Hey very good video. Would love to see continues and expansions of this format.
3 questions, vs ip flop check back, oop prefer lead with small size with board changing turn, and lead with overbet on brick turn. In practice, I find people rarely fold to small turn prove size ... which gives me paranoia .. how to approach turn and river in this case? In other words, general guidelines to construct a conherent turn and river bluffing range.
2nd question we observe pattern responses from both players on brick or board changing Turn, what about River card? From what I observe, it’s very similar to turn card effect. Do u note any difference?
Also one thing u said, oop may have some river leading range on board changing river to gain some pot share back is interesting.
Last one, what are possible explanations for ip to play relatively passively with pure flush draw (non-combo FD) on turn? Equity relization is that important? Again oop tend to not check raise that much.
Depending on whether you mostly see raises or calls vs the probe you will need to adjust your range accordingly. If your opponent doesn't raise very much you will be allowed to cheaply realize your equity so you can lead a lot of marginal hands. On the other hand vs a more aggressive strategy you will want to heavily favor leading a polarized range. Additionally, If your opponent calls a lot he will probably get to the river with a pretty weak range and you will find a lot of very good bluffing opportunities.
You are right in assuming the river effects will be pretty similar. However there will obviously be some differences, the main one being that since there is no more equity uncertainties we chose our bet sizing entirely based on the opponents defending range, and we don't have to factor in how often his calling range will beat our value bets on a later street. This makes it much much easier to play.
Not sure if you're talking about the 7h turn or other 2? A little difficult to answer trying to relate to all 3 boards, but my best guess would be that we don't have enough value bets to be able to bet all of our strong drawing hands (which on all boards we will have a ton of) and pio just figures that the fds retain their pot share better as a check than some of the other draws.
I noticed that in your Pio configuration that you left out small bets/over-bets OTR. Is there a reason for this? Do you think it will mess with the ranges on previous streets by doing this?
I did some tests previously where if an over-bet is left out OTT then the solver tries to make up for it OTF by using larger bets. If 110% was the best size OTF (w/ over-bets OTT) then it would go 130-140%+ if you left out turn over-bets. I am wondering how much this will have an effect on turn strategy.
I do that intentionally to reduce my solving time and also allow for more turn options as I lack RAM on my computer to run some of these trees with a ton of bet and raise sizes. I've played around with this before because I had the same concerns you did and I found that turn strategies aren't much affected as long as you give a mid-size bet option and raise size option on the river.
6min I'm not sure A3 can be called as '' bluffs'' on the turn. They make some better hands to fold and few worse to call (deny equity stuff/protection), and aswell rarely keep bluff river
The way you say it, it sounds like something you are certain off while not really looking at the grids so I'll be nitpicky and point it out.
You say the NFDs with additional equity are "of course" calling, while hovering over A6s, the A6 (FD+GS) of spades is favoring a fold at a very high frequency
When talking about the conclusions, calling the Flop because population will not overbet 50% OTT makes sense, since we overrealise our equity and win potshare back.
But when our opponent is not overbetting the Turn enough, against what kind of Turnaction should we call looser OTT.
If villain is not betting enough [but balanced] why would we call the Turn looser than equilibrium?
Or are you talking about that we should defend the Turn looser vs a smaller sizing than we would defend vs a bigger sizing? I am a bit confused by this.
If you defend the Flop wider, then you should already have gotten your additional potshare in case Villain does not overbet frequently enough and OTT we should then (imo) just call the solver-range given the ranges we get to the Turn with ("balanced").
Is this a correct assumption?
Additionally to this point: Is the leading River on interactive cards an exploit vs a Turn overbet or a "normal sized bet". Because I don't think IP should call too much one-pair hands after playing bet 50% / Bet 150% / interactive River getting donked into. But I could be wrong; guessing you mean the smaller (Turn)betsize tho.
In general as a feedback I would like to see you structure and talk differently when talking about the overall conclusions. Kind of like you do in the summaries of the different Spots with OOP and IP. You often use the word "we" when describing what a certain player should do. This gets confusing when switching back and forth between different exploits both players could make and therefor I had to listen to the conclusions multiple times to sort them in the way you intended them to be (hopefully at least ;) )
Edit: Saw you making it more clear on the last two presentation parts, I liked that more
Thanks for the videos, I really appreciate the content and for me the work you do is one of the most relevant PIO-workform out there. Especially the way you sort it relevantly and summarize your explorations instead of trying to make sense out of micro-cosmos-dynamics that the solver is doing is really making your video worth watching.
Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate constructive criticism.
27:20, You're right the A6ss specifically is not calling, I was mostly focusing on the hearts, should have been more careful with my wording.
33:00, What I meant there is that since our opponent will be using a smaller bet sizing we will be calling looser than what pio shows in the sims I went through. Even if he is betting a balanced ranged our marginal folds (vs the overbet) will now be getting a good enough price to squeeze in a call. Essentially I'm just saying if you're studying these turn ranges keep in mind that they are only correct vs the overbet.
Additionally to this point: Is the leading River on interactive cards an exploit vs a Turn overbet or a "normal sized bet". Because I don't think IP should call too much one-pair hands after playing bet 50% / Bet 150% / interactive River getting donked into. But I could be wrong; guessing you mean the smaller (Turn)betsize tho.
This is somewhat difficult to answer because it just depends on what the river card is exactly, and also what lead sizing we would chose(both as an exploit or not). You are correct that this will apply to a smaller bet sizing strategy for IP much more so than when IP overbets. Speaking strictly from experience, when players overbet turn, get called, and the board changes, they tend to assume that since OOP called such a large bet he will have a difficult time turning the bottom of his turn calls into bluffs. There will of course be players out there who are very good and vs whom we shouldn't make these assumptions, which is why I am careful with my wording when making these videos. What I mean is that this is something I've noticed from players, and if you notice the same leaks: here is how you can exploit them.
In general as a feedback I would like to see you structure and talk differently when talking about the overall conclusions. Kind of like you do in the summaries of the different Spots with OOP and IP. You often use the word "we" when describing what a certain player should do. This gets confusing when switching back and forth between different exploits both players could make and therefor I had to listen to the conclusions multiple times to sort them in the way you intended them to be (hopefully at least ;) )
I will make sure to keep that in mind in my future videos. It is difficult sometimes to not sound awkward repeating the word "OOP player" or "The button" when talking about the same situation over and over, so maybe I focus too much on trying to make the video flow smoothly and not enough on making sense.
Thanks for the reply and making that clear. It helps me when you differentiate between exploits and GTO approach.
There will of course be players out there who are very good and vs
whom we shouldn't make these assumptions, which is why I am careful
with my wording when making these videos.
Maybe simply put it like "the majority of the pool in my experience is not able to adjust accordingly, but be aware that you are opening yourself up to being exploited by the best regs [at your limit]" or something like that
I will make sure to keep that in mind in my future videos. It is
difficult sometimes to not sound awkward repeating the word "OOP
player" or "The button" when talking about the same situation over and
over, so maybe I focus too much on trying to make the video flow
smoothly and not enough on making sense.
Maybe just sort the possible exploits into groups "by OOP" and "by IP". That would make it easier imo (still keeping them on one sheets you have done with the conclusions as well)
I'm curious about how the strategy changes if the turn pairs the board. I don't mean to ask you to run the sim all over again but what general trends should we assume in strategy if the turn is a 2 that pairs the board or an 8 that pairs the board?
Since the 2 is still pretty underrepresented in both ranges, maybe a board like Jh9h5x turn 5x
or turn 9x would be a better question. Would OOP have a leading range? Would IP not utilize the 1.5x overbet as often?
I have the same question for your 3bet vid on board-changing turns as well.
The OOP strategy will almost always have some frequency of leads on turns which shift equities enough in their favor, since now the IP player's aggression will be reduced. So as you already pointed out it's just going to depend on how well the board pairing card connects with that range as a whole. In your J95hh example, I would imagine in a single raised pot OOP would develop leads on the 9, and potentially the 5. However with 3bet pots neither the 9 nor 5 really improve OOPs range that much(speaking about co vs btn 3bet specifically, we only have a few suited 9x combos), the IP player doesn't have enough incentive to check back any of his strong hands, so for that reason check-raising becomes a better strategy for the trips+ region.
Whether or not you want to lead essentially comes down to how much the turn card affects the IPs betting frequencies. If he's starting to mix in a lot of checks with his overpair or strong top pair region it's probably good indication that we should lead. If he's not, check raising becomes better.
Great format of video. Just a couple of questions:
1) At 6:20, on the 9h8h2s 3c turn, could A5o be more of a check back than A6o because A6o blocks more turn x/r bluffs and missed river draws? More importantly, from the sims you've done, do you think bluffing blockers is a useful transferable idea to think about or not really?
