This is cool, but the way that you're trying to answer the question is kind of assuming that you already know the answer to the question (I'm not saying you actually know it).
Regardless, it's nice to see how an experienced user with CREV tends to work out problems.
Great video. I'm a CREV newb and your videos help me a lot. Please continue making them.
newb question: you mentioned that at 60% equity our hand is an easy check call. at what point is the threshold for our decision to be borderline c/c or c/f?
It's little complicated because on the flop and turn what matters is future equity and hands can switch from a low equity to high equity. In general 30-40% is a borderline call on the river. On the flop and turn we need to consider how often we improve and get paid, so we need to look for hands that's equity is going to be nutted on the river. (i.e. a gutshot is almost always better than a random overcard even though it has less equity).
Why do you evaluate KQs higher than AQs? I think your BB is just calling 5% of the time with KQs but 20% of the time with AQs.
Tyler Forrester10 years, 6 months ago AQs has more equity against my call 3-bet range, and against my 4-bet range so I assumed it was a better 3-bet. However, my opponent may feel differently.
If you were to coach a student that is already good winner at small stakes but is not doing any work of the table, which areas would you make him improve first/focus most on, or how would your homework for him look like ?
Sorry if it`s a sort of an abstract question, but i haven`t read MOP, don`t work on constructing my ranges, analyzing spots, creating different lines, EV calcs...except in my head while on the forums and in game.And moving up in stakes i feel the need to tune up my game and find ways to eliminate trouble/shade spots and stay away from the gray area, so that`s why i`m asking.
Tyler Forrester10 years, 6 months ago3-bet pots are where the money is so I would start there. Make sure you aren't very exploitable in your 3-bet/fold, 4-bet/fold and raise/fold frequencies pre.
-you mention the turn betting fqcy for BB is on the tigher side at 50%, considering if we bet he has to call more like 60%. i'm wondering how we use a raw fqcy comparison when the composition of the BB's calling range is a lot more polarized than his bet-when-checked-to range. I would think that since SB still has the opportunity to reopen river for value vs the check back range on a good number of rivers, that he would need BB to bet signfiicantly <60% with the more polarized range in order to hold the equilibrium mentioned?
-in the b-x-b line, the model has BB trying to keep 32o indifferent not from printing $ otr, but from c-betting flop. I'm wondering what the counterstrategy is for SB if BB decides to defend with a 1-a otr instead. would BB just respond by c-betting flop exploitatively narrow?
I keep meaning to take a look at the first scenario hence the slow reply (I still haven't done it.) I appreciate your comments.
I can say in b x b line that the BB needs to call 1-a on the river because he called the flop at 1-a so any lower calling frequency later in the hand will return some money to our bluffs, which now means they are profitable on the flop (because we risked less money than (1-a) after our profitable river bet). Let me know if that's clear. My jargon is awkward.
RE: Rake, doesn't the SB pay more of the rake than the BB in this scenario? It seems like if BB is folding hands because rake makes them unprofitable he's making SB's opens considerably more profitable.
It seems like a bit of a Prisoner's Dilemma in that ideally you'd both play tighter than expected to avoid rake but it's going to be better for both of you to play wider because it forces your opponent to play tighter to avoid rake to increase their EV. I would just give the SB the finger and play wider here and expect that once history had been established over a few thousand hands it'd force SBs to open tighter against me which would greatly increase my winrate in this spot.
I've always thought this was how calling jams in tournaments worked too. Like if a very well-known MTT pro told everyone he knew in the games he was playing that he was going to call too wide every time they jammed on his big blind he'd get so many more walks.
So I only have stars rakeback numbers, but when I coldcall at 2/4, I pay 10bb/100 in rake. Its substantial monetarily but doesn't change my decisions, because its almost impossible to know the winrate of a hand preflop down to within 10bb/100. Since actionable effect of rake is negligible, I don't worry about oscillating strategies of overopening to undercalling, then underopening to overcalling. There might be some value to it, but its too complicated for me to do well at the table.
It's definitely true generally that are spots in tournaments where my -EV call can move EV to the rest of the table as opposed to the original shover/better.
