CREV Analysis: Bet or Check Straight
Posted by Zachary Freeman
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 12 Comments...
I really like your PLO videos but this left something to be desired I must say.
I think cbetting here with an Ace that missed or a low pp is probably a pretty big mistake.
I don't think this board is nearly as good for us as you seem to think it is
I am sorry that you found this video lacking and encourage respectful criticism as you gave. I don't expect all my work to appeal to all people.
That said, let me address the points you made.
1)The cbet strategy is very insignificant to the purpose and results of the video. I even mention that building our range at all is not necessary for the purpose of the video but for completeness I did so. It isn't necessary because our goal was to see if KT is a bet on the river given our assumptions about his calling range on each street. Secondly, the low equity bluffs that you pointed out (low pp, Ax misses) are checked on the turn and do not arrive in our river range accordingly it wont have any impact to the river which is our only street of focus.
2) You state that you don't think our range advantage on this flop is large. I do disagree with that. While I agree it is not a landslide, we have both a equity advantage and a top end advantage that I see as sufficient to be betting very wide.
Our Equity range vs range on this flop is 57% vs BB.
Our range is 41% more likely to flop TP+ than his.
We flop TP+ 41%vs his 29%.
And for nut combos we flop a set or straight 12.3% freq vs his 9%, so we are 36% more likely to have a straight or set.
I think we have some sort of range advantage vs BB but at this point in the hand it's still 3 way in reality and I think to cbet these hands 3 way is a disaster. While I do agree it's a minor point it should also affect his calling range (on flop) which then alters it later on (because our range is different than you've outlined and we already have no incentive to bluff on river so further tightens his range down the road making KT more of a check.)
Anyway, having reread my comment it sounds a lot harsher than I intended it to.
What I was really trying to get at is that for me personally I really love your PLO videos and find them generally very useful. This video was more mediocre and it feels a little forced (this isn't the game you normally play, this isn't the software you're familiar with and the ranges you're assigning are a little off etc). That was more what I was trying to get at
how do u know what game/software Zac is most comfortable with? He has made primarily plo videos, this is true, but he could shy away from nlh since RIO already has so many coaches producing quality videos in this game. And as such, would not need crev for his past videos. This in no way translates to his familiarity with nlh.
It bugs me when people make this kind of selective, confirmation bias. This is like some people auto-liking Sauce's comments without full consideration of context and content.
I also wanted to add that even if nlh isn't one of Zac's best games, this still doesn't mean he's not "qualified" in some way. As far as I know, Zac is a live crusher, who plays big stakes on the west coast. He is clearly an intelligent, successful guy who would have a valuable perspective to add from any game.
We shouldn't jump to criticism if it appears someone is stepping out of their comfort zone either. Phil said, in the recent past, how it can be a little intimidating to make theory-esque vids, which are imo the most valuable material on the site. If the first thing he saw in the comments was that his work and insights were a little off base, he would probably be inclined to revert back to what he's comfortable with (after rsp to just about everyone in the comments...like a BAWZ).
I def get what you're trying to say AP, but making general criticisms like 'ranges are lil off', 'not your normal game', 'feels forced', don't seem to be positive or constructive in any way. Criticism is a good thing, but I feel like it should be more specific and have substance to back it up.
I think this is getting a little blown out of proportion so I'll just answer once to try and clear things up and then I'm going to stay away from the thread.
I think my first point is that the quality of his PLO videos is exceptional. I don't think this video is "bad" or "useless" or anything like that, I just feel it's up to the same standard as his PLO videos and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of quality NL producers around here so it's not like he's forced to make NL content or there just won't be any.
With respect to him not being comfortable with CREV etc. First, you can tell that it's not a program he uses frequently because most people aren't going to differentiate between 2p combos when constructing a range and he even mentioned a few times he was unsure of stuff (like when he was trying to get it to show what % of the range was made up of each hand class before the pause and EV run as well as when he was comparing EV of betting to EV of checking and said "I chose to do this by making it 99.99% bet and 0.01% check with whole range, I'm not really sure if that's how people do it").
I think my comment was poorly worded and due to that and how quickly it got up (I was first and 2nd to comment after his response) it may seem like I was jumping down his throat which was not my intention. I just happened to be on the site relatively soon after it went up and commented midway through watching.
Cliffs:
My bad.
Video is fine imo 6 /10.
Most zachary freeman PLO videos are 8-10/10 so I was mostly trying to encourage more of that content rather than bash this content.
apotheosis, do u still make videos for iveyleague?
No I do not, I stopped in approximately June of 2015
I want to be clear that I don't have any problem with what AP wrote. In general the feedback I get has been really positive but I don't want people feeling forced to compliment. He was respectful.
In fact there have been a couple times I've made a video and considered scrapping it in fear it wasn't quality enough but then was pleasantly surprised to get very good feedback. This video I thought was good but it all depends on what people like ;not what I like.
As far as my familiarity with games and softwares, AP is correct that I don't use CREV much. However in the capacity I was using it I don't think it's very complicated. And in regards to NLHE I don't think it's my best game any more but it's the bulk of what I played for years and only this last 1.5 years has it been low volume. It's still probably my 3rd best game behind PLO and PLO8.
I make videos on the subjects I'm thinking about. I can't just contrive subjects easily to make content on. I do this work for my own bettermeant and then create a video sharing the process and results.
Thanks for the feedback and for coming to my defense.
cool, so we should maybe check with KT some of the time.
constructive criticism: dont use crev again, its cringeworthy.
I remember my LSAT instructor telling me never to ride the "poverty" wave while applying to law schools. Sure, you might have been poor according to standards in your own city. But youll never compare to the extreme poverty of someone applying from an African American country. You'll appear wealthier than ever when the both of you are compared on the poverty scale.
This wasn't a bad video. You're just being compared to instructors that have completely mastered CREV, and exclusively play holdem.
Hello Zach,
In my opinion this video would be a lot better with Flopzilla. Hands vs range analysis like this one are more clear and easier to make and understand.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.