Revisiting Hands with PIO Solver
Posted by Tyler Forrester
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 29 Comments...
Awesome!
Sick video Tyler!
very interesting, I love how you humanized the strategy :D
Daniel very GTO ;D
Glad you liked it Dddog!
Great idea to do a follow up video, since the last video had a lot of people asking questions. I'm sure that many of the members, including myself appreciate that. It's cool to see that my initial hunch of shipping the KT was proven to be right after the piosolver ananlysis.
Thanks for making this video and addressing the questions more in depth.
Thanks Ghost!
Forrester, I really enjoy your videos, congratulations for this one. So, can we affirm that, overall, the games are more aggressive than they should be, in terms of cbetting, turn continuing range and value betting river? Important question for me as it applies to some recent changes I've noticed in my game; for example: checking aces in the second hand, as the pre flop aggressor, on the turn, is really my first option, as I probably agree with the entire range Pio suggested. The problem is that my overall aggression seems to have decreased a lot, so I don't know if I'm correcting my game or missing something. It does feel way more balanced. It just doesn't fit the "standards" anymore. This video seems to confirm it to some extent. What do you think?
Thanks
Thank you Zilbee! This is complicated subject matter and I can't cover it fully in this post. That being said:
Pio checks strong hands to prevent exploitation, so if your opponents choose not to check strong hands, then you need to figure out how to maximally exploit this mistake.
Also if you are checking strong hands and your opposition plays passively against your checks, you need to move of those hands into a betting range. Your opposition is not meeting the exploitative requirements for slowplaying. Until they play more aggressively against your checks, then betting is more +EV.
Thanks Tyler. I understand. But from a GTO perspective, that's the game to be played, isn't it? and anything deviating from that can be exploited. I mean, most of the field is betting aces on that turn, when it's a standard check. I feel like ppl is just deviating too much and aggressiveness overall is much praised. By the way, if he bets aces instead of checking, what does this may mean? It increases the ev our small bet (lead) with two pairs on the river, maybe?
Oh, yea, and if aces are in practice a good bet on the turn, it's because people is underfolding queens. So yea =p
Zilbee, the idea here is that GTO is a defense strategy. Its best possible strategy against the best exploitative player. Hence it does things like check AA to prevent OOP from randomly overbetting blank rivers with top pair. And the summation of these defense plays is its strategy. Now if you don't have to play defense in poker, then you shouldn't because maximum exploitative play makes the most money. If you are looking for more detail check out Will Tiptons books or Mathematics of Poker by Chen. These ideas fill thousands of pages of text.
Yes, I do understand. I just mentioned that, since this does deviate a lot from pool's playing strategy, there is a lot of room for exploitation out here. And that players are playing a more aggressive strategy than they should be, if they were playing the perfect game. Thanks for the answers.
Thanks for the vid Tyler, i finally bought PioSolver. I just have a simple question on this one : @8'45 : Do you know why Pio prefers to take a smaller siz for vilain with 55/QJo on the river than the others value combos?
Yes, its because PIO is trying to expand my calling range. See my optimal betsizing video for more info. In fact if it chose the bigger sizing it is likely that it will check those hands :).
Awesome video indeed!
In first hand 14:20. You missed to notice that IP is shoving his KK half of the time, when you give him only shove or check options. This is exactly what I meant. At the same time OOP is calling with some worst hands and folding some better hands.
Thank you Tyler, some awesome content in this one.
Appreciate your comment lol!
Great format. I am loving it!
Only one question I have:
In the 66 hand PIO Solver says that 6h6s is a clear call which makes sense since it doesn't block busted Flushdraws but then it says that 66 with the 6 of clubs is always a fold but 66 with the 6 of diamond is a call most of the times. Why is that? Is PIO solver suggesting for the preflop aggressor to check flushdraws on the flop quiet a bit and cbetting a lot with backdoor flushdraws so that the PFA has more club flushdraws than diamonds FD's or how does it come up with that conclusion?
