On the flop do we have to defend (1-a) if we do not check 100% on the flop? In the crEV SB bets with ~49% frequency and checks with 51%. So we do not always check to BB and I percieve that SB should be defending less that (1-a) because of that.
Sorry, this is the kind of basic terminology I'm assuming you'll know. I recommend reading Mathematics of Poker, doing a google search, for example 'poker alpha calculation' https://www.google.com/search?q=poker+alpha+8&oq=poker+alpha&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.1823j1j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=poker+alpha+calculation, or posting in the forums, or watching one of the many theory videos on this topic (to find these you can use the search function on RIO then type in 'alpha' and then the videos including the word 'alpha' in their comments section will appear), or you can just watch my Toy Gaming series, a variety of Tyler's videos, Steve Paul's debut video, and I'm sure others I'm missing.
Alpha is just a risk/reward ratio that is used when determining optimal bluffing and bluff catching frequencies in some scenarios. You can calculate it as RISK / (RISK + REWARD). The optimal defense frequency is the complement of that. Be careful to know the conditions for when it applies.
For your convenience, here are links to some of the videos that Ben mentioned:
I am answering to your previous reply, Ben. How can one calculate if you have to defend (1-a) or not OTF? I have no idea to be honest. I am just using my common sense. When you have 100% checking range OTF and when you have 50% checking range and 50% betting range these spots are different and you should have different X/defend frequencies for both of them, right?
1-a doesn't automatically apply when there are range asymmetries or when there are streets left to play. At least not in the straightforward sense. It's perfectly possible to arrive in situations where you are supposed to fold much more than alpha. Or much less. Calculating if you have to defend or not OTF is not usually as easy as just plugging numbers into a simple formula. You'll be much better served by a solid understanding of the concept.
Theoretical bluffing/calling frequencies for the flop can be calculated by just chaining the 1-a formula, but that again may not give you the answer that you want.
Not necessarily. You defend less than 1-alpha when your opponent has a range advantage: more value hands than u particularly. If you have a range advantage into the flop, you can still bet a range of value and bluffs that leaves you able to defend to make it non ev for oppo to bet with no equity on the flop.
It seems like this video (and the last video on solvers) weren't very popular in comparison to my normal videos (playing live zoom, hand reviews etc), so I'm thinking I'll either change the format of the solver series in the new year or stop the series. In any case, it takes me significantly longer to produce the more analytical content than the live play type of content, and since people seem to enjoy the live play content more, I don't see much incentive to make the hardcore analytical videos. Let me know if you have any suggestions to make this series more approachable/entertaining, or if you have any other theory video ideas.
I guess my thoughts are that it's hard to extract the content out of the solver vids without making the viewer follow along with the data analysis part. As you can see in this video, that can make for dry viewing. So if you guys have ideas on how I can improve presentation while retaining high quality content that'd be nice too.
You could always get Morgan Freeman to narrate it for you. I'm pretty sure that makes everything better.
In all seriousness though, I enjoy these types of videos. Not everything about poker has to be fun, sometimes it's just about learning. If the people prefer the action of live play and they prefer to focus on the entertainment part then I don't think there's any way to make a video like this as entertaining as a live play video even if it's more helpful strategically
I think the video content is very good. For some people not the most entertaining one but I have not subscribed RIO for entertaining element. I want to get better at NLHE.
I loved the video. Especially part when comparing different game plans for SB vs BB turn over bet strategy and how they affect EV of BB's play(s) on the river if SB does not have XR range and all of that stuff. This type of videos is by far my favorite one or you can say the most entertaining one. You really get to see how many things you have to consider vs player you are playing against and tailor your game plan to it.
In my opinion, this is a beauty of poker and I would be very sad if these series would not continue. I find live play videos boring / less entertaining (if 3 of my favorite RIO coaches are not playing) because simply there is just soooo many of them
+1 to zeltzn's post. I've gotten the most value out of your theory and solver vids.
As for another area to make videos on, I'd really like to see some theory videos on bet sizing. Basically explaining how we can use theory to arrive at the optimal bet sizing choice(s) for our range. A few central spots you could tackle could be:
-Bet sizing in capped vs uncapped scenarios (both sides) *
-Bet sizing in situations resembling 0-1 symmetrical ranges. *
-Optimal bet sizing based on dryness or wetness of the texture.
-Showing how bet sizing and value:air ratios can be designed to make certain hand thresholds indfferent between all 3 options.
-Showing how our betting frequency and size should change relative to villain's nut frequency on various textures.
I'm sure there are other areas but these are the ones that are interesting to me at the moment.
*I know these have been covered in other videos, but I'm not sure the bet sizing idea was covered in the 0-1 symmetrical games or how changes in bet size could effect what hands we're choosing to bet.
I also greatly enjoyed this video explained from a world class player perspective. Unfortunately most people are not willing to do the analytical work themselves so they will just skip to easier live play videos in order to find something easy to emulate without much effort.
Anyway I think some of the more hardworking regs do benefit more from something with this level of depth and greatly appreciate it. It just so happens they are and will always be a minority. If you feel like your efforts are not being appreciated enough you have a fair point, but you know very well already that the reception of this video is likely to be very polarized compared to a live play session.
