level of detail and explanation is excellent. A progression into more complicated and advanced strat options sounds very interesting . def looking forward to more.
22min AQo 4bet spot - I might be totaly wrong on that and making mistake time to time. I don't run preflop solutions and follow monker ranges at most spots (or use intuition in others). Nevertheless AQo BBvsBU vs 4bet tend to mix between call/fold (depending on the size) and basically never jam. In my opinion thats because it is doesnt have fold equity and equity when called. Folding(up to 50%) it is vs big 4bet size which is make sense as well.
SBvsBU it is more or less close to pure call (touch 4bets and touch folds vs big size).
It's very size dependent but AQo would be mixing mostly jam/fold vs bigger sizes and call/jam vs smaller.
SBvBU the same strategy applies.
Essentially you can call, jam or fold but the preferred strategy in msot situations would be to vpip this hand when smaller sizes are used (either as a call or a jam).
Solvers generally advocate a nearly pure jamming strategy (with your continuing range) when you 3 bet larger OOP and are facing a 4bet because of realisation issues. In the hand example above we have 3 bet somewhat smaller thus calling becomes a much more reasonable play.
Can Jeff_ or Henry Lister Discuss some of these ranges players are 4 betting where you prefer to call / jam? Lot of discussion based on sizing, but not seeing anything based on players having a linear / polar 4 bet range.
RunItTw1ce It is mostly determined by sizing due to pot odds and realisation effects. And this is mostly predetermined by the 3 bettors' chosen size not the 4 bettor.
Hand #1 As5s on Q47ss-Qx if hero faces a larger turn sizing 1/2 pot or 3/4 pot, which are the buttons on ignition people click without thinking. How is hero going to respond? Less FE given remaining stacks. Fold, call, or check raise? Is it check raise only vs smaller sizing? Check call vs 1/2 pot, and fold vs 3/4 pot?
Hand #2 Ac2c on 5d4s3h board mention hand can only get worse, so don't mind the check back. What about the fact hero unblocks all bdfd? Is betting with bdfd better or unblocking better? Hero's equity increases with BDFD, but also able to get called by worse with unblocking.
Last hand 36:45 I found it odd that having a club KcQx or KxQc wants to check more often. I thought that would increase FE (holding a club) and be incentivized to bet more often. Given it's like 13% for KcQs (blocking front door and back door) compared to 4-7% for non club combos. I guess PIO doesn't want to bet fold these combos where KdQh doesn't mind bet folding flop?
1) It will depends what your opponent is doing. If they're stabbing a tight range big size then we likely don't have enough equity or fold equity to jam or call. Generally you will likely want to click call given you have enough implieds or equity vs his range but don't remove trips from his range. Therefore check jamming has less fold equity and also you'll find your opponent is likely more polarised to backdoors like JTdd or trips at which effect xcalling makes more sense.
2) You summed it up. There are pros and cons with both combos and for these reasons PIO normally mixes both. This is often the case with PIO.
3) KQ no club can bet fold comfortably. With a club it sort of sucks to get raised and denied your equity hence it is less favourable as a bet.
Don't venture into the 2 card streets often but enjoy your work Henry. Personally for this format would prefer you throwing it in a hand replayer and clicking through the streets as you discuss the hand. I think A) it's just better visually than looking at bullet points B) having the stack sizes etc on screen helps things process easier as you break them down
I've watched a ton of your videos, thanks for the tips!
1) @34:40 You mentioned that folding KJo vs villans 3b sizing would be a mistake, and that if he sized down folding could be an option. Could you please elaborate on why sizing down would make folding an option? My initial thought was the opposite, that I'm more likely to call KJo the smaller my opponents 3b sizing gets. Perhaps if villain is 3 betting smaller they're doing it with a more linear range and KJo doesn't do as well as against a polar range (IDK I'm just spit-balling), so you can fold more. I think the larger my opponents 4b becomes the less often overall I'll make any agressive action with KJo, but likely the more often percentage wise of 4bets when I do decide to put money in the pot.
2) @39:24 The big bet (70%) + small bet (10%) you simplify to 80%. I'm thinking, if we were to rerun the sim with only the large bet sizing, solver would probably bet less than 80%. I have no idea what percentage less, or if the EV difference between 80% and GTO is negligible. I suppose I'm overall curious about how you feel about lumping bet sizing figures together and what you take into consideration when thinking about these simplifications as compared to GTO with a fresh sim.
1) Sorry I poorly worded this. If it is smaller then he can call. Due to it being too big KJo is a fold or 4bet vs a larger size.
2) Not entirely sure what the question is here. I said we want to check draws about 10% of the time because of the moderately low checking frequency - This is not a simplification, this was just reading the frequencies off the simulation.
I suppose I'm overall curious about how you feel about lumping bet sizing figures together and what you take into consideration when thinking about these simplifications as compared to GTO with a fresh sim.
Generally you want to run a new sim or look at the overall frequencies it chooses each different betsize. If one is significantly more popular than the others then you generally choose this and lump all betting frequencies into this size, yes. Certain boards you can also simplify without significant EV loss (which is most most people do even at the highest stakes)
Loading 12 Comments...
level of detail and explanation is excellent. A progression into more complicated and advanced strat options sounds very interesting . def looking forward to more.
