Exploits 101: Board Changing Turns (part 2)

Posted by

You’re watching:

Exploits 101: Board Changing Turns (part 2)

user avatar

Krzysztof Slaski

Elite Pro

Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
Loaded: 0%
Duration -:-
Remaining Time 0:00
  • descriptions off, selected

Resume Video

Start from Beginning

Watch Video

Replay Video

10

You’re watching:

Exploits 101: Board Changing Turns (part 2)

user avatar

Krzysztof Slaski

POSTED Jan 08, 2019

Krzysztof Slaski continues using PIO to look at board changing turns, but this time focuses on CO vs BTN in 3-bet pots. He examines defense thresholds, commonly used sizings, and frequent raising hands.

10 Comments

Loading 10 Comments...

SnowAndFire 5 years, 11 months ago

3:20 - It isn't 150% pot in SRP or 75% pot in 3BP that is favored when static turns occur - it is geometric sizes that are favored almost exclusively when static turns occur.

If equity distributions don't shift from one card to the next then the maximum EV bet size when at least one player is clairvoyant is geometric. Bill Chen discusses this around pg 240 in MoP.

I felt that this video was mainly a review of a PioSOLVER sim where you just talked about the strategy of the ranges on each node. Then instead of node-locking to test your assumptions you just posted assumptions of responses to strategies and possible exploits. It did not feel like Elite content. I hope next time you can spend more time testing and verifying your assumptions and less of scrolling over each combo and speaking about things that anyone can speak about.

Krzysztof Slaski 5 years, 11 months ago

Hey,

Thanks for the feedback, sorry to hear you did not like the video. This format has generally been very well received in the past which is why I've decided to continue making these videos, but your points are fair, I will try to get a little more in depth in the future.

Markus 5 years, 11 months ago

Hey man!

I have to partially agree with SnowAndFire. What I think is different seems to be

1) The deepness of your knowledge in this spot. If you know something better, you can simplify it more and then give people things on the way that are more valuable and can simplify things more practically with relevant and irrelevant frequencies. And this is connected to
2) Your summaries. This time you basically were writing down the hands you hovered over already. That might be good learning tool for you and this is how you can memorize this, but as OP said, this can be done by us in the same way looking at solves. You sorted hands more relevantly and and approached this thing, again, more practically than this time.

Just rewatched your summaries from the first part and it just was less "naked combos" but more things that just did not happen in such a detail. I don't know how to handle it, but it just felt you were able to give us more, better structured and more precisely formulated information. Additionally I think there was more reasoning included rather than combination-listing.
Maybe having leadingranges seems to make it more chart heavy as well so there is nothing you can do about that.

When you look at different bet sizings for example it is probably very helpful to try to find reasons, why certain hands are in a certain range, because this is what makes people take away something that they maybe are figuring out less on their own and this is what true usable knowledge is rather than trying to memorize the chart itself.
Again, without rewatching the old videos, I am pretty sure you did a better job of that in the past videos.

Saying that hands we get to this point with very low frequency (regarding defending vs IP 2nd barrel in a spot where we lead those hands and therefor X-decide frequency is low) are not worth talking about is not really as precise as I would like to see you work, because non of us will play solver-ranges and knowing why the solver decides X instead of Y is still the main thing we wanna accomplish by using it trying to make sense of the grids. And we probably get to the Turn in that spot with those hands because it is usually pretty tough to construct reasonable leadingranges.

So I really like your content, but due to all the PIO-work, you are the one that can share the experience and knowledge on how to use this stuff relevantly is the thing that I am looking for. Seeing a different perspective on how to interpret thise grids rather than "just" simplifying them for the use in the end.

Thanks for the video and I hope that helps you and is not too much at once.

tldr: imo Elite content, useful for me, but try to find reasons rather than summarizing charts, what I like to see is the interpretation of these charts from somebody who is truly knowledged

SnowAndFire 5 years, 11 months ago

I ddef want to say that my intention was not to bash you in any way. It was constructive criticism. You are capable of much better was my thoughts. Markus explained it well.

Krzysztof Slaski 5 years, 11 months ago

Hey guys,

It's awesome to have people like you 2 to double check your work, it keeps me motivated to come up with valuable, original content. I really appreciate the time you put into analyzing my videos and leaving feedback.

SnowAndFire I did not take your comment as you bashing me, feel free to be as harsh as you see necessary :)

Markus Schuldig I'm gonna stand by my work and try to defend it a little, although I think your points are all well grounded. The reason I structure the video this way is that repetition of the details/concepts is, in my view, the easiest way to retain the information for my average viewer. I agree with you that a continuous video with constant new information will be more value to the portion of the audience who is competent enough, and does not watch the videos passively; takes notes, pauses to digest the information better, and reviews the next day. However, my assumption is that most of my audience prefers to sit back and relax while watching these videos (this comes from the fact that this is mostly how I watch training videos).

It is a difficult task to make videos fitting to such a broad audience. The range of people who watch these videos varies from players better than me, to beginner pro's, to recreational players; that is a tough audience to please all at once. For this reason I try to make a variety of videos in a way where everyone who watches finds something useful and informational, but at the same time not overwhelming to those who may not know the concepts as well.

Saying that hands we get to this point with very low frequency
(regarding defending vs IP 2nd barrel in a spot where we lead those
hands and therefor X-decide frequency is low) are not worth talking
about is not really as precise as I would like to see you work,
because non of us will play solver-ranges and knowing why the solver
decides X instead of Y is still the main thing we wanna accomplish by
using it trying to make sense of the grids. And we probably get to the
Turn in that spot with those hands because it is usually pretty tough
to construct reasonable leadingranges.

This is a great point, which i definitely did not consider.

Thanks again guys, I will have some more advanced theory videos coming up which I hope you will enjoy.

jimnatalie 5 years, 10 months ago

In part 1 of your video (34:00) back on Dec 21, you said the adjustment to insufficient aggression with made hands is to have a higher check raise frequency because his overall betting range is weaker. But in this (part 2) of the video (~31:30), you said the adjustment to insufficient aggression is to have a lower check raise frequency because his value betting range is stronger. Which adjustment (lower or higher check raise frequency) is correct?

Krzysztof Slaski 5 years, 10 months ago

Hey. Sorry this reply is so late.

So the key difference here is "made hands". If our opponent isn't aggressive enough with his made hands he will therefore be much more likely to overbluff, which in turn makes us want to check-raise more frequently.

If our opponent isn't aggressive enough in general, meaning he still doesn't bet some of the value hands he should be, but is aware enough that he decreases his bluffing combos as well, then our check-raise frequency should go down because his overall betting range is stronger.

Cheers.

Be the first to add a comment

You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.

Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy