4 Table $5/$10 and $10/$20 6-Max NLHE
Posted by Peter Jennings
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 119 Comments...
Hey Peter, glad to see you making videos.
K7o BL - Agree with the flop c/r, but if he were to bet the turn and call, his range should be mostly Ax, and since he would be close to the top of his range on dry runouts with a bunch of draws missing, are you not worried he won't fold enough here? And once he checks the turn, why not try to show Khigh down? Most of his middle pairs bet the flop, so you only lose to a flopped pair, which you mentioned he doesn't have too frequently anyway.
QJo BL - You mention in the AK hand that UTG ranges are fairly tight, so flatting QJo would be really loose versus that range, since it's dominated by everything but QTs and JTs. Or did that table run on him, and did you just want to play him HU IP?
K9o BR - You say you'd 3-bet all your QJo/AJo etc. here. But if you, isn't your defending range too weak? You'll mostly have weak gutshot without overs etc., so your c/c and c/r range becomes pretty weak.
If he checks back Ahigh, 33-99 on KT2ddK, he probably checks back the turn too. Once he does check let's say 99 twice, it's pretty much the top of his range. And since you sometimes bet Kx/Tx and him having somewhat relevant blockers, I don't think he will, nor should fold.
Since his range contains give ups, hands he wants to showdown, and some Kx to protect it, what do you think about an overbet-overbet range? He will get to the river with a ton of bluff catchers, so overbetting forces him to defend fewer off them. You can still bet Kx this way, and even Tx good kicker if you feel his flop checking range is too weak, and obviously every bluff.
KK BL - Interesting point on him not c/c'ing much on that board.
Pretty weird that he didn't CRAI, which I assume he'd do with value hands. Do you read into his sizing at all?
Hi,
To answer your questions....
K7, yes you may be right that he won't fold too many Ax to a turn c/r river barrel line but I just don't care whether he does or doesn't. First of all he won't always have Ax when he does bet, he'll have other stuff that just wants to rep the ace, all that stuff I get immediate folds from. Also I think he rarely has better than 1 pr and I have actually a ton of strong hands there so I need to include a good amount of bluffs. I'm definitely including heart/heart combos first then 5x combos second... the next strongest semi bluff would be 7x and I felt I had enough value combos to compensate c/r that wide of a range. I suppose we could do a quick range analysis w/ pokerstove or whatever to figure it out but my gut says including 7x there is probably good.
QJ it's just different because for one he's minraising and I view him as a weaker player. If he 3x'd and had a full stack I would certainly fold pre. Also we are just extremely likely to go multiway to the flop. My QJ will also dominate a lot of hands that BB will feel obligated to call with so when we both flop a pair mine will be better.
K9 yes maybe my range doesn't cover the KTx board particularly well in that spot so it should necessitate my play to include significantly more chk/calls and maybe I need to c/c a few more nutted type hands like 22 and K2 in order to balance my range and keep guys from barreling me down too much, good point to bring up, my ranges probably are a bit too weak to be chk/raising a hand like K9 there.
Whether he should or shouldn't fold 99-33/2x/A high to one bet on the river won't actually matter if I play a more balanced range and check the turn like I suggested I should have when I did hold the K9 because I will have a lot of Tx there also. It's not like I can get two streets of value from 88 when I have T9 so I should be checking turn w/ my whole range and then betting all my missed semi bluffs and my good value hands on the river.
KK not too sure. I don't really try to make too many reads based off of sizing. Not something I focus on too much. I treated it essentially as an all in bet.
Thanks for the questions.
Thanks for the quick reply. I had a couple more questions, but for some odd reason I deleted them. :)
75s BL - You don't like betting a no-equity hand on A44dd, but since the 4 is a blank and you have more Ax, you should expect him to fold a lot of the same no-equity hands that might bet themselves and win the pot. He probably won't go crazy because checking such a c-bettable board looks strong, but he still gets free equity on the turn. Do you plan on just giving up with all those hands?
KJs BR - Thinking the same thing as in the K9o hand. If you're 3-betting this hand vs CO, then you have a really weak defending range, and you can't really attack boards with any (combo)draws, bluffs with blockers/BD equity, and I assume you'l get 4-bet light. How do you combat this?
Personally, I like defending some stronger hands like AJo/KQo/KJs/QJo etc. to protect my defending range, and because you fold out most hands you dominate when you do 3-bet and get called.
KJs TR - I think that what you said in the 75s on A44 hand applies here a lot more because King10s range is much more defined (Ax, PPs, couple of SCs), so you can't expect him to fold here very often, whereas a BB defending range has a ton of connected hands that miss this board.
Q6s BR - Human limps. Is this part of his strategy? You never really see limps at these stakes, expect for one of our former coaches who actually had a very defined strategy. Tombatle did it earlier in the video. Think he's taking shots because he plays 2/4 and 3/6 a lot with a full stack.
Thought it was a great video overall.
Thanks for that compliment.
75s I think using a strategy of betting a very small portion of my range on the flop is probably okay. Maybe betting when I have 4x and then also betting some of the middling hands that have no showdown value but still have some backdoor equity like 56o or a naked backdoor flush draw with both cards <Q with the intention of 2 barreling when I pick up backdoor equity since he should have some kind of a range that includes floats and also middling pairs like 66 77 88 that will call flop but fold to a 2nd barrel. Hands like K hi and Q hi I think I want to just try to be taking to showdown.
KJs yes my defending range is relatively weak but I find other ways to balance that which maybe we will get to see that strategy in future spots but here would take too much time to discuss.
When I get 4b w/ this hand it's just a call. I think it's just important to be pushing edges preflop even if they are relatively thin as long a the hand has decent playability.
Other KJs, yes I agree, although I would think chk/call in the A44 board w/ hands as weak as QT trying to get to showdown is probably fine whereas the KJs I would never try to show that down against ktclubs range there, I'd bluff rivers when turn chkd through. Although I really have no mathematical background so I can't be sure.
Q6s I really have no idea as I haven't ever played w/ Human before. I've never seen someone I have a high amount of respect for open limping any hands in 6max NLHE. I could probably see a limping strategy OTB as potentially being okay but probably unnecessary, and I could see a limping strategy employed in 9 handed games from the first three spots considering how narrow a solid UTG opening range is at a 6max table but other than that I doubt it's that great. Maybe he just missclicked.
~ minute 12: doesnt seem optimal or even close to optimal to checkraise ur whole continuing range on any board?
~overall u say it is standard for u to 3b QJo from BB vs BU and KJs from BB vs CO
arent these hands quite nice calling hands?
esp QJo vs the bu, seems both for ur range and in a vacuum a flat to me
maybe more later, cool video:)
gw with the effective way of breaking down alot of aspects of the hands. Alot of videocoaches tend to kinda just comment on the action to much wich kinda is pointless in a game of poker when every spot is very dynamic.
also i like the no rant type approach especially in 45min videos, felt like u covered a good amount of ground.
not that i hate ranting or anything :) it can be quite interesting aswell at times ( phil =D ).
good debute mate
Thank you.