No its computer perturbations. The value differences measure in the 1/1000th of a pot range, so realistically 6h6s is a crystal clear call everything else is slightly worse.
Excellent video sir!
Couple questions about your opponent's (IP) range there. Why do you not have 99 in his range? Also, Do you think hands like TT and JJ would cbet turn to protect as well (at least some percentage of the time?), so some of those should be there on river as well, right?
Also, it looks like you have all A6s, A8s, K6s, K8s in your opponents range on the river. It should be only clubs right?
Thanks Vlad!
No I don't expect TT and JJ to bet the turn and I believe most of my range models support this. As to 99 its questionable, but not going to make a large difference in the sim .
@A8s At showdown he had A8hh so he almost certainly has all of those combos.
Hi Tyler, great video (as usual from you)!
In the second hand I was surprised to see you having all your nut hands in your turn range on the turn (sets, flopped 2p) - would you not raise some of them on the flop and hence the pio solution becomes less worthy?
Its probably closer to 90% call for me here. I don't like bifurcating my range on the flop. It makes calculating ranges much more difficult for me on the turn and river. Maybe assume his strategy is a little more aggressive here than pio thinks. Shouldn't affect calling ranges too much.
In the first hand i saw that you are doing the same and include all nut combos on the river.
Am I right in drawing the conclusion, that you are effectively trading an EV maximising strategy (which includes raising F) versus a strategy that includes all your nutted hands to make it easier to construct ranges on later streets?
Hi Randomator,
That's a false dichotomy between an EV maximising strategy and a strategy that slowplays frequently on the flop. I think I maximise my EV by playing closer to GTO. I can only play closer to GTO if I know exactly what hands I have in a situation. This means that I choose simpler lines that have slightly lower max GTO EV capacity. The key here is to choose lines that simplify the game, but don't give away much EV. Slowplaying on the flop is one of those lines.
Hey Tyler, fantastic video !
In the first hand, why is QQ a check on the river the majority of the time ?
I can understand that the betting of QJ and KK would have higher EV's than that of QQ with the parameters provided.
Is that saying that the EV of a bet with QQ is less than 0 here ? Surely not ?
Maybe i do not entirely understand what PIO is doing here ? I understand it as creating the best possible strategies, ones that yield highest EV but are closest to GTO with the parameters given.
-The fact that there might be no bluff combos available to be paired with QQ and that being the reason it is checked.. Does that mean that QQ is still a +EV bet but would just fall into the MES with these parameters ?
Thanks in advance
Hi Benzz, because QQ blocks a large portion of my river calling range and this makes the bet roughly equal to checking at 50% pot and at any large sizing checking > betting. Its all about blockers to bluff catchers and the fact my range has 20 combos of straights on the river.
great video as always.
at 17min, when u pick 3/4th sizing that will contain 2pr combos, why do bluffs go down in value? is this bc we have closer to adequate bluffs for this sizing, and therefore opponent overfolds less?
About the last hand, so on the turn we mix in some draws that arent very strong combos draws? How did it pick which are best? i guess just use 6x bc it has equity and blocks him from blocking our value region of 86 63? And then also use some 98 just cuz its open ender and has fairly decent equity? Like, the weaker the semibluffs we use, the less frequent those semibluffs can be but way is that neccesarily worse than using primarily big draws (like K8o gains more when you fold)
Yes exactly, bluffs will go down in value as our opponent calls closer to alpha. The reason he calls closer to alpha here is we have "too many" bluffs for this sizing so he needs to call at better frequencies
@weak draws: All the weak draws were roughly equally ev here, so pio seemed to bet all of them a smallish % of the time. To speculate why, its so that pio has enough bluffs on some cards that complete two draws. Pio is very very careful with balance and works very hard to have bluffing ranges in all situations.
Very much appreciate a follow up video to look at human strategy vs. Pio. I'm starting to dabble more with Pio so I'm very welcome to more Pio based videos :)
Thanks!
You're hands down the best always!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.