Sry if this is a bit of a derail...
@~15min you say that AA on KQ4r v co will be able to xc (and the graph shows AA bets about 23%.) Looking into both sb v btn and sb v utg at 100bb in 3b pots in Vision, I see that AA is v hf bet in both scenarios (even the subrange of AA!KQJT sb v utg b50 55% and b100 4%). This also jives with what Gryko has mentioned in some videos regarding the solver using b/f lines often w/some immediate sd equity. This disparity seems quite high to me, perhaps explained but differences in pf range constructions?
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the syntax you used, you're saying Vision is suggesting a half pot bet 55% of the time? In the sim I used, I gave OOP just one sizing (pot) so that we could compare it more easily to the 3 way pot scenario. I totally agree with the idea that if we bet smaller, we'll get to bet/f hands like bare AA more often. I think it's just a function of the sizing restriction.
re: T8 hu v mw
hu: A chunk of IP's range is 1pr+some other equity that will fold to a bet but may improve enough on various turns to call once or twice/will bluff + T8 is a good candidate to generate ev but allowing IP to barrel aggressively (IP has more KK than OOP here?)
mw: there are more hands in co+btn combined range that will stack off at lower spr that are worse than T8. This also follows then general trend that as SPR decreases less polarized ranges are bet by everyone
"Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the syntax you used, you're saying Vision is suggesting a half pot bet 55% of the time?"
(Aiming for accuracy here with detail, please don't think condescension.) Not sure if you're familiar with the restrictions of Vision but the most comparable situation I can find in it in sb (OOP) v utg (tightest IP pfr range). In this Vision scenario, for the sub class of AA w/o K,Q,J or T, b50 is used at 57% freq and b100 is used at 14% freq. I hadn't connected the sizing restriction to the lower freq when I watched the video, but it makes sense in a way that begs the question, what the difference in ev of a single sizing and multiple sizings? Intuitively I'd guess we do somewhat better using multiple sizings, can gain some amount of understanding from looking at sims w/one large sizing but that understanding would be relatively impoverished.
Usually adding a second sizing doesn't add much ev. It's a bit better, but we rarely gain more than 1% of the pot share and for humans, we're going to make mistakes that are much larger than that on every street.
Had to watch this 3 times to really retain all the info... lol so 2 hours later and 5 pages of notes (5 white claws as well ) and i feel like ive gained at least 1 IQ point. You explained everything so well i dont even have a question just wanna say keep up the good work. Well done
Thanks a lot man, I'm glad you found it so helpful. I'm 100% confident those two hours of work and 5 pages of notes will result in lots more money in your wallet :)
Thanks man! They are actually all hand made using only Microsoft Excel and Monker Solver. Each takes about an hour to make so it's a lot of work, but valuable IMO
At the begining of the video,(still on the preflop intro),you discuss on why is it that QQds are 3b a lot more when SQ than when HU 3b v CO. U mentioned about the promotion in value of the suits when the SPR is lower, and bad mway hand when SPR is higher in a srp 3 ways etc. I had done a bit of digging in the past but w KK hand class. And it similarly happens w the KK category in general. Plenty of KK!AKK hands are just flat preflop, very seldomly 3b (vs wider ranges, good sidecard structure connectivity, premium ones , etc etc), but when added a cc, the 3b freq of KK goes through the roof in comparison with the vs rfi only counterpart. I have always have thought , and this might be in part also a factor on why is similarly occuring w QQds category as well, that when added a capped range in the mix(the cc inbetween), now your hand goes up in value and pushes more eq 3 ways(and also capable of reducing SPR more postflop to push its raw eq more efficiently), because one guy is capped, and if the initial PFR does not 4b you, all of a sudden you have the best hand , pushing eq, w the strongest and uncapped range, vs 2 capped ranges, one quite strong(the initial PFR), + another considerably weakend(the initial cc, that "caps himself twice" sort of say). Probably this is even more true in practice than in solver, as solver does cc some AA in there as cc but I dont reckon many people are setting up this kind of back raising situation but rather playing more straight fwd overall. Also, despite the 4b freq of initial PFR increasing slightly in comparison to a single 3btor, he has to fold significantly more than when facing a single 3btor. So in summary, the chance of being up against weaker and capped ranges (when called), plus the combined added fold eq from any of the 2 players, increase the EV of a 3b w these type of hand classes.