To respond...we aren't robots and nobody really knows what the 'optimal' strategy is. I went to the 12 minute mark but didn't find myself saying anything about checkraising my entire range on any board so not sure what you were referring to. I do feel I probably c/r the majority of my range in spots where the board is just better for me than my opponent and where if I take a c/c line it could put me in a bunch of difficult situations on later streets. I'd rather force my opponent to guess what I have than sit there guessing what he has which is just a basic premise I use when I'm playing. If you bring up more specific spots we could discuss that.
I think it's important to be pushing preflop equity whenever our hand has decent playability. QJo has ~50% equity vs 45% opening range. The reason I choose not to call is because I don't feel comfortable checkraising QJ for value on most Q/J hi flops, and I already have all Q4o+ and Q2s+ in my range to call so I feel like calling QJ doesn't really do anything to bolster that range since against 3 barrels on most Q hi boards Q2 and QJ both become bluff catchers. Additionally, I feel very comfortable barreling down on Q/J hi boards in 3b pots quite frequently as I will get peeled pre by hands I dominate. Lastly, it's correct to peel lots of small-medium pairs vs 3bets when in position so I like to have the two overcards in my hand since any pair is going to be good.
I think he was probably referring to the T76 flushdraw board where you said you would be check-raising most if not all of your continuing range oop. It does feel kind of weird to me to be check-raising hands like T9 or 88 which seem to work better as check-calls in a vacuum, but I see how a check-calling strategy can get tricky on this board. I feel like these are some of the toughest spots to figure out, when the vacuum play and the range play clash.
Hey
nice vid. Thought your explanations were good.
min 9 AK:
- you say that your range is strong since you call in MP vs. UTG and BB can be peeling wide and therefore has a weaker range. But do you have nutted hands like 22 33 55 A4s? I guess BB can have these hands. Are you assuming that he c/r these hands on the flop and therefore you barrel turns and rivers vs. his weak c/c range?
min 15 KK:
- you said that in villains situation you would c/r hands with equity on a Tx6c7c board. So you are c/r your whole range? What do you do with AT-JT?
min 22 KTo:
- you said that KTclubs can have big pairs. You think he occasionaly flats KK+ on the Button vs. MP?
Hi,
Re: AK, yes your assumption is right. It's definitely true that I can have some 55/44 hands there, probably I fold 22-33 pre, but my value range is going to include every big pair all of which would 3 barrel versus my opponent's chk/calls. I think given I have AA-JJ to fire these barrels that BB would feel an incentive to chk/raise all of his flopped sets making my potential 3 barrel bluff very profitable. If he knew that, his best play would probably be to c/c c/c c/shove w/ those hands but none of these guys know my game that well.
Re: KK hand, good question. This is much more complicated how I would approach these types of spots. The majority of my play is on anonymous tables so I don't generally have to worry so much about protecting my ranges in those games. At regular tables I think I might lead/fold my QT/JT type hands as a means for pot control. It wouldn't necessarily be completely balanced but I don't think that would matter too much because it's difficult for even very strong players to pick up on subtle range adjustments in spots like that, particularly when they aren't able to see a showdown and necessarily have to give me quite a bit of credit for leading on a board that is definitely good for my range. If anybody thinks they have a better suggestion as to how to play these types of spots I'd love to hear it, I just feel that the c/c c/c c/r line is somewhat predictable and also difficult to pull off against in position's barreling range.
Re: KTo, for as big as a winner I hear he is, I'm nearly certain he will flat all his KK/AA from BTN vs MP opens. I think it's definitely the best play with those hands and I would also play those hands the same from that position.
Thanks for the questions.
You are opening T9o and J9o, but not 97s in the CO. Why not?
Great first video!
Thanks.
I'm not sure about these situations where I chose to raise or fold. If you gave me time stamps I could give you a better answer.
I can think of scenarios I'd want to open all three of those hands and I can think of scenarios I'd want to fold all 3. J9o is definitely the best of those hands and 97s is definitely the worst. I think high card value (stuff that flops bigger pairs) is more valuable than low connecting cards.
Glad to see you sharing your passion for the game, I remember your early days on FTR. Looking forward to more vids!
Cheers
22:45 You raise KsTc in MP and KTclubs calls. So you cbet the flop because you have good blockers, right?
KTclubs cannot have KsTs or KcTc.
:-P
Hello peter, thanks for the video.
I go straight to the point and would like you to ask some insight.
"i dont have a cbetting range on this board" The board is A44.
U dont have one cause u are afraid to be too air heavy? And maybe cause it is easier for u constructing ur range just on a chech/call, possibly check raise solution?
Why do u think splitting ur range into checks and bets is suboptimal? (same on a AA8 baord)
T76ss. U dont have a calling range here, you stated. Why exactly is that like this? Maybe I didnt get it right, but I ant see why check calling and check raising turn or river should be less good. If opponent is barrelling a lot we just check raise a wider range on turns or rivers.
I could buy it if you say i ran this sim in crev and c/r here is v profitable vs population btn open plus they define their range when calling et. To me it seems that you might whether check raise too much or check fold too much in this spot, or both. But I might be wrong. :)
Thank you and good luck with the next videos.
Hi,
I think it's probably okay to have a betting range if you want to take all of your hands and bet the flop but then check the turn with all of them as well that's probably okay too since you just want to make sure you have a way to protect yourself from your opponent floating the flop too wide and taking the pot down too much when neither of you flop equity. I feel it's probably slightly better accomplished by chk/calling everything since I assume most average opponents are going to put us on showdown value if we chk/call vs when we c-bet then chk turn.
The board is just a very complex one to play and I think there are probably a bunch of different ways to play it. I think because of how many hands we have that will have great equity it's okay to mix it up quite a bit. I can't say for sure which strategy is best because I just don't know. I also never run sims so I can't say that I have or use that as a justification. I'm not even sure how I would go about programming them to solve for this type of spot.
One thing I do think gives me a slight advantage is that if I take the majority of my hands that have equity and c/r, my opponent's are likely going to give me a stronger range than average and probably feel subconsciously that it's correct to concede me a few more pots than I might necessarily win otherwise.
24:00 KsTc on 732ssc you say you chose this hand to barell with given you have the Ks and can bet spade turns. Would you be betting spade turns with overpairs? If so, then I think your turn betting range becomes too bluff heavy. I personally would be checking overpairs thus my turn value range on a spade would be pretty narrow.
Perhaps a better line with KsTc is to bet flop with intention of c/r'ing spade turns given we would be checking most of our range on the turn.
26:40 KsTc, you say you need to be bluffing sometimes and that this combo is fine to do it with.
I agree but im not really sure what our range looks like then. lets see:
We got 33,22,77+ flushes (Axss + spades SCs + spadebroadways) + 76s78sA7s + QQ,KK,AA = 3+3+1+19+6+9+9+9= 59 value.