2) At 12:50 when you change the turn to 9h8h2s 7h, have you experimented with a small lead size option to see if it's a lead range spot? I only ask because I noticed 20% pot size leads quite a bit on super high roller ball 5 footage when they were still relatively deep.
1) That sounds pretty reasonable(As for why A6 raises). Blockers always bring up the value of your bluff (for the obvious reason), so the easy answer to your question is yes. Keep in mind when you build your bluffing strategy, specifically on an earlier street, you will want to keep a variety of hands in there, and not just pick the best blockers regardless of equity. What you also have to be careful with is that oftentimes you will have a ton of good blocker hands to choose from as your bluff, but using all of them will make you overbluff. On the flip side, in some spots you will need to pick your bluffs out of no blockers hands because you simply won't have enough blockers.
2) Not sure I fully understand your question. I gave pio an option to lead 33%, are you saying you feel there might be a significant difference in strategy if I allow a smaller lead? When watching super high roller footage I would be careful before applying what you see to your own play. These guys know each other so well that I would imagine most of what they do is catered towards the specific player. When you throw in live tells they might have picked up in the specific hand it becomes very very difficult to understand the players motives.
Hi krzysztof, Excellent video!
At 8:55, why is J8 called very often while A8 folds very often? 8 seems to have similar blocking effects on the villian's value range while J should seriously interfere with the turn bluffing range of the villian? Can you think of any reason why J8 might be higher EV?
Hey. Sorry this reply is so late I was away from home for a while.
Both these hands get very little ev from calling, which is why you see them both mixing in the 0ev folds, meaning they just mostly expect to lose anyway and end up calling to get to the minimum defend frequency and not allow our opponent an opportunity to get a profitable bet with any2 cards in. So for those super low EV, threshold hands, the blockers won't have that big of an effect unless the opponents range has very few combos in total. Nevertheless, I agree I would have expected the A8 to have slighlty more ev. Part of the reason might be the fact that he has all JJ betting but not all AA, or it might be how he designs his river betting ranges across all the different rivers. Difficult to say for sure.
Excellent video Krzysztof ! Really useful recap after the pio sim, probably because I'm not a PIO expert so I find out this great to summarize all the information. Thanks
Loading 23 Comments...
Excellent video and definitely appreciate all the hard work and pio sims. Continuing with different board textures would be great
Still watching but my guess is A6hh overbets turn more often because it blocks 2 straight flush combos(???)
Very nice video and format
Yep, that would make sense. Thanks for the feedback
Hey very good video. Would love to see continues and expansions of this format.
3 questions, vs ip flop check back, oop prefer lead with small size with board changing turn, and lead with overbet on brick turn. In practice, I find people rarely fold to small turn prove size ... which gives me paranoia .. how to approach turn and river in this case? In other words, general guidelines to construct a conherent turn and river bluffing range.
2nd question we observe pattern responses from both players on brick or board changing Turn, what about River card? From what I observe, it’s very similar to turn card effect. Do u note any difference?
Also one thing u said, oop may have some river leading range on board changing river to gain some pot share back is interesting.
Last one, what are possible explanations for ip to play relatively passively with pure flush draw (non-combo FD) on turn? Equity relization is that important? Again oop tend to not check raise that much.
Thx.
Hey, Thanks for the feedback.
Depending on whether you mostly see raises or calls vs the probe you will need to adjust your range accordingly. If your opponent doesn't raise very much you will be allowed to cheaply realize your equity so you can lead a lot of marginal hands. On the other hand vs a more aggressive strategy you will want to heavily favor leading a polarized range. Additionally, If your opponent calls a lot he will probably get to the river with a pretty weak range and you will find a lot of very good bluffing opportunities.
You are right in assuming the river effects will be pretty similar. However there will obviously be some differences, the main one being that since there is no more equity uncertainties we chose our bet sizing entirely based on the opponents defending range, and we don't have to factor in how often his calling range will beat our value bets on a later street. This makes it much much easier to play.
Not sure if you're talking about the 7h turn or other 2? A little difficult to answer trying to relate to all 3 boards, but my best guess would be that we don't have enough value bets to be able to bet all of our strong drawing hands (which on all boards we will have a ton of) and pio just figures that the fds retain their pot share better as a check than some of the other draws.
I noticed that in your Pio configuration that you left out small bets/over-bets OTR. Is there a reason for this? Do you think it will mess with the ranges on previous streets by doing this?
