Multiway Pots
Posted by Qing Yang
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
Train with the best
Learn from the Run It Once Pro Team with two new instructional videos every day.
Loading 29 Comments...
Like the video! Very interesting software as well
Great video, thanks!:)
Thanks guys :)
WOW! Just a brilliant help for essential subscribers! Thank you!
Fantastic, loved it!
why button have too many(proportionally) AQo/TT , and far less Axs. To me other way around would've been better. AQo sucks to play 3-way, while Axs isn't care?
And how is overall for you this program? Better than monker in 3way ?
Ah I just used the cloud solutions for this video, not sure where the preflop ranges are from (and whether they're optimal).
I don't have monker so can't compare, but what I noticed is that simple3way is really fast, takes minutes to solve flop/turn and seconds for the river. Also nice that it shows Nash distance (not sure if monker does that).
That was a lot of great content to absorb, thanks for sharing.
Nice stuff, love the recap at the end.
Btw you can improve your mic setup for a better UX
Thank you! Yeah it's really a problem with my laptop, seems to create some kind of interference. Working with the audio guys to fix it now, hopefully the next one will be better.
Another great video, Qing Yang - It seems like you are a bit of a trail-blazer or pioneer with the content that you put out (BB 3bet sizing, Clairvoyance, Shania, Min-betting, just to name a few). Being more of a "follower," I admire that. But you are also very good at explaining what is taking place in the situations that you are describing, and that can often be the most difficult part about teaching. While there are all sorts of good videos that I can learn from, after watching your videos I often feel that my understanding of the game has just deepened. Thanks, Qing Yang, and keep up the great work!
Thank you for the kind words! Really happy that you find the videos useful :)
Great video Qing! Really liked the final part of the video.
Great video again :) amazing coach
Hi Qing
Best essential coach by far, really appreciate your vids, a pleasure to see them.
Didn’t know this tool is free. Tx for that.
I was thinking BTN was not allowed to cb a ton here, and all players tended to play very passive. I don’t really understand , for me there is a paradox between cb lower and tight because defended pot share between 3 players, and Betting a ton because 2 tight continuing range. I know BTN benefits a lot from positional advantage but I don’t know if it’s only that.
There is maybe something I miss understood here ?
Vs x x, what sizing are used BB as prob turn ? My intuition told me that we should lead nearly only polar vs x x OTF , as I played IG . Because of the nature of our betting range on the turn (we don’t bet medium TP) and also two ranges capped (more in practice than theory). So I tend to only bet Polar turn or River facing x x turn . What do you think about that ?
Thank you Yoyo, honoured that you think so!
Yes I was also quite surprised at how often BTN is supposed to bet when checked to. I think it's a combination of position and how tight BTN range is compared to MP/BB (really smashes the T95 flop). I didn't show this in the video, but on a less favourable flop like J44s, BTN only stabs 36% of the time, even when MP is cbetting 40%. And on K86s BTN stabs about half the time when MP is cbetting 12%. So we're definitely not betting super often on every flop, only the more favourable ones.
As for BB's probe sizing, BB doesn't actually have much of a probing range at equilibrium (because MP still has lots of strong hands in his checking range). But as you pointed out, I think it makes sense to have a leading range in practice, since MP is likely to be cbetting a larger % of his strong hands. Going polar makes sense, but I think sizing-wise we need to use slightly smaller bets than we would in a HU situation because we are up against an extra player, and so there is twice the chance of running into some kind of hand that improved on the turn.
I did not know that if one player is not playing gto in MW pot can hurt others EV. Dose that mean using optimal pre flop ranges can end up losing money on some tables, given that pre flop is almost always MW?
Yes, the simplest example would be when the other players actively collude vs you. It's also possible for this to happen unintentionally, eg when you flat on the BTN and the blinds are squeezing too aggressively. Here the squeezer loses ev if the opener is 4betting optimally, but a side effect is that your (GTO) flatting range loses ev as well.
in Qing Yang 's answer to this, GTO flatting range loses EV meaning it loses EV compared to the best possible response right? like the GTO flatting range should still be break even at worst right?
No I meant actually lose money, not just breakeven
Excellent video as usual. Haven't done any multi-way solving but agree with all your heuristics.
On boards that give callers a lot of sets/2p as well as those that are dynamic, I think a range check is the only way for the PFR to proceed. But on more static boards that favour the PFR's range(say A72, K83 etc), do you think a high frequency small bet is better than the large bet/check strategy the sim is using?
Also do you think the disparity between BT's betting frequency vs PFR's betting frequency is mainly a function of the sizing rather than the ranges/positions involved? If we gave BT a larger betsize we'd see the betting frequency go down like MPs and vice versa?
Good questions! I think if we want to bet at a high frequency, we definitely need to bet even smaller than we would if it was HU (something like a minbet). Would for sure be interesting to test this and compare EVs.
As for how often BTN is betting, I'm sure betsize has something to do with it too. Most likely a combination of both factors.
Great vídeo as always! Keep going (:
Hi Qing Yang Great video, but I am perhaps missing something because at equilibrium on the K86tt the PFR doesn't seem to be betting with AK,KQ a lot ( a low frequency at best) which is something I hardly ever do. Now my fear when playing these spots as the PFR is giving free cards to draws, given the btn is going to be usually suited and bb could have a raggy range, I am usually not very happy with a lot of turn cards ( T,9,7,5, the 8 or the 6 pairing , hearts) why aren't we trying to deny equity by betting against GS open-enders and flush draws etc, Since having two players against us makes it more likely that one of them could end up outdrawing us.
Consequently when I play these spots as the PFR I am extremely exploitable as I bet most of my better holdings ( TP+) to deny equity/protect and am giving up a ton when I check....What am I missing ?
apologies for the noobish question.
Thanks
Definitely understand your concern, since I used to think the same way too. It's true that equity denial is more important/effective multiway, but on the other hand you are behind twice as often, and both players should be continuing vs a bet with much stronger ranges. So your hand is much weaker than it would be heads-up, and plays especially poorly vs a raise or checkraise.
There are also some good things that can happen after you check. You can play very aggressively after IP checks back, since he has effectively capped his range. You also save some money the times that IP bets and BB checkraises and one of them has a hand.
You said that bet size should be sized down. How much? 1/2pot? 1/3pot?
Hi Qing! Addicted to your videos, really love your style and the way you explain things. Keep em coming!
Around the ~28min mark when you show the MP x/r squeeze range I see the solver folds KJ-KTs but raises K9s, do you know why maybe?
Thanks!
Probably some minor blocker effects, not something I’d worry too much about :)
Eg K9 unblocks some of BTN’s folds like KJ/KT, or something along those lines.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.