can see the merits, but I'm kind of not sure if that is good. Assuming you would do the same in a 6 handed game if UTG+1 opened (you fold AJo in HJ).
Folding all day and not worrying about it. Even with low squeeze percentages, I'm going to be forced to fold preflop 20% of the time. (.95^4 = .81) and my hand only has 50% equity against his range. Its very difficult for me to make money against non maniacs.
Thank you for answering.
One more question im interested about the same spot but in live high stakes cash game where rake is only 1/3 of bb would we then call vs a raise from a good regular with std online range, considering there are very few bit weaker players behind?
KQo?
No, still wouldn't. Logically this can't be profitable (unless openers range is way wider or the players behind are absolutely terrible).
In squeeze or headsup situation assuming no rake:
We call 2.5x and see a flop 80% of the time with 6.5bb pot.
Assuming we win 50% of the pot on average, we'd return 3.25x, 80% of the time and lose 2.5x 20% of the time. This comes out to a net loss of .4 big blinds per hand.
We'd need to win 60% of the pot on average before it would be 0 EV assuming blinds+ only squeezed or folded.
That leaves the 3-way situations
Situation: rational play from players behind:
This means they only play profitable hands. Where does their profitable come from? Either the preflop raise or us. So we can't possibly be more profitable in this situation.
Situation: Bad players behind
They need to make gigantic mistakes postflop. Here's AJo equity against a 14% range and 3- 50% Ranges. A breakeven hand would have 20% equity. 21.75% wins us 2.71 big blinds or .271 big blinds when this happens.
Again, this is rakeless. I guess if you have a 100% shover or something you could call but in even relatively extreme scenarios this hand is negative.
Board: Empty
Range 1: 99-22,ATs-A2s,KJs-K5s,QJs-Q7s,JTs-J7s,T9s-T7s,98s-97s,87s-85s,76s-75s,65s-64s,54s-53s,43s-42s,32s,AQo-A2o,KQo-K8o,QJo-Q9o,JTo-J8o,T9o-T8o,98o-97o,87o-86o,76o-75o,65o-64o,54o
Range 2: AA-22,AKs-A9s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,AKo-ATo,KQo-KJo
Range 3: AJo
Equity 1: 17.36% Win 1: 16.39% Tie 1: 2.19%
Equity 2: 26.02% Win 2: 24.75% Tie 2: 2.81%
Equity 3: 21.75% Win 3: 19.83% Tie 3: 4.16%
Equity 4: 17.47% Win 4: 16.51% Tie 4: 2.16%
Equity 5: 17.41% Win 5: 16.41% Tie 5: 2.24%
I've noticed this video was recorded prior to Ignition making it's "quick seat" feature. For others who do not know, they have gotten rid of the lobby and now players only pick the game type and stake and it will automatically seat them.
What do you think of this? How does it affect the players and the overall environment?
It's going to mean less money for people who make money hunting recreational players. Overall though I think its an okay change because ideally we want people who play poker, not people who hunt fish. It makes for longer and more sustainable games.
Hey Tyler, liked the video. I don't think there need to be any "interesting" spots for a good video. I'd rather see a ton of basic spots that I see almost everyday. More useful I think. Also I thought how you talk about a lot of different reads was pretty useful.
1.How does your 3bet range change when you are playing with about a 50bb stack?
2.When you talked about various factors like guys who show their hand being less likely to bluff, and the guy who got coolered being more likely to call this time because he might be a bit tilted. How big an adjustment are you making? Like if you're normally bluffing what you think is GTO, or calling 1-Alpha how much would you adjust that range?
10:35 25s say he bet normal like 3/4 pot ott, and bet a brick river like 6h. Do you just snap call all your Ax and fold anything worse?
@3-bet range sizing should be smaller and more linear. Things like AJo play better as 3-bets now that losing to big top pairs cost less.
@showing hand being less likely to bluff - probably folding most of my bluffcatchers this is really reliable tell.
@guy getting coolered maybe slightly more likely to call the alphath hand against him. This read is way less reliable
@25s Yes that'd be a good strategy on this board texture. Its very hard for ax to be beat, so people tend to under bluff. This doesn't matter for ax because we have 90% equity, but for Kx it makes it an easy river fold.
Obvious bad player tells:
too many opens
weird large open sizings/bet sizings
cold-calling 3-bets (reliable b/c reg range to call 3-bet is so small)
obvious weird hands shown down (say Q4o from UTG)
For the sort of reggish recs, we aren't going to get strong tells. We'll just beat them from playing more profitable hands than they do preflop and not making as many mistakes post.
@showing hand being less likely to bluff - so you still call some bluffcatchers? Don't we need to beat part of his value range to call if he is underbluffing?
This video rocks thank you so much. @ around 20 mins in you talk about limping sometimes versus a raise only strat. From what i understand the main cons of choosing a limping strat is that the BB will be able to win back some portion of his equity and the rake will make it hard to make it better than going raise only PRE. These are great points that I have not really considered.
