$200 Zooming: Live Thoughts on an Afternoon Grind
Posted by Peter Clarke
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 8 Comments...
Great Vid, the Carbon theme looks good. A pretty common thing I hear about MW pots is our solvers arn't much good lol.. I've tried to study MW with Snowie when I had it. (say what you will it's pretty good at MW pots imo). What I would like to see is a HH replayer vid entirely looking at hands played MW. No Solver, just discussion of concepts and ideas to add to our (almost non existent) MW tool kit. for example ... how 3 ranges interact, bet sizing (small on flop even on wet boards?) Can't value bet as thin?, ability to continue? how important is the player to our right?.Turn donks/probes and OB's,.Geometric combined fold frequency.. etc... I don't think it would be an easy vid to make but I would really appreciate a great teacher givin' it a go. Considering the lack of MW study imo means its an edge to be had. Thanks as always!
I actually have a MW pots video in the works. Glad you liked this one :-)
4:20 Q2c T#2 is too good of a hand to turn into a bluff on the 8752r board BvB after using a big bet on the flop.
35:45 seems like an over fold spot. The logic makes sense, but given the small turn bet there is still enough KJs KTs QJs QTs AJs A10 in villains range that can shove here. On wizard J10s is just shoving itself, but as played it's never folding. Villain's range can't just be boats here. I also expect some AK KK QQ to 3bet flop or raise turn at some frequency. Then preflop if you are 4 betting a lot of AK AQ QQ+ hands.... J10s is really high up in your range to just be folding this river AKQ-4-K
Qc2c: After a big bet this hand is actually closer to a bluff than after a small one. Villain's range filters more after calling a bigger bet and so our SDV is less. I'd suggest changing your solver output view to EV instead of frequency when investigating alleged mistakes so you can observe the EV differecne between one line and another I'd wager that while bluff selection has eaten a bit too far into SDV territory here, the EV loss isn't going to be large. This sort of protocol is useful for treating the ailment of copying solver actions without knowing how big an EV gain/loss actions are at equilibirum. Frequencies can look extreme but when EV moves an inch the solver moves a mile.
JT: It doesn't matter how high up in my range this hand is for two reasons Firstly, in spots where we are very polarised and then check the river we are always folding far more often than the pot odds norm at equilibrium. This is due to relative polarisation and it would be a catastrophe to check a range enough to meet MDF here. I'd be a bit careful here as your style of thinking presupposes something quite dangerous and innacruate - that it is always important to hit a certain defence frequency. In fact, in some of these spots we can fold close to 100% after a line like bet/bet/check since we are heavily polarised and incentivsed to continue to bet our value range - jence our checking range is rightly full of x/f. Secondly, I'm very sure that this spot is dramatically underbluffed so quoting a solver output as evidence that I should call misses the mark somewhat. I think any line other than x/f is a travesty here.
I would agree with JT if the turn bet was bigger, but the 1/3 turn bet doesn't scream polarize to me and thus I expect BB to continue pretty wide. I do agree with some spots having to fold 100% of your range, just going to agree to disagree that this is one of them.
The Q2 hand, I agreed with your logic in game, but it was a "mistake" I was making in some of my review videos that Tyler and Steve Pointed out. So I stopped turning bottom pair into bluffs. I think it can still be an exploit, but I'm trying to remove it from my game. Chalking it up as force aggression.
JTs did look like quite an overfold, considering villain will have KJ, KT pure and will shove river for value. Ran the sim for this one, and JTs was pure shoving. But if checked, it was a 75bb~ call vs a jam. Won't be worth as much in reality, as PIO was floating a lot of random Jxs OTT and bluffing on the river, as well as shoving AQ pure for value. But still think that call there will be considerably winning.
Thanks for the video Pete,
@minute 15:38 someone opened 3.5x in the Lo-Jack(EP) and you were on the button 6s4s. I experience this in my games all the time, and also much bigger than that live. Do you tighten up your 3-bet or fold range here assuming you play 3-bet or fold? What adjustment do you make to the larger opens? All I know for sure is in the BB we defend less of the weaker portions of our calling range.
-Thanks.
Gret Vid as always Peter Clarke
At min 09.00 you talk about flop stragety Blind vs Blind. A few hands before you had Q2 on 578r and said you mainly want to size up as you have nut advantage.
Now at minute 09.00 on Jd8c2d you argue that since you dont have a nut advantage you want so size down.
My thoughts: on 578r you want to rather want to use smaller sizes as there are a lot of protections bets and merged bets like 76,56, 89 etc (ofc big bets are used as well, but in general i think small makes more sense) and on J82 you dont have any of those protection bets so you stab a lot more polar and therefor want to use only big size. Very interested to here your thoughts.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.