Thanks for the positive feedback!
Hello Henry, happy New Year!
22min AQo 4bet spot - I might be totaly wrong on that and making mistake time to time. I don't run preflop solutions and follow monker ranges at most spots (or use intuition in others). Nevertheless AQo BBvsBU vs 4bet tend to mix between call/fold (depending on the size) and basically never jam. In my opinion thats because it is doesnt have fold equity and equity when called. Folding(up to 50%) it is vs big 4bet size which is make sense as well.
SBvsBU it is more or less close to pure call (touch 4bets and touch folds vs big size).
What do you think about jamming? BBvsBU of course
Cheers
It's very size dependent but AQo would be mixing mostly jam/fold vs bigger sizes and call/jam vs smaller.
SBvBU the same strategy applies.
Essentially you can call, jam or fold but the preferred strategy in msot situations would be to vpip this hand when smaller sizes are used (either as a call or a jam).
Solvers generally advocate a nearly pure jamming strategy (with your continuing range) when you 3 bet larger OOP and are facing a 4bet because of realisation issues. In the hand example above we have 3 bet somewhat smaller thus calling becomes a much more reasonable play.
Can Jeff_ or Henry Lister Discuss some of these ranges players are 4 betting where you prefer to call / jam? Lot of discussion based on sizing, but not seeing anything based on players having a linear / polar 4 bet range.
RunItTw1ce It is mostly determined by sizing due to pot odds and realisation effects. And this is mostly predetermined by the 3 bettors' chosen size not the 4 bettor.
Hand #1 As5s on Q47ss-Qx if hero faces a larger turn sizing 1/2 pot or 3/4 pot, which are the buttons on ignition people click without thinking. How is hero going to respond? Less FE given remaining stacks. Fold, call, or check raise? Is it check raise only vs smaller sizing? Check call vs 1/2 pot, and fold vs 3/4 pot?
Hand #2 Ac2c on 5d4s3h board mention hand can only get worse, so don't mind the check back. What about the fact hero unblocks all bdfd? Is betting with bdfd better or unblocking better? Hero's equity increases with BDFD, but also able to get called by worse with unblocking.
Last hand 36:45 I found it odd that having a club KcQx or KxQc wants to check more often. I thought that would increase FE (holding a club) and be incentivized to bet more often. Given it's like 13% for KcQs (blocking front door and back door) compared to 4-7% for non club combos. I guess PIO doesn't want to bet fold these combos where KdQh doesn't mind bet folding flop?
1) It will depends what your opponent is doing. If they're stabbing a tight range big size then we likely don't have enough equity or fold equity to jam or call. Generally you will likely want to click call given you have enough implieds or equity vs his range but don't remove trips from his range. Therefore check jamming has less fold equity and also you'll find your opponent is likely more polarised to backdoors like JTdd or trips at which effect xcalling makes more sense.
2) You summed it up. There are pros and cons with both combos and for these reasons PIO normally mixes both. This is often the case with PIO.
3) KQ no club can bet fold comfortably. With a club it sort of sucks to get raised and denied your equity hence it is less favourable as a bet.
Don't venture into the 2 card streets often but enjoy your work Henry. Personally for this format would prefer you throwing it in a hand replayer and clicking through the streets as you discuss the hand. I think A) it's just better visually than looking at bullet points B) having the stack sizes etc on screen helps things process easier as you break them down
Taken into consideration for future. Thanks
Henry,
I've watched a ton of your videos, thanks for the tips!
1) @34:40 You mentioned that folding KJo vs villans 3b sizing would be a mistake, and that if he sized down folding could be an option. Could you please elaborate on why sizing down would make folding an option? My initial thought was the opposite, that I'm more likely to call KJo the smaller my opponents 3b sizing gets. Perhaps if villain is 3 betting smaller they're doing it with a more linear range and KJo doesn't do as well as against a polar range (IDK I'm just spit-balling), so you can fold more. I think the larger my opponents 4b becomes the less often overall I'll make any agressive action with KJo, but likely the more often percentage wise of 4bets when I do decide to put money in the pot.
2) @39:24 The big bet (70%) + small bet (10%) you simplify to 80%. I'm thinking, if we were to rerun the sim with only the large bet sizing, solver would probably bet less than 80%. I have no idea what percentage less, or if the EV difference between 80% and GTO is negligible. I suppose I'm overall curious about how you feel about lumping bet sizing figures together and what you take into consideration when thinking about these simplifications as compared to GTO with a fresh sim.
Thanks!
1) Sorry I poorly worded this. If it is smaller then he can call. Due to it being too big KJo is a fold or 4bet vs a larger size.
2) Not entirely sure what the question is here. I said we want to check draws about 10% of the time because of the moderately low checking frequency - This is not a simplification, this was just reading the frequencies off the simulation.
Generally you want to run a new sim or look at the overall frequencies it chooses each different betsize. If one is significantly more popular than the others then you generally choose this and lump all betting frequencies into this size, yes. Certain boards you can also simplify without significant EV loss (which is most most people do even at the highest stakes)
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.