$2.5/$5 6-Max Zoom NLHE
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 52 Comments...
I've used the calculator at the beginning of the video for some time. I find it useful for conceptualizing variance.
The calculator is designed to give you a range of outcomes and the associated information based on your TRUE win rate and TRUE SD (as you mention in the video). However I have always wondered if you can use the calculator to estimate a range for your true win rate.
IE if we put in our OBSERVED win rate and sample size can we then use the calculator to say that our TRUE "theoretical win rate" would lie within a 95% confidence interval from that observation?
I think I’m understanding you correctly, and yes.
I don’t like to get too credulous about these models, but it’s a healthy reality check for how swings scale with different WR and standard deviations, and helps me keep my sanity during downswings. I always think of my WR as some unknown that I’ll never know with precision, and I suggest taking a Bayesian approach to estimating it. But that’s a story for another day !
If you had to use only 1 sizing strategy, what are the main factors to think about OTF, when deciding about small C-bet(20-30%) vs big C-Bet(60%+) If you had to use only 1 sizing strategy.
Which ones retains more EV in Pio if only used as a single sizing.
Obviously...?
(not trying to be a jerk, just a smartass)
I don't think it's a good idea for me to produce pio outputs on request when the viewer can do it themselves, or buy a solver to do so if they haven't already.
Oh yeah and I would agree with that. I was more so referring to the question and to the fact that the right answer seems to go without saying. :P
Well he was mostly interested in what board/range factors we should look for when deciding to bet. It is an extremely loaded question which would require a video on its own but it is quite interesting to be honest and it would be worthwhile for some coach on RIO to make a video about that topic.
I agree with you Quido. I tend to get snarky when people ask very open ended theory questions in the comments thread of these videos because I mistakenly think it should be clear to them that the answer would be paragraphs (or videos) long. That obviously doesn't mean the question isn't good/interesting, only that it's not well suited for this context.
In contrast, I find it helpful when posters acknowledge that their question isn't well answerable in the comments section of the video, and instead use these threads as a place to raise questions for future videos. So, for example, if the OP had phrased their question as "it would be helpful to me if you could do a video length theory video on optimizing EV with a single flop sizing using PioSolver," I'd be more likely to respond constructively.
The flopped set of nines at 48 minutes. You said that you could take same line with JT as bluff. Meaning bluff with top two on river. Can you please expand on that?
I was speculating whether JT might mix some XR on turn vs that sizing (would not bluff top 2 on river), but probably not. I was trying to find the threshold of made hand such that it's indifferent between XR/call/fold, so we can develop a bluffing range on some draw completing rivers.
I would have say that A2s/A3s would make good bluffing hands to balance with our 99, i would probably take the same line as yours with our trips. I don't really understand why PioSolver prefers to check sometimes with T9 instead of 99 - i agree on the fact that we like to block his checking back range (even if PioSolver is checking with JTo- IP, IP has a lot of 9x and every 9x is going to check back). It's good to not block a T as we can get value for two streets against his best Tx.
Great Video Ben. Much prefer the 2 tabling rather than the 4 table videos personally. Alot more information explained in the video and easier to follow IMO.
@10:50 we flatted A3s in the SB vs UTG open. Why are you flatting this rather than 3B? Isnt the hand a little too weak to be flatting OOP with? i understand that you are able to play better post flop than the average 2/5 player. Just seems to me that Calling here would be lighting money on fire in the long run. Or am i missing something?
- Also kinda cool to see Ishter still playing. Thought he fell off the planet. Used to enjoy his Essential RIO videos back in the day when i was playing micro's.
Keep up the great content Ben and Happy new year.
The really weak suited/paired stuff play quite well as calls. You can see this simulating a BB calling range against an UTG open. Many of the weakest continue are suited cards with some kind of connection.
In the hand in the video, I was facing a minraise, which makes calling quite a bit better with hands like A3s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k--V2vghKqg
Great video. Can you make a video playing on Ignition? I hear you playing on Ignition in the background.
I do not play on ignition
is there a reason why not? im just asking because I do but I also respect your opinion if you think there's a good reason not to that I should be aware about
No high stakes
28:00 with AK, what is the reasoning for such a large cbet size here? Isn't this a spot where we usually cbet between 25-33%?
I think when 3b size increases EVs tighten up a bit on flop. We play a mix of bigger bets and blocks, with most of betting volume going into bigger size. A large X freq as well.
Idea is that with strong Ax we want to make pot big quickly. With crushers/medium/Ax we sometimes block because high EV flop for this line. And a lot of stuff doesn't need protection much and we aren't far enough ahead to pure B so it gets X.
33 minute. That QT, will it be similar EV between check or bet 60-70% pot size? We blocking his calling range with our Q. And I don't know what else he suppose to bluffcatch us with ( possible JT, T7 probably raise flop vs SB who looks like a ''rec Panda''), so when you bet if I get it correctly he will be shoving or folding pretty much. Having all combos of KJ, he can have some Tx(or Qx) turning to a bluff.
