Thank you RoleTide !

Absolutely, I am open to suggestions/criticisms in order to help my video quality moving forward (Y)

Thank you JoeAdams1 I will do!

Thank you Tariq Haji I'm enjoying your content by the way :)

You lose EV BvB when opening too small, probably due to the pot not being big enough when we are going to have an Equity & EV advantage regardless of opening small or very small.

27% or 29% is peanuts and if anybody tells you that they know of a definitive reason they are almost definitely full of it. I chose 27% because it falls halfway between 22% and 32%, which is what baron used to use. I wasn't clever enough to figure out the specific nuances between the two in SRP's, so I cheated and decided 27% was going to cover both. As for 132% or 150%, I suppose I can answer that by saying why not? Again, there's no definitive reason for either, so we should pick one and not sweat the small stuff. So long as a player has something similar to 33/50/75/100/133, they are doing just fine. I probably chose 132% a few years back because I was trying to be a smartass, or because I forgot to include rake in a sim hahaha

But seriously, it really doesn't matter. (Y)

You lose EV BvB when opening too small, probably due to the pot not being big enough when we are going to have an Equity & EV advantage regardless of opening small or very small.

Why not open 2.5 - 3.5x then?

I chose 27% because it falls halfway between 22% and 32%, which is what baron used to use.

Thank you

I probably chose 132% a few years back because I was trying to be a smartass, or because I forgot to include rake in a sim hahaha

Honest ;-)

RunItTw1ce

Why not open 2.5 - 3.5x then?

c'mon man, i am sure you can figure this one out for yourself :P in poker we take the lines/strategies that we believe make us the most EV. Clanty isn't choosing a bad strategy just to be different.

RunItTw1ce Because we relinquish some of that EV & equity advantage that we so clearly had when we RFI'd smaller. In any case, there's not much EV in it.

Demondoink

(Y)

We do not necessarily open wider with a smaller RFI sizing. OTB this is true, however, in EP/MP, we open fractionally less, due to IP flatting wider. Ultimately, my RFI ranges are similar to that of a 2.25x or a 2.5x; I mix all SC's and PP's and some Kxs

Luke Johnson I do have one criticism of the video, maybe more of a personal preference, but when you are throwing around a bunch of frequencies it is hard for anyone to follow or to apply themselves. For example if you say hand X is called at 37% of the time and hand Y is raised at 14% of the time, and Z is folded 49% of the time it is hard to and memorize these types of numbers. I think it would be better just to be more vague about sizing and frequencies for a more clear understanding. I would say:

77 here is going to be called some of the time, but mostly folded with a heart and because I rolled high, just going to fold this time.

RunItTw1ce

Interesting comment. I see what you mean. However, I don't fully agree. Raising X hand at 37% frequency and Y hand at 65% frequency should begin to paint a picture of the spot. If we take the 37% for its literal value, then sure, but that is not my plan when studying, nor my plan when relaying info in this video. I agree that I could perhaps be a bit more elaborate with my explanations, but I do stick by the idea of relaying hands X, Y and Z at their respective frequencies.

Yea interesting that you see this differently RunItTw1ce but I agree w/ you here Luke Johnson I specifically enjoyed you throwing the frequencies for many spots. Obviously I won't remember them exactly but I didn't have an issue simplifying the 37% number for a rought picture of the spot, after all you don't see simplifications in a solver either and I think our brains get used to translating those numbers into a rougher understanding anyway.

I don't think I'm a very good painter Eldora so prefer a more simple break down 25%-50%-75%-100%. Easier to group hands into these 4 blocks than to have a 100 different blocks. Maybe bottom pair + bdfd gets XR 50%. Middle pair bdfd 25%. Bottom set 100%, middle set 50%, and top set 25%. Of course it won't match PIO strategy but easier to learn. Then again I am playing in softer games than Luke Johnson so my frequencies don't really matter, just for my own personal preference. I can appreciate all of Luke's videos though.

Eldora Spot on. Everyone is different, and therefore, will find their own way to translate the numbers to make sense to them. For me personally, 37% is 40% which is 2/5. I very often use 83% and 86% for 5/6 and 6/7. Whatever works.

RunItTw1ce Your approach is good, but I think you can do a little better by making things a little bit more complicated, and in turn, robust and structured.

