Facing Suboptimal C-betting Strategies
Posted by Diego Ramirez
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 33 Comments...
Very interesting series! Looking at responding vs incorrect cbet sizes (like you mentioned in the video) would be interesting, as well as looking at spots where people commonly cbet too much (or perhaps too much for the sizing they chose).
Interesting content, looking forward to more. Thanks!
maybe it bets QsQx more than QQ no spade because if you remove that card from OOP range he continues less often to the cbet so the cbet is immediately more profitable than if the Qs was out there...
also (and I am going to get Pio today to investigate its ability to determine these things)
if villain has QsX and another spade hits, OOP will have more flushes and single spade bluffs (as opposed to if he didn't have this card in range) to bet with which reduces IP ability to showdown QQ no spade. OOP betting frequency on later streets should increase having this card in his range, which is bad for QQ no spade.
untitled2jc: Will def go into it in the very next video of these series, I am very curious too!
vegasbri: appreciate it :)
nittyoldman: First argument: I don't have the sim with me now, but I don't think that villain not folding when we hold QQ either with or without spade is a problem, as I say, I don't have it with me now and correct me if I'm right, but I think we may gain more when he doesn't fold than when he does; definitely with our strongest hands we want villain to continue.
Second argument: It is true, but it's also true either way: if we bet QsQx, he has more flushes when we check and spade comes; if we check QsQx, he has more flushes when we bet and spade comes. Maybe I'm missing something about this argument?
Great approach! Appreciate these kind öb Videos a lot!!
Another great video, Diego. Keep up the good work!
Thank you all! I really appreciate the good feedback, also any suggestion on the topic of the series will be highly appreciated!!
Only a guess but perhaps QQ no spade isn't bet because there are so many bad possible turn cards. At least with QQs spades aren't a terrible turn.
Great series, just what I was trying to do with Pio myself but I found the node locking options confusing!
Overall, fantastic video. However, I have a question.
If we are assuming a villain who has such an exploitable c-bet strategy, shouldn't we be even more exploitable on the river by value betting something like 2/3rd pot with K9? In my experience, we are unlikely to get value from such villains by overbetting. Since we are node-locking an exploitable strategy on the flop but then assuming optimal play from turn onwards, it feels like we end up with a strategy which is good against practically no-one.
Re: QsQx. What if you take your second sim (node-locked unbalanced cbet), then unlock your QQ combos and re-run the sim? How much PIO uses QsQx as part of a weak capped checking range can tell you something about its role in the optimal solution.
can you explain again what you mean with the QQ in pio?
Hey nice video!
You emphasized in the beggining of the video the importance of the recognition of the villain's sub optimal strategy. Which stats would you recomend to recognize if the villain is using a stronger range on the flop or an overbluffing range? I guess both have higher c-betting frequencies than usual but our strategies should adjust very differently as you said.
Thanks!
@ antidesitterspace:
The thing is when we are allowed to, we want to bet max. amount. This gets us the most value and also allows us to bluff almost half the time! Our range overall benefits from betting as big as it is allowed, so no point in betting smaller when we can bet bigger.
What your message is really saying is: Shouldn't we value bet 2/3rds and hope to get called more often, because if we bet so big he is never calling? And the answe is: Well, if he is folding if we bet so big then we should always bluff so big, period.
But that's too much of assumption, and I want to be conservative with my assumptions.
About the QxQs, I don't get what you mean, please explain better!
YoungMoney18:
A typical hand 1 villain would have a somewhat high cbet IP and a somewhat high "check back IP as preflop raiser + fold"
A typical hand 2 villain would have a high cbet IP and a somewhat low "check back IP as preflop raiser + fold", or a high cbet and a somewhat high cbet+fold
Hey Diego. Another great video.A very big yes to more of the same.
I would like to explore the point made by antidesitterspace above as the same point occurred to me when I was watching the video.
Given we are seeking to play exploitively, we would really need to node lock not only the population strategy for flop but also for turn and river after they play the flop this way and that does get tricky given the number of assumptions we have to make.That said, there may be merit in node locking villain's assumed river calling strategy against various bet sizings rather than have base our conclusions on Pio optimal river play in a way which the population would not ? For example, I imagine our value overbets get paid off more by Pio than the population because Pio knows it has call some % of the time.
Now, although you did not say this as such ,the conclusion I took from your video regarding turn play was that once villain checks the flop we could choose whatever sizing worked for any given hand/part of our range as villain is so capped and handcuffed in his ability to play back at our turn probe. I also concluded that we would not have to balance every part of the range for a given sizing because,unlike Pio, a real life villain would not be clairvoyant as to how we are constructing our ranges for different sizings. It would be interesting to hear if you agree with this conclusion and if so your thoughts as to what hands you would exploitively put into the different sizings on this example.