To sum up- I like bet just to induce him with bluffing freq(let him overbluff shove), but I don't see it happening in real life (maybe 2/5 you said it happens often)
Shove/fold is a strategy sufficiently far from GTO that it really shouldn't ever be your default read in a vacuum. Be careful of confirmation bias.
U read the sizeings wrong on the turn in the PIO Hand:
"the block" was actually 14 into 21
and the "big" was shove 92 into 21
-> so 80% fold vs shove 92 into 21 makes actually sense
Yuuuuuup :(
@38min what sort of hands do we have that can call a river bet there ?
All kinds of marginals, Qx/AQ being the highest freq one given preflop. We want hearts, no A/J/T, no diamonds to call; and we want to beat bluff threshold of ~5x.
Hi thanks for the video as usual.
I'm pretty sure the bluff calls is a story of blocker on a nut flush draw.
Hey Ben,
thanks for publishing your results and content. My question is why u just played so less hands.
Is it just for the reason that there is no action on highstakes anymore or did u focus on other "things"?
Also are the 250k close to your overall winnings or did you put some volume on non-tracking sites/livegames?
Hi i'm not Ben but I believe Ben also plays NLHE+2cards and mixed games
My main games are PLO and 8game.
I'm also playing less poker than I used to, but I still play perhaps 150k ish hands/year.
Ben,
Every time I watch your videos, I feel like I struggle with bet sizing. Do you have any recommended sources (videos/books/forum topics/whatever) on the topic? Or any recommendation for how to improve in this area?
Piosolver
Hi Ben,
A2dd from BB on KdQdx you say you check raise because we unblock a lot of hands he'll be bet folding. That's better for us, why? Our equity will be stronger vs this range? If so, does that concept apply to the fact that we block the AT AJ AQ combos that he cbets here?
Timestamp please
whoops 37:00, thanks
Hi Ben
As always I enjoyed your material.
You often choose to probe for a quite a small sizing. Intuitively I struggle to make sense of this because 1. it doesnt allow you to bluff much 2. villian range are weakened as he checks back the flop making his very good holdings less condensed.
I will be very happy if you would explain the theory behind the small probe sizing so I can understand :-)
In situations where we have many more nut combos than opponent, it's often right to use more than one sizing with our range. We can probe some medium/weak hands (and add some bluffs), and also bet bigger with stronger hands (and add more bluffs). Occasionally, we probe with medium or very strong hands in order to prevent villain from raising too thinly.
If you'd like a theoretical model for this, play a situation where OOP has an A, K, Q, J, T or 9, and IP has a K, Q, J, T, or 9.
Hi!
Dont you think that you should also add overbet sizing OTT on T945 board? I think overbet is the most prefered sizing OTT.
Timestamp plz
Regarding the sim at the end, I don't think you messed anything up.
The peculiarities:
1. you fold 80% of your checks on the turn
2. he still only pots it 35% of the time
I think it's a function of:
1. your range after not making the block bet is almost entirely weak draws and traps, therefore...
2. your continues are almost all raises
3. he's in position and check has a high EV
Curious if you think this is a plausible explanation.
Regarding the bluff call, you want a realistic sim starting at the flop? Not a river toy game type thing?
I think IP's high checking EV nails it. And OOP will bet a lot himself so it's not like he folds that much once he gets to the turn.
On a side note it seems that (I haven't run it) if IP starts betting more than equilibrium frequency OOP's range won't have a hard time adjusting aggressively to it (notice there are tons of combos with a pair or weak draw that mix folding and something else - they can simply be played more aggressively vs a high frequency bet).
fwiw I planned to have a smaller size on the turn as well, but my hand liked the big bet.
overpair? 4x? or not telling? :D
I think if we had added a couple more betsizes we would have seen OOP maximize EV by playing a more passive strategy capable of responding more flexibly to IP's options.
@thereis AT
Hey nice vid. How do you draw the line between bluff catching with hands high up in our range and bluff catching with hands that have better blockers but less raw hand strength than some other hands
Hi ben, could you PLEASE tell me what the 8 HUD stats (the bottom 2 lines) are when you play 6 max zoom?
I've been trying to figure out for weeks and it's killing me, as I'd really like to copy them.
I'd really appreciate a reply,
thanks mate.
Are you using a mix of Pio sim data extrapolated to 6max, Monker solves, or database analysis, or a mix in different circumstances, to create 6max ranges?
@19m with the TJs is bad to x raise river blocking the TQs combos? not good to x call but good turning into bluff?
where is the bluff/call?
Hi sauce, I had a somewhat basic question, o don't understand using small sizings in multi-way pots, when we are rarely protection betting, and mostly being polarized.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.