$1/$2 Live Zoom Session (part 2)
Posted by teunuss
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 36 Comments...
Really enjoyed the video. In the KJo vs Ah6h hand 13:00, what was the thinking with sizing the river so small? After the 4b shove it seems like such a strange hand for value or as a bluff, but I feel vs the population it's a fold as I just never see bluffs here, although you do say he is a stronger reg and is capable in these spots.
At 30:20 you briefly mention villain playing an "old school" polarized cbetting strategy, when he fails to cbet 43hh on J74, and that such a strategy is much harder to execute well. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts in a bit more detail either in comment or a future video on polarized cbetting strategies.
-Its fine for me to have 2 sizings on the river, I think the J is slightly even as far as IP-OOP after action goes check check and check call, because we as IP we want to bet turn for value and protection with most of our Jx on the turn so its not as bad as in other situations with the middle card pairing. So our valuebets will mainly be Jx and flushes, and sometimes a boat or a very thin valuebet like the occasional KQish hands.
It benefits to have a small size with some hands like nutflushes and 33s cause they get c'red alot by Jx because of blocker affects and therefore we get some extra value by putting them in tough spots with 3bets.
Its a very interesting spot cause indeed we don't expect people to be bluffing in these unique situations, but him having 2p or a set doesn't make much or any sense either giving the action, so I am fine with my call on the river, cause he will have a big portion of Jx no boat to choose his bluffs from.
-I think I mentioned it a couple of times before, but if IP is the preflop agressor, there are a lot boards where IP can cb close to fullrange for a small sizing, it's what solvers suggest and it's an easy to execute strategy playing close to gto. So on a lot of boards both preflop and flop, you will play a very solid strategy where your opponent is already likely to make a ton of mistakes both preflop and on the flop.
If you bet a more polarized strategy, you will need to mix with a ton of hands which is far harder to execute and you will be open to exploitations far more often.
I hope this answers your questions a bit.
Great video, one of my favorites.
Can you explain why you 3bt so big from the bs vs lp opens? vs btn min R you seem to go to 20 which is 5x. I would think this makes it ok for btn to exploit you by either folding often or 4bting often? And it seems to be a good exploit vs that sizing either way... I know it seems to be all the rage recently but everyone seems to have different explanations as to why.
TY- very insightful video
Solvers suggest larger sizings OOP because it takes away some of the positional edge, because the stack to pot ratio gets smaller and it also makes the 4b game harder.
Those are the two main reasons for me :).
Do you still like the J7s button fold at 4:54 or was that a multi tasking mistake? Thanks
Looks very standard to me?
lol
only U I m waiting for. Thx a lot. :)
at 12:00 you check 66 to river on q34ssx 5 turn, could you please discuss your thinking here?
I think checking flop is the play, and turn I don't think I benefit too much from betting turn as im not getting called by worse often and my hand plays well as a check call.
River betting is defenitely the high frequency play, which I think blockbet is best.
at 3:10 we aren't folding the aqo? i feel like that is standard for me vs the isolation in the sb.. what kind of range do we want to be 3 betting? more polar? thanks
If you are folding AQo pre you are defenitely too tight.
I like calling most of my cotinueing hands because we then get into a lot of pots with the funplayer. So indeed I like a very polarized 3betting range.
thanks yeah sorry i meant 3 betting the aqo **
Follow up question: Is this a spot with AQo where you think it's significantly more +EV to flat a hand that's this high up in our range compared to just 3-betting? This is a spot that gives me problems because I know that 3-betting this is very +EV against a wide button steal compared to having to play an inflated pot OOP multi-way, relying on making our hand and then also getting paid by something worse. In general, I just don't like flatting in many situations although here I can see the benefits.
Your videos are some of the best on RIO lately. Your clear thought process is the main takeaway for me.
Thanks!
Yes both plays are obviously +ev, but the % of this going 3way to the flop by flatting is very high and these players tend to make huge mistakes preflop which will increase our ev significantly, therefore with hands where both plays seem 'fine' I tend to call more than 3betting in these situatitons to get into pots with the weaker player.
can you go over what your hud is please? or if you have done it in a previous video just let me know which one. thanks.
nothing spectacular, just the standard stuff.
fold to steal/3b stats and open per position and some cb stats and fold to cb.
I don't use my hud too much though.
4:00 I don't understand why you don't choose to x/r either flop or turn. Do you think its too thin for value? I guess we block top pr so maybe more likely he's bluffing, but board is sort of dynamic...we don't block clubs...you say our hand plays better as a check call, why?
