PioSolver Analysis: AKhh on KQ2ssh BTN vs SB
Posted by Sauce123
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 53 Comments...
Great video. Is there any reason why you dont checked out what OOPs range does vs a bet? Because if you assumed 1/3-pot sizing would be the play, I guess you're also assuming oop is going to fold more than 1-a and / or that we that we get raised less often (?). From my own experience at least, this seems to be the case quite often.
I would prefer if you look more into both players strategys in the future.
Thanks. I made the choice in the video to focus closely on the EV changes of different strategies and chose to only describe IP's play vs flop X and how it varied with EV and abstraction (instead of going into more depth on RvR flop play). Towards the end of the video I mentioned that the "condensed SB call range" continues around 1-A vs 1/3 pot sizing and XC all pairs with BDFD and mixes with pairs without BDFD.
I think it's certainly possible my 1/3 pot sizing was exploitative of the population, who might overfold their PPs on the flop.
What do you guys think about the length of this vid? I prefer theory videos that are 10-30 minutes long if possible.
For a mere mortal like me, these types of theory videos take up a lot of mental energy. So I like the shorter video length.
I like the length. You covered the topic in enough depth to get your points across without getting sucked into the rabbit hole for an hour or more.
was a good length
fine length. i generally sit and watch half and then do something else and then come back and watch the second half so i dont mind either way
Good length
I like this length Ben especially for the PIO videos, anymore planned for future??
Are you running those sims on your computer or do you use some sort of cloud service? I can barely run a sim with two bet sizes on each street let alone 3 on flop 2 on turn and 3 on river.
What's your available ram?
great use of PIO, superb video.
You mention that getting close to the right bet size will capture most of the EV of a more complicated, multiple bet size strategy. What factors might change this statement? As in, what factors won't allow us to capture most of the EV of the more complicated strategy?
David,
This is a complicated question. One example is Pio outputs with a bimodal distribution. For example, if B33 45% and B100 30%. It's usually true that picking a middling betsize won't capture all of the EV. Every spot is different though.
I liked it too, there is usually too much rambling on longer videos and i end up closing the vid. This format is perfect.
Just out of curiosity, how long does a flop calculation takes ?
I'm ran these on a MacBook and they each took around 45 minutes.
Very good video. Thanks :)
The process to ask the solver which sizing is most likely the best is very valuable.
Ben - I've noticed on flops such as these, at least in 3-bet pots, our bet size tends to shift larger if the board contains a flush draw (same flop otherwise). I'm not sure if this changes in single raised pots but I'm assuming it would.
Does our strategy hold true if this same board comes down rainbow? I will be plugging this in tonight.
I'm not sure, I haven't run this board rainbow.
Great video Ben!
I've spent a decent bit of time over the last few months tinkering with Pio, in particular exploring the differences in strategies when one range is the "nut favourite" and the other is an equity favourite. So I was happy to see this come up in the video and to find that we had relatively similar conclusions.
We see these type of spots (nut range vs. equity favourite) a fair bit when the PFR faces an IP cold call. I was wondering how your strategy differs when the nut range is OOP as described above rather than IP like we saw in the video? Pio seems to do a lot of checking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've noticed from your live play videos that you tend to be fairly more aggressive with cb as the OOP PFR in these spots compared to what Pio does. Thoughts?
Hope to see more Pio content in the future, though I'm sure this type of video takes a long time to make. Personally, I don't have a huge preference with absolute length, but I thought you did a great job with the pace of this video.
I've made the same observations as EP pfr vs LP cold calls, where PIO recommends CBetting like 9% on some unfavorable boards. This has led to me checking a lot OOP when getting called which is, as you say, something that many great players don't do as much as I. I'd also be very interested to hear Sauce's thoughts on this!
I'd just like to add that I enjoyed this video a lot as well. PIO is a very interesting tool and I'd like more videos using it!
I'm probably too aggressive in these spots. I do find that these sorts of sims are usually very sensitive to the assumptions you make about the cold caller's range, causing more uncertainty in how to play correctly.
They are also sensitive to the strategy the OOP player will take vs you post-flop so I think it would be useful to node lock some general population tendencies on the flop to get a more clear picture of your overall ev in these spots. My guess is your result will be better than what PIO is currently suggesting for your 1/3rd pot size flop bet until general population tendencies become closer to what PIO suggests for current flop strategies.