It would seem that this exact same logic can be applied to live FR NL. Do you play a limp along strategy live( or in my case a 200bb cap, 6$ capped drop, general relatively soft field comparatively) ? You the man! I still laugh at your smattering GIF all the time.
Thanks Ray, I appreciate the kind words!
Yes, it would be highly applicable to heavily raked live environment. You can find many resources on the idea that many hands are worth around zero EV, (Stox Poker Limit Hold'em Book comes to mind), so the higher the rake the more we need to fold our limps. 6$ drop 1/2 is definitely high rake.
Loading 26 Comments...
Didn't find this video particularly useful Tyler. I just think the pace was way too slow and no interesting spots came up. It's a shame as I find the majority of your videos very interesting and insightful.
Thanks for your feedback, Henry. I'm sorry this video didn't meet your expectations.
Samu: "Oh, new live vid from Tyler! I wonder if there are any river bluffcatching spots so that I can learn about those situations!"
Tyler: "Yay, call! Alright, whatever..."
Cool vid, I enjoyed it :)
Haha that summed up that spot perfectly.
Hey Tyler, I enjoyed your video once again :) The rake discussion is definitely something I'd like to hear you talk more about, especially with the new stars changes. I take Henry's point that it's slower, but that's why there's the 1.25/1.5x speed!
There's one question I'd like to ask:
At 6:54 you flat in the BB with Q8o and mentioned that it's the PF raiser that eats the difference. Could you elaborate on this a little further? I only ask because I saw Daniel Dvoress say:
Thoughts?
Thanks Zenful!, I appreciate the insightful question. I'm not sure I'll be able to compete with Daniel's prose. Daniel is right about the Big Blind being the gatekeeper, but the preflop raiser gets hurt more when he opens looser or smaller.
The idea is that when a player opens looser or smaller, he forces the blinds to defend more by calling. This moves the equilibrium into a game with higher rake as every call generates rake where every fold wouldn't. The preflop raiser loses in these situations because at the tighter equilibrium those hands would be just be folded by BB.
For example the BB would lose -1 Big Blind to preflop raiser with Q8o by folding. Now at equilibrium the Big Blind loses -.9 Big Blinds to preflop raiser and both players pay 5% rake to the house. The Big Blind strategy has improved in value so he certainly didn't eat the rake with the strategy change.
In fact with a little math we see that its preflop raiser's strategy value that fell more precipitously. He was winning 1 bb here when I have Q8o, now he is winning .75 bb. He gets hurt more in this high rake environment by over raising or raising smaller.
Whoops!
Hey Zenful! I really did appreciate your question. I'm sorry for the typo that's what I get for responding half-asleep. It's been corrected.
No offense taken Tyler, thanks for such a comprehensive response. Was not expecting such a next level response, you're a credit to this site. My understanding of the effects of high rake environments has improved dramatically, and so has my results so if you're ever in the UK you are owed a beer and a cheeky nandos (google this)!
That's really interesting, quite a significant change from 1bb to .75bb. This means in high rake games we need to be really perceptive of regs who are defending their bb wide as this could cost a lot over a decent sample.
So in effect does this mean in high rake environments there is an effective trade off between the effect that Daniel mentioned, and the one you've discussed above?
I'll take you up on that offer the next time I'm across the Atlantic :).
My argument is really extension of Daniel's thoughts. In ICM play, a loose call can penalize the raiser as much as it penalizes the caller. Think about the scenario where a a tournament gives out a 1000 tournament packages in prizes and there are 1001 players left including several who will be all in the next hand. I jam AA expecting all rational players to fold, but am called by 72o. Now my chance of winning a package fell from 9999 : 1 to 6:1. A major change in EV. Even though my opponent took 9999: 1 to 1 : 6, we both lose in this scenario.
It's is the same with rake. Both players can lose even when either player makes the mistake.
At around 14:00, in a 5 handed game (one new player who hasn't posted), UTG opened 3x and you folded AJo, I can see the merits, but I'm kind of not sure if that is good. Assuming you would do the same in a 6 handed game if UTG+1 opened (you fold AJo in HJ).
Folding all day and not worrying about it. Even with low squeeze percentages, I'm going to be forced to fold preflop 20% of the time. (.95^4 = .81) and my hand only has 50% equity against his range. Its very difficult for me to make money against non maniacs.
Would you call 2,5x, 2,66x?
No, I'm folding even against a minraise here (it's playable from the SB and marginal on the button against the minraise)
Thank you for answering.
One more question im interested about the same spot but in live high stakes cash game where rake is only 1/3 of bb would we then call vs a raise from a good regular with std online range, considering there are very few bit weaker players behind?
KQo?
Thank you!
No, still wouldn't. Logically this can't be profitable (unless openers range is way wider or the players behind are absolutely terrible).
In squeeze or headsup situation assuming no rake:
We call 2.5x and see a flop 80% of the time with 6.5bb pot.