And perhaps KsTo,KsJo,KsQo,KsAo,AsQo,AsJo,AsKo, = 21 bluffcombos ?
^ is all this correct ? I guess we can add more bluffs then, 45s ? what else ?
I'm pretty sure your math is way off there and on the river we certainly do not "want to have at least 2x as many bluffs as value bets in any spot where we are betting between 3/4-full". Even assuming infinite stacks its always incorrect to be bluffing over 50% on the river so it's easy to see that with 100bb stacks we usually need to be value betting over 70% of the time with most betsizes that arent overbets (we can be bluffing a lot more than that on earlier streets but never on the river). If you are really bluffing 2x more combos than value bets your opponent has a fist pump snap call with any bluffcatcher.
True its the other way around right.
Like when we bet pot, your opponent gets 2:1 on a call, so need to be right 33% of the time.
So we should have 2x the value combo for everybluff.
ehm no if we do have 2 bluffs for every 1 value that means he sees a bluff 66% of the time, so he can call anything, cause he only needs to see a bluff 33% of the time if that makes sense.
If you have been basing your game off this assumption you must be extremely imbalanced towards bluffs in all river spots!!
This is kind of basic game theory maths but for sake of simplicity lets assume you are betting full pot on the river with a perfectly polarized range {nuts;air} (it's not so simple in reality since many times we are v-betting non nuts combos and some of our v-bets will get called by better hands) then the way to go is to count how many nuts combos we have and add enough bluffing combos to make him indifferent between calling and folding facing the betsize we use. Facing a full pot sized bet he needs to be right 1 in 3 times to breakeven which means you should have nuts 2/3 times and air 1/3 times, if you have air any more often he can just calldown with 100% of his bluffcatchers and conversely if you have nuts over 2/3 times he can just fold everything. Then again it's very simplified but you get the general idea.
Okay so to update the correct range to play in this river spot given the mistake that I made I believe the correct way to play this river spot would be to have those 34 value combos then to have all AsKx/AxKs/AsQx/AxQs/KsQx/KxQs This will give us 18 bluff combos and 34 value bets.
I'm afraid it's going to sound like I'm giving Peter a hard time, but this is crazy, right?! When I first read the 2 bluffs: 1 value thing I thought it was a typo, but it wasn't. He was WAY off on a basic theory thing. But he's crushing some of the toughest games in the world. Clearly, what he's doing is working. What does this mean? Does math matter?
dirty,
You may be reading too much into what I was saying. Just because something is supposed to be true 'theoretically' doesn't necessarily mean it works in practice. This is dependent on how far the game has developed. When we examine in a series of hands, if the way they play in practice is far different from how they should play in theory, theoretical considerations become less important. The closer those games play to theory (or another way of putting it is, the better the players are), the more important following the theory becomes.
Just because I said I generally base my strategy around trying to have roughly 2 bluffs for 1 value bet doesn't mean that's the strategy I always use. There are spots I feel my opponents over-fold and spots I feel they over-call and I will often choose to give up or bet based on those spots. Regardless of my opponent type.
I guess it's a weird way to put it but I consider myself both a game theory and a feel player cuz I use both to figure out which decision I should make.
--I do think I'm going to end up playing far better overall upon adjusting this mistake though ... so it's not that math isn't important, it's just that against certain players it's more important.
I was just kind of shocked because, if you were actually following this ratio all the time, you'd be bluffing with four times as many combos as you're "supposed" to on every river! High stakes NL is often depicted as some sort of death rally of balance where every deviation from optimal play is quickly and viciously exploited. Well, maybe not so much... If you're over-bluffing and crushing, one conclusion might be that the player pool is over-folding the river. Do you think this is what's going on?
It'll be interesting to see what happens as you adjust your game to account for this information. Maybe your winrate will increase, but not necessarily. It's possible that you've been accidentally exploiting everyone.
Well there are a lot of spots where you just can't be bluffing too frequently based on the board run out.
I think it's pretty unlikely I'm ever bluffing 4x more frequently than is theoretically correct. I find it strange that almost no one even batted an eye about my KsTx 3 street barrel which we later determined was too light yet there has been so much clamor about this mistake I made in the forums. They are the same mistake, but nobody sat here scolding me for that bluff. I just think the lines are more blurry than a lot of people think and people are probably reading too much into my forum post. Had I never said to anybody that I was going to try to use a rough 2-1 bluff to value combo range for river bets I highly doubt anybody would have ever even noticed.
"I think it's pretty unlikely I'm ever bluffing 4x more frequently than is theoretically correct."
Well you need four times as many bluff combos to go from 2 bluff: 1 value to 2 value: 1 bluff. For example, if you have 30 value combos, 15 bluff combos would give you 2 value: 1 bluff, while it would take 60 bluff combos to make 2 bluff: 1 value. So if you were never doing this you were never implementing what you believed was an optimal strategy.
"I find it strange that almost no one even batted an eye about my KsTx 3 street barrel which we later determined was too light yet there has been so much clamor about this mistake I made in the forums. They are the same mistake, but nobody sat here scolding me for that bluff."
Absolutely, I agree 100%. This is what's so interesting. The whole episode suggests that all of us, including very strong players, are a lot farther from "optimal" than we may think.
The confusion might come from a simplistic way of looking at barreling across multiple streets, i.e. you can have 2x as many bluffs as value bets on the flop to get to the river with a 1:2 ratio if you give up with half of your bluffs on each street.
e.g. 20 bluffs on the flop and 10 vb, giving up with half your bluffs on the turn gives you 1:1, and half again on the river gives you 1:2 (which is right for a psb on the river with a [0,1] distribution).
what time was the video recorded? i feel like i saw the KK vs T8 hand and the argument of x/c or x/r everything somewere else
The footage was recorded on November 17th, so about two and a half weeks ago. I certainly haven't shared it with anyone else.
I wanna ask for a basic stuff but i mean 643 is a rly a flop u hit more than BU ?? I u are not defending that many combos that hit that boad f eq 75o 64o and BU might mini raise this from the BU. So i quess its usually board that hits nobody but i thing stronger range on this board have pfr especially he can have all OP and u dont.
Well I'm definitely going to be wider to vpip preflop given I have the overlay in the pot w/ my 1bb already in there. Necessarily I should be wider to call than BTN should be wide to steal. Whether I would defend 64o or 57o would depend on how wide BTN was opening, but as a standard vs the overall field I think it can't be too big of a mistake if it is a mistake at all. I do think it's a mistake for most guys to open the BTN with those hands if the BB is defending against him correctly.
He does have all overpairs, but none of which really want to b/3b/call all in on this flop (not that anybody would do that, just saying his overpairs aren't as valuable as my 2pr/sets/straights on this board).
