Pleasing the Community
Posted by Richard Gryko
Video Player is loading.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Train with the best
Learn from the Run It Once Pro Team with two new instructional videos every day.
Loading 13 Comments...
Caught a verbal typo on watching this through, around 41.30 I said checking when I meant to say betting whilst talking about relative merits of betting top set vs other sets on J64fd.
Just started to watch the video, maybe I missed it, but could you write which spot/ranges this is? Regards
Can you say what your settings are in terms of buckets etc.? I've noticed you and JNandez both usually have way less nodes in your sims that I do, so I assume you are using less than the default?
Hey, I assume given that you mention bucket count that you mean preflop sim settings? 5% rake 1200msb/mchip cap, 100% pot preflop sizing, no coldcall restrictions, sb open limp option; postflop sizing set to auto, OOP donk option enabled; Texture P/S/S, Buckets 30/30/30.
again great content and nice to get some in depth analysis and commentary on possible alternative strategies! Funny to see first changes in table dynamics on the stars-zoom tables with some players testing out the waters with leading ranges and the way to counter to it.
thanks, very nice of you....y, my favourite moment so far was when a guy led into me, i called, and he wrote in chat that he didn't know what to do now since i hadn't made a video on playing turns yet :D
Hahaha love it
I was a little discouraged that you found an ev difference of only 1 to 3%. Your points about it being 2018, 3bet pots are big, people will make more mistakes are valid but still it's not going to be a large gain playing optimally with a lead freq and optimally without.
Additionally, playing far from optimal with a lead freq will far under perform playing near optimal without a lead which is very likely due to higher complexity and lower familiarity. I suppose the argument would be that if we can't implement the new strategy well even after studying it imagine how poorly the opponent will react to it without any study and prep.
Even if they aren't worth implementing the changes regardless I find the results very interesting from an academic standpoint.
Thanks
Zach
Hi,
a suggestion for a future vid, I know you have looked into that already:
C-betting Strategies IP and OOP in 3b pots.
From what I understood on most boards a 2 sizing strategy with a small and a big size is the way to go. Maybe you would look into some ranges, talk about different sizes and also see whether there are some boards, where we deviate from the standard strategy.
Hey,
After I complete this series I want to mix up formats a little, try some live play/MTT content, oddly enough the first spot I encounter in the footage I plan to use for my live play review deals with cbetting strat OOP in 3bp so hopefully that'll shed some light...ill obv look to do more theory videos down the line though so if this is a popular topic ill definitely consider it, i do have another one in mind though where, similarly to this topic, monker approaches the spot very differently to the majority of real world players.
Hey Zach,
The thing is, even nodelocking one player or the other into a pretty poor strategy frequently results in comparatively small ev shifts (not saying this applies universally, but from what ive seen in 3bp study) - ie, vs baseline, even a strategy where IP was compelled to raise every single Qx combo on QQ6r resulted in an evloss of 3-4%; on T96r, both overfolding vs lead and again being forced to raise all super high equity hands (which at equilibrium got flatted >75% of the time iirc) resulted in evloss of <1%, whereas trimming OOP lead option cost OOP 3% - I think that because of the lowish SPR and the fact that monker will, when forced to do something bad, will design a strategy that compensates for it as much as possible, results in ev shifts that may seem insignificant but that, within the confines of the scenario, are actually decently large. Whilst the actual values are small, in all cases where I ran sims where one player or other was forced to deviate from equilibrium, trimming OOP lead option cost OOP more potshare than forcing IP to play some defective strategy transferred to them.
Finally, lets imagine we play 350k hands/yr at 2/5 zoom, to mirror my initial sample, and that, again mirroring my sample, we get 1800 spots where we can potentially lead vs an IP 3bettor in a headsup pot. Lets assume that having a strategy including a leading range on avg captures 1.5% more of the pot and that the pot will be 24bb post rake. Having a leading strategy wins .36bb/hand, *1800=648bb=$3,240. Lets assume we otherwise beat the game for 5bb/100 so 350k hands wins us $87,500 - introducing a leading strategy wins us, at equilibrium which is a very conservative estimate, somewhere around 3% more per year, which, in addition to being a nice boost, easily pays for our annual RIO elite sub :p
hey richard Richard Gryko
sorry for the late question, @12:00 when you discuss how IP gets an information benefit from OOP being locked to leading Q!(A,K) and checking Q:(A,K) doesn't IP also get an EV boost from being able to raise Q:(A,K) vs a lead since [my assumption] OOP lead range would be more heavily saturated with Q!(A,K) than it otherwise would be at equilibrium?
hey,
fortunately i hung onto that batch of sims - ok, so firstly IP doesnt really do much raising vs OOP lead (presumably to "protect" its overpair region which it'll have at a much higher frequency); secondly yes in theory the ev of raising [AQ,KQ] will be higher, but since ev is zerosum and the ev of IPs overall strategy is pretty similar, id assume other parts of IPs range must lose a corresponding amount of ev - also IP is able to raise those hands vs any realistic OOP lead strategy so it isnt like OOPs strategy suddenly allows him to do things he couldnt before.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.