The question would be, vs Opponent that either don't 4b enough(typical AA almost only heavy range), or vs players who don't know the folding Button is clickable preflop, (or both), what would be the right adjustment to make w these handclass(QQ ds,medium to high KK, best sturctured JJ, etc)?
(sorry for the long post)
I think whenever we're up against players that call too much or players that aren't aggressively raising, linearity is the way to go since getting called a lot is a good thing. This is similar to NLH where when we face a player that calls a lot of 3Bs, we'll prefer to 3B AQo/AJs/ATs instead of 3Bing A4s type hands
13:36: About QQ and 44 being X more than KK. Is the greater likelihood of running into KK mway(because your up against 8 cards, and their ranges contain a fair amount of KK from preflop), when you unblock the K w QQ/44 hands, also a factor that influences this action? (along with the reasons you already state). If those are the reasons, you also happen to perform better vs a wider stabbing range+ feq, and "lighter calls to XR" than when u bet and get raised, where you still doing well, but raising ranges will be narrower and contain more KK in there, is that right??
Yeah I've talked about this in my books and other videos, but it's a terrible outcome to have a near nutted hand that ends up drawing dead so finding ways to avoid this is important. Another element you alluded to was the stabbing ranges. Multiway, more TP gets stabbed and folded so by unblocking those (especially the ones that would fold to our one bet) we induce more bluffs.
Loading 16 Comments...
Too tired to comment on your questions intelligently atm, but wanted to say really liked the format and look forward to the next installment.
Sry if this is a bit of a derail...
@~15min you say that AA on KQ4r v co will be able to xc (and the graph shows AA bets about 23%.) Looking into both sb v btn and sb v utg at 100bb in 3b pots in Vision, I see that AA is v hf bet in both scenarios (even the subrange of AA!KQJT sb v utg b50 55% and b100 4%). This also jives with what Gryko has mentioned in some videos regarding the solver using b/f lines often w/some immediate sd equity. This disparity seems quite high to me, perhaps explained but differences in pf range constructions?
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the syntax you used, you're saying Vision is suggesting a half pot bet 55% of the time? In the sim I used, I gave OOP just one sizing (pot) so that we could compare it more easily to the 3 way pot scenario. I totally agree with the idea that if we bet smaller, we'll get to bet/f hands like bare AA more often. I think it's just a function of the sizing restriction.
re: T8 hu v mw
hu: A chunk of IP's range is 1pr+some other equity that will fold to a bet but may improve enough on various turns to call once or twice/will bluff + T8 is a good candidate to generate ev but allowing IP to barrel aggressively (IP has more KK than OOP here?)
mw: there are more hands in co+btn combined range that will stack off at lower spr that are worse than T8. This also follows then general trend that as SPR decreases less polarized ranges are bet by everyone
this is great
I'm glad you guys are enjoying this one. I'll make at least one more part for sure.
"Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the syntax you used, you're saying Vision is suggesting a half pot bet 55% of the time?"
(Aiming for accuracy here with detail, please don't think condescension.) Not sure if you're familiar with the restrictions of Vision but the most comparable situation I can find in it in sb (OOP) v utg (tightest IP pfr range). In this Vision scenario, for the sub class of AA w/o K,Q,J or T, b50 is used at 57% freq and b100 is used at 14% freq. I hadn't connected the sizing restriction to the lower freq when I watched the video, but it makes sense in a way that begs the question, what the difference in ev of a single sizing and multiple sizings? Intuitively I'd guess we do somewhat better using multiple sizings, can gain some amount of understanding from looking at sims w/one large sizing but that understanding would be relatively impoverished.