What i trying to say its that x/r this flop is taught bcuz we cant rly have that many value combos. Ok we have all sets and some 2 pairs combos (but not much given the fact we dont have offsuit combos almost always vs good opp. So when we start c/r all our gut shots etc out range starts to become very weak cuz we have a ton of offsuti 7x, stuff like T7s, 97s i quess u x/r OC+bd fd so here is my question. When we start to x/r this how u balanced that, do u x/r for thin value ?? Cuz like I said i think we have much more bluffs in our range and beeing oop its taught vs good opp on this stakes on this particular board.
My suggestion would be to feel out each of your opponents. Some will let you get away with more than others. If you find that including too many 7x in your range here causes you to get called down too frequently then only pick the 7x that also have a high heart as a bit of insurance for the times the board runs out with two hearts or for the times that you can pair your higher side card -- the K here is obviously a very valuable card for me if it falls on the turn or river.
Min 11 JQo hand, i find very intresting what you said, adding some KsX to our range to create a bluffing range when a third spades comes its very good. But how would you split them on the turn when that happens and villains bet ? Jam or float again ?
35mins KJs 3beted, I ve already read your explanations about your 3bet. Its ok. I have another question, do you really think that most of the top 10/20+ players are 3betting a lineal range on BB v CO for example ?
For the flushes you want to figure out how you would play them when you do have them. I'd think the majority of them would call turn and then fold river to a jam (unless you have a high spade obviously) so I think I'd probably peel the turn on a spade then shove (or bet depending on stack depth) the river when checked to.
I'm not 100% sure that all the top players are 3betting a linear range in those spots but I do find it is the best thing to do WRT to my game so that's what I do. If somebody comes up with a better suggestion that fits in with my current ranges I'd be open to giving it some more thought. Until then that's what I'll continue to do.
BTW, i find very intresting how you breakdown your hands and talk of the impact of certain flops/turn/river cards on both equity range, and you dont talk just of your specific hand. Ill keep watching.. ! Its good to see someone who talks of overall strategy ..
Cool thanks.
And thanks to everybody else for the compliments on the video. Hopefully I can put out videos consistently of this quality in the future even though having a great amount of success in producing training videos is always a bittersweet accomplishment since it feels good to do a good job but the better job I do the better my opponents become. Guess I'm going to have to work twice as hard to keep improving!
I will need to be making a number of classroom style type videos which will be different than these kinds so if anybody has any suggestions please let me know.
I love the ''3-barrel in your face, so come do something about it'' attitude you have towards your opponents. It reminds me of aejones. Those types of players are very hard to play against.
Hopefully we'll see a video when they indeed do something about it.
Haha, thanks. Yeah aejones has been a huge factor in my success as I have spent a lot of time working with him as one of my many coaches. I definitely can see a lot of his style in my approach.
Aaron Paul with a questionable fashion sense, judging by the picture.
Looking forward to watching the vid, very good addition to the team.
LOL. Yeah, bitch!
If I had considered anybody would be judging my fashion sense I would've worn my going out clothes and not my kick it around the house clothes. Can't think of everything unfortunately. Thanks for the compliments.
The video was not bad, and it introduces some interesting concepts, but am I alone in thinking that someone who doesn't understand very basic poker math shouldn't be making mid-high stakes instructional videos in this day and age? This comment is not just based on your math errors in this thread, but while watching the video I noticed that in many spots your "default" approach is far from "sound" with regards to balance considerations. I don't doubt that this intuitive/feel-based approach to poker can still make some money, but it's definitely not the way of the future. It also doesn't translate well to a learning environment (not that it's fair to compare you to Sauce--or even Phil for that matter--but their styles clearly do translate much better to a learning environment).
I am fully supportive of RiO having a number of quality, winning, NLHE video producers (as it is my my main game), but considering the price we pay for an Elite membership, I think we deserve better than this. If this video was produced for some run-of-the-mill, $30/month training site, I would have no issue with it (as it is what I've come to expect from other sites). But RiO is different. Should a 5/10 and 10/20 video be instructional for the people who are playing those stakes (or near them), or should it be mere entertainment for people who play much lower stakes? I believe it should be the former, and I think that so far, the quality of videos I've seen at this site has generally suggested that Phil and the other owners of the site have had a vision to create a higher caliber of instructional videos.
I really mean no offense, Peter. I just want to offer some constructive criticism both to you, and the guys who are running RiO.
I'm pretty sure Peter understands "very basic poker math." It's obvious he has an intuitive feel for it just watching him play. Does that mean he can run an exact equity calculation on the fly or wax philosophical about the finer points of game theory? Probably not. If that's what you're looking for in his videos, then you're going to be disappointed.
You're not offering constructive criticism either. You're ranting. If you want to address specifics about a hand, the mathematics, game theory, etc. then do it. Instead you're essentially just whining about how you would prefer a different style of video. If you think these are such grave concerns then why not PM Peter or "the guys who are running RiO" instead of bashing them in public?
In defense of Peter, I had let me elite membership lapse. When I saw he was making videos, it was the reason I renewed it. Not everyone wants intensive mathematics and deep game theory discussions every video. I think Peter brings a different perspective that some of us enjoy. We get that's what you would like to see, but to classify this video as not instructional or "translating well to a learning environment" is unduly dismissive.
I don't personally know Peter. I actually use to think he was immature and obnoxious based on forum posts, blogs, etc. If you've been around the poker community for awhile though you might have noticed how far he has come. He undoubtedly works very hard on his game. It's hard not to respect that.
He is a winner for a reason. Perhaps you should focus more on why he is. What you call the "way of the future" is simply the current trend. You sound like you're more interested in becoming an unexploitable bot, then you are about becoming a more well rounded player.
one of the things that is great about RIO has been the really discussions that follow the release of the videos. strong players disagree, make mistakes - the ability to talk about these spots helps everyone get better.
across all training sites there are very very few guys who are beating 1KNL+ in today's games making videos so I for one am very happy to hear from anyone beating these games even if their approach to the game is different than some GTO genius
Thanks to you guys who have defended me. I definitely appreciate it. I do think that my mistake was obviously an egregious one, however, it just goes to show how much room everybody else has to improve if I'm making such huge imbalances in my play yet still winning so much. I think I'll see a spike in my winrate very shortly from adhering to these principals so I'm glad for that.
Momo,
I don't take offense to it and I never claimed to be some math type guru. This doesn't change the fact that I'm one of the biggest winners in the 10/20 games across multiple site and have garnered a strong amount of respect among many of my peers who play in those games as being one of the better players.
Understanding poker math is only one part of the game. I actually would never have iterated what I said about the bluff vs value combos thing had I not confirmed this with one of my coaches who has an extremely strong background in math. Now maybe I shouldn't be as trusting of certain people when it comes to paying them for their advice particularly when I'm shelling out 500 bucks an hour and I'm quite disappointed that this particular coach who is considered to be a significantly better player than myself has given me outright incorrect advice and also caused me embarrassment in a public forum.