I did some tests previously where if an over-bet is left out OTT then the solver tries to make up for it OTF by using larger bets. If 110% was the best size OTF (w/ over-bets OTT) then it would go 130-140%+ if you left out turn over-bets. I am wondering how much this will have an effect on turn strategy.
Hey,
I do that intentionally to reduce my solving time and also allow for more turn options as I lack RAM on my computer to run some of these trees with a ton of bet and raise sizes. I've played around with this before because I had the same concerns you did and I found that turn strategies aren't much affected as long as you give a mid-size bet option and raise size option on the river.
6min I'm not sure A3 can be called as '' bluffs'' on the turn. They make some better hands to fold and few worse to call (deny equity stuff/protection), and aswell rarely keep bluff river
Hey, you're right 2x and 3x are definitely not "bluffs", just a mental lapse ;)
27:20:
The way you say it, it sounds like something you are certain off while not really looking at the grids so I'll be nitpicky and point it out.
You say the NFDs with additional equity are "of course" calling, while hovering over A6s, the A6 (FD+GS) of spades is favoring a fold at a very high frequency
https://gyazo.com/f57dd9e042208fa9b5e08c27727802cb
Just so you might be aware in the future that vs that sizing OOP is even folding some of those hands vs that size on the texture ;)
33:00:
When talking about the conclusions, calling the Flop because population will not overbet 50% OTT makes sense, since we overrealise our equity and win potshare back.
But when our opponent is not overbetting the Turn enough, against what kind of Turnaction should we call looser OTT.
If villain is not betting enough [but balanced] why would we call the Turn looser than equilibrium?
Or are you talking about that we should defend the Turn looser vs a smaller sizing than we would defend vs a bigger sizing? I am a bit confused by this.
If you defend the Flop wider, then you should already have gotten your additional potshare in case Villain does not overbet frequently enough and OTT we should then (imo) just call the solver-range given the ranges we get to the Turn with ("balanced").
Is this a correct assumption?
Additionally to this point: Is the leading River on interactive cards an exploit vs a Turn overbet or a "normal sized bet". Because I don't think IP should call too much one-pair hands after playing bet 50% / Bet 150% / interactive River getting donked into. But I could be wrong; guessing you mean the smaller (Turn)betsize tho.
In general as a feedback I would like to see you structure and talk differently when talking about the overall conclusions. Kind of like you do in the summaries of the different Spots with OOP and IP. You often use the word "we" when describing what a certain player should do. This gets confusing when switching back and forth between different exploits both players could make and therefor I had to listen to the conclusions multiple times to sort them in the way you intended them to be (hopefully at least ;) )
Edit: Saw you making it more clear on the last two presentation parts, I liked that more
Thanks for the videos, I really appreciate the content and for me the work you do is one of the most relevant PIO-workform out there. Especially the way you sort it relevantly and summarize your explorations instead of trying to make sense out of micro-cosmos-dynamics that the solver is doing is really making your video worth watching.
Keep it up!
Hey Markus Schuldig
Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate constructive criticism.
27:20, You're right the A6ss specifically is not calling, I was mostly focusing on the hearts, should have been more careful with my wording.
33:00, What I meant there is that since our opponent will be using a smaller bet sizing we will be calling looser than what pio shows in the sims I went through. Even if he is betting a balanced ranged our marginal folds (vs the overbet) will now be getting a good enough price to squeeze in a call. Essentially I'm just saying if you're studying these turn ranges keep in mind that they are only correct vs the overbet.
This is somewhat difficult to answer because it just depends on what the river card is exactly, and also what lead sizing we would chose(both as an exploit or not). You are correct that this will apply to a smaller bet sizing strategy for IP much more so than when IP overbets. Speaking strictly from experience, when players overbet turn, get called, and the board changes, they tend to assume that since OOP called such a large bet he will have a difficult time turning the bottom of his turn calls into bluffs. There will of course be players out there who are very good and vs whom we shouldn't make these assumptions, which is why I am careful with my wording when making these videos. What I mean is that this is something I've noticed from players, and if you notice the same leaks: here is how you can exploit them.
I will make sure to keep that in mind in my future videos. It is difficult sometimes to not sound awkward repeating the word "OOP player" or "The button" when talking about the same situation over and over, so maybe I focus too much on trying to make the video flow smoothly and not enough on making sense.
Cheers, and thanks again.
Thanks for the reply and making that clear. It helps me when you differentiate between exploits and GTO approach.
