Crush Playing Iso Pots Against Recreationals
Posted by Steve Paul
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 20 Comments...
Hello Steve, I like this idea of training vs wider ranges that we suspect recreational players will play. I have a few spots set up on the GTOWizard trainer like this. I think it's a good way to find a baseline of how to play vs recs and is a quick way to learn the differences in strategy vs a wider range. I like training the CO vs BTN SRP version of this as this is the most common (I think?) scenario where we face a substantially wider range, and its still hard to play OOP even vs a rec. Default vs a reg is often to range check on a lot of boards, but this doesn't hold true when you input a rec's range. If however, you nodelock the rec to stab the flop too often then we go back to a range check on many boards with plenty of check-raising.
Nice, I was thinking of looking at this spot for my next video!
It will make for a good follow up video for sure. Being OOP adds an extra dimension to it and a few more strategic options. Look forward to hearing your thoughts on it!
matlittle I am not sure these online flop float bets happen as much in live cash as they do online. I have been playing mostly a range check SRP OOP or when I'm monkey in the middle SRP OOP. What I notice at least in these 1/3 and 2/5 games I play in Vegas a lot of players just take a free card with their draws and will bet when they have a pair. Their PP, 2nd pair, & top pair will stab too often, but they are not betting enough draws. I was thinking just betting your strong value OOP gains the most EV in these spots even though it leaves your checking range mostly capped. Some other reasons I like fast playing OOP is the XR scares players to think you have a lot of 2 pair, sets, or over pairs. Compared to if you bet they are more likely to make a lot of calling mistakes.
Lastly I still have no idea how to treat this situation. EP limps 1bb, hero HJ ISO 4bb, BTN calls, BB calls, and limper calls. Now we have 16.5bb in the pot, 1 player has position on us and 2 players we have position on. Are we checking range here because we are OOP vs 1 player similar to Co vs BTN? Are we betting because we have position on 2 players? Even if this spot was 3 way where we have position over a limper, but we are monkey in the middle seems confusing. Some type of hybrid poker of being IP & OOP at the same time! Because the pot is bloated, I almost want to treat it as SB vs BTN 3BP OOP. Where we mix cbetting. Any advice on this?
In these multiway situations I'm really just focusing on where the rec is. So if a rec is the coldcaller I'm inclined to check a lot because it's so valuable when the rec stabs and the other players have to act before me, but if the rec is OOP then I want to bet my strong hands/draws myself because the IP reg is probably not stabbing super often 4way.
There are 2 MDA considerations that I think will add some value to your current baseline strategy. Firstly recs will probe the turn way too often, so will put in too much money in that line. They will make plenty of large EV mistakes in that line and also will give off bet sizing tells which gives you even more EV. That leak will affect your cbetting strategy and make you more likely to check back the flop with a thin value hand.
So when it comes to cbetting the flop wider for value I think that it's a good in the following scenarios:
1. When your hand is vulnerable and requires some protection
2. Where you can go thinner for value on the flop AND are likely to be going 3 streets for value often
I think the AT4r is a poor example to cbet thinner for value on - hands like A9 or A8 are unlikely to go 3 streets, don't require much protection, and will gain EV from probing errors so will be higher EV as a check.
This makes a lot of sense, thanks for the comment
The second MDA consideration is that they fold too much vs river barrels, which helps your idea of giving up less on rivers. This is partly due to having a substantial donking range which removes strong hands from their range, and also partly because they check-call plenty of no-showdown-value draws which simply can't call a river bet.
8min I think training IP vs a wide limp call range is good practice. I wish we could node lock them to XR less often and donk bet more often. We end up betting way more often for a variety of sizes whenever they don't XR unless they have a monster. I want the node lock to come through in the drill, not on an individual hand basis.
This also increases our OOP cbet frequency if IP doesn't raise often enough. Lastly we get to size larger on the flop and grow the pot because they will raise their good hands and cap their range by calling and over folding on later streets. Matt Hunt made a video for wizard on this concept, but he did crazy wide ranges at 50bb.
I have very mixed feelings with node locks (as you see a bit in this video). On the one hand it can be very useful to see how changes affect your strategy but on the other it's really easy to 'accidentally' prove whatever you want to be correct
42min on AKTr-6ss board. I am surprised to see a turn Over bet. I thought whenever a player has QJo / QJs for all 16 combos of straights in their range we do not overbet. But wizard is going B67-B119 here. I wouldn't go bigger than B75 with a straight possible. Maybe I still need to OB more often.
In general from what I've seen when the turn is a blank solver likes the overbet even if a straight is possible - whereas when the straight gets there on the turn it often (but not always) sizes down. GTOw AI does this exactly BTNvsBB if you force a b67 on the flop - on AKTr6 it chooses b100 on the turn, but on AK6rT it chooses b67
44:30 your note on using bigger bets on AK7 and T75. How would you classify 66 earlier in the video (17:30) on Q94r where it's using 67% pot with most of its range. Are we just range betting for larger size whenever we have set advantage?
I'm much more willing vs recs to match my hand to my size instead of just having one. So bet small with 66 on Q94 seems ok (plenty worse will call, and protection is valuable) but check back planning to call some turns/rivers seems fine as well.
As for solver, I think it's less about set advantage and more about villain having so many medium/low strength hands on these types of boards (way too much offsuit middling cards pre = tons of mediocre hands on Q94) and we take advantage of our stronger range with bigger bets.
Lastly I wouldn't mind a part 2 of playing vs limpers. Maybe can pull up some real time hands from your database where you isolated preflop or even went MW. But would like to see a drill where you give yourself 33-50-75-100 bet sizes so you can drill what happens more often in practice than what solver is doing.
Great video
Would love to see some live 100/200 NL 6max vids from Pokerstars Ontario as you mentioned you reside in that province, cheers !
Hi Steve, can you give me a basic approach vs. a rec who limps in position and we check the BB with our garbage/non raisable hands? Are you checking your range to the IP limper, or are you leading certain portions of your range out of the BB? i've been given advice to just lead anything with equity (including middle/bottom pairs). I made a sim with gto+ and indeed on a KQ6tt board we as the bb are basically checking range. Others have told me it doesn't make sense to play a gto strategy vs. a limping rec, what do you think? Thanks.
Not a spot I've put a ton of thought into, but my basic approach would be to bet the thinner value hands, especially if they benefit from protection and bet the equity hands that can get better to fold. With stronger value hands I like xr, and I also like overbluffing turn and/or river if flop goes check/check. But that said I haven't done any study on this spot so there is probably lots of room for improvement!
These spots are hard to model though because ranges are very wide and uncertain, and the limper will obviously not play anything like solver postflop.
Right, no that's good advice, I always do the double probe as a bluff, I like the advice, thanks!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.