PIO Solver Series (Part 3: Leading Whole Range on the Turn)
Posted by Diego Ramirez
Video Player is loading.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Train with the best
Learn from the Run It Once Pro Team with two new instructional videos every day.
Loading 32 Comments...
Great video. One question: take for e.g. Example 1. OOP leads with 15% but also gives good pot odds for OP to bluff catch. whts OOP strategy on the river? Is it polarized?
mavacehigh: By listening to your question I realize there is a misunderstanding on why protection is so important here, maybe I should have put an example in the video. I will explain it now:
That first example you mention was EP vs BB, 953r. EP gets to cbet his whole range and BB calls. Now let's assume a 6 comes, the board looks 9536, and BB leads with a 15% pot sized bet. BB has definitely more strong hands and more equity than the EP player. He has range advantage. Now, we learned in PioSOLVER series 1 that in this case the player with range advantage maximizes EV by betting out his whole range using a small sizing, in this case it happens to be 15% and in general when leading whole range on the turn it's in the 1/5th pot neighbourhood.
The main thing that we accomplish by leading and that we wouldn't accomplish by leading is we make our opponent fold a lot of hands that we would like to protect ourselves from, mainly the overcards. If an A, K, Q, J or T comes, the situation is going to reverse and now EP will have a big range advantage, remember he has a lot of AKo, AQo, AJ, KQo in his range and we don't, so the main point in leading is making fold hands such as AKo that have good equity against the vast majority of our range, which is composed by 1 pair type of hands. That's the main point in leading the turn. Had we checked, our opponent would have wisely barrel this card very unfrequently, seeing a free river and realizing the equity of his weak offsuit overcards.
Now, let's say a 6 comes, we lead and he calls. We play accordingly. We will have very strong hands that want to bet very big, somewhat strong hands that want to bet rather small, hands that want to check down and bluffs. We can have as many sizings as we want, but I would go with checking, betting small and betting very big (even overbet-jamming). Of course we bet polarized on the river, it's the same situation as in Pio series 1 & 2 where we polarize our range on the turn. Hope that helps :)
In my experience the player pool will not fold those hands that we are trying to protect against ( AK AQ AJ AT etc.) to a 15% turn size. In practice I think the player pool is elastic to sizing here and we'd benefit from betting 25-30% instead... ?
Rewind: Well, the idea is that if people doesn't fold overcards in this spot we are more than happy to bet for value with our range and get called. If people is inelastic (that's what I think you mean) to bet sizing in this spot, yes exploitatively it's much better to bet bigger of course!
In your next video, could you provide examples of this discussed Turn play. For instance, say the flop comes 632. I would be intereseted in knowing how you construct your turn ranges and their sizings for various turn cards (such as K, T, 7 etc).
I would also be very interested in learning more about check-calling ranges. When to have them, and how do you construct them.
8:40 - After a few tests with Pio I came to the conclusion that 15-25% is the correct sizing
How did you reach this conclusion?
31:00 Why does Pio choose QJs, K9s, KTs for IP's check backs?
Great Video! Is this strategy also applicable in 3B pots?
MrWizard15: In my theoretical videos in general I'm trying to focus more on flop play due to pedagogical reasons, the explorations on this video were kind of something I really had been feeling like doing for some time, but if I continue to make videos for RIO there will be of course turn/river play.
On the examples you mention, it depends on stack size and particular positions, assuming EP vs BB and 40bb, all K, T and 7 are good cards for continuing barreling and quite big, in fact it's hard to think of a bad turn for the IP player besides an A, as we saw on the video.
nittyoldman
"How did you reach this conclusion?"
Well, I did a few test lol
I used a couple different spots and realized it's the kind of sizing Pio preferred.
"31:00 Why does Pio choose QJs, K9s, KTs for IP's check backs?"
