Thanks, man! I'm hesitant about making them usually because I'm not very used to the software. If people like these though, I can do more (and I'll probably eventually get better!).
6:40 A more compact way to add all T+ with a flush draw or nutgutter+ would be:
T+:(ss,cc,J8+)
If that was what you meant to express. I'm not sure if JT8+ (using "+" on a three-card combo that contains both a made hand and a draw) is well-defined in the syntax. I think you need to be explicit about which part the "+" refers to (if it's a "madehand+" statement, a "draw+" statement, or both):
T+:J8 = any T+ with a J8 draw T:J8+ = any T with a J8+ draw T+:J8+= any T+ with a J8+ draw
Overall
Very interesting video. Will have to watch this twice to absorb it, but I like very much how you map PLO ranges onto a Holdem toy game. Until we get a CREV type of program for PLO (PJ developers: hint-hint) I'm sure we can get lots of useful things done with this technique.
More software analysis videos from you, range building and such, would be welcome.
I like it when you combine heuristics and equity calculations. That is, when you consider the normal terms in which we might think (such as last week when you talked about the notion of maintaining the initiative) and expose them to mathematical analysis. I think it would be a good idea to talk about spots that you often come across where you feel your decisions are close and you typically rely on a rule of thumb, such as betting with certain blockers or a certain amount of semi-bluff equity, and see if these heuristics can withstand mathematical scrutiny. I think an important spot worth covering is a turn in which you have some kind of marginal equity and you have to consider checking or betting in position and the game theoretic implications of that decision,i.e. reopening the betting and or what it does to your range on the river.
Hi Phil, I just want to cast a vote for more software videos overall on RIO. Esp. if a new tool comes out, these sort of tutorials on how to use the software and lessons about how to think poker all in one. Very valuable
Hi Phil, nice video. Glad you like the software. Around 15:00 you would like to split the river ranges into more than just two sub ranges. We have given this some thought and we think a good solution could be to split the ranges using semi-colon as a delimiter:
Top range: 77+; 2+; T+
I have described the idea in more detail on our blog.
Would that be the functionality your were looking for?
Thanks for all the feedback and questions. I'm sick right now (good thing I made this video a couple weeks ago) and I feel extra lazy and foggy-headed. I'll get back to you guys as soon as I feel up to leaving my bed.
@38:42, with the 800 bet you have him raising to 2800 66.7% and calling a shove 57.2% of the time. So with betting 800 you get him to put in 10000 around 38% of the time, whereas betting 2250 gets him to put in 2250 with 47%, so you get much more value by way of inducing.
That is very strange, since he has so few overfulls, and full houses have very strong card removal effects. I don't see why these complicated PLO card removal effects would be accurately reflected in a NL toy game. Do you think this is probematic?
As to your conclusion that a small bet doesn't work that well, that isn't very surprizing given that you don't have a lot of air and his range is QQ-JJ rich whereas your thin value hands are mostly counterfeited two pairs. Would you advocate raising more air on the turn to get a more favorable river distribution, for instance by raising naked gutshot+flushdraw type hands on the turn?
The whole technique of mapping PLO onto NLHE toy game was new to me, and I'm curious. Programs with game tree building for PLO don't exist, but if CREV can be applied to PLO in a useful way via toy games, I'd be interested in doing some of that.
Do you see this as a practical approach? As in, accurate enough to give us useful guidelines for play.
I think that the technique could be useful. But before I would ever do that I would start with showing that card removal effects are negligible, or, alternatively, accurately reflected in the constructed toy game. Phil didn't do the latter, so I'm curious if Phil did any math work on this, especially if he uses NL toy games more often to solve PLO river situations.
As you can see, Phils hand, a typical T2 hand and a bluff have strong card removal effects on ravenwoods range:
RvR card removal effects were accounted for (via the OO RvR sim that PJ RD Module used) when splitting both players' river ranges into those 8 categories (let's call them "blocks") and counting them. That's a start.
So now we are in CREV and Phil is assigning a line to a hand block A-7. We want the toy game setup to reflect the "block range vs block range card removal effect", right?
Loading 16 Comments...
I've enjoyed your vids featuring poker software. Value them as much as any of your formats.
Thanks, man! I'm hesitant about making them usually because I'm not very used to the software. If people like these though, I can do more (and I'll probably eventually get better!).
