Trend Spotting: Stack to Pot Ratio Theory Applied
Posted by Krzysztof Slaski
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 10 Comments...
great video. gave me quite a few insights. very interesting to see in the last hand that IP needs to defend quite a bit of Kh and Ah hands on the turn or else we'd be folding too much and also to use as bluffs when river is checked to us . seems to me this spot is perhaps overfolded on turns and rivers in practice. also, on turn when ip is checked to, i see that IP needs to go bet/bet with hands like 44-88 and 9x pretty frequently since oop needs to defend i think roughly 50% of its AK/AQ and all of the A3s, but i think in practice people tend to block bet those hands to xb the river, which makes a bit of sense if oop is under xring. do you think you would incorporate defending the KQ/KJ on the turn to bluff river with, or betting twice when checked to on turn with those small pps for value? or in practice do you think its torching money?
Hey, thanks for the kind words.
I agree that this situation is played way tighter than it should be by nearly everyone, which makes it a great spot to just be super aggressive, for both positions. I would not defend as wide as KQ or KJ in todays games. OOPs strategy incorporates a lot of checking with AA-QQ and the AK AQ AJ region, which is not what I expect to see in todays games, and this will greatly hurt the EV of calling hands like KQ and KJ. This being said, yes I think pp's - especially the higher once, can bet twice for value here vs the average player today. Again, because I expect players to bet their good pairs too frequently on the turn, they're checking range will have to defend even wider than what PIO suggests.
Cheers.
Hey , Krzysztof.
I really like your theorical content , more of these sir please !
What do you think of making a video on the graph on PIO range explorer ? Understand it and how it works can really improve the comprehension of the betsizing we use and frequencies. I thought it will be a great idea to make a video on this. That my suggestion ;).
Last hands, very difficult for IP to float vs Vilain s bet. On a board like that if IP doesn’t float hands like KQ QJs 89s etc.. OOP will play a very aggressive strat by double barreling a ton of hands. How the strat on flops is impacted for oop if IP doesn’t float enough on the flop / on the river ? Is it what I mentionned before ?
41:18 Even 66 is a shove here ! You missed it .
Cheers.
Hey Yolan
I really enjoy making the theoretical videos myself, but they generally don't get the love that my other content does, so I can't make them as often as I would like. This series is not going anywhere though ;)
As far as making a video on the range explorer, I am not sure if I can come up with enough to talk about regarding the explorer itself haha, but I can get into it a little as part of another video, I will make a note of it.
Your question regarding the last hand is a really good one, because the strat for IP is impacted in a number of different ways that are not super intuitive. If IP does not float enough a couple of things happen. The AA-QQ type hands now have more incentive to check, since they want as much of the opponents range to see a turn and pick up a a pair, and this doesn't happen when they aren't getting calls from the JT98 region. The value that is lost by not getting an extra bet out of JJ-44 is recovered by getting 2 streets from Tx on a T turn. On the flop side of this, vulnerable made hands, as well as bluffs want to bet more often and use that small sizing more often, since they get to fold out good equity hands more than they should. Our 88 bet on the flop is perfectly fine making JTs fold too often.
Cheers, and I really appreciate the support of my content !
Interesting video, Krzysztof Slaski - Thanks. While this information is 100% helpful and useful for me today, I wish you were able to teach me this like 10 years ago when I used to play with a 40bb stack in live poker as if we were all sitting 500bb's deep. =D
You know, I would venture to guess that when you have a dozen or more of these "Trend Spotting" videos done, you could compile them all into a sort of "heuristics" manual of sorts that would be quite helpful for some beginner/intermediate players. I know that the die-hards prefer to simply study PIO day and night without end, but for some other people it may be incredibly efficiently beneficial to see certain elements of poker theory distilled down into digestible bites (exactly like you are doing in these videos) and compiled together in one location. How this would be different than simply viewing all of your videos again is that you could, for the purpose of this hypothetical course/manual/thingy, further refine and distill the concepts so that they fit together without taking up as much space. Anyway, just thinking out loud. And heck, if you don't have the time or desire to do it, it's likely that a fellow RIO member would eventually take the concepts from your videos and do it themselves (while giving you credit where it is due, of course)! Thanks again, Krzysztof!
Hey OMGIsildurrrrman12, Thank you !
Haha any of the content on run it once would have been worth a fortune 10 years ago !
I am glad you are enjoying these videos, and what you are describing is exactly what I meant for these videos to be. Perhaps once I have enough of them I will think further about what direction I want the "project" to go.
Cheers !
Hey Krzysztof, I don't know if this is an appropriate way to reach out but I love your videos and I'd be looking for some private coaching sessions - is there anyway I can get in touch to do so?
Hey ringmybell13
Shoot me a message on skype at kfslaski@gmail.com, or a private message here on RIO if you don't use Skype.
Ringmybell13 is right. All your vids are great. Your style is very clear and it just seems like you are full of knowledge. If it's ok I might reach out as well at a later time.
Hey Krzysztof, love all your videos. You recap what we've learned so far @1:38 in this video by having a slide reading "As we increase range advantage, the importance of balancing x ranges decreases more significantly OOP than IP". However, you speak aloud about the weakest part of IP range having an instant chance to improve on next street by xb which I agree with. I think these two points oppose one another and the point you say aloud is true, and there is a typo in the slide meaning 2. should read ""As we increase range advantage, the importance of balancing x ranges decreases more significantly IP than OOP".
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.