$25/$50HUNL: What Can We Learn from Top Players
Posted by Nuno Alvarez
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 22 Comments...
Nuno,
Nice video. Would like to have had access to more of the hole cards but there were some interesting spots and analysis along the way.
Thanks.
Thanks man! Glad you enjoyed it.
Great video. I love the way you talk about thresholds and sizings and occasionally look into the solver for interesting hands. I look forward to watching more of your videos!
Thanks a lot! Hope you enjoy my content.
Really enjoy these videos, analysis was detailed and insightful as usual!
I have a question about the following hand, it was a 3BP, flop went bet 50%, call, then turn is check, bet 50%. You talked for a little while about the bet size for IP after the turn check and whether it should be 50% or 70%. I was thinking that given the board was low, the stabbing size here might be smaller, like 30% given that low pairs need protection. I checked the solver, and it likes the 50%. I was wondering why it prefers bigger than 30% here? Is this trend across all low boards, or are these 3-wheel boards different? Or perhaps the stack depth being bigger here plays a role?
Thanks for the kind words mate!
The idea here, has to do with a lot of things but mainly with the fact that we want to start making indifferent the Ax hands from OOP given that this is a huge part of their range. Sizing choice, defense vs 30%, defense vs 50%.
Note that almost 44% of OOP's range is A high hands and we do a much better job by betting a bit larger with our pairs and bluffs to not allow them to defend too many of those.
Thanks for the screenshots, so it's mainly specific to this type of board texture, i.e. 3-wheel board? If the board was low but without the 3-wheel cards, would you bet smaller here?
I had the same question actually and thought B30 would be great here. I do think matlittle is onto something with the AX having a gutter here and if its not a wheel board 522-8 maybe the 30% would be used more often. I also noticed in the screen shots besides AX hands being more indifferent vs B50. We also deny equity to some Q7s, J7s, T7s hands where vs 30% they may call and realize some equity to XR. I typically like to float / probe with a 1/3 size as a simplified strategy.
Good questions guys.
It's not necessarily specific to these board textures. The way I like looking at this is by thinking about the betting range for OOP OTF. The more polar they go, the more incentive we have on developing a smaller turn size IP given that their checking range is weaker. When they have a lot of middling hands in range because of the way they elected to play the flop, we want to size up and deny equity to those instead.
Good find here, that the QT bets the turn here in the solver! I would have thought it would have been the other way round, i.e. by blocking hands like T9, T8, you would push your opponent to having more 4x, so checking would be preferred. It's interesting that you bet it because you reduce your opponents river bluffing frequency by having the T kicker. Another small consideration is that BB can check-raise turn here with some T9, so having T or 9 kicker helps to reduce the frequency of this happening. Having a spade as your kicker is beneficial in this respect too as BB will XR T9 with a spade more often than other combos.
Given that the kicker is irrelevant, and QX can't bet river unimproved, do you think QT would make a higher EV bet or check here playing against humans rather than a solver? In my sim, BB has to give up 16% of the time on this 6 river with no made hand, which presumably most players will not do:
Perhaps then checking is slightly higher EV in real play with QT or Q9?
Good points!
I think something might be wrong with your sim, probably has to do with the preflop ranges and also the lack of a blockbet option for OOP, because the BB is supposed to bluff all of their no made hands here and also in pretty much every single board and texture in this particular line.
Yes, if I add block to the sizing mix on river, the frequency drops to just 10% give ups with the no made hand region, so this is probably the main reason our sims differ.
Interesting cbet sizing here. The solver prefers a bigger sizing around 33%. Do you think that this is the biggest sizing FourSixFour thinks that he can use whilst betting range here? Or do you think this sizing choice is one which he expects his opponent to react poorly to?
I think it's probably both! My guess is that he's taking advantage of his opponents reacting poorly to this sizing by betting his entire range (or close to it)
Hey Nuno, thanks for the video, enjoy these commentaries a lot :D
Thanks mx!
18:44 you mentioned that in practice people not nearly raising 7x as much -- wondering what's the reason of the tendency in your mind?
To me it seems very natural to xback 7x OTF. And when facing a b75 probe (vs say b125) IP can raise and should raise some combos for bluffs and if so - having trips in the raising range sounds reasonable -- if not, the IP raising range becomes full of bluffs I guess?
Thanks!
I'm curious about this as well. Because then OOP can B+3B vs a turn raise since 7x doesn't raise very often. I understand the slow play as letting OOP OB the river and capturing some EV snapping off large river sizes and protecting your calling range.
This is actually more simple than you guys think. A huge % of the population tend to just not play any raises vs Turn probes at all so no bluffs and no valuebets either!
Nuno Alvarez
Wow even for players at THIS level? This is just mind-boggling to me!
Yeah. To be fair, it's a node in which there are barely any raises at equilibrium in most board textures so it's not that crazy IMO.
Haha thanks Nuno! It's really good to know this :)
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.