Because I feel like flop we have a pretty good hand which could deniftely cr, but its also a board where our hand is going to be very vulnerable on a lot of turns, thats why I like check calling more.
Turn cr is too thin.
17:00 I don't understand the reason to block the river here when we are hoping to pick off a bluff
24:00 I was thinking from villain perspective (if he knows you're a reg) is AK too thin for a 3 street vbet here? I mean not the overbet jam as played, but if he just had a 2/3 river sizing, I can't really see much worse he gets called by unless you had some kind of crazy dynamic. You could have 22,77,A2dd...
-AK should defenitely be looking to mostly tripple barrel, hands to get value from: TT-QQ/KQ-K9.
Hey man great video. Very interesting hand with the A6s there and I decided to run it through PIO to check how good you played the hand versus the villain.
Even though this line gets played very rarely by the solver, I find out that you actually nailed it with your decisions. In the graph below you can see that the fraction of combo of A6s that gets to this node snap calls the 4b river jam, so mad props to you.
I believe that even though exploitatively people never bluff in this spot, it is important that when in doubt we stick to theory which I believe is what made you make this decision. Do you agree?
Also I would also like to get to this point where I intuitively understand what solver would to in spots that uniquely occur like this one. Did you run many simulations or is this intuition based through experience?
Best, Kazeo
Hey, thanks Kazeo!
I have ran many simulations but I haven't ran a simulation on any similar hand. Which is indeed quite hard because it's a very unique one. So my decision is indeed experience/intuitive based alongside the reasons I mentioned in my first reply above.
In general I don't mind making some exploitative based decisions in these unique situations, but you are spot on in my opinion, when in doubt and not really knowing your opponent etc it's just best to stick to theory.
nice vid, don't think I've seen you run hotter in a liveplay before haha.
what were your overall thoughts about the regs at 1/2? like just from watching this video (if I would have never played 1/2 before) my thoughts would be they are fairly aggro but pretty spewy. would this be a fair assessment?
you can tell that some are using PIO with some plays, but other plays just seem to be- you bet small, I think you're weak, I raise! or, I haven't triple barrelled in a while, so i'm gonna do it this hand regardless of the run out.
I also kinda get the feeling people play too fast at this limit- I was 100% an offender of this. like snap calling turn bets when they have a hand they just plan on calling down with seems pretty bad as we can just do things like jam 5x pot on the river, and also lower our bluffing frequency as, from experience, regs/ fish snap calling turns when checking back flop, just intend on calling any reasonable sized bet on the river. as they are like, I need to protect my x back range with some call downs.
I really like your break-down of the hand at @33:42, on the face of it, AK with the Ac seems like the nut bluff-catcher on an K55ccxxc board. but, as you said, AQ with the Ac seems like our best bluffing combing, that and probably AQ with the Qc. other than that, it seems insanely difficult to find ANY bluffing combos that would be in our range in a 3 way pot when one of the 2 villains can easily just have flopped a boat.
yet he doesn't even think of 2 seconds he just snaps.
if villain just calls with his 3 KK combos, perhaps he has 1 or two combos of A5s (although he probably bets flop) and he should have a couple of 'slow played' AQcc/AJcc/ATcc and perhaps even A4cc and A3cc.
those hands I just mentioned there seems like more than enough hands to bluff catch, so that we can just call turn with AK (you could be betting KQ and of course AK yourself) and fold it on the river and we wouldn't be over-folding. and if we do decide to call down then call without the Ac so we can unblock your AcQ combos.
on the river our value range seems to be trips or >.
going to discount KK as we would 3 bet that pre I believe close to, if not, 100% of the time vs a 3 bet and cold call.
so we have 1 combo of 55, 3 combos of 22, 2 combos of 56s, 2 combos of 54s and 2 combos of A5s. then we probably have 1 combo of AQ-A7cc and 1 combo of A2-A4cc. so another 9 combos of flushes. so we have 19 value combos. we may have some other flushes as well but for simplicity i'm just gonna stop at A high flushes.
as we are jamming for pot on the river our range should be 2:1 value to bluffs. so we should have around 9 combos of bluffs.
if we bluff AcQx and AxQc then that only amount to 6 combos and we are under-bluffing. and bluffing all our combos of AQ with a club already seems speculative as on the turn we are betting in to 2 players, both of whom can have flopped a boat.
so I believe, with almost 100% certainty, we are under-bluffing this spot.