I'd guess a mix of showdown value and the Kx Qx hands are the most by a c/r, etc. It's always hard to figure Pio out ^^
but when you use PIO don't you have to tell it to solve for A, B, C sizing and then it outputs what hands to include into each sizing, including check? as opposed to a program (that doesn't exist) whereby you simply state the situation you are in and it outputs the perfect sizing for you? I guess I don't understand how you can do a test with PIO to solve for the sizing it prefers...
maybe you do not wish to give out this information, I'm not sure, but I am planning on purchasing the program within the week so if you could elaborate on what kinds of tests you ran so that I could duplicate it myself in the future I would be very greatful
-thanks in advance either way-
I guess the underlying reason for my comment on this topic is that the entire premise of the video is based on the assumption that the 15-25% sizing is the best sizing to use...you go into great detail on when to implement this strategy discussing different turns, hero's and villain's range interacting with the board, etc. \
BUT obviously if we change the turn lead sizing used to 50%-60% this will dramatically influence the results obtained from PIO
SO it seems incredibly important to me that we first lay the foundation for the discussion by proving that the 15-25% sizing is, in fact, appropriate and that part was omitted
nittyoldman: Too many ideas you bring here hehe, I'll try to summarize!
Yes this fifh-pot sizing is the best when planning on leading range, at least in the spots/ranges/SPR I have analyzed, and I think it's a very easy sizing to come to. You just make a few test and see what Pio likes.
You will see it more clearly with an example: If I allow Pio to: a)check, b) bet pot or c) shove, it will never ever bet pot with whole range. So I come to the conclusion that the sizing must be smaller. If I allow Pio to a) check, b) bet 50% pot or c) shove, and never picks them, same conclusion. Then I start to see that when I offer it the opportunity to bet smaller and I see that it often likes this sizing to bet range, so it must be correct. As I said, I made a few tests and it was very clear this sizing is the best for leading the turn. There's no magic in it, and in order to extract conclusions with Pio, very often we use the trial/error learning proccess! Pio doesn't give conclusions, just solves the freaking thing ^^
Hope that helps a little bit, feel free to ask again, and definitely recommend you to purchase it if you plan on using it :)
TaxHere:
There is no reason for not doing it in 3BP, especially as we discussed in the video, the narrower the range, the more are going to hurt particular cards, and 3bet pots are always narrow vs narrow range, so I would definitely say yes. Glad you liked it! :)
Nice content. And awesome intro, as i understood it's you playing guitar?
Yup! Trying, at least :P
The preflop ranges in 8-7-4ss ep vs bb are the same as the fist example right?
Never mind, I see that it's the same.
Is this 500$ or 500 chip heads up hyper?
What are you talking about? :D
What is the format in the solver? Is it cash games or a sng format?
Also, when you say: BTN vs BB the worst case scenario earlier on in the video: Do you mean the worst case scenario for the BTN or the worst case scenario for us to be donk leading?
I will find the time in the video if you are confused by the last part.
I don't think there is any difference, which I'm not taking into account. With Pio we just input ranges and sizings and let the thing solve it :)
I think it was about facing raises, right? I think I meant that if our opponent plays well, aggressively enough, he should be doing a ton of raising in many spots, like 20-25%, and that it never happens in actual games. I think that's what I meant (I recorded it a long ago), if it doesn't make sense please tell me exactly where it is and I will look into more depth into it.
Glad someone takes the time to really go into a video! Shows a lot of commitment to learn the game.
THANKS. No...It was a misinterpretation by me. You said bb vs btn can be a worst case scenario more so vs ep and bb and I confused myself...i thought it meant later in the video u were gonna say....here is a card = worst case scenario.
Thanks I love your theory videos.
One question abt the situation BB vs BTN on [A98] flop then [A] on the turn:
We saw leading whole range makes more +EV if our Eff is 40bb. Is it the same if we are 100bb deep or more?
As you mentioned in the video, IP's CBetting range OTF is nicely polarized and most nuts are still only in IP's range OTT.
If our Eff stack is 100bb or deeper, my intuitive idea is that, with deeper stack, IP is able to attack OOP's merged leading range with polarized range and large raising raise. OOP is going to have hard time realizing equity advantage vs raise with this depth. On the contrast, if we are 40bb deep, IP has little room to punish OOP's leading range, so the strategy leading whole range is max-EV.
Is that idea correct? Or we are still able to lead and show good profit with deeper stack?
I like the way you think, I think you're on the right track here.
