$25/$50 6-Max NLHE CREV Analysis
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 56 Comments...
1st! Awesome vid as always :)
I think CREV videos are a waste of Ben´s awsome
talent. I like theory videos or live play much better. But I seem to be the only one that doubt these models (I believe that we when doing a sim from preflop to river almost never have good enough understanding of villain´s ranges for a sim to be reliable) so it does not matter what I think.
It seems like you may have missed the point of the video. Ben took two hands and went over a variety of different strategies that villain could play to show how our ev is affected by their strategy. Plugging one strategy into CREV to see how we do against it likely won't be of huge help but if we can see that our strategy or action performs poorly or well vs a variety of different strategies then we can certainly get useful info from that.
Sure, since he made a model for a couple of strats this CREV video was more useful than normal. I still believe it is a waste of his talent as a pokerinstructor though. Everybody can do a sim.
The only difficult aspect with doing a sim from preflop all the way to river is to know what ranges to give the villlain, and if if you ask 5 different people to do a sim from preflop you will get 5 different results.The person with the best read will get closest to the truth. The problem is however, that we have no clue about if a person has a good enough read or not. I believe for instance that Sauce is not enough in touch with today´s NL games so that he will be most qualified person to create ranges for NL lower stakes players.
I just believe that we very often do not have enough knowledge about villian´s ranges and frequenzees to draw reliable conclusions from preflop all the way to the river. At river when having more info to work with yes, but not from preflop.
You have completely missed the idea of doing these kinds of simulations.
When doing a sim, our goal is not to figure out a perfect way to play a certain hand. Our goal is to use our knowledge, reads, hand reading etc. and figure out the most likely range that villain can have, then run simulations with that range. Obviously the range we construct for villain isn't 100% accurate, but we get a rough idea of how we should play IF villains range is close to what we constructed.
Goal is not to figure out what is the best way to play a specific hand. Our goal is to LEARN, using these simulations, how our range plays versus different kind of ranges, how we should play versus different kind of ranges etc.
You say things like "almost never have good enough understanding of villain´s ranges for a sim to be reliable" Again, our goal is not to find out the best way to play a certain hand. When we're running these simulations, it's more like training/practice and learning experience rather than exact science.
One more thing: Imagine that we do like 10000 different simulations from different situations. Our knowledge and skills have improved a ton, and now we have much better understanding about how certain ranges plays versus certain strategies, how we should play versus specific strategies on different board textures etc etc etc. Doesn't even matter whether our range-estimates were 100% right or not. Rough idea is enough.
Boss!
How do you hook up a monitor to a typewriter?
Samu Patronen. I have not "completely missed the idea of doing these kinds of simulations" I just have a different opinion than you about the value in doing them from preflop to river based on "reads" or assumptions because I believe that we 99 times out 100 do not have good enough read. When being at the table it does not matter if you have practiced by doing a 1000 sims if you do not know what range villain is playing. Sure sometimes we have a good read, but not about exact ranges but instead about if a villain has an unbalanced frequenzee, weak range or similar. That is a big different from knowing the hands in his range. Players call too wide pre, c bet too often, fold too often, barrel too often and so on...with different ranges.
It is sooo easy to manipulate ranges and as Sklansky wrote "when opponent is making a mistake you gain" (or similar). This means that all I have to do is to take a "non standard" line or to deviate from my own "standard play", and you will make a big mistake. I could for instance just decide to open tighter than normal pre or play draws more aggressive post a third of the sessions I play and all of a sudden all of your stats and reads are no longer reliable. I just have to mix up my game a little bit and all of your stats and reads are useless (and the results of your sims). Only the biggest masstabling fishes plays the same all the time.
I also believe that when not having a perfect read, doing a sim from pre flop all the way to river, it is much better to do so based on how our opponent SHOULD play instead of guessing his ranges. If Sauce had done so I would find this video more helpful because then we would get an idea of how one of the best players in the world thinks a GTO range looks like in certain spots.
Hand reading and doing simulations with different ranges are two different things. Improving hand reading is another thing, doing simulations and training how certain ranges play versus certain ranges etc. is another thing.
Can you explain how you arrived at 1/3P as the optimal bet size on K33?
I think the opponent will not be very sensitive to our bet size given that board. He is folding some of his range if we bet 1/3, half or 2/3 pot. And he is calling with all pairs, decent A kicker and all kings. He may fold some backdoor flush draws if we bet 2/3 pot, but i don't think it is that big chunk of his range.
Good question, but far too open ended for this thread.
Samu Patronen. You do not seem to understand. But I will just leave it at that. Do not want to clutter this thread with of topic stuff.