I obviously don't think it's fair to compare me to someone like Ben who has been consistently one of the best players in the game for years and years. I'm definitely not on his level, but what I do think I can do is provide a basic and easy to understand framework for my general approach in all situations which actually may help a wider range of players here in contrast to Ben's videos which may be a bit too math intensive and more difficult to follow for a lot of players, myself included, if those players have a relatively weak mathematical background. Phil has posted that understanding math is probably third in the order of importance in being a great player with logic and psychology being first and second. These two areas I consider myself an expert.
I'm going to continue to get better and better as more videos come out since my game will come under more and more scrutiny. My approach of being very open minded and accepting of listening to other people's suggestions is a huge asset and one that I think should help all of us. I still watch videos of guys who play significantly lower stakes than myself and find there are things I can learn from them. I feel you might be focusing slightly too much on a single mistake and not enough on what positive things you should be able to take from this video as the reception of it has been overall overwhelmingly positive.
If you'd like to point out some flaws in my play/thought process let's discuss those, otherwise I think what you've suggested isn't necessarily constructive criticism. I made a mistake, the mistake was pointed out by a few people and I will now correct that in the future. I don't want this to come off as defensive, hopefully it doesn't because I'm constantly on a quest to gain knowledge and learn from anyone who might be able to get me to think about the game in different ways; therefore, If you'd like to submit videos and think you can do a better job I'd love to see the quality of the content in videos that you put out.
Peter
Well, it's not about being a "math type guru." It's about understanding the most very basic math that should be guiding the decisions you make at the table. As Raphael pointed out earlier in the thread, this "single mistake" is something that has undoubtedly contributed to massive imbalances in your play.
As for the amount of success you've had in the game: I guess part of the problem is that training sites don't seem to publicize the results of their pros as much as they used to. So it's one thing to be told "this guy is the best!" but it doesn't mean much without some solid proof of that success. As I mentioned in my original post, I don't doubt that "feel" players like yourself can still make money in these games. My main point was that this style of play does not translate especially well to instructional videos. This is just my opinion though, and I realize that many others clearly gained alot from this video.
I'm sorry that my post came across as a bash or a rant. One of the above posters was right that I probably should have contacted someone privately rather than making my thoughts public in this thread. I could address your other points, but it seems best to just end the derail and let this thread get back on track. Again, my apologies, and best of luck.
Just wanted to chime in that I had let my elite membership lapse as well, and when I saw Peter had joined RIO I snap renewed my membership. I have played with him quite a bit on ACR and he is without a doubt in my mind the best player in those games when he chooses to play.
Momo, he isn't just an average reg who "can still make some money." He is a current crusher in 5/10+ games, how could you not want insight into his thought processes while playing? How many other sites have current winning regs in these games making videos today?
The fact that his math assumption was so off base actually shows how over-emphasized that part of the game has become in the last year, btw.
Fair enough. I was not aware that he was crushing 5/10+. I look forward to more from him in the future.
Adam....How do you know that he his a current crusher in those games?
Also Peter, I noticed you weren't open limping the SB in the video. Are you now strictly raise/folding in this spot, would you mind sharing your thoughts?
Great video! Would love to see more videos from you exactly like this, same number of tables and everything.
Yeah so the reason I began limping the small blind was mostly due to watching one of Ben's videos over at leggo where he first introduced the concept. Anytime the biggest winner in NLHE over the course of an entire year suggests new strategies I'm going to be the first to start experimenting with it and seeing what potential benefits it might have. I found at first that guys would raise my limps far too wide and then be forced to fold a lot to my 3bets and my double barrels in 3bet pots--this part was great. The better other guys got at playing against it the less I felt this strategy was a viable one. Once a lot of the stronger players started to realize the ranges I was playing they started checking back stronger hands preflop and playing smaller pots allowing me to exploit them a bit less frequently. When that happened I started to feel that limping the SB was a strategy best employed in ante games where the price we're getting pre to complete is far greater given the additional antes in the pot making many weaker hands that were not playable at a regular table profitable to see a flop. I primarily use a range entirely consisted of raise/folds now pre in the SB.
Thanks a lot for this video, i enjoyed it a lot and very good content to improve.
Im very surprised you have a strategy to check a big part of your range on A44 or AAx boards. (Im playing 1/2 games so maybe thats the reason) Is that something most players do in higher stakes?
I feel like in those situations both players ranges gonna have weak hands (with no equity vs Ax) or air a lot and the player who bets first is going to take it down more often. And if you expect him to float you in this situation then why not double barrel more, both for thin value and more bluffs?
Can't wait for your next video!
Glad you enjoyed it.
I think in lower stakes games that because your opponent's are going to be paying less attention to balance that you may want to take a slightly more exploitable approach. As I suggested to another poster in the thread, it probably is a fine play to just bet all of your Ax as well as a lot of your non showdown value unpaired hands w/ BD (back door) equity then to chk everything on the turn with the intention of picking off some floats w/ your Ax and chk folding your BD equity that didn't improve.
When you are playing against tough opponents I suspect they will float your c-bets much more frequently on this board as we know that it's really difficult for you to have too much on this board. I think a better player is more frequently going to subconsciously make the mistake of assuming I have an ace more often than I do when I chk/call the flop so that's the strategy I use against them. I suppose I'll have to mix it up a bit more now that I'm telling everyone this.
The reason I don't double more for thin value/bluffs is because turn bets can get expensive and if you are putting in a lot of money at a significant equity disadvantage against your opponents it can be very costly.
Wonderful explanations. Your discussions about ranges were very helpful for me as a heads up player who is just starting to play 6 max.
Awesome first video! A good high stakes 6max nlhe player is definitely going to be a great addition to the team. Welcome!
I really like the points you made on checking your whole range on A44 on BvB and on x/r K7 on first hand so that our range is protected enough when we have to check a 4 turn. Also on the KK hand on T76, that's a pretty tough spot for me in villains shoes, and I found it a very interesting strategy to x/r most of our continuing range. Looking forward to the next video!
Like your video making style. Nice work!
wow. awesome!
you check your hole range on AAx, do you play the same strategy on KKx or QQx?
On KKx and QQx I think the side card matters a lot. The closer they are together, the more potential equity a wider range of holdings can have (cuz of straight draws obviously). Also on boards with the pair being middling I have a wider betting range than on boards where the pair is particularly high.
Nice vid Peter, looking forward to many more.
Very nice first vid Mister Jennings. I think that we are the same type of player.
You made an interesting point on the AK that you flat UTG+1, against UTG. You said that you don't have that much of a 3-betting range on this spot, and if you had too you would only take AA/KK and AKs.
I don't understand why you need to incorporate AKs in this range. I view AKs as a worst candidate than AKo here, principally for better playability postflop (you'll have much more postflop decisions by flatting), better implieds (flush-overflush value against other players that would flat, especially BB that can now complete
with a bunch of SCs and semi-SCs) and much more multiway-happy than AKo. I think that those factors outweigh heavily the ~3% equity edge you are gaining in a stack off preflop.
I'm really interested on your thoughts about this.
