One quick question -- 33:47 996 4 4bettor xback turn IP, I have the same perception as you thinking the xback is weird as the turn is super favorable and it's probably only AK/AA but we are talking abt Linus :D
Do you think population over xback AK here in general? Thanks!
Yeah, I think population definitely over xbacks the AK combos on these spots mainly because they don't realize how strong they are given how many hands the OOP player is supposed to fastplay OTF.
3min when you talk about using a large sizing for the OOP 3 bettor on J96cc. I struggle with this because in the past there were a lot of people teaching to use small size on wet boards because future run outs benefit the IP player. So OOP doesn't want to build a big pot OOP when IP is going to take it away from him on future run outs half the time. So we use a lot of checking and small sizes and wait for a clean turn before piling money into the pot. Then this year from Hunter Cichy's videos he taught to 2/3 or X on Jack high or lower textures. What am I missing? Did the teachings just change recently on correct strategy? Am I not applying the concept correctly? Is this concept only for SRP where the SPR is high? But concept is opposite in 3BP with lower SPR and we simply ignore the dynamic texture?
Also Qi Yang former Rio coach made this youtube video on using small and tiny sizes on wet textures.
Going with my above comment I am checking to see where my misunderstanding is at. I think it has a lot to do with the SPR and less with it being a SRP, 3BP, IP, or OOP. Whenever the SPR is below 5, we start to see a lot more bigger bets being used.
In this diagram here if we look at J96cc board BTN vs CO IP is range betting 1/3 pot with a SPR of 5.6. When we look at SB vs BTN 3BP the SPR is 3.5 and now we see a lot more 50-75% sizes or OB being used with a more polarized range. If we change the stack sizes to match CO vs BTN, so 16.5bb pot and 92.5bb stack sizes for SB vs BTN, now we see small size being used with a polarized range.
In the first hand on J96t we saw that the BB does not cbet too often given the large sizing, and as such, many draws opt to check instead of betting. If you suspect your opponent will in fact cbet most of their draws here, what exploits would you use vs them?
If they construct their range around draws and high equity value hands such as good top pairs and overpairs they will simply allow the IP player to fold a lot of marginal hands and also to stab a lot with tons of success when they face a check.
29:20: I didn't think the hand seemed particularly 'standard' by both. You mentioned OTF that the large check raise size represented mostly two pair plus for value. I think KQo that flats pre seems like the weakest primary flop XR for 'value,' at least according to GTO. Presumably, Linus, has an exploitative reason; and, by check-raising QT, is assuming a sub-optimal IP response. Might he think that IP will be overdefending certain hands, J9o or Qd3d, for instance, against the light check raise? It seems pretty improbable that he expects an overfold by hands with equity. Nevertheless, even were Linus expecting a suboptimal IP response to an overly loose flop X/R, it's hardly easy to play OOP after putting too much money in OTF.
Case in point, I think Linus ends up putting too much money in by the river. IP bets turn and river for amounts that correspond very closely to the exact value of his specific hand, and Linus pays off.
Something else I explored in the Solver for this hand were turn IP sizings. The size IP ended up using was correct, assuming GTO play on both ends. What interested me was the OOP response facing a 33% sizing. Against it, OOP must play an extremely complex strategy with some of his flop X/R draws, such as KTo, T8o, KJo, whereby he calls, X/R, and folds different combos. Similarly, protecting his range requires a complex strategy with his two-pair hands, whereby he checks a decent portion planning to mix raises and calls facing a bet. If anyone is capable of executing such a strategy, it's Linus. However, his light flop X/R hinders him severely. His top pairs constitute, overwhelmingly, the largest portion of hands that demand turn X/C facing any size (he can't x/r or mix folds). Thereby, by having too many flop X/R with hands like QT, Linus puts himself in a bind on later streets, as illustrated in this hand, where he affords his opponent a good opportunity to maximize value with his exact hand.
You mentioned OTF that the large check raise size represented mostly two pair plus for value. I think KQo that flats pre seems like the weakest primary flop XR for 'value,' at least according to GTO. Presumably, Linus, has an exploitative reason; and, by check-raising QT, is assuming a sub-optimal IP response. Might he think that IP will be overdefending certain hands, J9o or Qd3d, for instance, against the light check raise? It seems pretty improbable that he expects an overfold by hands with equity. Nevertheless, even were Linus expecting a suboptimal IP response to an overly loose flop X/R, it's hardly easy to play OOP after putting too much money in OTF.
Note that the construction of the xr range OTF would greatly vary depending on IP strategy. My guess is that Linus realized that this sizing was suboptimal on this texture therefore he expanded his xr range a little bit to try to counter it.
As you can see here, QT is not too far from the value threshold facing a 33% bet only strategy by IP.
Something else I explored in the Solver for this hand were turn IP sizings. The size IP ended up using was correct, assuming GTO play on both ends. What interested me was the OOP response facing a 33% sizing. Against it, OOP must play an extremely complex strategy with some of his flop X/R draws, such as KTo, T8o, KJo, whereby he calls, X/R, and folds different combos. Similarly, protecting his range requires a complex strategy with his two-pair hands, whereby he checks a decent portion planning to mix raises and calls facing a bet. If anyone is capable of executing such a strategy, it's Linus. However, his light flop X/R hinders him severely. His top pairs constitute, overwhelmingly, the largest portion of hands that demand turn X/C facing any size (he can't x/r or mix folds). Thereby, by having too many flop X/R with hands like QT, Linus puts himself in a bind on later streets, as illustrated in this hand, where he affords his opponent a good opportunity to maximize value with his exact hand.