Posting in my video thread repeatedly saying you don't believe in doing simulations is a bit like going to a movie theatre, running in front of the screen and telling everyone to go read a book instead.
hmm isnt it more like going into a library and telling everyone to go watch a movie?
Hey Ben, I wonder if you think GTORB is a valid studying tool and if you ever consider plugging some hands in it and see what the program has to say after having done this kind of review with CREV.
ClouD,
I'll definitely be using some of these new GTO based study tools in future videos.
Alright, thank you for the awesome video, you are helping my poker game tremendously
Ben Sulsky. Stop being such a child anytime someone "dares" to criticize something you say or do in your videos. I have seen you overreacting several times in the comments sections of your videos now.
Just relax, and remember that you can not feel happiness at the same time as you feel those negative feelings. It is just poker son!
It's the internet :)
But seriously, if you make a reasonable argument I'll always write a legit response. Unfortunately your argument boils down to "If there's imprecision in the inputs of a model, then there's imprecision in the outputs," therefore "don't use models." No one disagrees with your premise, but no one understands how you get from A to B. Until you give a compelling reason why imprecision makes our models useless, people will probably just go on doing what they're doing.
Hint: The obvious way to go for you would be to say a) the magnitude of the imprecision in the outputs is so large from small variations in the inputs that the models are useless. But that's obviously false and my current video is a good example of why. Or b) That the model itself doesn't capture some important part of reality. But that obviously isn't the case because poker is a game and so there aren't any thorny philosophical questions to deal with when modeling the scope of poker.
Ben Sulsky. It may be so that in many models a small imprecision in the input will not affect the output very much. My claim however...is that the imprecision when doing a model from preflop to river 9 times out of 10 at some stage in the hand will be big. I also claim that even a small imprecision in the input will affect the output much in many cases. It may be so that we have different opinions of what is a small imprecision though.
I have to admit that I did not watch your video. This because I find CREV videos to be uninteresting. I will however have a look now, since you claim to have proven something.
Peace!
please learn to reply to peoples comments and not start a whole new comment every time you wanna say something
What sort of career have you had in poker semen? What stakes do you play?
@semen
Don't you think that you are wasting Ben's awesome talent by asking questions unrelated to the video content ?
Well, I am glad that you took a deeper look into my question. This was really helpful.
Listen guys. There is not need for the well known "RIO crucifixion" now. There is nothing more to add. The community does not like my view about the value in doing CREVS and you dislike my view about Sulsky doing CREV videos even more. I got it! Ok? Let us just move on now.
Randa. It is 8 inches long and 5, 5 inches thick. I hope that makes me the winner of the contest.
Hey Sauce, enjoyed the video. I have a question that can hopefully start some sort of positive discussion ITT. It is a bit of a tangent, and is maybe more theory oriented, but I think it applies to this video in some ways, particularly the sizings you chose in the T8s on K33 hand.
Let's assume we're on the river with a fairly linear range, against another fairly linear range- meaning both ranges contain some ratio of nuts, medium made, weak made, and air. When we're developing our range bet sizing(s), should we be favoring choosing a sizing that allows us to bet with the highest frequency possible while remaining balanced? Doing this would allow us to effectively win the pot on the river regardless of what villain chooses to do with the middling parts of his range. I suppose this argument doesn't apply to his nut combos and some fraction of his air that will be able to raise us. IIRC from Janda, when our opponent can start throwing in a raising range, even if it's small, it starts to significantly deter us from making large bets and overbets. This often favors small and medium bet sizings on early streets when ranges are wide and often uncapped or on a river that doesn't particularly favor 1 player's range over the other.
Another possible way to develop our range sizings could be to take a look at our range that wants to bet, look at what part is the most frequently, then size our bets in order to max the EV of that handclass, and finally add in the appropriate amount of bluffs. This seems like it causes us bet the river balanced less frequently (for instance assume we pfr and bet 3 streets on K73r,6,5 straights, and particularly 48/98 want to bet fairly huge, but hands like 2pr/sets can't size that large for value) but it might increase our range's EV ,and maybe our game value as a whole, more than being able to choose a smaller size and being able to bet balanced more often.
Even another way could be targeting defense thresholds in villain's ranges. Asymmetries in ranges seem like they could be great areas to target in order to guarantee yourself automatically profitable bets. That seems like what's going on when you're betting 1/3 pot with T8ss on K33r vs the BB. How do you know that strategy is making you more with your range as a whole compared to betting larger with a more polarized range and adding in the appropriate amount of bluffs? The KK3 hand is a spot that closely resembles the A,K,Q game and in that game it seems like you're incentivized to put max pressure on villain's bluff catchers.