Maybe simply put it like "the majority of the pool in my experience is not able to adjust accordingly, but be aware that you are opening yourself up to being exploited by the best regs [at your limit]" or something like that
Maybe just sort the possible exploits into groups "by OOP" and "by IP". That would make it easier imo (still keeping them on one sheets you have done with the conclusions as well)
Happy you are open to constructive crtiicism :)
Hi Krzysztof,
I'm curious about how the strategy changes if the turn pairs the board. I don't mean to ask you to run the sim all over again but what general trends should we assume in strategy if the turn is a 2 that pairs the board or an 8 that pairs the board?
Since the 2 is still pretty underrepresented in both ranges, maybe a board like Jh9h5x turn 5x
or turn 9x would be a better question. Would OOP have a leading range? Would IP not utilize the 1.5x overbet as often?
I have the same question for your 3bet vid on board-changing turns as well.
thanks love the vids.
Hey,
Thanks for the kinds words.
The OOP strategy will almost always have some frequency of leads on turns which shift equities enough in their favor, since now the IP player's aggression will be reduced. So as you already pointed out it's just going to depend on how well the board pairing card connects with that range as a whole. In your J95hh example, I would imagine in a single raised pot OOP would develop leads on the 9, and potentially the 5. However with 3bet pots neither the 9 nor 5 really improve OOPs range that much(speaking about co vs btn 3bet specifically, we only have a few suited 9x combos), the IP player doesn't have enough incentive to check back any of his strong hands, so for that reason check-raising becomes a better strategy for the trips+ region.
Whether or not you want to lead essentially comes down to how much the turn card affects the IPs betting frequencies. If he's starting to mix in a lot of checks with his overpair or strong top pair region it's probably good indication that we should lead. If he's not, check raising becomes better.
Cheers.
Hi Krzysztof
Great format of video. Just a couple of questions:
1) At 6:20, on the 9h8h2s 3c turn, could A5o be more of a check back than A6o because A6o blocks more turn x/r bluffs and missed river draws? More importantly, from the sims you've done, do you think bluffing blockers is a useful transferable idea to think about or not really?
2) At 12:50 when you change the turn to 9h8h2s 7h, have you experimented with a small lead size option to see if it's a lead range spot? I only ask because I noticed 20% pot size leads quite a bit on super high roller ball 5 footage when they were still relatively deep.
Keep up the good work!
Steve
Hey,
1) That sounds pretty reasonable(As for why A6 raises). Blockers always bring up the value of your bluff (for the obvious reason), so the easy answer to your question is yes. Keep in mind when you build your bluffing strategy, specifically on an earlier street, you will want to keep a variety of hands in there, and not just pick the best blockers regardless of equity. What you also have to be careful with is that oftentimes you will have a ton of good blocker hands to choose from as your bluff, but using all of them will make you overbluff. On the flip side, in some spots you will need to pick your bluffs out of no blockers hands because you simply won't have enough blockers.
2) Not sure I fully understand your question. I gave pio an option to lead 33%, are you saying you feel there might be a significant difference in strategy if I allow a smaller lead? When watching super high roller footage I would be careful before applying what you see to your own play. These guys know each other so well that I would imagine most of what they do is catered towards the specific player. When you throw in live tells they might have picked up in the specific hand it becomes very very difficult to understand the players motives.
Cheers.
Hi krzysztof, Excellent video!
At 8:55, why is J8 called very often while A8 folds very often? 8 seems to have similar blocking effects on the villian's value range while J should seriously interfere with the turn bluffing range of the villian? Can you think of any reason why J8 might be higher EV?
Hey. Sorry this reply is so late I was away from home for a while.
Both these hands get very little ev from calling, which is why you see them both mixing in the 0ev folds, meaning they just mostly expect to lose anyway and end up calling to get to the minimum defend frequency and not allow our opponent an opportunity to get a profitable bet with any2 cards in. So for those super low EV, threshold hands, the blockers won't have that big of an effect unless the opponents range has very few combos in total. Nevertheless, I agree I would have expected the A8 to have slighlty more ev. Part of the reason might be the fact that he has all JJ betting but not all AA, or it might be how he designs his river betting ranges across all the different rivers. Difficult to say for sure.
Cheers.
Could it be because A9 is getting bet very often on the turn, so we want to have some equity in case we are behind?
Yeah absolutely. It's a combination of reasons and that could definitely be one of them
Excellent video Krzysztof ! Really useful recap after the pio sim, probably because I'm not a PIO expert so I find out this great to summarize all the information. Thanks
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.