Inspecting Ignition Low Stakes: $0.25/$0.50 Zone Live Session
Posted by Tyler Forrester
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 31 Comments...
Great commentary Tyler ;)
Thanks for the love, user_name!
You add more value to my Elite membership than any other coach. Thank you
Awesome! I'm stoked to hear that :)
Nice video Tyler! You said that there was no need to raise 3x in these games. Im not sure what the rake structure is on ignition, but on pokerstars rake isn't paid if the hand ends preflop. I was wondering if it makes sense for us to raise 3x in these games in order to avoid getting flatted as often as we might if we raise 2.5x, therefore pay rake less often?
Only about 16% of pots will be raked more at .25/.50 then 2.5/5. Essentially because only the biggest pots are raked more, the smaller pots (like open raises) will be played the same at both stakes. The 3x sizing can been shown to be dominated, so I would avoid it.
I don't understand this. 50z rake is 5%, 500z is a smaller %, so isnt 100% of pots raked more?
Good question, I checked ignition rake structure at it the same percentage/cap for all limits between .1/.25 and 10/20.
Ignition Rake
Its interesting to hear your thoughts on the rake, it seems like you've changed your stance a lot on the rake at low stakes having such a big effect? How much would you change your defending ranges in standard spots, like bb vs ep, btn vs ep etc, because it sounded like you were advocating playing a similar style to what you would play at 500 zoom or have i got confused somewhere? I ask because the defending ranges snowy will suggest can vary enormously between 500nl and 200nl nevermind 50nl :)
Thanks as always for the great content!
Preflop play between 500NL and 50NL will change (tighten). I talk about this in my ignition .5/1 video from last april. Post-flop play however is affected differently by the rake. The right sizing will likely still remain small. I'm going to follow up on this in my next video.
Wow this is contradictory to almost everything I've ever seen on these stakes from Phil,
Shifty, Ben sulsky and others . Almost all of them said because of the rake raise bigger to take more pots down pre flop. Some suggested even 4 x raises might be best suited. Also they suggested defending range would be much tighter and so would opening ranges in late position. Interesting to see another point of view. Thank you for the video a lot to think about
If I can back it up in the next video, I will. The risk with small stakes videos is that I don't spend a lot of time thinking about maximizing profits at .25/.50, so some of the strategy adjustments could be incorrect.
Tyler, great video. A couple of questions:
In your 100NL video you advocate a different approach to high rake games, namely trying to take down the pot pre-flop and using 3x open raises. As that video was posted a year ago, I'd like to ask if you've done any work/sims since then that have made you believe this isn't the correct approach for these games. As others have mentioned, this video is very different from what are used to seeing when Elite coaches make 50NL videos.
If 2.5x opens outperform 3x, are smaller 3-bet sizing preferable to larger ones?
I didn't understand the rake structure as well in my previous video. Preflop play is raked at the same 5% at 2.5/5 as it is at .25/.50. The difference in rake only occurs when the pot grows past 16bbs.
Because the rake structure is identical when we open raise preflop, we should be using the same sizing strategy. The differences come into play in two situations:
1) Some hands will no longer be profitable to open because of the extra rake postflop that is paid. I did extensive work on this a year ago.
2) Blind play and 4-bet/5-bet play will be tighter. However (and this is something I need to follow up on), it's likely to be tighter only by a hand or two rather than a big strategy chance.
I'm also going to follow up with some postflop sims to discuss the difference in cbetting strategy EV between the two rake structures.
Some questions I was pmed.
First spot AKo sqz pot and vs this guy with 11$ stack we for sure depolarizing our range so it will be around 5-6% i guess, so we have big range advantage on this structure. This means that u should cbet this board 100%. So why u dont want to bet 33% all range and realize equity by own price instead of check and allow oponnent to bet bigger then that? This is some problem on lower stakes that weak regs or fishes will be betting here around 7-8$ and u can't call with AKo.
12.36
xback looks pretty good because u induce bluff OTR, but what u think about splitting this AK to AK with blokers to clubs to xback and AK with no blocker that need some protection and his ratio of c/R turn will be higher with some fd. ?
18.23 AK again :)
what is your cbetting range here? do u play here 1/3 for thin value with some AKo with spade blockers? What u think about splitting range here to some thin value like hands like this and bet pot with some bluffs like QJ,KJ,KQ and balance this with overpairs?
Thanks!
At 22bbs, AKo should be a jam preflop. It's hot cold equity when called is positive, but most non A, K hands will have enough equity to call. Since I have a bigger stack as opposed to betting 22bbs, I would generally raise to 11bb which pot commits me with any two cards against the short-stack, but still gives me the option to fold against the deeper stacks.
On the turn after calling a 3-bet with AK and flop on Ah4c4d7c. I don't think its very important what combos, I choose to check. It's also very reasonable to bet. Randomization here is an academic argument. From a purely technical standpoint, using a RNG is the best method to decide whether to bet or check. The RNG will provide more granularity (you want to do this 53% of the time you can) and it will also be less exploitable because in general checking ranges based on cards leak information.
On cbetting AK on Ts6d3s against a recreational player who has cold called a 3-bet. I generally wouldn't. It's the simple fact the when players cold-call 3-bets they are often strong. Betting bluffcatchers into strong ranges is a losing proposition.
Hi Tyler,
It seems at these stakes the 1/3 cbet just seems to get floated so often leading to annoying turn spots with marginal hands or bluffs. Is it better over all to just bet 1/2 - 2/3 pot at these micro's?
Nothing is clear cut here. I like 1/3rd pot, because its been more effective at making my opponents make mistakes.
To do this, you need to understand what an opponent mistake is. For example, if your opponents are overcalling the flop, most will be overfolding the turn.
However, big c-bet mistakes are easier to spot. If my opponent calls my 3/4 potsize bet with J-High, this is more clearly a mistake and an easy exploit, value bet lighter.
You really wrap this video up well and underline your point in recent videos about bluffs and value bets being linked and feeding off one another. This, combined with your discussion on bet sizings, really helps with planning out hands and constructing ranges that still remain dynamic depending upon game conditions. Great stuff.
Great comment! I appreciate the compliments, it helps me make my future videos better :)
At 35:09 your opponent times out on the flop and then insta-checks the turn. It's sleazy, but you can minbet in these spots and take down the pot since your opponent will auto-fold.
Theoretically it's possible that your opponent is doing this as a trap, but if he's going for the fake timeout / check / 1bb trap I think we just have to give it to him :)
I like your idea. :)
Hei, Tyler! Thank you for useful information and new ideas, especialy about rake!
Sweet Tuzin, stoked you got something from the video!
Since it seems like the player pool doesn't bluff at optimal levels on the river, and their bets are value heavy, what types of adjustments should we make to deviate from a 1-alpha strategy when evaluating our calling range?
1-alpha is only applicable to players who are tough and adapative. If we know the players underbluff, then we should only call hands they are value betting.
great video thank you
Thanks Jim! I appreciate the kind words
Hey Tyler. You said when you open 3x as opposed to 2.5x, "you're essentially saying that the players behind me call too often." If you're getting called more behind your opens, wouldn't you want to open smaller so you don't have to play as big a pot OOP? Or is the idea that giving them a smaller open justifies their wider play and you can punish weaker ranges even OOP?
You should have a stronger hand raising than the caller calls. If this is true, then every extra dollar in the pot means more money to you, because you have an EV advantage. If you raise bigger against people who call more often you make more money. A smaller open will make less money and should be avoided because of this.
Is positional disadvantage not a factor affecting your EV?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.