Showdown Value Bluffs
Posted by Uri Peleg
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 30 Comments...
Hey, what means the "a" in the river bet/raise size?
Allin
Really great video, it was really interesting to see you go into detail on the reasoning behind things - you are correct that most people gloss over stuff like the reason for betting bottom pairs as PFR, I've seen other video makers mention it, and either they said or I presumed that the reason was to triple barrel bluff blocking sets.
One question - at 27.00, we are looking at your decision as IP when villain has bet twice and checked river on AJ39rQ. I see that we have 54o about half the time, and that we generally just give up with it.
I don't think I ever get to the river with it, but if I do I'm always bluffing, because it would feel weak and pointless to call twice with 5 high and give up (I'm aware that this is not solid reasoning of course!)
I'm guessing that the reason we check back is because the Q is so good for his bluffs, and that we would in fact bluff it on more bricky rivers?
In general I struggle to see how to apply these situations to my own game, because when I see stuff like "PIO calls twice with the nut low gutshot IP" I presume a lot of the reason is for board coverage so that we can have the nuts on certain runouts, or to balance super advanced bluffs that PIO does vs itself that I don't need to worry about.
From a practical point of view in small to midstakes games, am I giving up too much by just folding turn in these spots, and shrugging when I see them in review?
The reason that 54 doesn't bluff on the river is that there are a lot of better bluff candidates with the same amount of showdown value. When organizing your bluffs it's good practice to go by showdown value, but here 45 and 3x and Jx all have the same amount of showdown value, so 45 becomes a lower priority bluff.
From a practical point of view... having your turn calling range be 95% bluffcatchers and 5% draws is not the best idea. At some point having more bluffcatchers becomes a bit useless. That being said... I don't think this is going to be something visible to your opponents so it's certainly not a big deal. But you can easily fix it by calling some extra draws on full-rainbow turns (turns with a flushdraw are usually a lot easier to manage).
Great video. J7-J2s better calls than QJ, J10, because they have ''cleaner'' two pair outs? With QJ,J10 and J8 when we hit our two pair OOP will often improve to str8, As well on 7-2rivers OOP will value bet/bluffcatch wider, so will get paid easier when we hit
Thanks :-)
That's correct. You can see this perfectly in this specific hand example where I hit 2pair and can barely even valuebet it.
dancinglions, Uri Peleg Are you sure? The clean outs theory does not explain call with J7, IMHO. I would guess that it is much more important to unblock QT, Q8 which probably have a decent frequency of b/b/x.
Yo Uri,
Do you aproach your pio study by spots or handreviews ?
Do you have any tips from your experience on how to handle feeling lost philosophically with your strategy/study/pio ?
I try to go as in depth as possible - understanding the reason for everything piosolver is doing. It doesn't matter if it's a spot or a hand-review - since the hand is a "spot". But I would go more by spots - if you find a hand interesting and review it, try changing parameters and viewing similar spots to see if the concepts/reasons you understood from reviewing the hand still apply in the way you think.
There are a lot of traps that you can fall into when using piosolver to study. If I had to give you one tip, I'd say that when doing a hand review you should be spending at least 20 minutes studying the sim. If you look at it for 3 minutes and move on you're doing something wrong.
Really nice video i loved it i'm still wondering for your question, i asked myself like one month ago exactly the same one : how to exploit a linear calling range in a totally different spot but close to yours at the same time. I'm playing HU hyper so the spot was : 25 deep hero limp, vilain checks, flop A83dcd, hero limp cbet vilain call, turn Kd, and it appeared that some 8d (low kicker) was two barreling on this card) : you can have FE on some Kx sometimes for a 1,5x pot overbet size only you get called by worse 3x with a diamond you have FE on some better 8x without a diamond... I didn't get an answer on how to exploit a linear calling range, i just conclude that it was naturally exploitative if he wasn't going to call the right combos and that i shouldn't barrel myself 8dx. I was frustrated :) So i'm going to read the other comments and try to see how i can apply those concepts in my game and with my stack depth :)
Thank you :-)
I wouldn't call this a spot where villain will have a linear calling range, since it's clear pair+fdraw should go in before pair with no flushdraw. So the "showdown value bluff" effect that you saw should still apply.
If you thought villain were calling all Kx and better 8x with no diamond anyway and folding his 3x with a diamond though, you could organize your betting and checking ranges differently as you said - bluff more polar and valuebet a decent amount thinner since your opponent's calls will have a lot less equity vs your value-betting range.
I did not express myself well i just wanted to say that vilain shouldn't have a linear calling range but might have one and i was wondering how to exploit those kind of villains. You answered it perfectly thanks for your quick reply ;)
This example is quite different than the one from the vid though, as there we call bottom pair w/o a draw. I have been thinking a lot about this, but still cannot find a solution other than by calling certain 3x combos we increase our board coverage for certain river runouts, but it cannot be only that ...
Also isn't J4 a higher EV turncall also because it unblocks OOP's bluffing range much more so than QJ?
I have to agree with Apotheosis, a really great video.
It would be great if you could continue illustrating concepts that are not immediately evident by using PIO.
This is a great video. One of the best I've seen in a long time.
Welcome to the team!
"having your turn calling range be 95% bluffcatchers and 5% draws is not the best idea. At some point having more bluffcatchers becomes a bit useless."
Amazing video! Please keep producing this type of content - by that I mean distilling out the reasoning behind why the solver is doing something.
Amazing video I've ever seen. Definitely I look forward to see next one.
Best RIO video I have seen in a long time.
Greeeeeeeeeeeat video! Welcome :D
enjoyed this video alot looking forward to more
Bro! Huge mistake to not name this type of bluff after yourself. Could have had all the wizards talking about 'The Peleg Bluff'.
Apart from that very clear leak - great vid!
Great video. I love when people explain why the solvers choose to do something
Hey man, I've posted a thread about a review I was doing that's sort of inspired by this video, just in case you have time to have a look.
https://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/hand-selection-in-pio-bvb/
very interesting video, thanks ! Can't wait for part 2.
Great vídeo! I never realized this was the resoning behind these barrels... Havent been this excited about a new coach in a long time! Looking forward for the next one!
No more videos?
Fantastic addition to the team, GJ RIO
Great video Uri Peleg , one of the best theory videos I've seen on RIO.
Could this concept of making Showdown Value Bluffs apply to any turns where there is a flush draw on board? Thus, the low paired hands would want to make it worse for the hands that are 2 overcard + FD to call right? For example, barrelling 22 on Ks 6d 4c Qd
Uri Peleg Related to the second part of homework "how to exploit a linear caller".
(1) get tighter when the turn second/third pair pairs OTR.
(2) avoid x/calling river, since there is no bluffs in his range.
(3) cbet-jam a bit more loose on rivers bringing straights.
(4) bet looser if river pairs the lowest pair.
Why only 3 videos?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.