My first comment:
22:32 you state that 87o (not 8h7d, which is the nuts) is by far the worst quads combo to call with. This is not actually true. If you look at his bluffing range, he has:
7d7s
7d7h
7d7c
7dJd
7dQd
7dKd
7dAd
Or 7 combos in total, and you have him bluffin all those hands with the same frequency.
This means that your Ad8h,Kd8h,Qd8h,Jd8h are all equally worse bluffcatchers as your 87o combos. This is because you fail to differentiate between the different A8o-J7o combos based on suits. You can see that your 98o and T8o have higher EV calling in your simulation as a result of this mistake.
Very optimistic to think a typical reg with a capped range is betting worse than 9x here for value against a good player. And valuebetting a flush to 3B bluff a straight flush with shallow stacks is clearly ridiculous.
Loved this video. I think one thing that might enhance a video series like this would be to take a step away from the analysis once it was done and try applying it to different villain types or to different board textures, because poker is too big to solve these situations for all boards and all opponents so developing lateral reasoning is very important if you want to approach it from this sort of angle.
One thing which might be helpful could be to first normalize the ranges by tying different holecards to different strength values (quads is 10, JTo is 1 or something) and showing how a toy game with those distributions might work and then to explain how blockers changed the situation for this board.
I don't know, this idea isn't very well thought-out. I think you've done a very good job of having both theory and gameplay in your videos and I'm just trying to work out what I'd most like to see in terms of bridging the two.
Hi Ben. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but I just wonder, are you spewing little extra because you're making the videos when you're playing? For example in the "4 table high stakes 6-max NLHE" videos it seems you're very loose. 40/30 stats and playing pretty weak hands. Are you usually this aggro? Again I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just new to RIO and haven't really seen how you played before.
Great videos between, keep it up man!
I think Sauce playing style makes a lot of sense, he can probably play looser because he can realize more equity postflop at nl2k than he can on nl40k and play better overall. Last video someone asked if forhayley/educa were playing too loose, or why. Because in Sauce sample they were playing like 36vpip or w/e, if they can do it probably can Sauce. If those 3 guys plays that loose I think they're quite sure what they're doing. It might not however be optimal for everyone..
Slade, sorry if I was a little grumpy when I first replied to your comment. What I should have said is that it makes me uncomfortable that someone would think I'd deliberately play worse (i.e., looser, more aggro, more gamble-y) in a video because for me that would be a betrayal to all of the people paying to watch the content I put on this site.
But yea really liked this video helped me digest alot of the toy gaming stuff better in a real poker sense.
quick questioon tho
So you talk a decent amount about mixed strategies in some spots being like oh well i need to fold this combo some % etc
How do you make those calls in game? is there a rhyme or reason to it or is it just kind or sporadic/random?
I don't even need to mention it, but I will anyway...Sauce your videos and insight are some of the most valuable content on the site. For me personally, I have learned a great deal from your content. I think it's great you turned a relatively uncommon spot into a series as a theory excercise. Plz keep the great content coming. There is a reason almost every video has 50+ likes and 20+ comments. Ignore the trolls plz.
Loading 17 Comments...
My first comment:
22:32 you state that 87o (not 8h7d, which is the nuts) is by far the worst quads combo to call with. This is not actually true. If you look at his bluffing range, he has:
7d7s
7d7h
7d7c
7dJd
7dQd
7dKd
7dAd
Or 7 combos in total, and you have him bluffin all those hands with the same frequency.
This means that your Ad8h,Kd8h,Qd8h,Jd8h are all equally worse bluffcatchers as your 87o combos. This is because you fail to differentiate between the different A8o-J7o combos based on suits. You can see that your 98o and T8o have higher EV calling in your simulation as a result of this mistake.
Very optimistic to think a typical reg with a capped range is betting worse than 9x here for value against a good player. And valuebetting a flush to 3B bluff a straight flush with shallow stacks is clearly ridiculous.
GT,
If you watch the rest of the video you'll see that 87o is the first quads combo that I think gets folded.
DQ,
What part of the video made you think flushes were value betting?
Loved this video. I think one thing that might enhance a video series like this would be to take a step away from the analysis once it was done and try applying it to different villain types or to different board textures, because poker is too big to solve these situations for all boards and all opponents so developing lateral reasoning is very important if you want to approach it from this sort of angle.
One thing which might be helpful could be to first normalize the ranges by tying different holecards to different strength values (quads is 10, JTo is 1 or something) and showing how a toy game with those distributions might work and then to explain how blockers changed the situation for this board.
I don't know, this idea isn't very well thought-out. I think you've done a very good job of having both theory and gameplay in your videos and I'm just trying to work out what I'd most like to see in terms of bridging the two.
I know its kind of lazy but would it be too much to ask for the file of the tree on CRev (for homework matters)? :)
Whatever happen to that ICM series?
Hi Ben. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but I just wonder, are you spewing little extra because you're making the videos when you're playing? For example in the "4 table high stakes 6-max NLHE" videos it seems you're very loose. 40/30 stats and playing pretty weak hands. Are you usually this aggro? Again I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just new to RIO and haven't really seen how you played before.
Great videos between, keep it up man!
This comment has nothing to do with the quads hand, I just realized I posted it on the wrong vid.
No, I do not deliberately play worse when making instructional videos designed to teach people to play better poker.
You can't deny the appearance of being very loose though.
I think Sauce playing style makes a lot of sense, he can probably play looser because he can realize more equity postflop at nl2k than he can on nl40k and play better overall. Last video someone asked if forhayley/educa were playing too loose, or why. Because in Sauce sample they were playing like 36vpip or w/e, if they can do it probably can Sauce. If those 3 guys plays that loose I think they're quite sure what they're doing. It might not however be optimal for everyone..
Slade, sorry if I was a little grumpy when I first replied to your comment. What I should have said is that it makes me uncomfortable that someone would think I'd deliberately play worse (i.e., looser, more aggro, more gamble-y) in a video because for me that would be a betrayal to all of the people paying to watch the content I put on this site.
Okey cool. I think you're a great teacher but I kinda had to ask. Keep it up!
running 40/30 over a small sample means nothing guys calm down
But yea really liked this video helped me digest alot of the toy gaming stuff better in a real poker sense.
quick questioon tho
So you talk a decent amount about mixed strategies in some spots being like oh well i need to fold this combo some % etc
How do you make those calls in game? is there a rhyme or reason to it or is it just kind or sporadic/random?
ibey,
I'd take a look at the Toygaming series again, or Tyler's videos, both should be helpful in this regard.
I don't even need to mention it, but I will anyway...Sauce your videos and insight are some of the most valuable content on the site. For me personally, I have learned a great deal from your content. I think it's great you turned a relatively uncommon spot into a series as a theory excercise. Plz keep the great content coming. There is a reason almost every video has 50+ likes and 20+ comments. Ignore the trolls plz.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.