Very interesting ideas, thank you for sharing. I wouldn't necessarily think that Linus is putting himself blind on later streets by having too many flop xr with hands like QT if he doesn't overdo it.
Loading 10 Comments...
nice vid Nuno!
One quick question -- 33:47 996 4 4bettor xback turn IP, I have the same perception as you thinking the xback is weird as the turn is super favorable and it's probably only AK/AA but we are talking abt Linus :D
Do you think population over xback AK here in general? Thanks!
Thanks mx! Glad you liked it.
Yeah, I think population definitely over xbacks the AK combos on these spots mainly because they don't realize how strong they are given how many hands the OOP player is supposed to fastplay OTF.
3min when you talk about using a large sizing for the OOP 3 bettor on J96cc. I struggle with this because in the past there were a lot of people teaching to use small size on wet boards because future run outs benefit the IP player. So OOP doesn't want to build a big pot OOP when IP is going to take it away from him on future run outs half the time. So we use a lot of checking and small sizes and wait for a clean turn before piling money into the pot. Then this year from Hunter Cichy's videos he taught to 2/3 or X on Jack high or lower textures. What am I missing? Did the teachings just change recently on correct strategy? Am I not applying the concept correctly? Is this concept only for SRP where the SPR is high? But concept is opposite in 3BP with lower SPR and we simply ignore the dynamic texture?
Also Qi Yang former Rio coach made this youtube video on using small and tiny sizes on wet textures.
i got alot out of that thanks
Going with my above comment I am checking to see where my misunderstanding is at. I think it has a lot to do with the SPR and less with it being a SRP, 3BP, IP, or OOP. Whenever the SPR is below 5, we start to see a lot more bigger bets being used.
In this diagram here if we look at J96cc board BTN vs CO IP is range betting 1/3 pot with a SPR of 5.6. When we look at SB vs BTN 3BP the SPR is 3.5 and now we see a lot more 50-75% sizes or OB being used with a more polarized range. If we change the stack sizes to match CO vs BTN, so 16.5bb pot and 92.5bb stack sizes for SB vs BTN, now we see small size being used with a polarized range.
Is it simply the SPR that we go from this 50-75% bet or X strategy to this small bet or X strategy on the same board?
I was about to reply to your previous comment telling you that the key factor here should be the SPR.
When the SPR is lower, we don't need as much equity to stack off therefore we can use big sizes more often with lower equity hands.
In the first hand on J96t we saw that the BB does not cbet too often given the large sizing, and as such, many draws opt to check instead of betting. If you suspect your opponent will in fact cbet most of their draws here, what exploits would you use vs them?
Good question.
If they construct their range around draws and high equity value hands such as good top pairs and overpairs they will simply allow the IP player to fold a lot of marginal hands and also to stab a lot with tons of success when they face a check.
29:20: I didn't think the hand seemed particularly 'standard' by both. You mentioned OTF that the large check raise size represented mostly two pair plus for value. I think KQo that flats pre seems like the weakest primary flop XR for 'value,' at least according to GTO. Presumably, Linus, has an exploitative reason; and, by check-raising QT, is assuming a sub-optimal IP response. Might he think that IP will be overdefending certain hands, J9o or Qd3d, for instance, against the light check raise? It seems pretty improbable that he expects an overfold by hands with equity. Nevertheless, even were Linus expecting a suboptimal IP response to an overly loose flop X/R, it's hardly easy to play OOP after putting too much money in OTF.
Case in point, I think Linus ends up putting too much money in by the river. IP bets turn and river for amounts that correspond very closely to the exact value of his specific hand, and Linus pays off.
Something else I explored in the Solver for this hand were turn IP sizings. The size IP ended up using was correct, assuming GTO play on both ends. What interested me was the OOP response facing a 33% sizing. Against it, OOP must play an extremely complex strategy with some of his flop X/R draws, such as KTo, T8o, KJo, whereby he calls, X/R, and folds different combos. Similarly, protecting his range requires a complex strategy with his two-pair hands, whereby he checks a decent portion planning to mix raises and calls facing a bet. If anyone is capable of executing such a strategy, it's Linus. However, his light flop X/R hinders him severely. His top pairs constitute, overwhelmingly, the largest portion of hands that demand turn X/C facing any size (he can't x/r or mix folds). Thereby, by having too many flop X/R with hands like QT, Linus puts himself in a bind on later streets, as illustrated in this hand, where he affords his opponent a good opportunity to maximize value with his exact hand.
Note that the construction of the xr range OTF would greatly vary depending on IP strategy. My guess is that Linus realized that this sizing was suboptimal on this texture therefore he expanded his xr range a little bit to try to counter it.
As you can see here, QT is not too far from the value threshold facing a 33% bet only strategy by IP.
Very interesting ideas, thank you for sharing. I wouldn't necessarily think that Linus is putting himself blind on later streets by having too many flop xr with hands like QT if he doesn't overdo it.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.