Just wanted to chime in that I recently joined and am burning through all the solver/theory videos. I think they're by far the most differentiated part of the site. I hope you keep making them Ben.
Thanks for the video, Ben, and the poke to make the effort to watch it. I initially shied away basically out of laziness. Unfortunately I don't have many ideas for making analytical study less dense that aren't annoyingly gimmicky and intentionally distracting (wear a bunny suit), but a thought might be to pause the analysis every 15 minutes or so and bring up a reinforcing anecdotal hand or story. This, of course, is more work.
Please don't take the data out of the solver type videos, lol. One kind of lame point is that had you referenced the hand in the title or description - "otb vs. kanu hse" or the like - I'm pretty sure I would have watched it sooner. Not that I think you'd come up with uninteresting scenarios to talk about, but I think it's fair to say that the previous video got an enthusiastic reception, even for one of yours.
Very cool to see that c/r 66 on the turn has such dramatic effects on otb's strategy choice.
I felt like most that got covered in this video have been covered earlier in both your rio videos and other instructors.
Also personally i think the solving tool is more messy in crev than pio for example. Pio is prob what most ppl are used to (?) so imo if you continue with solving videos rather use pio.
+1 for Pio, and also just wanted to chime in that theory based videos are more than welcome. Hope I don't sound like a douchebag or anything, but to me it seems like a lot of the pro videos that get posted are like the 5th attempt of recording, and the pro finally catches a good run of cards. If there was a simple way of verifying, I'd easily take a bet that instructors on here have >25bb/100 in their aggregated winrate for the videos posted.
With theory there's no variance involved, just plain and simple facts, delivered by some of the best in the business. To me that's often more interesting than watching 40 minutes of rungood.
this is really good. but would get more attention if you named it High Stakes Explained: Kanu v OTB CREV analysis or something like that. i feel like that gets everyones attention
What are your reasons to giving 3.5x 62,9% stealing range from the sb, where from what I know most high stakes players is opening around 50% for 3x and bigger sizings should be stronger.
Loading 25 Comments...
Very good. If u put your turn ranges into a solver and solve for turn and river in a similar way, you could make a part two:)
Hi Ben! Love your theory videos.
I would like to ask something:
On the flop do we have to defend (1-a) if we do not check 100% on the flop? In the crEV SB bets with ~49% frequency and checks with 51%. So we do not always check to BB and I percieve that SB should be defending less that (1-a) because of that.
I think you can probably test this idea yourself, let me know what you discover.
Early in the video: What is alpha and how is it calculated?
Looking forward to finishing it now. Looks promising!
Sorry, this is the kind of basic terminology I'm assuming you'll know. I recommend reading Mathematics of Poker, doing a google search, for example 'poker alpha calculation' https://www.google.com/search?q=poker+alpha+8&oq=poker+alpha&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.1823j1j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=poker+alpha+calculation, or posting in the forums, or watching one of the many theory videos on this topic (to find these you can use the search function on RIO then type in 'alpha' and then the videos including the word 'alpha' in their comments section will appear), or you can just watch my Toy Gaming series, a variety of Tyler's videos, Steve Paul's debut video, and I'm sure others I'm missing.
Alpha is just a risk/reward ratio that is used when determining optimal bluffing and bluff catching frequencies in some scenarios. You can calculate it as RISK / (RISK + REWARD). The optimal defense frequency is the complement of that. Be careful to know the conditions for when it applies.
For your convenience, here are links to some of the videos that Ben mentioned:
Improving on "1-A"
Analyzing a River C/R Range
Toy Gaming (part 2)
Book-Keeping
Thanks for the further input guys.
The video turned out to be highly educative and of much more value than live play for me. +1 for doing solver videos instead of other formats.
I am answering to your previous reply, Ben. How can one calculate if you have to defend (1-a) or not OTF? I have no idea to be honest. I am just using my common sense. When you have 100% checking range OTF and when you have 50% checking range and 50% betting range these spots are different and you should have different X/defend frequencies for both of them, right?
You're at equilibrium if neither player can unilaterally increase their EV.
1-a doesn't automatically apply when there are range asymmetries or when there are streets left to play. At least not in the straightforward sense. It's perfectly possible to arrive in situations where you are supposed to fold much more than alpha. Or much less. Calculating if you have to defend or not OTF is not usually as easy as just plugging numbers into a simple formula. You'll be much better served by a solid understanding of the concept.
Theoretical bluffing/calling frequencies for the flop can be calculated by just chaining the 1-a formula, but that again may not give you the answer that you want.
Not necessarily. You defend less than 1-alpha when your opponent has a range advantage: more value hands than u particularly. If you have a range advantage into the flop, you can still bet a range of value and bluffs that leaves you able to defend to make it non ev for oppo to bet with no equity on the flop.
Thanks Ben, you made my Christmas dreams come true!
Awesome1 Thought provoking and looks like a lot of work went into the video....