You are on the right track by simplifying, but there is a fine line which I believe you've crossed when you can name XYZ hand classes at their proposed frequencies across all boards. IMO, we should look to learn via heuristics, not cheat sheets. No offence intended!

we should look to learn via heuristics, not cheat sheets.

Luke Johnson
Can you give me an example? I thought I was trying to simplify into heuristics.

RunItTw1ce

You are already learning via heuristics! However, you are trying to simplify everything a bit too much, henceforth you end up with a cheat sheet, instead of heuristics that help you learn about the spot and what is going on in it. Hope this makes sense to you.

Thank you ctrlplay :)

It does a more time yes, but I am learning in the process :)

Glad you enjoyed fine okay

P.S. I like your username

Agree with everything above, great video as per usual though Luke!

Gosh Demondoink there's just no pleasing you is there?

Just kidding ;-)

I will get back to some deep dives -- I've a hopefully good one planned!

Re. quality vs quantity:
I think both have their place. If I'm with my study partner, I can easily spend 30 minutes on a single spot as I've got somebody to bounce ideas off. Whereas on my own I prefer the quantity side of things to keep me interested. Both are great imo.

Thank you Brian Riera !

I enjoy deep dives mostly as entertainment though. When I really want to try and stimulate my mind on how to solve the puzzle. However, I think a more simplistic approach puts more money in the bank. Doing a deep dive where you have precise stack sizes, certain formation, to know each player is meeting proper frequencies, to know if each player is splitting their ranges correctly with different bet sizes, whether it's a Monday morning or a Friday night, if the person has been on an upswing and playing their A-Game or is tilted because he just got stacked the previous hand, etc etc. There are just too many variables for deep dives to be implemented correctly.

Maybe it is more essential content, but I would highly prefer just seeing a lot of volume played with 3-4 heuristics per street being applied that is easier to follow. I would simplify to check raising the flop with ace and king high flush draws half the time. Sets 3/4 of the time. Low SPR so won't need to fast play IP or OOP and can let villain keep initiative. I think this simplistic view point can still be applied to elite videos. Micro stakes would be 1) we want to fast play all our sets and flushes because they do not bluff enough and make a lot of calling mistakes 2) we don't need to balance our range here with enough bluffs because they are just not folding enough top pairs.

I will say Demondoink is going to be hard to please because he is one of the few members that is a 500z reg or higher. I think the vast majority of RIO members are going to be playing lower stakes and if they are playing 500NL+ it's going to be at a casino where games are much softer or on other sites besides pokerstars where players make a lot of mistakes. I just don't think a deep dive reaches a lot of poker minds in the community to fast track their careers.

Luke Johnson hahaha you got me there! though tbh, i have still liked and watched all of your videos since you started creating content, so that should still say something about the high regard i hold your videos! if you ask for opinions though, i will duly oblige lol.

Doing a deep dive where you have precise stack sizes, certain formation, to know each player is meeting proper frequencies, to know if each player is splitting their ranges correctly with different bet sizes, whether it's a Monday morning or a Friday night, if the person has been on an upswing and playing their A-Game or is tilted because he just got stacked the previous hand, etc etc. There are just too many variables for deep dives to be implemented correctly.

i wouldn't say that this would be the definition of a 'deep dive'. personally, i couldn't care less about how a player is feeling, what day of the week it is etc. good poker is good poker on any day of the week. i would say that by the term deep dive we simply mean to explore a situation in an in depth way that allows us to gain a solid fundamental understanding of how to approach similar spots, moving forward. we will NEVER be able to recall every different hand/flop texture etc that we study in game. however, what i have found to allow me recall and then relay that information garnered through study, to the highest degree, is when i study that situation in depth. this allows me to look at both players ranges, flop/turn sizings, what hands are we bluffing with, how thin can we go for value otr etc and then really solidify my understanding of that scenario. if i know merely what to do with AQ on AKxxx, what good is that when i have a hand like 55. do i ever bluff a pair here? what are my triple barrel bluffs? so as you can see, this form of study where we merely focus on one combo/line, can quickly become problematic when we do not have that specific combo.

