Great vid tyler. In the first hand where we have a set of 7s, you mention our cbet freq should be lower and we should use a smaller size. If we are cbetting a lower freq, to me that generally means a more polar range. So shouldn't we be using a larger bet size?
You can try this out in PIO, but from my observation, if we use a bigger sizing we bet even less often. So if we bet very infrequently at 1/3 pot, we'd bet almost never at full pot. It seems that range protection is a more important concept on the flop, than starting the polar vs cap game.
I think it provides a nice balance between limping and raising 3x. It's an uncommon strategy, which means that most players won't be familar with optimal play. It also doesn't have any immediate disadvantages to 3x or limping.
The main issue is that you are building a pot OOP with almost no FE. Sure, this works exploitatively if the pool is overfolding but otherwise I don't see a solid case for this small RFI size from SB.
My small blind play isn't perfect and the computer models tend to come up with complicated mixed strategy, so on the basic level you are right, there is a better strategy possible for the SB.
The crux of the problem is if I'm going to approximate a strong SB strategy with one pure strategy what do I choose? If I choose limping, then my opponents get to realize some equity with every hand including 72o, but I get to limp profitably with far more hands than I can play with 3x. If I choose 3x or larger, there are some hands in my range that would still be more profitable if I chose to limp them (especially the hands were profitable limps but that are now folded). The balance that I've chosen is that a small raise forces my opponent to lose more money with the bottom 30% than limping, but also allows me to open up more widely than I could at 3x. As a bonus, some players still overfold.
9 minute: will we have donking range otr vs regular? It looks like our weak Tx(but probably not weakest however close to consider)
p.s. I watched 10 minutes and haven't heard word ''ultimately'' TT
Haha, the word of the week has been "essentially".
I think there is some logic to donking a ten here, like donking a paired middle card on the turn. I don't currently have it implemented, because the game plan to do it correctly is more complicated. On this type of board texture, I would leave myself open to overfolding/overpaying against a player who jammed over my river donk. My hand range is capped low enough that my opponent would be clairvoyant in his jamming range. To avoid this, I need to choose some full houses to donk vs tens and balancing this in real time is difficult, so I generally avoid playing an (reasonably) easily exploitable strategy and choose something that is more challenging to exploit.
Hm I'm not sure he can exploit it that easily by jamming you will have nut flush there as donk and as check/call (or check/shove). But I imagine we suppose to be donking really little since we have less flushes than our opponent ( we probably bet flop with some FD).
I agree, I think that we usually bet the flop with weaker flushes. Additionally, a lot of his turn barreling range has some blockers to flushes. If we flopzilla this and include the right number of bluffs, we'll see that we have to call something like JT here to make him indifferent to bluffing jamming, even if we include all of our flushes. This isn't exactly ideal.
You've talking about weak players in this video. And how they tend to overfold while have little money behind 170$ ~ 23 minute. However while playing something like nl100 or nl200(zoom!) at most I've seen weak players just spazz having that little amount of money (17bb for example).
The question is what we will do with guy who basically never fold in small spots, our exploit strategy is to don't bluff much and to valuebet thinly?
Yeah, I would actually tend to check more and let them go allin, because usually they are kamikaze with 15bbs. The thing is in zoom, a 15bb kamikaze isn't going to stay at 15bbs very long, because he's trying to double up every hand. So even though the same number of players might play a kamikaze or a passive style, the passive style ends up playing more hands at 15bbs, because the other player either busts or doubles. While the tight passive can stay at 15bbs for a long time.
Loading 12 Comments...
Great vid tyler. In the first hand where we have a set of 7s, you mention our cbet freq should be lower and we should use a smaller size. If we are cbetting a lower freq, to me that generally means a more polar range. So shouldn't we be using a larger bet size?
You can try this out in PIO, but from my observation, if we use a bigger sizing we bet even less often. So if we bet very infrequently at 1/3 pot, we'd bet almost never at full pot. It seems that range protection is a more important concept on the flop, than starting the polar vs cap game.
Why are you opening to 2.4bb from the SB?
I think it provides a nice balance between limping and raising 3x. It's an uncommon strategy, which means that most players won't be familar with optimal play. It also doesn't have any immediate disadvantages to 3x or limping.
The main issue is that you are building a pot OOP with almost no FE. Sure, this works exploitatively if the pool is overfolding but otherwise I don't see a solid case for this small RFI size from SB.
My small blind play isn't perfect and the computer models tend to come up with complicated mixed strategy, so on the basic level you are right, there is a better strategy possible for the SB.
The crux of the problem is if I'm going to approximate a strong SB strategy with one pure strategy what do I choose? If I choose limping, then my opponents get to realize some equity with every hand including 72o, but I get to limp profitably with far more hands than I can play with 3x. If I choose 3x or larger, there are some hands in my range that would still be more profitable if I chose to limp them (especially the hands were profitable limps but that are now folded). The balance that I've chosen is that a small raise forces my opponent to lose more money with the bottom 30% than limping, but also allows me to open up more widely than I could at 3x. As a bonus, some players still overfold.
9 minute: will we have donking range otr vs regular? It looks like our weak Tx(but probably not weakest however close to consider)
p.s. I watched 10 minutes and haven't heard word ''ultimately'' TT
Haha, the word of the week has been "essentially".
I think there is some logic to donking a ten here, like donking a paired middle card on the turn. I don't currently have it implemented, because the game plan to do it correctly is more complicated. On this type of board texture, I would leave myself open to overfolding/overpaying against a player who jammed over my river donk. My hand range is capped low enough that my opponent would be clairvoyant in his jamming range. To avoid this, I need to choose some full houses to donk vs tens and balancing this in real time is difficult, so I generally avoid playing an (reasonably) easily exploitable strategy and choose something that is more challenging to exploit.
Hm I'm not sure he can exploit it that easily by jamming you will have nut flush there as donk and as check/call (or check/shove). But I imagine we suppose to be donking really little since we have less flushes than our opponent ( we probably bet flop with some FD).
I agree, I think that we usually bet the flop with weaker flushes. Additionally, a lot of his turn barreling range has some blockers to flushes. If we flopzilla this and include the right number of bluffs, we'll see that we have to call something like JT here to make him indifferent to bluffing jamming, even if we include all of our flushes. This isn't exactly ideal.
You've talking about weak players in this video. And how they tend to overfold while have little money behind 170$ ~ 23 minute. However while playing something like nl100 or nl200(zoom!) at most I've seen weak players just spazz having that little amount of money (17bb for example).
The question is what we will do with guy who basically never fold in small spots, our exploit strategy is to don't bluff much and to valuebet thinly?
Yeah, I would actually tend to check more and let them go allin, because usually they are kamikaze with 15bbs. The thing is in zoom, a 15bb kamikaze isn't going to stay at 15bbs very long, because he's trying to double up every hand. So even though the same number of players might play a kamikaze or a passive style, the passive style ends up playing more hands at 15bbs, because the other player either busts or doubles. While the tight passive can stay at 15bbs for a long time.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.