And apologies for my poor english ;)
Thanks, I appreciate it.
I would put AKs into that range because it does well calling against our opponent's potential 4bet bluffing range giving us more flop floating opportunities (when we have BDNFD). But like I said, I really don't have a range to 3bet in those spots, I was just saying if I felt somebody was opening slightly too wide that those are the ranges I might use.
Awesome video, WP!
When you talked about King10Clubs having AA and KK in his calling range there, is this going to be something that is dependent to you (perhaps you play super tight to 3bs oop)? Surely anyone with any 3betting range at all (let's say over 6% on the button) has to be 3betting AA and KK to an MP open to keep any strength to their 3b range at all?
Nah it's not specific to me. I just have heard that he's a really big winner and I assume most really big winners wouldn't 3bet much there. I sure don't.
I must have missed the point where 3-betting the button went out of style.
I think it's more a function of the fact that position is becoming slightly less valuable given how good people are getting at hand reading and just general game planning.
It's much more difficult to play out of position against guys who can go call flop/call turn/jam river in single raised pots than it is to play against guys in 3bet pots who go bet/bet/shove.
I would say I'm at the point where I prefer to bloat pots OOP preflop in order to cut down on the edges my opponent's can have on me in river situations and prefer to play a more passive early street game in position with lots of river shoves.
This is a very well made video. Thanks very much for this content. I don't play much six max games, but the way you talk over your ranges and your opponents ranges is definitely something I am looking to incorporate in my own games. Again, great job!
You have a very basic HUD, do you use this HUD also when you are grinding or just when you are making videos?
The sole purpose of my HUD is to identify fish and to differentiate the type of fish. I don't really ever use HUDs against other regulars.
very awkward video.
Great video Peter I really like your approach to the game.
Hey Peter,
You say you don't play much on Stars.
Are the games a lot softer on other sites? Better rakeback, software?
If so, which ones do you recommend?
I personally prefer playing good players over bad ones, but for the sake of winrates, I need to play some fish too.
Games are toughest on stars so winrate there will be the lowest. I'd prefer to play where my winrate is high. I'd also rather deal with poor software that other players prefer to avoid for the sake of a higher winrate.
So which sites do you play at when you're trying to find weaker competition?
Any site except stars.
Hi Peter!
You say in the video that your approach to poker is to "play the best possible poker" and therefore " you don´t have to care so much about the skilllevel of you opponents. This sounds like your style is to play as close to GTO as possible to me. To do that well without knowing basic pokermath is impossible though.
And if you are a "feel-player" that am very good at exploiting your opponents, how on earth can you be good at finding unbalanced plays in (highstakes) opponents ranges if you do not have a good understanding about this stuff?
Even after members here explained to you how the math works, you failed at understanding at first. You say that you even had to ask your coach. I am sorry, but this is very remarkable to me.
What are your results for the last two years? Are they public?
Thank´s!
Hello Mr. Thomas,
I'd suggest you look up the definitions of 'GTO' and 'expoitative' play as I'm not sure you understand what you're asking me. Also I'd suggest watching the video again because I don't believe you understood the points I was making.
Sorry if I sound curt but I just don't really care to 'prove' myself to anyone here. I made this video playing in literally some of the very toughest games on the net, and many posters here have made comments about my playing acumen.
This video was one of the top 10 most popular on the site so if you weren't able to get anything out of it I'd suggest you avoid watching them in the future.
Hi Peter!
I am sorry, I am not very good at English and I probably failed at explaining my point int the first post.
You say that you did not understand my questions about exploitation play and GTO play. I will therefore make another effort to explain now:
My point was that if you do not know some of the fundamentals in poker (like knowing how many bluffs to add for every valuehand) it should be very difficult to have a good understanding about when opponents ranges or your own ranges are balanced or not. Obviously you very often must have thought your opponents ranges have been balanced on river for instance, when their ranges in fact have been extreamily bluffheavy. You therefore have been missed out alot of EV by not calling big riverbets with your bluffcatchers. This was just one example, but I hope you understand now? This is not "just a small mathmistake" this is a huge leak and something you should not expect from the biggist nl 10/20 winner.
You say that I just should avoid watching your future videos if I do not like them. I do no agree it is simple as that. I am a paying member and there are not many top level NL instuctors on this site and I find it to be in my interest to know if I get what I am paying for. Your are assumed to be one of the top level NL instructors that I am paying for and it has shown that you had a very big leak in your game and that you were not even capable enough to understand it even after other members told you about it. You could also not figure it out what was wrong with your thoughtprocess by yourself, you had to contact your coach to ask about it. A coach that obviously also had the same big flaw as you, which is astonishing to me. You do not kneed to be a "mathwizard" to be able to figure this out, it should be enought to have a good logical thinking. Something you argue you are on an expertlevel.
I hope that you therefore can understand, that I find it very weird that you have been able to be the "biggest winner at nl 10/20" as you argue? I truly believe that you never ever would be so stupid that you would lie about something like that and I therefore believe that you really are what you say. I do however also find it to be completely fair that you would share your last two years results with us just to make sure.
Thank´s!
No it's not that I didn't understand your question. It's that I don't feel you understand what it means to have solid fundamentals. I felt that you didn't understand what you were asking me given that an understanding of mathematics is unnecessary in order to make exploitative plays which was one of your major qualms. It seems to me that you are attacking me purely on a mistake that I owned up to having to do with mathematics of poker. Whether or not I can have such a huge amount of success without having a solid understanding of the exact mathematics behind every decision has no bearing here as has been stated by many other posters.
Honestly I feel a bit offended that I would have to even post my graphs given how much this video was applauded by the entire community. If you have a problem with me not posting those graphs, you should take that up with run it once management.
And I can post a graph of (a rather modest) 90k hands showing a $1.50/hand winrate over the last 15 months but I feel that should be rather irrelevant due to the amount of variance in NLHE.
Well, I asked for some proof that you are the big winner that you are. It is up to you if you want to show anything and if so, what you show.
I do not understand why you are being so defencive and feels so offended by this? The thing is that the leak you have shown to have is probably much bigger of an issue than what you seem to understand. Because had you done so you would not get so offended when people react strongly.
You write this about your riverplay:
"Just because I said I generally base my strategy around trying to have roughly 2 bluffs for 1 value bet doesn't mean that's the strategy I always use. There are spots I feel my opponents over-fold and spots I feel they over-call and I will often choose to give up or bet based on those spots. Regardless of my opponent type."
To sum up what you write here is that your standard play have been wrong all the time and the times when you have adjusted your riverplay according to your reads you have adjusted totally wrong.
Also, I have no clue how your "feel" on the river can work out well? Even if you read of OP:s calling/betting/raising frequenzees are spot on you apparently must have been adjusting wrong. Not only when betting yourself but when calling too.
That is why this flaw in your game is much bigger than just a "small mathmistake". All the riverranges gets fucked up when having this flaw and I am shocked that not more members or Elite coachers at this site has reacted.