But for present purposes let's assume we go with something like the 66% pot sized bet turn probe size which I think was mentioned for K9 in the video. What range do we give to a real life villain when he calls ? Obviously the run out is important but if turn and river blanks I think we will see a lot of weak one pair hands including those with busted straight draws in villain's range. If turn and river brought running flush cards then there would be more one card NFD in villain's range. Either way , I am struggling to see how overbetting river with K9 is the best way to exploit the population here. If we are using an exploitive strategy I would have thought betting smaller for value with hands like K9 is best to extract value from the weak bluff catchers which I would imagine form most of villains river range on anything other than a 4 to a flush run out and using larger sizings with bluffs. Of course this is super exploitive/exploitable but I guess the theme of the video is identifying spots where we can do this v the population.
Nice video! i think it might be interesting to evaluate strategies in 3bet pots IP or OOP when 3bettor checks the flop.
Solarius92:
Thanks! Could you be a little bit more specific about the parts of the ranges you think metagames tend to check/bet more?
I could pick as example dry boards like A-x-x or K-x-x, where X are 9 or lower.... Some players as 3bettors will bet small (1/3 or less) 100% of his range.
But when you think on the low stakes field, some players will develop a strategy where they check back hands like QQ-TT.. and to avoid that this range becomes only capped in 2nd pairs, they add combos of weaks Ax/Kx and rarely some few combos of nuts holdings as top sets (AA-KK)
Although the 3bettor range is pretty face up in these cases, he has a clear range advantage. is there any way that the other player may develop a strategy to exploit this capped range? Not sure if it would be easy to analyze this specific example on PIO...
Hi! Thanks for great video series again. After watching your vids, I have made transition to MSS (mostly 40bb buy-in) and showing good profit!!
My question is not directly related to this video, but please let me ask: Why are you playing on PokerKing to play MSS? Is it because rake back, or traffic, or better buy-in obligation?
Thanks!
nittyoldman: I'm sorry but I don' see how your comment relates with this video at all! xO
okopon: As a professional poker player, it is your duty to play in the best possible tables. I'm already in the process of playing more sites.
You need to find the best mixture of: soft competition, low rake and comfortable software, among other smaller but important factors, such as trustability (is that a word?) of your funds, currency and deposit/withdraw methods/options/conditions, etc.
As far as I know and regarding WPN, they have the best rakeback if you put the volume (as much as 65%), and a lowish rake, so in terms of rake I think they are the best option. Competition is maybe a little bit tougher than the average site (difficult to measure when most opponents multisite from 1/2 above), but you gotta measure all these together. Software using winning poker tools or similar ones makes playing comfortable.
Regarding playin with 40bb, I think most sites allow playing with this stack-depth except for maybe Party Poker (50bb min), Stars Zoom (which after rakeback elimination shouldn't be much of a choice) and maybe a few more. By the way, welcome to the disgusting hit&run world :)
So to sum it up, overall I would recommend playing as much sites as you can while making your grinding easy, it's your duty as a professional poker player to find the best tables, and maybe playing in a site with high rake and no rakeback can be good if you find very soft tables, it's the total combination of soft tables, rakeback and comfortability what should make you decide whether to play on a certain site or not.
sorry accident, wrong video
Thank you for your reply! I understood how to decide rooms to play.
It was interesting to hear WPN is relatively tough as I only knew stars is tough by far.
As you recommended, I will try out playing multi site :)
Thanks for these great videos! I am a big fan of Piosover and rely my poker learning heavily on it. I wonder if you have gather a pio strategy collection of common boards for share or sale, coz it takes ages for my PC to run even one board and i prefer to study results that have already been done by others. If you do, please contact me via email.(zjdonghe@hotmail.com). Thanks so much.
Hello matt, yes there is an option you can use with Pio which is scripting. Search for it in PioSOLVER channel - it's by far the most useful feature of this amazing software!
Be patient. I have been with my trees :)
very nice videos! the only theoretical videos i love to watch! thx a lot ;)
Your theory videos are absolute top class. Keep up the good work!
Would love to see more like this. Bring this guy back!
haha it's not their fault, and I'm coming back :D
Eventually :)
Another excellent video. My membership lapses in a few days but I'll sign back up when you have more content
I'm back in business, but I gotta go back to Spain in 3 days and then to the states, so 1 month out, not sure I will have time, will try tomorrow and Monday.
Glad you liked the video :)
Do more vids plz. U’ve been helpful.
I think you mentioned that you don't prefer increasing your check raise frequency as exploit vs these way ahead way behind(WAWB) players. I would love to know more detail about why?
If we can exploit them by check-raising the flop more often we deny more equity than we can in the reverse float line right? Obviously, this is flop specific and your two examples are extremely wet/dry(789tt and A94r). So this makes me wonder if your preference for not increasing your check-raise frequency is just for these two examples or more of a general rule vs the WAWB strategy?
Thanks
Please, rephrase your questions and try to make them more clear and specific! I'm a bit confused. Clear questions, clear thoughts, clear mind lead to winning poker! :D
What part isn't clear?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.