Combating Sub-Optimal C-Bets
Posted by Paul Atwal
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 21 Comments...
Interesting stuff and it makes sense that it's exactly low flops people play the worst flop strategies as they are by far the least common flops along monotone flops.
The 100% cbet strategy makes very little sense to me without a significant advantage against anyone reasonably competent. What you basically do is give up your positional advantage on the flop as BTN so BB can be aggressive with good hands and other good raising hands without worrying about splitting range and capping his calling range because he can immediately see the turn with all his medium hands and draws.
I agree, but there are a lot of players who aren't reasonably competent.
So... does it look like a GTO-suboptimal 100 percent c bet on 246ss is quite reasonable against players with a low check raise range, like some of the low limit casino players?
Those players do not raise nearly enough and sometimes even fold too often, while not playing so well on later streets.
Yeah, that strategy would probably work well against low-limit casino players.
Great content
This is great! You should do a series for BB vs BTN OOP c-bet response on a variety of board types and try and see if you can come up with simplifications for what hands to c/r and call etc. If that's too much work for a video series on here maybe make an upswing style module and sell it separate like they do with Pete's course.
nice video.
To add same deal as you mentioned, if BB under check/R flop than BB can just bet range. If UTG doesn't defend properly(after cbetting a lot) vs check/R BB can raise up to ridiculous amount.
I think you might have typos saying BB when you meant BTN.. but yes, I think I agree ;)
that's right :)
nice video. isn't just script -> run this script easier?
Interesting topic and the heuristics make a lot of sense. Curious to what BB's general turn strategy is after XR so aggressively on the flop. I guess it would continue with a high frequency small bet on low/medium connecting cards again and mix overbets on high cards?
One thing that I noticed is that the percentages for BB response vs p33 doesn't add up to 100% on the excel spreadsheet at the beginning (6:00). So something isn't right on the aggregate report.
Turn play could be an interesting topic for a future video. Nice catch on the frequencies.. I'll look into it when I'm back at my desktop
A video looking at turn play would be great!
Nice video Paul, just wondering do you take notes when you run those daily scripts for hand review? The spots you mark and then sim overnight. Thanks.
Hey Hummus. Notes for what? Sorry, I don't fully understand
Hey Paul, I just mean when you're studying in the morning your scripts from the night before, do you take notes or just try to absorb it while running through the sims? Thanks.
Oh I see. That'd be a good habit. When I'm not lazy, I do this and try to note down some easy heuristics to summarize my findings.
Hi Paul, very interesting video!
I think the extreme number (86%) that we are folding to the check raise in the node locked sim (11.10 ) shows how dum it is to try to defend normal against a too strong check raise range. That being said I think the sim is a little bit misleading since the lower node locked check raise is so clearly weighted with too many strong hands. If you compare the range in 10.18 to the one in 11.10 you will see that the former does not include close to all the sets but the latter includes all of them. It is not certain that people that check raise less than they should will also slowplay less strong hands compared to Pio.
It would be sweet if you could just tell Pio to not check raise more than a certain number to see how to play against that strategy when it is done in the best way possible. I have asked Pio several times if they plan to implement such a feature, but they have told me that its hard to do. What is your heuristics for creating a node locked range like the one I have been discussing above?
Hey AH, good comment. You're totally reasonable for disagreeing with how I nodelocked a certain sim. This is why it's also difficult to answer your question -- it's all assumptive! We can't know what every given opponent is doing.
The one piece of practical advice I can give is to divide your opponents into a few common player profiles (e.g. passive reg, aggressive rec, etc.). From there, you can try to estimate how often each profile would xr and with what composition. You can do this using either your experience/intuition, or you could use some sort of database analysis.
edit: I think I misunderstood your initial question. I realized now that what (I think) you're trying to do is simply reduce the overall xr frequency while maintaining the same relative composition of the range. That's really interesting but, to be honest, I don't see much practical use in this. I think the vast majority of opponents who are not xr-ing the right frequency will have some sort of exploitable imbalance in their range composition. Please correct me if I'm still misunderstanding the question.
Hi Paul, Yes I was thinking more like you phrased it in the edit. Only if we know how Pio would chose to construct a range for a lower amount of CR could we know how to play against that. Node-locking how we think the population plays might be very informative but we are not finding out how to play against a 15% CR instead of a 20% CR, like we for example would if we eliminated the CR to find out how to play against 0% CR. I thought it was important to point that out since the response after betting 100% of hands and being check raised was so extreme, we would not do that against someone that did not have a way to strong CR-range. So the response against a good player that is not quite checkraising as much as Pio might very well not be to cbet 100%.
Luckily we can do that, in fact I use it a lot.
Go to Set strategy and lock node (ctrl n) ---> select range you want to nodelock ---> click on Range Arithmetic ---> Multiply by a number ---> play around with the number.
For example, to reduce a little bit the check-raise range while stay balanced, you should input 0.75 and the XR range will be 25% smaller in a healthy way.
I agree this feature is awesome, usually better than making up an unbalanced range, because then PIO will try to get badly into that node, like happened in this video.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.