$500 Zoom PLO: Real Time Analysis then some Solver
Posted by Richard Gryko
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 12 Comments...
Great job, and a very good format, really hope to see more, thank you!
yes excellent format
A+
Hey Richard,
Really great format! I think other coaches should follow lead and do solver analysis right after the hand rather than playing out all the hands and choosing important ones at the end of the video. This way, things can still be fresh in viewers' minds.
I really enjoyed the concept of card sharing in multiway spots - it makes a ton of sense!
Some questions:
Thanks in advance!
Great content and keep it up!
Hey,
Thanks :)
Questions
-AT87 lead, yeah it led my precise combo at a super high freq but as I said in vid, it depends a lot on how granular you are, AT87 globally doesn’t do much leading, I think I’d prefer to lead all AT87 at low freq than try to pick out the one combo that goes for it a bunch, given that the reason it goes for it so often in solver land may not apply to real world. As for why this hand gets led at all - things like, SB cold call range does well on this turn, lot of broadway combos pick up equity, we need to find some unpaired bluffs or our leading range can get very value heavy and this is one of our stronger options, it also has pretty good riv playability in a b/c scenario, the overcard means we can fold IP off some flopped top pair etc.
-KT76, yes id def go along with that, solid in theory and likely works even better vs avg population response.
Hey Richard, great format, couple questions and comments:
At 23 minutes you say "rolled it" suggesting you are using a rng for certain frequency based decisions. Can you comment on doing this rather than using side cards which seems to be widely accepted as a better strategy for PLO if you can break them down into clean enough categories heuristically to actually implement?
This is more generic and something I've noticed in your other videos as well, you don't seem to bet full pot very often, even in spots where it's getting mixed in at a reasonable frequency. You, similar to me, seem to base your sizing strategy more around 1/3 and 2/3 or 3/4 sizing's. I've actually been working to switch this and get more comfortable "potting" more often and how to balance my betting accordingly, so I was wondering if you could shed some light on how you approach this. Are you deriving your sizing's based on what you think is most effective versus populations tendencies for specific reasons about how they defend, because you think it's just "gto", or is this just a coincidence and I'm totally wrong?
Hey,
I go back and forth on using a RNG, its a topic I’ve attempted to organise my thoughts more clearly on but a short summary would be - I think theres a place for it in situations where insufficient info exists to make either a more informed decision or an exploitative adjustment, but just randomising for the sake of it is likely a manifestation of a psychological leak and pretty counter productive, so I do tend to use sidecards a whole bunch more. I think randomising should be done a whole bunch more on early streets than on the river, but sometimes I use it to break myself out of a mental loop.
Sizing choices - I use full pot reasonably often, I think, although prob more on the river than on earlier streets, but in terms of the process I use to derive baseline sizing strats, I do have some ideas/data about sizings that populations perform poorly against, but most often I’m just using what I think is the best technical option.
17:15 Why do you not think lead is a good option with this hand? Is it because of positions? I would think this hand becomes a better lead vs utg than btn bc of high card/lack of low card concentrations is that why?
27:40 When you filter so precisely like this do you ever worry that the convergence is low and thus any patterns shown are rubbish?
29:30-29:45 You say "we can reasonably infer..." do you say we can infer this because of other solver observations where: a) when oop has decent draw, no top of range blockers - favor XC and b) when oop has decent draw + blocker - favor BF and c) when oop has better/nuttier draw regardless of having blocker to nut made hands - favor BC?
34:40 So, sim has larger cbet size than actual - "any tweak...increase ev of calling and not do the same thing to ev of raising", but if ALL other factors except pot size were held constant (yes I know, a large stretch what if scenario) then of course ev of xr vs 50% would appear to be a smaller win than ev of xr vs 70%. Assuming "any tweak" refers to a smaller than sim cbet size, obviously oop continues more frequently, which means an increase in both actions. Is there any heuristic that can be applied to understand how we should move hands from passive actions to aggressive ones? (i.e. moving hands from F to C, F to XR, C to XR.....and maybe some special combos move passively from XR to C idk)
17.15 - depolarised future eq distribution, high EV chkcall or in chkthrough, in tough spot vs IP raise, no nut blockers. Vs UTG I think pretty similar things, he'll have better pair+better FD at higher freq, the mid straight cards where I improve he won't put much money in.
27.40 - yes, definitely, see reply to 5BetJam.
29.30-29.45 - I'm not sure I get this, reviewing the vid this is when I'm discussing unpaired hands we lead on turn, and following on from your last point, we lead my combo always but my hand class not very much, so to try and get a big picture understanding of unpaired lead range composition I looked at OOP %s vs IP raise, saw we weren't folding that much, and given we're folding the AT87, decided that I most likely shouldn't be leading that hand class at much of a frequency. I'm not sure if that addresses your question tbh, let me know if you have a re-follow-up :p
34.40 - at high SPR pre-river (such as a SRP) we need to do more calling and more raising vs smaller sizings, at low SPR pre-river (such as a 3BP) we need to do more calling vs smaller sizings and, in a lot of cases, more raising vs larger ones. So, smaller sizings can move some hands from F to C and, prob less commonly, C to XR, F to XR is pretty rare, XR to C would be the reverse of C to XR so would see it some amount as sizing increased.
I love your videos, thanks for the great work
First video I've watched on RIO in a bit... here are my notes.
Excellent video and solver work. Personally I feel full post session commentary to be best as it allows you to stop the video playback and elaborate on spots especially when dealing with multiple zoom tables.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.