I have to say I only solve spots with Pio with 40bbs, I told RIO that before signing because it was something I wasn't sure they'd like as most people here I assume play with 100+bb, but they were ok with that. They're awesome people btw, the people that work in RIO. Anyway, I occasionalyl might solve a hand for 100bb but it's not my thing hehe.
As I say, I think you are on the right track here. I'll explain why I think that's the case:
In order for OOP to lead range he needs to have some sort of range advantage, that's for sure. When the A comes, surely, OOP will have a nice equity advantage; but it actually doesn't mean his equity advantage translates into range advantage. Why? For the reasons you mention: IP still has the strongest Ax and the majority of fullhouses (at least 99, 88 which OOP doesn't have, and OOP might also 3bet sometimes A9s-A8s or even the offsuit ones). With 40bb the SPR OTT is about 2.5-3, so having nut disadvantage hurts, but given the SPR is so small it gets more than counterfeited by the fact OOP has so much equity. As you say, with 40bb deep IP has little room to extract value with his very strong hands since the pot is so big already.
With an SPR on the turn of let's say... 6-7 it's not clear what happens (it's not clear mainly because I haven't run this with pio lol). I think we could still develop a leading range but we would need to be much more careful with which textures we lead, but I think there are definitey certain situations where there is room for leading. For example, SB cc vs UTG open, flop 98x, turn T or J for example (just thinking of something fast). In this case if we play a decent strategy on the flop, we have a much bigger proportion of very strong hands (99,88, TT-JJ, QQ, KQ) than UTG I would say.
And also we could deliver a leading polarized strategy with a big SPR, which I think could be also very effective either with 40bb or deep, but I thought it was too complex to make a 1-video for RIO and have another priorities with much more frequent spots I guess. I also would be extremely careful as I say in the video before introducing a polarized leading range and would need to run some sims first.
Hope my answer satisfies you somehow and I'm glad to see you're looking at things from a sort of more global perspective. Next 3 videos will be 1/2+ session reviews but I'm planning on making 2 more theoretical videos about mixed flop cbetting strategies after that.
Cheers :)
Thank u for very detailed explanation! I understood your duties here :) but still I got some important ideas.
My idea was also from the situation [77-JJ]vs[QQ-KK and bluffs] on [222] where OOP's range advantage is useless. The [A98A] situation looked similar to me but in [222] example 1.2xpot sized bet was allowed (as far as I remember).
In the 1st series introduction you showed your winrate which was surprisingly high. That made me thought transiting to only MSS strategy which simplifies our strategy as well. So definitely I am waiting to see more videos from you, thanks a lot!
No, they're totally different situations. That was a pure (or almost pure) polarized vs bluffcatcher situation, and here there are hands in both ranges that have equity when behind. Also the SPR in that example was much bigger (15). So they're totally different situations, but it proves the same reasoning: equity advantage matters less the bigger the SPR. Had I made the same range confrontation in the 222 hand with an SPR of let's say 6 and OOP would have been able to retain some of his equity.
Belatedly got to see this and I want to say thank you. This is an outstanding video and I really appreciate the care and effort put into the preparation which translated to real clarity of thought and takeaways.This is a spot I have been looking at myself but you captured the key points in a way that has eluded me.I have come away feeling immediately wiser for watching your video. So thanks again.
I think a follow up dealing with river spots after we implement this strategy would be helpful.You have touched on this in a reply above but part of the EV gain of using this strategy will be to make sure we play the river correctly.
I would really like to see a video on a polarized leading strategy. Also, in the future some theory videos on river spots (leading,check raising ) would be great.
ScrappyJuice: From time to time here at RIO I have managed to get to/help someone in a big way, especially with the Pio series. Really glad the vid was useful for you.
You give me many ideas for future videos! Yet I think I have 4 remaining vids for my contract and on 2 of them the topic is already decided!
Are your sizing suggestions with the whole PIO Solver series always based on a stack size of 40BB (that you mentioned you'd play with)?
Yes, 40bb, but my gut tells me sizing won't be much different when we lead whole range. I've seen a couple high stakes player do it using about the same size. Do your own research though :)
Love the series and hoping for more!
In example 4 why is 10 such a good card for oop player but a J isn't?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.