Great video, keep them coming!
Great video. This format is excellent.
Great video, I like this length or more in depth... focused on whatever conclusions you think are key coming from PIO...I've been quite surprised at how often PIO does favor full pot bets on draw heavy boards or large check raises when OOP... even in 3bet pots I've seen that PIO often favors full size bets on semi-wet boards which include flush draws...
Great vid Ben ! I haven't any questions, you just convinced me to buy PioSolver (even if i don't play cg) it's definitely a useful tool to understand GTO and build strong strategies. I just search somebody actually who want to buy with me this tool as it's quite expensive for me, pm if you're interested (the pro version). Thanks
Great video, thank you! You may have mentioned this at the start and I missed it, but what effect does selecting 100bb stacks have compared with the 30 ish that you actually had in the hand example?
I don't know.
What is your view on the consequences of comparing solutions in an equilibrium framework for this specific point in the game tree when previous decisions, such as the hero's and villain's preflop range construction (as well as the assumption that villain has no leading range), are not at equilibrium?
If we grant that the hand was not played in equilibrium up to the flop, what is the integrity of analyzing the flop decisions through an equilibrium lens? And if we were to continue the analysis for future decisions in the branches in which villain does not fold, would we continue to use an equilibrium solution approach or would we revert back to making assumptions that are non-equilibrium-based?
As I demonstrated in the video, I chose to manipulate variables one at a time (sb calling range, betsize abstraction for IP) and look at changes in the outputs. When the outputs are robust to changes in the inputs it's a particularly good spot for solver work.
Anyways, I don't really want to come at this from a philosophical/argumentative standpoint because I think it's very obvious that solver work is the nuts and I feel like going into all the arguments obscures that basic point.
after reading your reply, I reread my message and felt it may come off as combative. My intention was the opposite, but the point may have been muddled in my excitement.
The points you make in the first paragraph of your response - I agree with these wholeheartedly. Forgive me for asking an abstract question, but I am trying to understand the consequences of equilibrium solution work at one point of the tree when other points were taken without an equilibrium approach. And stepping back, when you compare the bb/100 of differing bet sizes, and you determine (conclusively) that a pot sizing is x bb/100 better than a different sizing, what does this difference in bb/100 mean? Is it that this bet sizing is closer to equilibrium by that magnitude of x bb/100?
This may be too general, but what does it mean to be x bb/100 closer to equilibrium (if my previous statement is correct in its understanding) relative to a real winrate vs. opponents who are not at equilibrium? The opponent piosolver assumes plays the flop in equilibrium (correct?); how do we translate these findings to opponents who do not play equilibrium at this decision point?
Thank you for the great video.
A recent video I made, Intro to Solver, addresses most of these points (I think). Zach's recent video also does a good job comparing GTO strategies to various exploitative ones. Check both of those vids out and get some experience using these tools and let us know what questions they raise for you.
Hi Ben, one thing to note is that as button increases his bet size OTF and thus increases his polarity, the OOP player is increasingly incentivized to find small leads on turns that dramatically redistribute the range vs range equities. Leaving this out of the abstraction usually causes Pio to favor larger sizes OTF. I know you're well aware of this and probably left it out because of RAM limitations. Enjoyable video otherwise!
reStacks,
Great comment, I always enjoy it when people point out stuff like this.
I agree, I only gave OOP 75% on the turn, and 40%/100% (I think) on the river. I agree that given 33%/75%/125% on the turn we'd see some more mixing with made hands up to AK/KK, more mixing with TP/MP and a bit more checking of draws. That being said, I don't think it's a huge effect.
Long time fan of your videos Ben, but this was exceptionally useful. I've been toying with PIO myself but with out a clear process for comparing different strategies. The clarity of your methodology will be really helpful. Thanks again.
Thanks Sam!
Hey Ben, great video. You said a couple times that the point of the video wasn't to analyze the actual flop betting ranges - combos/frequencies/etc - which I think would be an awesome idea for a future video.
I've been studying this stuff semi-obsessively lately and while my understanding is much greater than it was a couple months ago, I still get stuck sometimes trying to figure out why certain blockers have such a big impact on what pio is betting, checking, raising, etc. It'd be cool to see you do a deep analysis on pio's frequencies in some random scenario.
Thanks Tim, I'll keep it in mind.
