Training: 3B Pots when OOP (SB vs BTN)
Posted by Max Lacerda
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 16 Comments...
500NL general is much better imo with the 33-50-75-125 sizes available across each street and more practical with the pool bet sizes. I like these types of videos, but would really appreciate using the 500 general sizes. Maybe you can do btn 3bet vs CO next where hero is either CO or BTN. Psek has some trainer videos where he used Lucid gto trainer and was able to use his own ranges from PIO with them as well as input the sizes he wanted to use.
Ty for the suggestion!
Thumbs up for the video.
On the 975 board,
On the flop what you think of a small bet size in contrast to this pot size bet? (mix 34%) I feel that the defense range for the IP will be harder to play vs a small size then versus a big size here. What about X range? Villain will need to x back a lot more hands now on the flop think people will probably overstab giving us more X raise opportunities where we can get our protection.
About the Ac turn, on my sim we can simplify to X range on the A but high probability you just have better sims. So iam even more confused now lol
Thanks for the comment! I really dislike the idea of betting small for some reasons:
- You are actually not denying almost any equity at all, defense is very easy and a competent player ill be able to defend a lot of those overcards
- The only way that a small betting would work if you're able to do it in a very low frequency, and as humans it's kinda hard to do so
- Vey easy for IP player to put pressure on you with raises
So between betting small or checking range, I much rather check range
I would also add there should of been some discussion to checking range as mentioned above in order to check raise. A lot of over pairs I have seen on 9-high flops and lower are mixing like 60% bet / 40% check and then just making small XR or even XRAI. I think that was one of the reasons why AsQs was checking high frequency on 975ss. Needs to protect the checking range a bit.
Yep, I think checking range is a pretty good strat there, to do exactly what you're talking about
Cool video, didn't know GTO wizard had a trainer too. I guess it doesn't allow you to drill with your own sims?
Also thought it was interesting that you polarise on some high boards. I've done some testing on my own and for SB vs BTN a rangebet barely loses any ev on Q+ boards (avg 0.2% of pot). But it could be because I'm 3betting slightly smaller (2.5bb -> 11bb).
As for why we bet small on 975A, I think it's because our main advantage is having more KK-TT, and those hands want to bet small on the A turn. Whereas on 975Q, JJ and TT are worth a bigger bet, since BTN is not floating as much Qx compared to Ax.
Just doubled checked this spot on wizard 500NL basic, I'm a bit surprised how many AX are floating the flop. Compared to SB that actually bets the flop, so I guess SB has a top pair disadvantage on the turn.
When we look at ranges for SB vs BTN on the turn the SB has 12.8 combos Top pair vs 17.8 for the BTN. Same goes for sets & two pairs the advantage in favor of the BTN. Combined TP, set, & 2 pair its 19.3 vs 34.2 combos in favor of the btn.
Side question and probably just a basic fundamental Qing Yang OOP cbets have a lot of checking going on and IP a lot more cbetting with range going on. For cbet sizing I was thinking OOP should just use 25% and IP 33%. I was wondering if I should apply this to both SRP and 3BP? Then maybe for 4BP use like 20% OOP and 25% IP?
Hmm I don't think it's necessarily true that IP wants to bet bigger than OOP. For example IP gets checkraised more and floated less on average which is something that actually makes us want to size down.
so Qing Yang do you think both IP / OOP should have the same cbet size then? Or IP should use a smaller size and OOP use a bigger size? Does wizard have this backwards?
IP 27-76
OOP 23 - 68
These are the options under 500NL basic on wizard. Some other sims like 500NL general stick to the same sizes IP/OOP of 33-50-75-125.
Personally I don’t think it’s important to be that precise, but if I really wanted to find the optimal size to the exact % I would just test each spot individually. It’s gonna depend much more on range interaction than position so no point having generalised sizes for IP and OOP.
Thanks for the comment!
Yes, it doesn't allow for me to use my own sims
I also don't think it's an issue to bet small on those high boards, that's just me trying to get closer to GTO, the only type of boards that I think would be very bad to bet range w/ a small sizing are the mid-low boards
And yeah, that's probably it + IP floats a lot of Ax and we don't bet a lot of Ax OTF :)
I really like these drill videos. This how I use gto wizard for the most part
At 19:38 there is such a huge difference in cbet% between a33ss and a32ss flops. Why this difference?
32:49 if we chk the turn A and opponent bets we have a pure xr with rng including all prs under the A and our 9x. What does that accomplish? Is it pure eq denial for opponent and eq realization for us? Is it because our hand plays so poorly in the xc line?
It seems if we raise no worse calls and no better folds and we iso ourselves vs the strongest parts of opponents rng.
Do you see huge differences between pio and gto wizard sim results?
Thanks!
Thanks for the comment!
I found out that on those wheel Ahi boards our betting freq usually goes down drastically, the main 3 reasons seem to be that:
a) The board is so dynamic that on a lot of turns we won't be able to put a lot of money into the pot
b) We don't have that huge of a reason to bet on Ahi boards to begin with, most hads don't deny a lot of equity anyways + we really aren't happy by putting alot of money in with middling Ax
c) Villain has a lot of Ahi (usually we only have advantage on the AK-AQ region, and villain sometime also has more A2-A3 than us.
I guess it's a mixure of both reasons you listed, the board is super dynamic so we need to find a way to deny equity and x/r is the best way to do so. Also we need to understand that all the strategies are derivated from EV, so the reason solver is only x/r or x/f with some hands there is becasue it's +EV than x/c, it doesn't matter what it accomplishes, our job as players is to try to understand why, even as it seems that we only iso ourselves vs the top of villain's range (with is not 100% true), solver is still want to do so.
The differences are always going to be on the way we build the trees, I never tryied to build a Pio tree with the exact same parameters as a GTOW tree, so I can't answer that, but I wouldn't think so.
Really great, thorough reply. Thanks!
With regard to #2 I do forget that pio strats always revolve around ev and nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing abstact. It's wierd to say that it doesn't matter what an action accomplishes, even though it's true. It just happens to be the highest ev line.
We humans want our actions to mean something and get something done, computers just see numbers. Hard to sometimes meld those two things together into a complete poker strat.
22.00 - A99 with KQo
You played check and reviewed it and KQo is indeed checking sometimes, but would it not be easier to play a range cbet here, rather than try to carve out a 14% checking range? Seems close enough to range bet that we should just simplify our strategy here in my opinion.
If not, then what would be your threshold at which you would go to cbet range?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.