Hey all,
It seems like this video (and the last video on solvers) weren't very popular in comparison to my normal videos (playing live zoom, hand reviews etc), so I'm thinking I'll either change the format of the solver series in the new year or stop the series. In any case, it takes me significantly longer to produce the more analytical content than the live play type of content, and since people seem to enjoy the live play content more, I don't see much incentive to make the hardcore analytical videos. Let me know if you have any suggestions to make this series more approachable/entertaining, or if you have any other theory video ideas.
I guess my thoughts are that it's hard to extract the content out of the solver vids without making the viewer follow along with the data analysis part. As you can see in this video, that can make for dry viewing. So if you guys have ideas on how I can improve presentation while retaining high quality content that'd be nice too.
You could always get Morgan Freeman to narrate it for you. I'm pretty sure that makes everything better.
In all seriousness though, I enjoy these types of videos. Not everything about poker has to be fun, sometimes it's just about learning. If the people prefer the action of live play and they prefer to focus on the entertainment part then I don't think there's any way to make a video like this as entertaining as a live play video even if it's more helpful strategically
I think the video content is very good. For some people not the most entertaining one but I have not subscribed RIO for entertaining element. I want to get better at NLHE.
I loved the video. Especially part when comparing different game plans for SB vs BB turn over bet strategy and how they affect EV of BB's play(s) on the river if SB does not have XR range and all of that stuff. This type of videos is by far my favorite one or you can say the most entertaining one. You really get to see how many things you have to consider vs player you are playing against and tailor your game plan to it.
In my opinion, this is a beauty of poker and I would be very sad if these series would not continue. I find live play videos boring / less entertaining (if 3 of my favorite RIO coaches are not playing) because simply there is just soooo many of them
+1 to zeltzn's post. I've gotten the most value out of your theory and solver vids.
As for another area to make videos on, I'd really like to see some theory videos on bet sizing. Basically explaining how we can use theory to arrive at the optimal bet sizing choice(s) for our range. A few central spots you could tackle could be:
-Bet sizing in capped vs uncapped scenarios (both sides) *
-Bet sizing in situations resembling 0-1 symmetrical ranges. *
-Optimal bet sizing based on dryness or wetness of the texture.
-Showing how bet sizing and value:air ratios can be designed to make certain hand thresholds indfferent between all 3 options.
-Showing how our betting frequency and size should change relative to villain's nut frequency on various textures.
I'm sure there are other areas but these are the ones that are interesting to me at the moment.
*I know these have been covered in other videos, but I'm not sure the bet sizing idea was covered in the 0-1 symmetrical games or how changes in bet size could effect what hands we're choosing to bet.
I also greatly enjoyed this video explained from a world class player perspective. Unfortunately most people are not willing to do the analytical work themselves so they will just skip to easier live play videos in order to find something easy to emulate without much effort.
Anyway I think some of the more hardworking regs do benefit more from something with this level of depth and greatly appreciate it. It just so happens they are and will always be a minority. If you feel like your efforts are not being appreciated enough you have a fair point, but you know very well already that the reception of this video is likely to be very polarized compared to a live play session.
Just wanted to chime in that I recently joined and am burning through all the solver/theory videos. I think they're by far the most differentiated part of the site. I hope you keep making them Ben.
Thanks for the video, Ben, and the poke to make the effort to watch it. I initially shied away basically out of laziness. Unfortunately I don't have many ideas for making analytical study less dense that aren't annoyingly gimmicky and intentionally distracting (wear a bunny suit), but a thought might be to pause the analysis every 15 minutes or so and bring up a reinforcing anecdotal hand or story. This, of course, is more work.
Please don't take the data out of the solver type videos, lol. One kind of lame point is that had you referenced the hand in the title or description - "otb vs. kanu hse" or the like - I'm pretty sure I would have watched it sooner. Not that I think you'd come up with uninteresting scenarios to talk about, but I think it's fair to say that the previous video got an enthusiastic reception, even for one of yours.
Very cool to see that c/r 66 on the turn has such dramatic effects on otb's strategy choice.
I felt like most that got covered in this video have been covered earlier in both your rio videos and other instructors.
Also personally i think the solving tool is more messy in crev than pio for example. Pio is prob what most ppl are used to (?) so imo if you continue with solving videos rather use pio.
+1 for Pio, and also just wanted to chime in that theory based videos are more than welcome. Hope I don't sound like a douchebag or anything, but to me it seems like a lot of the pro videos that get posted are like the 5th attempt of recording, and the pro finally catches a good run of cards. If there was a simple way of verifying, I'd easily take a bet that instructors on here have >25bb/100 in their aggregated winrate for the videos posted.
With theory there's no variance involved, just plain and simple facts, delivered by some of the best in the business. To me that's often more interesting than watching 40 minutes of rungood.
Happy new year, may we both crush 2016!
Keep making the solver videos because I really enjoy learning about off the table software.
this is really good. but would get more attention if you named it High Stakes Explained: Kanu v OTB CREV analysis or something like that. i feel like that gets everyones attention
What are your reasons to giving 3.5x 62,9% stealing range from the sb, where from what I know most high stakes players is opening around 50% for 3x and bigger sizings should be stronger.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.