Hand and CREV Review
Posted by James Hudson
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 22 Comments...
great content man! again with concept/examples type vids this one is a benchmark for training
Thanks.
Hand 1: If villain has a straight 50% of the time OTR he should be donking a decent amount right? I'd say your optimistic analysis is actually assuming he plays in an exploitative way which is bad for your bluff, a more optimistic analysis would have him betting a decent amount and have his checking range be considerably weaker.
People just don't lead rivers after check calling twice all that often so it seems weird to model for a player type that is pretty rare. Also, most people don't like leading one card straights when two card straights are possible because they likely don't know how to react to big raises.
I eye-balled some ranges and put them in GTOrangebuilder.com and it has villain leading 80% of the time of this river
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_scenarioHash=ede1822fda7f07a086abeadf6deedaaf
Hero: 33, TT, KK, J9s, KTs, KQ, 9h7h+, 6h5h, 7h6h, 8h7h, QhJh, AhJh, AsJs
Villain: 33, TT, KTs, KJ+, QJ, Jh9h+, Qh9h-QhTh, AhTh-AhQh, Th9h
That seems like a pretty important takeaway from the hand for me. This isn't a spot where it's going to make sense to check as the villain because it's a correct exploitative play either, hero just has a massive amount of bluffcatchers and villain has the effective nuts a huge amount of the time.
AJ in hero's range definitely does complicate things for villain, I just wouldn't expect it to cbet flop with anywhere near 100% frequency. Even if AJ is in hero's range with 50% frequency and villain only has one combo villain wants to lead river 20% of the time. I think it's a pretty cool spot for people to be leading the river as OOP.
Definitely agree that people don't actually do this, I think the important thing is that we make sure we do but we can keep modeling villains under the assumption that they don't.
Agreed and cool to see that with GTO range builder that villain would lead a huge chunk of the time.
Agreed. Also, it's cool to see that GTO Range Builder has villain leading river at such a high frequency.
Did you run those ranges through any other river cards? I mean it might make sense for villain to lead a lot on this exact card but if GTORB has villain leading a lot on most rivers then that could be an issue of the way ranges are constructed. Because hero should be the more polar of the two players on most run outs right? So if that is true villain should be checking most of the time OTR. If it still has villain leading the river at a high freq that means villain is actually the more polar of the two and could mean we are misplaying the flop and/or turn.
@Arizona - offsuit 2 villain never donks, flushing 2 villain donks 23%, flushing Q villain donks 17%. offsuit Q villain donks 0.5%, offsuit A villain donks 78%.
This intuitively makes sense, the more the river is changing the board texture the more often villain's previously condensed range has picked up more polarized hand values which lead to it wanting to bet more. I do suspect villain's turn calling range is too J-heavy though.
Yes, it does make sense and that's why I think it is important to check. It would mean something was wrong w/ our ranges if villain donked an offsuit deuce 75%. But it looks like good work.
Nice vid. At the very end of the 3rd hand crev analysis, you quickly said that JT would have a higher difference between bluffing and checking then the 67ss did. Why is this the case? I'd intuitively guess that we're better bluffing the worse hand here (sometimes he'll have JT and fold, whereas when we have JT we win if he ever gives up with 67). Generally, here, shouldn't we be more inclined to bluff the very
bottom of our range?
nm, should have watched the conclusion before posting! good explanation- i guessed it had to do with card removal. still, the principle might be interesting, since generally game theory wise we think of bluffing the worst part of our range- is this a flawed way to look at it? Do you think this is common, where slightly better hands in our range can be superior to bluff with? Enjoyed the video!
I think it's going to be a case of when we can sufficiently narrow down villain's calling range we can do quite a lot with blockers but if villain's calling range is wide they're likely going to matter a lot less.
Great vid ! The common concept I read with card removal and effect on FE is we want blockers to calls and not blockers to folds but it's rare to have spots where the combinatorics are discussed effectively. The last hand was great for that and kind of makes sense. We can consider JTs blocks 1 JTs, 6 combos of JJ, 6 combos of TT and 1 combo of T9s so definitely a much more significant card removal effect than our 76s. I didn't expect it would have such a big effect on our EV vs a villain who bluffs fairly little given how much equity the hand actually has when checking. Really learned a fair bit from this video!
Glad you liked it.
Nice video. Thankyou for breaking down the hands, and having slides at the end. Curious on your thoughts on CREV and the importance of using this poker tool. Do you believe someone who uses CREV will have a slight advantage, medium, or large advantage against someone who isn't aware of CREV? This is assuming the person knows how to use CREV and understands all of the features.
I think it's a program that's incredibly useful once you get proficient with it but it can take a while before you really know what you're doing with it. Also, I think it was Gogol's Nose who said it best saying that it's an incredibly powerful tool for answering questions but you need to know what questions to ask.
In the last sim, it seems really silly to assume that 7 or 6high has anything but 0 showdown value.
I don't think that we can assume that every villain is going to bluff the bottom of their range 100% of the time. I fairly regularly see regulars check back a hand that they should probably bluff with. I'd assume this happens because they feel like they don't have enough fold equity or simply aren't aware of their ranges in different spots.
Excellent video James, more like this please!
FYI, if you like videos like this you should check out Tyler Forrester's videos in the elite section as he makes a lot of videos with a similar format but is more skilled with CREV.
Great video. Thank you!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.