Member Review: radtupperware $55 Ignition Victory
Posted by Ryan Henry
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 10 Comments...
Looking forward to the rest of this review!
6:00 how do you feel about a turn xr to apply pressure to the weaker portion of our opponents made range?
3:10 j43 is a range bet but 12:45 j73 is a more polar big bet board. Does the 7 make that much of a difference especially with the available straight draws are only gutters?
Thanks!
Cheers, been a wee while since I did a vanilla tournament review!
6:00: I think xr turn is reasonable, but I actually don't love using this hand for it. A few reasons. Firstly, when we xr turn its a bit of a disaster getting shoved on (won't be happy folding, but also wont be happy calling). Secondly, having a J and T isn't great to generating folds as we block TT and JJ combos. If we had say T9dd, 67dd, 65dd, 54dd (if we had it) I would use this to xr as we have a little more equity, but unblock JJ. I think as an exploit if we perceive our opponents range to be mostly TT-KK we could start using underpairs as an xr as we unblock the weak portion of range (also have equity as a set out), but also don't mind xr folding. Purely as an exploit though.
I ran the below in a solve just to make sure.
3:10 - j43r, range bet, mostly small (25%) and then some 2/3rd potting (we can also use a large sizing with a 3rd sizing, but just let it at 2 sizes to simplify. I ran this again with a flushdraw and it looks like we use the same sizing's, but more larger sizing's.
12:45 j73r, betting 75% of the time, but using pot and 180% pot. I ran it again and added in a 25% pot sizing (loses very little EV and the solver likes to bet 150% 1/2 the time and 25% 1/2 the time (this strategy would be easier to implement as well). Something to note this is chipEV and with increasing ICM that 150% pot will disappear. likely see a 1/2pot - 2/3s pot in heavy icm situations for the large sizing. Also if we use j73 with a flushdraw we don't use the 25% pot, but also don't use the 180% pot (mixing pot and 40%). To simplify you can range bet for 2/3rd pot and not lose much EV, much easier to implement too.
The ideas I have here are, we can use a smaller size on the j43r as there is more hands in villain's range that autofold, where on the j73r we use larger sizings as there are a lot of hands in villains range and can continue, but also equity can shift on a wide range of turns. Also we see the really large sizings (100-180% pot) being used as our range has more equity than say a J73ccx and so on this board villain continues more often (as they have more FDs) so we mostly just use a larger sizing, but not the very large sizing as our range has less equity compared to J73r.
Hopefully that gives some insight.
Good stuff! The main summary point I noticed from this one was finding more spots to attack/capitalize on ranges when villains give away a lot of information with their plays.
I think there were not enough big adjustments vs these ranges. Things like "villain's range is really likely weak showdown after this small turn bet" and thinking about how our range can optimally respond to that.
Another smaller note is that with ignition hand history you can always see villain's hole cards if you want to because of how they report hand histories (it's anonymous so they show every single folded hand too). There were a couple of points when you said you wanted to see what villain(s) had but they didn't showdown -- you can still see the cards by clicking the "show known hole cards" toggle in PT4 (assuming this is PT4 -- if it's something else you might need to look at the HH text for that specific hand, but all the hole cards are in there).
Cheers glad you're enjoying it, turning out to be a good hx to review.
Yeah I think its really worth trying to work out how your opponents range looks and then try to make some adjustments (obviously you can't know 100% what their range looks like, but I try to assign probabilities and then make deviations on how probable their range is).
Oh great that's good to know, I'll make sure I use it for future videos (I'm using PT4).
Yeah, you were definitely doing that kind of adjustment a lot more than me. Looking forward to seeing the rest of the hh reviewed!
I appreciate the thorough, thoughtful response. That insight makes sense. Sometimes it's hard to keep track of the changes a board card or subtle shifts in ranges make when it comes to cbet strats. It seems easy to make mistakes.
New subscriber here, and first time watching you. I enjoyed and learned a lot from hearing you talk through these hands.
21:10 -- On the Jack turn, when you say, "We're repping a Jack here, which is worth a lot more than half pot, so I would overbet", it was an 'aha!' moment for me to think about what I'm repping and what it's worth when thinking how much to bet.
27:50 and 38:30 -- I liked seeing how you ranged these two opponents when they shoved, because these spots always confound me and my brain shuts off. It seems like you think they're mostly capped in both hands, as two pair and sets would use smaller sizing. That makes a lot of sense.
Also liked hearing near the end why we prefer opening hands with blockers over low pocket pairs with short stacks behind.
Congrats to radtupperware on the victory!
Welcome to the team and glad you got some value from my video.
21:20: Yeah the way I approach these spots is if you want to still bet a more linear range you use a smaller sizing, and if you want to bet a really polar range you use a large sizing (some spots will split sizing's, for example you want to bet small and then large with different portions of your range).
27:50: No one plays perfectly and so when you see a large deviation from optimal it really important to try to range your opponent (its pretty much just node locking in game) and then come up with a reasonable response to that range.
Hello Ryan, very good and easy to follow explanation of your thinking process in your video.
25:45 - 99 - what would you do with lower pairs here?
Would you just jam 55-77? Would you limp behind or still jam weaker pairs like 22-44?
40:00 - 67 - I tend to think people bet range here from SB in game and often feel when they check here flop with 2 high cards on board they are trapping much more often then theory.
Would you agree with it in general or would you say in your experience population is still having decent amount weak hands they plan to give up with?
Thanks mate, glad you found the video useful.
25:45: I would just iso 77-99. 66 to me feels like on the line between shove and iso. I could also see some meriting to shoving 44/55. But 44 again on the line between that and limp, 22-33 i would limp along.
40:00: I'm inclined to agree with you, especially at the lower stakes. I would say population over c-bet here by a large % and when we see a check its most likely some kind of show down type hand. I do think we need to bluff sometimes vs this range, but I would be much more selective. I could see a lot more say kt/qt/jx and medium pocket pairs in this range as well as some more nutted hands, aj/jj/aa ect.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.