I will say Demondoink is going to be hard to please because he is one of the few members that is a 500z reg or higher. I think the vast majority of RIO members are going to be playing lower stakes and if they are playing 500NL+ it's going to be at a casino where games are much softer or on other sites besides pokerstars where players make a lot of mistakes.

yes those are very fair and valid points. i would still argue that if you are playing weak live games, then you do not really need to consume Elite content. so why would we effectively 'dumb down' the top tier content, simply to appease the majority? by no means am i saying that you are other viewers aren't intelligent (i am sure many lower stakes players are smarter than i am tbh) but i just don't buy in to this view that we should effectively lower the difficulty of something to appease others. watching poker players who were much better and smarter than me enabled me to move up in stakes. if i were to watch players who were of a similar level, or were merely discussing simplistic concepts, then i would be currently playing lower stakes. we read a Shakespeare book, or a Philosophical book etc to challenge us and take us out of our comfort zones, so that we have to think in a different way. reading a children's book would have no benefit.

I just don't think a deep dive reaches a lot of poker minds in the community to fast track their careers.

there are no shortcuts in poker. you will not gain any success in the game by simply attempting to jump up in stakes or skip hurdles as fast as possible. poker is an extremely long and slow process of continuous learning, and is something that never ceases until you stop playing.

sorry RunItTw1ce i meant to tag you in my response there, but seems like i can't do it in the editing tool.

Demondoink

so why would we effectively 'dumb down' the top tier content, simply to appease the majority?

Business model that makes more money? LOL. I guess it depends on money <> character? Relativity > Quantum Mechanics?

On your other points on what we do with AQ and not learning what we do with 55 on AKXX we are on the same page. I just didn't consider this a deep dive. I think this would still be a more simple view of what I am looking to watch that does reach the majority, but still complicated enough to be elite. I think the deep dive would include frequencies and suites for blocks and unblockers based on the texture. I am saying simply saying to simplify it into heuristics that are easy to apply for the viewers. For example you mention AKXX and AQ / 55. I would simplify it to 1) What do we do on H-H-L with our value region TP+, what is the worse kicker we want to bet? And is it going to be a range bet, medium bet, or a large bet. 2) Where do our bluffs come from? Preferred gut shots JT QJ > 55 - 22? Just simplify it into larger more vague blocks such as this. I would still consider it Elite content. On the other end of the spectrum a 'deep dive' I would consider know what frequencies to bluff 55 (25%), 44 (20%), 33 (15%), etc or on Ah-Kd-7c board we want to use 5h5d to double block bdfd or use QhJd > QsJs for 50% PSB, 25% Medium bet, and 25% range bet, learning these tiny details I would consider a deep dive. I think we are actually on the same page just expressing ourselves a bit differently.

I am not sure on a scale of 1-10 how I rate this video because on one hand he went over a bunch of frequencies and exact combos but without showing the solves and hard to follow a long. Again just looking to know what to do with different bucks of hands, TP, 2nd pair, lower pair, gut shots, bdsd, bdfd, Scs, air, etc. I have heard a lot of comments of why people like upswing because of their teaching model doing things like this in an organized manner. Personally I don't have upswing but sounds like it's more of what I am looking for in the learning process.

For me, a deep dive is best represented by learning how to play a (hopefully common) node at equilibrium, until you have level of clarity that enables you to understand it like the back of your hand. Heuristics are usually great tools to aid in the process.

Abstract concepts like how villains play against time of day, etc, definitely don't play into deep dives. (Not sure if I was misunderstanding your comment RunItTw1ce sorry if I was).

Demondoink
"if i know merely what to do with AQ on AKxxx, what good is that when i have a hand like 55. do i ever bluff a pair here? what are my triple barrel bluffs? so as you can see, this form of study where we merely focus on one combo/line, can quickly become problematic when we do not have that specific combo."

This is similar to RunItTw1ce 's comment on this video. I can understand your point, but I do not agree. Personally, I can begin to paint a picture of the spot by knowing what a combo is doing. It's important that we try to understand PIO's results as part of a pattern, instead of trying to memorise them as to pass an academic test we've got coming up next Monday. Moreover, results are not isolated. Therefore, we should indeed be able to garner an understanding of 55 if we know AQ's equilibrium. Perhaps not perfectly — that is where the deep dive comes in.

I will definitely peel 98 and sets vs the small lead some of the time. I've no proof whether that's good or not given the weird dynamic of a rec leading. But ultimately, with a reg behind me and a big SPR to play with MW, I will give at least some merit to calling sets and straights here.