so does this mean that villain should fold AcKx and just call his trips>? i'm not sure.
because when we have AcKx in our hands then we can totally eradicate almost half of OOP's value region- he now no longer can have A high flushes. so OOP's value region now goes from 19 combos to 10 combos. BUT, now OOP can't have AcQx in their bluffing range. and is now only left with 3 combos of AxQc in their bluffing range and 10 value combos.
so holding the Ac pretty much doesn't change anything, yes it cuts in half OOP's value region but it also cut's in half their bluffing region.
we are still left with an opponent who is under-bluffing. 3 bluff combos (at most) and 10 value combos (perhaps more if he decides to include weaker flushes.)
so I think villain has a CLEAR FOLD on the river. the pot is 3 ways so he doesn't have to defend as if he was HU, half of that responsibility goes to the button cold caller.
if he just calls his KK combos, any 5x combos and any Axcc combos then I think that will be more than enough to defend sufficiently.
definitely has to call turn though, of course.
Haha and if Im not mistaking, part 3 is me running even better or similar lol.
Think I said a couple of things about the playerpool at the beginning of part 1.
It seems like a really nice mix of:
-very good amount of fish
-bad regs
-oldschool regs who used to play highstakes years ago
-Newschool regs who still (try to) move up and clearly play strategies intone with solvers but aren't at a highlevel YET.
-Strong regs (who play a mix of 200 and 500z like erazer/elusivemark)
Obviously very different things go through my mind thinking about the players in each category. I agree with some of the timing stuff you talked about.
I 100% agree with your analysis, don't think you missed anything there, cant check it in PIO since its multiway. I would certainly bluff my fair share of AQ combo's on the turn but would give up river without a c in it on a c river. So I am likely to underbluff river, and in general most people will underbluff this spot.
So AcKx is way better off folding in this situation where OOP is going to be having a tight range considering 3b MP vs EP with a coldcall.
Also enjoyed the video and good comments below. Very good!
at 30:30 you call 3bet OOP CO vs BTN with 75s? is this standard?
not trying to steal teunuss' thunder but I believe its because we are 180bb deep with a hand that is deceptive, suited, almost never dominated, flops smooth equity, and sometimes over-realizes that equity. also because its co v btn we are up against a wider range. However, looking at this specific situation I'm assuming that orange is his color for competent reg as I see a supernova tagged orange on the other table...so maybe the call is a little less appealing here
NIttyoldman covers most of the points I wanted to make :).
But certainly a bottom of my range type of hand to call, and I would fold if we are at a 100bb deep vs this 3b size.
teunuss thank you so much for responding to everyone. it is much appreciated!
Roughly, what kind of a ratio of (Value : Bluffs) should we have for half pot sized turn bets?
@10:09. Open BTN Qd9c both blinds call. Flop TJdd6c. xx We bet 75%. This is a board where we have a sig range adv and will be cbetting alot, how come you prefer 75% over 25-50% in this spot?
@22:00 3BP SBvsBB defend AcQdd and peel vs 75% on 8h5h5c. Could you explain why? Seems a bit loose without a H in our hand and stack depth no?
@28:00 3BP SBvsBtN AQo cbet 30% on AJ7r. You say two sizings is okay. Can you talk about the second sizing you could/would use and in what instance?
-If we look at a typical sb callingrange, it's a fairly good board for the SB, and we aren't going to be cbetting at a high frequency, especially against two players, so I like a larger sizing as default.
-We are not supposed to fold AQ on this flop against this sizing, so calling defenitely fine.
-On a lot of boards where our top x% hands benefit alot from quick value/protection, we like to have a large sizing ike 90-110% pot (to mostly jam the turn). I think that's mostly for the more drawheavy boards tho.
do you thing you cant be a crusher on nl200z without having that 1/3 cbet ? that shit kinda put me on tilt.. also fell like you get so exploit when betting 1/3 flops and cheaking turns... if the i start overbetting the riverz.. you almost never gonna have value.. really dont like this pio trend because you ppl thing they play GTO by cbeting 1/3 but nobody even plays close to gto.. that 1/3cbet can be doing more harm than good IMO... if a guy stab 50% on turns vs your flop x i dont wanna bet 1/3 with my midle or bottom pair i just want to x and let him bluff with hands that gonna fold to my 1/3 GTO flop bet... common man.... its impossible to play like PIO so why even copy some part of the strategy when nobody gonna be able to play the rest .... again more harm than good...
Well said neenee. We need more great exploitative coaching like neenee on the RIO video making staff.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.