Assuming we win 50% of the pot on average, we'd return 3.25x, 80% of the time and lose 2.5x 20% of the time. This comes out to a net loss of .4 big blinds per hand.
We'd need to win 60% of the pot on average before it would be 0 EV assuming blinds+ only squeezed or folded.
That leaves the 3-way situations
Situation: rational play from players behind:
This means they only play profitable hands. Where does their profitable come from? Either the preflop raise or us. So we can't possibly be more profitable in this situation.
Situation: Bad players behind
They need to make gigantic mistakes postflop. Here's AJo equity against a 14% range and 3- 50% Ranges. A breakeven hand would have 20% equity. 21.75% wins us 2.71 big blinds or .271 big blinds when this happens.
Again, this is rakeless. I guess if you have a 100% shover or something you could call but in even relatively extreme scenarios this hand is negative.
Board: Empty
Range 1: 99-22,ATs-A2s,KJs-K5s,QJs-Q7s,JTs-J7s,T9s-T7s,98s-97s,87s-85s,76s-75s,65s-64s,54s-53s,43s-42s,32s,AQo-A2o,KQo-K8o,QJo-Q9o,JTo-J8o,T9o-T8o,98o-97o,87o-86o,76o-75o,65o-64o,54o
Range 2: AA-22,AKs-A9s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,AKo-ATo,KQo-KJo
Range 3: AJo
Equity 1: 17.36% Win 1: 16.39% Tie 1: 2.19%
Equity 2: 26.02% Win 2: 24.75% Tie 2: 2.81%
Equity 3: 21.75% Win 3: 19.83% Tie 3: 4.16%
Equity 4: 17.47% Win 4: 16.51% Tie 4: 2.16%
Equity 5: 17.41% Win 5: 16.41% Tie 5: 2.24%
Tyler,
I've noticed this video was recorded prior to Ignition making it's "quick seat" feature. For others who do not know, they have gotten rid of the lobby and now players only pick the game type and stake and it will automatically seat them.
What do you think of this? How does it affect the players and the overall environment?
It's going to mean less money for people who make money hunting recreational players. Overall though I think its an okay change because ideally we want people who play poker, not people who hunt fish. It makes for longer and more sustainable games.
Hey Tyler, liked the video. I don't think there need to be any "interesting" spots for a good video. I'd rather see a ton of basic spots that I see almost everyday. More useful I think. Also I thought how you talk about a lot of different reads was pretty useful.
1.How does your 3bet range change when you are playing with about a 50bb stack?
2.When you talked about various factors like guys who show their hand being less likely to bluff, and the guy who got coolered being more likely to call this time because he might be a bit tilted. How big an adjustment are you making? Like if you're normally bluffing what you think is GTO, or calling 1-Alpha how much would you adjust that range?
10:35 25s say he bet normal like 3/4 pot ott, and bet a brick river like 6h. Do you just snap call all your Ax and fold anything worse?
thanks :)
@3-bet range sizing should be smaller and more linear. Things like AJo play better as 3-bets now that losing to big top pairs cost less.
@showing hand being less likely to bluff - probably folding most of my bluffcatchers this is really reliable tell.
@guy getting coolered maybe slightly more likely to call the alphath hand against him. This read is way less reliable
@25s Yes that'd be a good strategy on this board texture. Its very hard for ax to be beat, so people tend to under bluff. This doesn't matter for ax because we have 90% equity, but for Kx it makes it an easy river fold.
Specifically what are whales doing differently than regs at these stakes?
Obvious bad player tells:
too many opens
weird large open sizings/bet sizings
cold-calling 3-bets (reliable b/c reg range to call 3-bet is so small)
obvious weird hands shown down (say Q4o from UTG)
For the sort of reggish recs, we aren't going to get strong tells. We'll just beat them from playing more profitable hands than they do preflop and not making as many mistakes post.
@showing hand being less likely to bluff - so you still call some bluffcatchers? Don't we need to beat part of his value range to call if he is underbluffing?
For sure but we can't be certain he doesn't overvalue bet, so the top end bluff catchers still have a little value. Like KQ on a KT763 board.
Hey TY,
This video rocks thank you so much. @ around 20 mins in you talk about limping sometimes versus a raise only strat. From what i understand the main cons of choosing a limping strat is that the BB will be able to win back some portion of his equity and the rake will make it hard to make it better than going raise only PRE. These are great points that I have not really considered.
It would seem that this exact same logic can be applied to live FR NL. Do you play a limp along strategy live( or in my case a 200bb cap, 6$ capped drop, general relatively soft field comparatively) ? You the man! I still laugh at your smattering GIF all the time.
Ray
Thanks Ray, I appreciate the kind words!
Yes, it would be highly applicable to heavily raked live environment. You can find many resources on the idea that many hands are worth around zero EV, (Stox Poker Limit Hold'em Book comes to mind), so the higher the rake the more we need to fold our limps. 6$ drop 1/2 is definitely high rake.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.