6:40
A more compact way to add all T+ with a flush draw or nutgutter+ would be:
T+:(ss,cc,J8+)
If that was what you meant to express. I'm not sure if JT8+ (using "+" on a three-card combo that contains both a made hand and a draw) is well-defined in the syntax. I think you need to be explicit about which part the "+" refers to (if it's a "madehand+" statement, a "draw+" statement, or both):
T+:J8 = any T+ with a J8 draw
T:J8+ = any T with a J8+ draw
T+:J8+= any T+ with a J8+ draw
Overall
Very interesting video. Will have to watch this twice to absorb it, but I like very much how you map PLO ranges onto a Holdem toy game. Until we get a CREV type of program for PLO (PJ developers: hint-hint) I'm sure we can get lots of useful things done with this technique.
More software analysis videos from you, range building and such, would be welcome.I like it when you combine heuristics and equity calculations. That is, when you consider the normal terms in which we might think (such as last week when you talked about the notion of maintaining the initiative) and expose them to mathematical analysis. I think it would be a good idea to talk about spots that you often come across where you feel your decisions are close and you typically rely on a rule of thumb, such as betting with certain blockers or a certain amount of semi-bluff equity, and see if these heuristics can withstand mathematical scrutiny. I think an important spot worth covering is a turn in which you have some kind of marginal equity and you have to consider checking or betting in position and the game theoretic implications of that decision,i.e. reopening the betting and or what it does to your range on the river.
outstanding video! much appreciated. more plz.
Great video Phil! Do you think you can save and upload both the Pokerjuice file and the CRev file for members to play around with?
Hi Phil, I just want to cast a vote for more software videos overall on RIO. Esp. if a new tool comes out, these sort of tutorials on how to use the software and lessons about how to think poker all in one. Very valuable
Hi Phil, nice video. Glad you like the software. Around 15:00 you would like to split the river ranges into more than just two sub ranges. We have given this some thought and we think a good solution could be to split the ranges using semi-colon as a delimiter:
Top range: 77+; 2+; T+
I have described the idea in more detail on our blog.
Would that be the functionality your were looking for?
/Morten
Hey guys,
Thanks for all the feedback and questions. I'm sick right now (good thing I made this video a couple weeks ago) and I feel extra lazy and foggy-headed. I'll get back to you guys as soon as I feel up to leaving my bed.
Sorry to hear :( Get better soon, man!
@38:42, with the 800 bet you have him raising to 2800 66.7% and calling a shove 57.2% of the time. So with betting 800 you get him to put in 10000 around 38% of the time, whereas betting 2250 gets him to put in 2250 with 47%, so you get much more value by way of inducing.
That is very strange, since he has so few overfulls, and full houses have very strong card removal effects. I don't see why these complicated PLO card removal effects would be accurately reflected in a NL toy game. Do you think this is probematic?
As to your conclusion that a small bet doesn't work that well, that isn't very surprizing given that you don't have a lot of air and his range is QQ-JJ rich whereas your thin value hands are mostly counterfeited two pairs. Would you advocate raising more air on the turn to get a more favorable river distribution, for instance by raising naked gutshot+flushdraw type hands on the turn?
GT:
The whole technique of mapping PLO onto NLHE toy game was new to me, and I'm curious. Programs with game tree building for PLO don't exist, but if CREV can be applied to PLO in a useful way via toy games, I'd be interested in doing some of that.
Do you see this as a practical approach? As in, accurate enough to give us useful guidelines for play.
I think that the technique could be useful. But before I would ever do that I would start with showing that card removal effects are negligible, or, alternatively, accurately reflected in the constructed toy game. Phil didn't do the latter, so I'm curious if Phil did any math work on this, especially if he uses NL toy games more often to solve PLO river situations.
As you can see, Phils hand, a typical T2 hand and a bluff have strong card removal effects on ravenwoods range:
RvR card removal effects were accounted for (via the OO RvR sim that PJ RD Module used) when splitting both players' river ranges into those 8 categories (let's call them "blocks") and counting them. That's a start.
So now we are in CREV and Phil is assigning a line to a hand block A-7. We want the toy game setup to reflect the "block range vs block range card removal effect", right?
Any thoughts on how to do this?
wow, pokerjuice = 119 euro/month for hi stakes
By the way, "Ass with clubs" was fun )
Phil, You did never come back to answer the questions. Just a reminder!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.