If there is like a system or something you have used to create your riverranges please try to explain to me how it works, because as I have no clue of what is going on.
Also, you had a patronising tone against me saying that I did not understand solid fundaments in poker because I thought it would be very difficult to find leaks in opponents without knowing the math of poker. Maybe I am stupid, but can you please explain to me how you correctly can find leaks in opponent´s river ranges when you have had the approach you so have had so far? It does not matter if you think about OP:s range as in amount of combos or if you only look at a hand he has SD and drawn your condlusions from that. Your adjustments can never be correct when you have wrong idea of what.
Thanks´s!
P.s Since you have a logical thinking on "expert level" as you described it. Can you not understand that I find it weird that you did not manage to think like this:
"If I bet pot on river, OP is risking 1 pot to win 2 pots. This means that OP kneeds to be correct one time out of three to call with his bluffcatchers. I therefore must have 2 valuecombos for every bluffcombo in my bettingrange."
This is math on a child´s level.
It does not matter if you are good or bad at math. If you are on an expertlevel at logical thinking you probably should be able to figure this out yourself without having to contact a coach to ask, right? Not even when other members mentioned it to you the coin fell down. That is not what you can expect from the biggest winner at nl 10/20. And surely not from an Elite coach at RIO.
I can also not understand why not more members find this to be a big issue. It would be nice if some Elite coaches could help me understand what I am missing here?
I'd prefer not to engage in any further arguments with you here. If you have a serious qualm I'd encourage you to take it up with management. Thank you.
lol, dat thomas fish.
also its not a mistake to barrel off with KsTx on the flushboard and its not imbalanced. (as i heard in comments)
k i checked math, its small mistake. weakest hand should be KsJx (in my range^^)
i hope to see more videos of peter jennings!It is up too you if you want to show me results or not. You have decided not to and I accept it. End of that discussion.
I am not arguing with you now. Please just help me explain how you can create correct ranges on river for you and your OP when having had this flaw? You said to me that I had missed stuff and I probably have, therefore I am asking you what I have missed?
You write that when you "feel" that your OP has expoitable leaks on river you adjust. The thing I can not understand is HOW you have been able to draw the correct conclusions and adjust correctly after you seen a SD or similar?
Please just explain this to me and I will have no more questions.
what do u mean? k i try..... lets say he (peter) bets river 300 in 400. the opponent is getting 30% potodds for a call so u have to bet 70% value and 30% as bluff to keep him indifferent to calling or folding to the bet.
if ur talking bout sth diffrent, sry.
Thank´s!, but no, that is not what i meant. I am asking Peter how he correctly can find leaks in OP:s river ranges when he has been under the assumtion that it is optimal to have 4 times more bluffcombos in a river betting range than it in reality is.
Or how can avoid being exploited as the riverbettor when betting river with that frequeenzy.
as he said he has no mathetematical background and thought 4times bluff to value combos is the right amount. which is obviously wrong and is a product of his lack of understanding of game theory or random talk. but that doesnt mean that he actually bets 4parts bluff/1part value ever. (maybe u would do that) in practice his frequencies are probably pretty close to optimal cause of his strong understanding of the game.
Yea, so that is why I asked him HOW he construct the betting and calling ranges for him and his opponents on the river. It is a BIG diference between the ratio he recommended and the ratio he has been playing according to if he have not had this big leak. By mistake recommending a range constisting of 4 TIMES more bluffs than optimal just because you are bad at math?
He wrote it himself that he now after getting corrected believes that his winrate will get a boost in the future. He also wrote that he is generally basing his play according to this wrong ratio value/bluffs
I actually paid the same $100 that Thomas does during all 2013. And I never felt right to demand to any coach any graph or any result. I think that´s offensive !! At least in the way you did it..
Just evoid to see the content that you think is not gonna help you (i actually play up to 1kNL on PS and i think this clearly is not the case).
It is impossible to be the biggest winner at highstakes NL with leaks like that. Period!
You say that you are NL 1000 player but you do not understand how much money he loses every river playing with those ratios? Man, I must be in the twilight zone, people are crushing highstakes everywhere without understanding simple very costly when doing wrong concepts. lol
I can't help but agree with Mr Thomas. When members are paying a premium price for coaching, they need to be able to trust the information that is being given to them. I can't afford (literally) to take a coach's advice at face value if it can be so devastatingly wrong. This is not a small error no matter how badly Peter wants to turn the argument around and make Mr Thomas look like the bad guy. I found nothing offensive in Mr Thomas' first post, and the growing tone of anger seems to be due to the fact that Peter began by insulting him and ended by ignoring him.
I have never complained about an instructor or video on this site before, and generally think highly of the content. I also know that everyone can occasionally misfire with a video or misspeak about any given topic, but this strikes me as very different.
I am also a little shocked that no staff or management has stepped in to address this issue. Having any instructors, let alone elite, that make egregious thinking errors, address legitimate questions by ridiculing members, and making sweeping and non-confirmed statements of their poker supremacy are exactly the reason that I and many others, have cancelled memberships on other training sites. I don't want to see RIO end up the same way b/c of how much I have learned from, and value this once small and honest community. To RIO management, please do not lose track of the quality of your instructors, as that is what sets you apart.
I'm boarding a plane right now. I'll reply when I get back to a computer in San Diego as I'm on my iPhone now. My short response is that theory and practical applications are not the same. Just because I say in theory something is supposed to be right doesn't mean that is actually correct in practice.
Also I believe I specifically said in the video that I don't have all the answers and I am always searching for my own truths as I believe you all should do the same. you shouldn't take what I say as gospel and I would hope that we have disagreements. This is how we all learn. If you want a cookie cutter explanation for how to play every spot and don't use your head when you play, you are preparing to fail.
Mr. Thomas,
I can and will answer your question within the next few hours. I'd suggest you re watch the video and ignore the posts here. I made a mistake when writing. I don't believe anybody would have said a word about this if I had not answered any questions and had just let my playing speak for itself. if these errors seem so huge to you, please pick a spot in the video where my ranges seem as far off from optimal as you are suggesting they must be.
If you "made a mistake in writing", you must have made a few of them. When reading you posts it is obvious that you did not correct the "one mistake". You even admitted to this being your standard line when not exploiting. You wrote this among others:
"Just because I said I generally base my strategy around trying to have roughly 2 bluffs for 1 value bet doesn't mean that's the strategy I always use. There are spots I feel my opponents over-fold and spots I feel they over-call and I will often choose to give up or bet based on those spots."
Does this explination seem to come from a guy who is trying to explain that he really does not play with those ratios and that it was just a typo?
