Technical vs Conceptional Errors
Posted by Frankie Carson
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 16 Comments...
Frankie,
Enjoyed the way you analyzed the hands in this video. Good way to look at any potential mistakes as technical vs conceptual. Makes it easier to focus in on areas of our game that need to be explored more.
Glad you got use out of it. I was hoping people can you use this study review as a template for their own.
The idea to put your mistakes into a spreadsheet like that is amazing, thank you for showing it to us.
Bonus, a lot more eloquent than a lot of even the elite coaches on here! Very able to hold someone's attention.
Wow thanks so much for the wonderful comment avoid!
15:24 you talked about board not being a range bet, but when I check wizard, wizard is betting about 82% of its range. If we wanted to trim the fat we would just check all our suited hands with diamonds (no bdfd). Everything else seems fine to bet. OOP just play back door equity driven range.
So I think we must have different ranges. OP has 2/3 of range A high or worse, while no nut advantage on QQ (AQ, KQ in both players ranges at high freq).
I used the smaller 3bet size of 11bb, so its going to impact the ranges some, but shouldn't be that big of an impact to check half the time. The 2.5 to 13bb ranges are also cbetting about 65% of the time. When you filter for diamonds you can see they mostly play pure XF unless over + BDSD.
Love it. Have been looking for more better information on how to study. Excited to try some of this! I am a spreadsheet guy myself.
That's great to hear, I love excel! Still very powerful all these years later.
Hey good way of categorizing mistakes and breaking it down. Thanks for showing this Frankie, gotta try it myself!
Thanks mx, hope this way of learning helps you!
For this hand, one thing you missed was that 54s was mixing check and shove. It's essentially the same hand as your 65s but has tiny differences in blocker effects based on what your opponent uses for their 4bet bluffing range. Seeing that 54s mixes check, would you still consider it a technical error to mix checks with 65s too? Think that would be a little harsh on yourself!
Yea I definitely was. This is the point I was trying to get across in the video is technical errors are borderline meaningless in the broader scope of poker learning. Conceptional errors need all the attention and love. Given the acuteness of blocker impacts, yes this really isn’t much of a error at all, agreed.
We were both a little surprised to see almost no raising here from IP, despite IP having some suited 9X in their range. Presumably most players are making a mistake here with lots of their 9X as I think most people would raise A9s, K9s etc very often here. What do you think is the heuristic here we can use to determine similar spots where IP won't be allowed much of a raising range with their strong hands?
I originally thought that the BTN was too capped to raise the turn, despite the fact that they turn some trips, given that there's not a huge amount of suited 9x in BTN's range. I tested this theory with the 2s turn instead (which leaves BTN more capped), but there was a much larger frequency of raising on that turn than the 9s turn.
By looking at the number of trips combos in each players range on the turn, it looks like the 9 turn gives a trips advantage to OOP. Same is true of the suited 8 turn, which also has a lowish raise frequency too for BTN on the turn. Suited J turn gives a more even distribution of trips and BTN gets more of a raising range. Presumably then it's that?
Good question. What's happening is on most these turned trips boards IP strong value has no need to increase the size of the pot given OP has many low equity bluffs that just fold to raise, but could barrel river. This is different than 2x type turn you describe since now some of our value is very exposed to something as simple as a gutshot (KQ overs + gutshot).
For further evidence of this, check on 1 card straight boards were you see similar low raising. It's for same logic.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.