Thanks for the vid!
On the 3 bet spot with QJcc spot at 25 min, you say QJs is probably 3B shoving a lot, but this is in a GTO standpoint. I mean you use this 100% cbet strategy in 3 bet pots cause you know your opponents will not raise enough otf, so is using the 3B shove strategy of the solver so efficient, vs a pool that never has a solver raising range, especially with non intuitive combos (K6,Q7, A2, AT, KT,22) ? Do you take this into consideration?
The pool raising range will probably be more merged than the solver, so how to re adapt to this range?
I definitely take this into consideration vs weaker opponents that I don't expect to get as close to theory as they could. However, I think that the pool raising range would be much more polarized than the GTO one which contains a few medium strength hands and is more merged in general. Vs this particular villain, I tried to stick to equilibrium in most scenarios since I consider him one of the best regs.
If we expect our opponents to be overly polarized with their flop raising range on 3BP, one of the best adjustments we can make is to develop a click it back 3B range since that will force them to fold the weaker part of their range for the cheapest price possible. This is also a good amd valid strategy at equilibrium FWIW.
Loading 6 Comments...
Great video and comments, man! Nice to hear lots of details about choosing bet-sizings in different spots.
Thanks a lot! Glad you enjoyed my approach :)
Nice video, very well and clear explained, looking forward to the next one. ty! :)
Thank you very much! Appreciate it and hope that you also enjoy the next one.
Thanks for the vid!
On the 3 bet spot with QJcc spot at 25 min, you say QJs is probably 3B shoving a lot, but this is in a GTO standpoint. I mean you use this 100% cbet strategy in 3 bet pots cause you know your opponents will not raise enough otf, so is using the 3B shove strategy of the solver so efficient, vs a pool that never has a solver raising range, especially with non intuitive combos (K6,Q7, A2, AT, KT,22) ? Do you take this into consideration?
The pool raising range will probably be more merged than the solver, so how to re adapt to this range?
Thank you, glad you liked it!
I definitely take this into consideration vs weaker opponents that I don't expect to get as close to theory as they could. However, I think that the pool raising range would be much more polarized than the GTO one which contains a few medium strength hands and is more merged in general. Vs this particular villain, I tried to stick to equilibrium in most scenarios since I consider him one of the best regs.
If we expect our opponents to be overly polarized with their flop raising range on 3BP, one of the best adjustments we can make is to develop a click it back 3B range since that will force them to fold the weaker part of their range for the cheapest price possible. This is also a good amd valid strategy at equilibrium FWIW.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.