I'm just trying to differentiate these three ideas and understand where 1 applies more strongly than the others and why.
Thanks.
jd,
I think you might enjoy Chapters 14 and19 of Mathematics of Poker. They solve a 0-1 game in which the Bettor maximizes the frequency he bets (and therefore the frequency villain is facing indifference), as well as looking at other betsizing schemes, such as how to maximize EV in a nuts/air game using the geometric growth of the pot.
Most nlhe cases can be usefully seen as special cases of these 0-1 games, albeit ones with some dynamic hand values and typically some clumping in the distributions (i.e., having top pair is a lot better than having mid pair, though one hand must be the threshold between them). I think familiarizing yourself with these concepts will make most of the conceptual concerns you have with betsizing go away.
Thanks for the video. I was pretty surprised at how big a loser 86s is in that spot.
I think it's a somewhat special situation because the Q turn with a T on the board strengthens so much of his UTG range. A lot of his bluffs go from 6 to 10-14 outs (maintaining 30-40% equity vs. 86s), and a lot of other ones pair up to 96% equity. Low/medium pairs suck =[
When I get a chance I think I'll look at how it plays on other turns.
Can you ballpark a % you think you will get to showdown with 86s after check/calling that flop?
I'm not sure, but that's definitely something we could figure out. I usually don't think about situations by estimating my R%. My ballpark is (unsurprisingly) "lower than normal," because of UTG's range advantage and the fact that all of his air except Axs has two overs.
Great video Ben, really enjoyed it. I specifically like the idea of going over interesting hands via CREV after the fact. The simulations give a LOT of insight on range interactions with strategic variations. Thanks!
Thanks Pac. These kind of comments are helpful for me to see because (imo) this was a very good CREV video for me, and it's still destined to get much fewer likes than any of my live play videos. So, especially given analysis vids take more time for me to execute, I won't make many of them unless there's a sizeable minority who really like them.
I can understand why only a minority would like such video but IMO this video helps my strategic thinking tremendously. There is a whole lot of information that can be gained by understanding how a spot works given range interactions. I'm all for more CREV videos that go in depth on 1-2 hands :)
I echo pacmang's comments.
totally agree. CREV vids are very very good
Hey Sauce thanks for a good video.
You mentioned that katya could bet this flop 100% of time with everything and it would be an okay/decent strategy. The sims you ran all assumed a 100% flop cbet strategy. But you also alluded to the fact that you can add some extra ev by checking back a few hands otf. How would you go about optimizing this // what are best candidates to consider checking? Do some of the smaller pp's i.e. 22-77 seem like good hands to check but that would also mean you would need to be maybe checking back a lot more hands otf so 8x isn't the nuts for ur opponent.
I also liked how you pointed out that 22-44 can become profitable double barrels for katya on the turn under certain strategies (considering a hand like 86dd for you is negative 2-3bb to call turn with), which kind of flipped my black/white perspective on buckets to place certain hands in.
PP,
I think the obvious X behind candidates are 22-77 since they really just want to get to showdown by checking. If we only X these combos, however, OOP will never let us win the pot. So we'll want to play a mix with a variety of other combos so that our X behind range isn't transparent.
Another interesting idea is that supposing we XB all 22-77, that leaves our only bluff candidates on favorable turns (like the Q) as Axs and overcards, which are fairly infrequent relative to our value hands and also have high equity. So, it's likely a good strategy to bluff/protect sometimes on the flop with 22-77, and X sometimes with these combos.
I might play an easy strategy on this board of cbetting 100%, and using 1/3 pot (instead of Katya's 1/2 pot) so that I can avoid difficult range splitting until the turn.
GREAT VIDEO!
You have some unique in your poker game and expression.Thanks for doing all of this holdem stuffs.
I think your live videos are more watched/liked , because a lot of omaha/mtt guys watch . I really hope my opponents doesn't see/like your CRev videos ! ( unfortunately I really doubt :) )
Haha, thanks!
Ben,
At 18:15, the EV of calling 86 OTT is -1.82bb, while the EV of calling the river is +3.52. Would the fact that calling the river wins us more then the loss on the turn be good enough to justify a call on the turn?
I feel the theoretical answer will be yes, but could get us into making too many false assumptions in game, leading us to spew.
Thank you in advance, and if you are taking special requests, we miss your HU vids :)
Hey Obese,
I know I'm not Ben :P. We can have a positive EV spot of some rivers and still lose money by calling the turn. Think about when someone rivers a set with a pair of 2s after calling the turn. The river is positive but the turn call is negative.
That's what the sim was telling us that even though we had a profitable river call on some rivers. It wasn't profitable enough to justify calling the turn.