Loading 14 Comments...
This is cool, but the way that you're trying to answer the question is kind of assuming that you already know the answer to the question (I'm not saying you actually know it).
Regardless, it's nice to see how an experienced user with CREV tends to work out problems.
Tris video, and also the second part, were released on aug 17, so this is not a new video.
The timeline is out of whack. The Aug 17th release was the "check" part of the game tree. This is the "bet" part, which was shot first.
I was wrong, this is a new video, but the video released on Aug 17 is the second part.
Great video. I'm a CREV newb and your videos help me a lot. Please continue making them.
newb question: you mentioned that at 60% equity our hand is an easy check call. at what point is the threshold for our decision to be borderline c/c or c/f?
It's little complicated because on the flop and turn what matters is future equity and hands can switch from a low equity to high equity. In general 30-40% is a borderline call on the river. On the flop and turn we need to consider how often we improve and get paid, so we need to look for hands that's equity is going to be nutted on the river. (i.e. a gutshot is almost always better than a random overcard even though it has less equity).
Why do you evaluate KQs higher than AQs? I think your BB is just calling 5% of the time with KQs but 20% of the time with AQs.
Hi Tyler, pretty cool analysis.
If you were to coach a student that is already good winner at small stakes but is not doing any work of the table, which areas would you make him improve first/focus most on, or how would your homework for him look like ?
Sorry if it`s a sort of an abstract question, but i haven`t read MOP, don`t work on constructing my ranges, analyzing spots, creating different lines, EV calcs...except in my head while on the forums and in game.And moving up in stakes i feel the need to tune up my game and find ways to eliminate trouble/shade spots and stay away from the gray area, so that`s why i`m asking.
nice video Tyler.
-you mention the turn betting fqcy for BB is on the tigher side at 50%, considering if we bet he has to call more like 60%. i'm wondering how we use a raw fqcy comparison when the composition of the BB's calling range is a lot more polarized than his bet-when-checked-to range. I would think that since SB still has the opportunity to reopen river for value vs the check back range on a good number of rivers, that he would need BB to bet signfiicantly <60% with the more polarized range in order to hold the equilibrium mentioned?
-in the b-x-b line, the model has BB trying to keep 32o indifferent not from printing $ otr, but from c-betting flop. I'm wondering what the counterstrategy is for SB if BB decides to defend with a 1-a otr instead. would BB just respond by c-betting flop exploitatively narrow?
Hi Nick,
I keep meaning to take a look at the first scenario hence the slow reply (I still haven't done it.) I appreciate your comments.
I can say in b x b line that the BB needs to call 1-a on the river because he called the flop at 1-a so any lower calling frequency later in the hand will return some money to our bluffs, which now means they are profitable on the flop (because we risked less money than (1-a) after our profitable river bet). Let me know if that's clear. My jargon is awkward.
Hey Tyler,
RE: Rake, doesn't the SB pay more of the rake than the BB in this scenario? It seems like if BB is folding hands because rake makes them unprofitable he's making SB's opens considerably more profitable.
It seems like a bit of a Prisoner's Dilemma in that ideally you'd both play tighter than expected to avoid rake but it's going to be better for both of you to play wider because it forces your opponent to play tighter to avoid rake to increase their EV. I would just give the SB the finger and play wider here and expect that once history had been established over a few thousand hands it'd force SBs to open tighter against me which would greatly increase my winrate in this spot.
I've always thought this was how calling jams in tournaments worked too. Like if a very well-known MTT pro told everyone he knew in the games he was playing that he was going to call too wide every time they jammed on his big blind he'd get so many more walks.
So I only have stars rakeback numbers, but when I coldcall at 2/4, I pay 10bb/100 in rake. Its substantial monetarily but doesn't change my decisions, because its almost impossible to know the winrate of a hand preflop down to within 10bb/100. Since actionable effect of rake is negligible, I don't worry about oscillating strategies of overopening to undercalling, then underopening to overcalling. There might be some value to it, but its too complicated for me to do well at the table.
It's definitely true generally that are spots in tournaments where my -EV call can move EV to the rest of the table as opposed to the original shover/better.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.