Thank you so much sandr1x ! I really do appreciate hearing these thoughts every now and again!

I suppose I will see you at the tables. Game on, sir!

Thank you I_Fold_Jacks !

Do you have a timestamp for when I mentioned villain's annoying bet size?

Cheers (Y)

Brilliant, glad to hear this Sayaha

More to come :)

Glad you are enjoying my content 72Just4U and thank you for the compliment :)

Table graphics:
Thanks for pointing this out. This is my bad. I know what to do for next time (next video will have the same issues, sorry about that)

HUD:
I see what you mean, but it'll unfortunately have to be a little annoying for you, as the HUD is too valuable to remove for a video IMO. Sorry!

Ah, ok. No problem, I didn't even think you were using it, because I never heard you talk about stats etc. maybe you can go more into detail in future videos.
Would also be interesting, to hear thoughts on that by you, given that you seem so deep into the theory of the game.
Thanks again! :)

I only ever use my HUD vs recs, so not all that often. However, it's definitely worth having it there in case you need some extra data points to go off.

I suppose it would be foolish not to listen to the guy giving advice about the speed when he himself is aptly named soundspeed

In all seriousness. Great advice, and I will action moving forward. Note that my next video has already been made, so will have the same x2 speed pace.

Cheers SoundSpeed

I watch your innerpsy youtube videos some times even though I don't understand the language. When are you going to make videos for RIO again!?!?!

innerpsy
Awesome, glad to hear you liked it, and I'm humbled to have you here on my video. Best of luck!

shadyoc5

Don't lose too much confidence in your heuristics! Note that I almost definitely (if you can find the spot, I can confirm for you) said it was a range bet respective to the 2x RFI I used; sizes and frequencies change a lot when you begin to open smaller, or bigger.

& thank you very much for the compliments re. not being too detailed/specific.

Cheers, gl :)

Hi tinyelvis58 sorry I missed your comment until now.

In this passive line, 88 becomes just a bit too high in our range (top 28%) to consider folding for the fair price of 1/2p.

Villains potentially over/under doing something on previous streets is not something I pay much/any merit to, unless they are a recreational.

Luke Johnson How did you come up with top 28% of your range? Is this a number shown in PIO some where?

RunItTw1ce

PIO

By ticking all the better hands in our range (taking into account that 88 is close to the top of our "low_pair" region), we can take the sum and minus it off 100. Upon doing it just now, we're in fact top ~33%, not top ~28%.

Just adding these numbers up and -100 so top 29.4%? Thanks for the quick break down, appreciate the screen shot.

Yes top 29.4%. However, see my screenshot again and see the red box, PIO displays that number just by ticking them :)

LOL I am truly blind! I see it now :-) Such a narrow focus on part of the screen (tunnel vision) I just block everything else out. Explains why I time out some times as well if I get into a spot on one table and just completely ignore the other table(s).

RunItTw1ce happens to everyone from time to time :)

Uibhist Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the format and the video :)

More to come!

Not sure about others, especially now as I do not play any faster formats. At a best guess, I would imagine most others do NOT reset their stacks, for the reason you mentioned. I always reset my stack simply because I played better at 100bb rather than 250bb, affording me more sanity in the long run, which I valued more than the potential to make more $

Hey TRUEPOWER welcome to RIO! ;)

Could you provide a timestamp please?

Hey man

Yes, we need to try and balance our strategy vs STRONGER opposition, who we suspect are good enough to not warrant attacking them exploitatively without due care, as doing so may lead ourselves vulnerable.

The A5 vs A4 is an extremely sharp nuance in GTO. Practically speaking I don't believe there is too much to learn from this, other than that we should try and find more checks in a defensive-based strategy. However, pure betting A5 and pure checking A4 is merely a product of an AI (PIOSolver in this case) output, and shouldn't be taken so literally. We always want to try and understand what is going on, not to copy the solver 1-1.

Very well explained!

Thank you :)

Thanks for answering my question! I’m still somewhat new to solvers but I’m slowly catching on the more I study and play!

Nice to hear, be patient as it can take some time. You're doing the right thing by playing, studying, and watching content here

I recommend checking out my PIO GUIDE and my ADVICE to newer grinders. They should hopefully shed some more clarity.