Sometimes I've convinced myself PIO is picking certain suits arbitrarily-- but this only demonstrates my lack of understanding of why it chooses certain suits to call/raise/fold. +1 to seeing another PIO video looking at this.
great vid-
@21.30 using your 50% pot bet strat you calculate it only has a loss rate of !/3 teh 1/3 psb sizing. i believe this is because youre dividing it by 4.1 (MES EV?!) and not pot size (6). using 6 (pot size) would be the correct term, wouldnt it?
i see you caught this error a moment later when showing the full pot ev, and are now dividing by GTO ev, but then you still eave B33 unchanged as dividing it by 6 (full pot) and not GTO EV, i think this mischaracterizes how big of a mistake b33 is, does it not?
R,
The result is fine (I think), I just typed 3.396/4.1 instead of 3.396/6. The result that I'm showing in the video is (GTO EV)-(SINGLE SIZE EV) So in the second case it's 3.41-3.396=.014bb/hand. That's 1.4bb/100, which is around 1/3 the loss rate of B33 only.
Hey guys. Im pretty new to the game. Could someone please explain to me what 1-A (1 minus alpha) means, or can you point me in the right direction to where to find this information?
you can probably search for this. my understanding is that it means defending at a frequency that makes your opponent indifferent to bluffing. eg - your opponent bets pot on the river. you haven't played much w/ him. if you fold more than 50% of your range then he has a profitable bluff w/ any two cards. so you can choose to call ~50% of your river range in an effort to make him indifferent to bluffing. (if he bets 1/2 pot, you would need to defend 66% of your range to make him indifferent to bluffing).
there are times that you fold more than 1-a (as a bb defender when you arrive at the flop w a very wide range oop, or when you suspect your opponent is underbluffing). but it ends up being a reasonable default when you don't really know what's going on at the river.
absolutely great vid. thanks for making it
Hello, in the spot where you are playing live is a KsQh2s board. In PIO you made it KsQs2h, don't know if it was on purpose or a mistake. Are there a differences between playing AhKh on these two boards, and can you apply this PIO strategy also on the first board?
Thanks for the vid.
I'm trying to work on more basic stuff than the difference between KsQh2s and KsQs2h.
I think you didn't get my point. I just wanted to know if you changed the board on purpose or not :) because I think some part of the strategy may be different on the board you get to PIO with changed suits in comparision to the hand you played on the beginning of the video, if you know what I mean.
Hi, awesome video, thanks a lot. I'm curious what you might think of this spot: we open utg 2.5x(15%) and bb calls (32%-4%). Flop AK5r: I gave Pio the option (25,40,75,125) on the flop (75,125) turn/river. PIO choose the 75% size with an almost 50% prequency (and turn/river mostly overbetting). I'm curious why not 100% with a 1/3 size compared to so many other spots. Guess the moment when we have a massive advantage we wanna try to put all our bluffs in our betting range and therefore bet bigger?
Very solid video! So it seems that versus relatively tight calling ranges (SB calling range or calling IP before the blinds) we should be more polarized because of his equity advantage and the fact that he doesn't have that many hands that are "forced" to fold, whereas when playing againts loose calling ranges (BB calling range), we should go for smaller sizing with many hands, because in this case villain doesn't have equity advantage and he has a lot of hands that are forced to fold.
I can definitely understand your original thought process and how you came up to those conclusions (in-game). Results of this analysis are very enlightening!
So yeah, I really liked the video. The theme of this video was pretty much range vs range, other having the equity advantage and other having more nuts. Maybe your next (PioSOLVER) video could be similar, but this time the one with equity advantage would be PFR and the one with more nut combos would be the caller?
Thanks for this!
+1 for more pio content/theory. Have learned more from those as a whole. Also +1 for the shortish time length. Easier to digest imo
hi, so from playing around with pio myself ive noticed that it suggests a lot of protection / mergey raising/checkraising on flops that i never do myself or see coaches on here implement. Should i be implementing these into my own game? what is the reason that most regs/ coaches dont use some of these PIO suggested strategies?
Sweet video Ben, would love to see more!
I hope one day I grow up to be a God like you Ben.
This was a very good video. Regarding the first hand discussed the fact that it impacts your winrate to the extent described seems very surprising. Is the implication that you are a losing player at -4bb/100, and the next day you play this spot differently betting full pot half the time instead of 1/3 pot 80% of the time and now you're a winning player?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.