Here's the technical justification:
The River EV call is the fraction of the river pot we receive when we call on some river cards. The River Fold EV is zero on the other river cards. The Turn EV is the average sum of our River EVs minus our Turn call.
O,
The results in the video are a bit distorted because I didn't rebalance IP's river frequencies after each turn iteration (though the initial ranges I had in the 100/58 case were pretty balanced). Anyways, this won't be a big deal with regard to the results, but you're right, the EV of the turn call is slightly higher than it looks in the video in the cases where 86s has a +EV river call.
Great Video!
Thanks, enjoyed this video a lot. The way you articulated using CREV to assess the magnitude of being right was useful for me and I also loved the notepad intermission.
even with full screen its too small for me to watch it, i dont need your face when u r talking.
it would be better to have a bigger size of your tables......
thx
spent first minute of the video trying to click his video. #inception
I loved this video and I think this is the kind of analysis that will take many players from good to great. Would definitely like to see more of the same...I think the format of making this kind of video after a live play vid where you can further analyse some spots that were discussed in the comments works especially well.
Thanks!
Great vid as always, thanks Ben. Any chance you would share your CREV files?
Yes, if I can do so through RIO. I don't want to be running my own dropbox/googledrive accounts for posting the files. If people want to be able to access the CREV files through the RIO website, then make a thread in the 'About Run it Once' forum, get some traffic, and I'll chat with the admins as well and we should be able to get it done.
That's an awesome idea, I'll throw a post up now.
I have a basic CREV question. What does it mean when it shows that a turn call is -ev but a river call is +ev? Meaning its implying that calling the turn with 86s is -ev but the river strategy is +ev.
Is it just analyzing each street in isolation and ignoring how much money was won or lost prior to arrive to that position in the tree? So for overall ev of the strategy you look at the ev shown at end of the tree?
It probably means that villain improves too often for us to call on the turn, but at times when villain doesn't improve, our call on the river will be good(?)
i think it shows the EV of the node.
so the EV(turn,call) = sum of the EV(all the strategic option after that call) * each freq%
like in this simple case
EV(BB, river call) = (1/3)(+4.5) + (2/3)(-1.5) = 0.5
EV(BB, river check through) = (3)(1/3) = 1
--> EV(BB, turn call) = (60%)(0.5) + (40%)(1) - 1 = -0.3
here we had a +EV river call but -EV turn call
Really, really awesome video Ben. I can't emphasize enough that no matter what the amount of likes says, these kind of videos should be produced a lot more than they are. I don't think I can think of a better concept in terms of learning opportunities for the ~"better than average" viewer with his fundamentals somewhat in place than what you did here - doing a live video and then doing a modelling video analysing some spots from the live video. Your live videos are obviously super interesting, but videos like this gives a much more valuable insight into how to think and learn poker, instead of just seeing a branch of your strategy in play.
And please continue recording yourself in videos like this. It's much easier to concentrate and not lose focus in a ~theoretical video like this when one can "look at you" when you talk.
I love these videos Ben, they are some of my favorites. The analysis done here is universally applicable and fascinating. You do a good job of illustrating the hands with different player types, and showing how changing ranges affect the EV. I love your sim videos, and prefer them to the more standard fare. I don't do much CREV analysis on my own, and enjoy getting walked-through by you as you are so familiar with the program it's easily explained and understood. If I had my choice, most of your videos would be of the lecture variety like CREV analysis, the toy gaming ones from a while ago. Now other programs like GTORB are available... coming up soon?
I think when i first signed up to RIO by far i enjoyed live play vids over theory based ones, however, i think once you've watched 100 or whatever $2.50/$5 Zoom videos there is only so much you can learn from watching another one (not that i don't enjoy them of course.)
Like players play slightly different but in general nobody is doing anything completely out of the ordinary. The edges between average regs and the best regs are small things, that the good player has worked on and learned better than his peers.
So imo these videos are where that small edge comes from, coming from playing Mtt's for 3 years full time now its quite a big difference switching from 9 max tourneys to 6 max cash. I remember punting off $1k or so at $0.50/1 Zoom one of the first time i played it, 4 tabling and monkey tilting lol.
Always had tilt issues when it comes to Zoom, however recently i just have such a good mindset, and i think its down to videos like this. I just try to make solid +EV, balanced plays that will make me money in the long term, focus on my EV during a session not winnings etc etc.
Cos i just always think to myself, what would Sauce do lol. then i check my AQ on Axx in a 4 bet pot to protect my checking range and exploit the over-aggressive post flop play of the villain. And print the $$.
Keep up these vids I'm also in the minority who enjoys them a ton!!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.