Usually adding a second sizing doesn't add much ev. It's a bit better, but we rarely gain more than 1% of the pot share and for humans, we're going to make mistakes that are much larger than that on every street.
Had to watch this 3 times to really retain all the info... lol so 2 hours later and 5 pages of notes (5 white claws as well ) and i feel like ive gained at least 1 IQ point. You explained everything so well i dont even have a question just wanna say keep up the good work. Well done
Thanks a lot man, I'm glad you found it so helpful. I'm 100% confident those two hours of work and 5 pages of notes will result in lots more money in your wallet :)
Which software did u use to create those charts? Amazing.
Thanks man! They are actually all hand made using only Microsoft Excel and Monker Solver. Each takes about an hour to make so it's a lot of work, but valuable IMO
At the begining of the video,(still on the preflop intro),you discuss on why is it that QQds are 3b a lot more when SQ than when HU 3b v CO. U mentioned about the promotion in value of the suits when the SPR is lower, and bad mway hand when SPR is higher in a srp 3 ways etc. I had done a bit of digging in the past but w KK hand class. And it similarly happens w the KK category in general. Plenty of KK!AKK hands are just flat preflop, very seldomly 3b (vs wider ranges, good sidecard structure connectivity, premium ones , etc etc), but when added a cc, the 3b freq of KK goes through the roof in comparison with the vs rfi only counterpart. I have always have thought , and this might be in part also a factor on why is similarly occuring w QQds category as well, that when added a capped range in the mix(the cc inbetween), now your hand goes up in value and pushes more eq 3 ways(and also capable of reducing SPR more postflop to push its raw eq more efficiently), because one guy is capped, and if the initial PFR does not 4b you, all of a sudden you have the best hand , pushing eq, w the strongest and uncapped range, vs 2 capped ranges, one quite strong(the initial PFR), + another considerably weakend(the initial cc, that "caps himself twice" sort of say). Probably this is even more true in practice than in solver, as solver does cc some AA in there as cc but I dont reckon many people are setting up this kind of back raising situation but rather playing more straight fwd overall. Also, despite the 4b freq of initial PFR increasing slightly in comparison to a single 3btor, he has to fold significantly more than when facing a single 3btor. So in summary, the chance of being up against weaker and capped ranges (when called), plus the combined added fold eq from any of the 2 players, increase the EV of a 3b w these type of hand classes.
The question would be, vs Opponent that either don't 4b enough(typical AA almost only heavy range), or vs players who don't know the folding Button is clickable preflop, (or both), what would be the right adjustment to make w these handclass(QQ ds,medium to high KK, best sturctured JJ, etc)?
(sorry for the long post)
I think whenever we're up against players that call too much or players that aren't aggressively raising, linearity is the way to go since getting called a lot is a good thing. This is similar to NLH where when we face a player that calls a lot of 3Bs, we'll prefer to 3B AQo/AJs/ATs instead of 3Bing A4s type hands
13:36: About QQ and 44 being X more than KK. Is the greater likelihood of running into KK mway(because your up against 8 cards, and their ranges contain a fair amount of KK from preflop), when you unblock the K w QQ/44 hands, also a factor that influences this action? (along with the reasons you already state). If those are the reasons, you also happen to perform better vs a wider stabbing range+ feq, and "lighter calls to XR" than when u bet and get raised, where you still doing well, but raising ranges will be narrower and contain more KK in there, is that right??
Yeah I've talked about this in my books and other videos, but it's a terrible outcome to have a near nutted hand that ends up drawing dead so finding ways to avoid this is important. Another element you alluded to was the stabbing ranges. Multiway, more TP gets stabbed and folded so by unblocking those (especially the ones that would fold to our one bet) we induce more bluffs.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.