Thanks Sam! Enjoying insights from PIO! Cheers!

Whats your logic behind using so many sizes in all these spots. Is anyone really splitting their flop betting range into more than 2 sizes, then branching that into even more sizes on turns and rivers.

Good question.

You're absolutely right - in terms of the practical implementation of GTO strategies it is useful to have a simplified strategy that we can utilise easily. This will likely mean, in the majority of instances, having one flop sizing on a certain board texture. However, in the off the table work we are doing with PIO we want to give the solver a wide range of choices so that we can identify what sizing is optimal.

So to take the example of the KQ hand; I offer PIO three-sizings but it only advocates using one. Likewise, I offer two check-raise sizes and only utilises one.

To address your question directly - we're not identifying three sizes and the frequency with which we apply each if them them; rather we're offering PIO three sizes and then adopting the one that is most efficient.

Hope that helps mate.

Thanks Sam,
I have been enjoying your PIO videos, especially since I've been spending so much time grinding lately that I haven't been able to do extensive work with the solver on my own.

I'm finding that my increases in x/r frequency and aggression are a very effecfive tool in neutralizing OOP disadvantages. Pretty tilting for our opponents I think!

Well done and look forward to the next video,

Brady O

Great video.

At the 35:00 mark on the 765ss board, when PIO is doing a lot of mixing with no clear preference for hands, IME it strictly means that the optimal betsize is right in between the two available.

Love the PIO insight videos. Keep up the good work.

Thanks, Sam. My own work with solvers is limited, but I found it's valuable to look at the EV value-add of splitting your ranges. So, solve for scenario with and without check-raise allowed (or donk bet, if you want to look at that), and first find cases where allowing that option adds appreciable value. Then, look at those spots more closely. Even if the solver check-raises something like 15% of the time when it's allowed that move, it may not add much EV relative to strictly call/folding, in which case as humans we might well prefer the simpler option.

Apologies if this is pedantic or something you've already done, but I didn't see you address it in the video.

These are great videos because they're really useful both for MTT players and for cash-only players (like myself). You've picked some great spots to analyze in this video series and do a nice job going through the examples. The only small thing I'd note is that to really drive home the value to cash players, it might be useful just to remind us of the SPR on the flop. Obviously we can tell by looking at the Pio data, but particularly if for some reason one of the examples was a lower SPR than you might find in a cash game, it might be worth highlighting. Keep up the good work Sam!

Hey Sam,

Great video, loving this series. You mention splitting ranges on the river in the 65s hand - what kind of factors might make you want to split instead of going with one sizing? If both strategies are valid and we have a range that could support either one, what criteria can push us to the point where we think a more complex strategy might have higher EV? Thanks!

I realize I'm bumping an old thread but here I go. In the 65s hand, it seems to me that we're horribly imbalanced towards bluffs in the range PIO advocates x/r'ing. For value we have 65s, A5s, and 55. That's only 7 combos of value. But then we're raising many of our 7x, gutshots, medium PPs, and even a few A- and K-high hands. Vs a range like that, villain should just ship all his hands 99+ and AJ+, forcing us to either call off crushed or fold a ton of equity.