The solution to this problem is simple. I believe in your head you know how to balance a river range 'gto', but when your wrote your river frequency strat you wrote it incorrectly. I believe that because its a fact that if indeed did use the 66bluff 33value you would not be winning at these stakes because you would BURN all your ev earnt on previous streets... Also nobody shows up on the river woth 66% air lol!!. And also if you thought that about the river then, logically speaking, that thought process would be the same for flop and turn play. So in turn you would be a fish lol :p. so i think all the imbeciles who are pouncing on your incorrectly WRITTEN strat need to take a look at this video and realise tbat what YOU WROTE contradicted the way YOU PLAYED your hands! Which is good because its better to play good poker and write bad poker! The reason these lesser minds are hounding you for such a fundamental theory mistake that you WROTE is because they are thinking... OMG IF HE IS MAKING SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT IM NOT MAKING MAYBE I CAN CRUSH TEH HIGH STAKES POKER INSTEAD OF 2TABLING ONE PENCE TWO PENCE WITH A DUAL MONITOR SETUP FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF JERKING OFF THIER LONLEY D's. I mean its obvious to any smart logical thinking human being that what you said refutably contradicts your play. I mean its not great to say dumb stuff but who hasnt at some point? I love the jealousy i can sniff from the posts of desperate fish looking for HOPE. HoWever you shouldnt be arguing with theRIO community over trivial handbag topics. You deserve a spanked bottom from teh man him self Phil G and and maybe even Koon, at the same time! Whilst 10 tabling 10/20. As for the video.. It was exceptional and i think your a better player than you think you are which is unusual but nice too see. Your bluffs were well illustrated and thought out and im thankful that you were more balanced than 66/33 looool. YOUD BE A LOOSER IF YOU WERNT. Thats just logic! WINNING. Ta for the vid.
Ta
Yes you're right. This is essentially what I wrote in the About run it once thread. Thank you.
Oh. The solution is that your post your graph lol :-)
microstakes 4 life FTW!
danielmerrilees....please read all Peter´s posts above, he admitts to have been using this ratio river and expexts a boost in his winrate in the future after fixing this leak.
Yeah mr Thomas Jennings must have been high or something because its an IMPOSSIBILITY to have a frequency leak like that and beat any form of poker above 0.50/1$. I dont understand why your getting so caught up on some spoken discourse when the proof is in the footage! Thats what the Judge would rule. Case closed.
I often play some spots where I could bet a range that contains like 100% of bluffs and make money because my oppenents on average are folding enough of the time that I can get away with it.
So I really don't mind if Peter's strategy isn't GTO.
I would trust his 'feelings', and abilities to adjust against stations.
This is by far the most intense discussion I ever seen on RIO! Pretty entertaining btw.
You have missed the point totally! No one says that Peter is never aiming for to exploit leaks when he can. We are discussing his flaws when it comes to building ranges when aiming for being balanced.
this wasnt a real discussion. just some morons wasting my time.
Thomas,
It's not because I tried to say something positive that I don't get your points.
Please help me understand the method being used by Jennings and as it seem many of you other players!
If a guy can not create even close to the optimal river betting range in front of the computer how can he do it "on the go" when mulitibabling? This is an honest question and I would appreciate if someone could explain to me because Jennings who apparently is one of those players do not want to tell me.
Also, Jennings writes this about riverplay:
" If he needs to be right 33% of the time I'd think I should have 2 bluff combos for every value combo. I failed high school geometry twice and algebra 2 once so I historically am awful at math. I've been basing my game off this assumption though so if this is wrong please explain why."
My assumtion of this comment was that he is "basing his game off this assumtion", but apparently it does not mean that. Maybe someone could help me understand what he means?
i mean this spamming here is like a car accident. i have to look at it but at end its just horrible and gives me sleepless nights.
trol it
Hello Peter,
Firstly I want to say I really enjoyed your vid. I always wish coaches are talking about there ranges insted of their exact hand. The reasoning was really clear etc. Ty
My question: At a certain moment you had KJs in the BB facing an openraise from the CO. You said you were going to 3Bet 100% with KJs in this spot and I just don't see the logic after this thought. It surprises me that nobody asked something about that statement because it seems such a clear call. It kind of sucks to face a 4Bet in the first place. He also is going to call with a decent amount of hands which dominate us. We close the action, we can't get squeezed and calling is certainly way better than folding. When you 3bet this linear you will never have any good top pair on K53r etc because you're 3betting KJ+ most likely, this also doesn't seem that attractive. Anyways, can you please eleborate on this matter?
Thanks a lot!
Thanks.
As I've said previously in this thread, I place value on pushing my equity edges preflop from OOP. I don't place value on feeling the need to be able to represent anything on every board. KJs has ~50% equity versus a 25% opening range which I think is relatively standard from the CO. The fact that my hand is suited means I'm going to realize a higher percentage of my equity since the hand has more playability when two of the same suit falls on the flop or turn which is why I like 3betting it. If the CO is opening <20% I think at that point it becomes more difficult to justify the play.
Your example about the K53r spot I think is kinda irrelevant since I'm going to play all my hands passively on that board from OOP and I will take some flop c/c, turn c/r lines on some other boards which will put my opponent in some tough spots. The fact of the mattter is, if he's opening too narrow from the CO, I really just don't need to defend particularly wide there and don't have to worry much about my flatting range being exploited because his range is particularly strong in the first place so I can just fold a lot more often. I don't use this stat because my normal games are anonymous so I never know how wide someone is opening, this is why I just 3bet it in these spots 100% of the time.
This guy is clearly unable to beat the games hes playing in the video, maybe he can beat them in a couple of specific sites. On Stars he should move down to 2/4 if he wants to really help people, this is just insulting.
I stumbled across this thread by virtue of it being linked on 2+2. I was pretty shocked to see that Peter Jennings was being called out for one math error and his unwillingness to open to the public, the books of his own private business. I find this absurd on many levels and am sorry for Peter that he has had to endure this nonsense.
I have played with Peter quite a lot over the years and he always struck me as a tough player. He is someone who I did not expect to make a lot of mistakes. If Peter says he is beating these games for a decent clip I would have no reason to doubt him.
Personally, I have enjoyed his videos and don't intend to miss a future one. He has great insight into the game. I think if the people giving him a hard time had spent their time more wisely by working to improve their games, they'd be fulfilling the reason they were willing to pay $99.99 a month to be a member of this site in the first place.
I hope the videos keep on coming and are as useful as they have been so far.
Dusty
Hello,
Very nice video.
Sorry to discuss this late, but i would like to know what would be your 3-barrel value betting range on the KTo hand ? Would it be something like QQ+, 7x and flushes or would you checkback your overpairs river ? And if you don't have overpairs, do you think you have enough flushes/7x to balance the time you run bluffs like this with bare As or Ks ?
Thank you.
P.S. : Now that i read my post, i realize that you should have way enough value combos with 7x and flushes to add these bluffs, sorry to bother you with my fishy posts ! Good luck.
Really nice video, man. You talk very fast, I like it, specially for 'simple' hand reviews like this. I am still playing 25nl so I guess I need to be more exploitative in order to capitalize on the fish/badregs's mistakes, right? (and then not follow your kind of strat)
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.