The Patrik Antonius and Chidwick Hands
Posted by Sauce123
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 16 Comments...
great vid!
So in general, to see if I understand this, on the river:
The out of position player is less likely to bluff a missed flush draw because he is blocking some of his opponents missed flush draw range which would probably fold to a bet.
The in position player is more likely to call a bet if he has suite(s) of the two flush on the board (especially if they are on the flop) because his opponent is more likely to bluff if he holds none of those suites.
Am I getting the jist of this concept?
If OOP folds too much when holding spades IP can exploit by bluffing more often when unblocking spades. The counter to this is for OOP to start calling some combos with spades.
If you have a combo draw Pair + flush draw or even pair + the Ace high draw card then it is more profitable to bluff catch than without the draw card because you block some of villain's bluff barrel river give ups and unblock his other bluffs, but naked flush draws will still fold most of the time.
You're correct. I'm going to restate the point in text for clarity.
If IP holds a region of pure fold FD hands on the river, OOP will not bluff the missed FD because this reduces IP's fold freq.
So, given OOP bets, IP does not block any bluffs when holding FD cards, and increases call freq.
...tons of caveats apply and every spot is different
'and then 95s kinda like, i'll check too.' dunno why but I found this really funny :P
great video. I think you forgot to use the 'live reads' feature in PIO, however. so some of the results may be a little off. for example 84o river bluff is neutral EV but with the live reads feature you capture the whole pot 95% of the time. he just ran in to the negative variance of the 5% call frequency.
Im the only one that laught after Ben said that Charlie studied that river spot?:)
Wow. Thanks for the information and advice, guys!
Cool video Sauce.
One sort of overarching question I have is how exactly one can determine if a play is bad or not (and to what degree) when solvers include so much mixing.
Charlie's line here is a pretty fringe spot and given the fact that it did occur in a very small # of hand sample size makes me feel that the likelihood that he is bluff heavy with this line is actually quite high. (Am I making a mistake by assuming this from this sample size? Seems like we should rarely ever see this line being taken w/ this combo, and we watched 1 MTT and saw it happen.) From a Bayes perspective, if we had seen this line with a near pure jam combo, we wouldn't be able to make strong assumptions about his bluff frequency, but given we did see it with this combo, it feels like that should shift our assumptions more drastically.
It sounded like in the video you're more looking for instances where a player makes an overarching strategic error, like chooses a sizing that PIO does not like, or chooses frequencies that are out of whack, more so than the actual combos being used (due to so much mixing).
Thanks for the insightful comment.
I'm intentionally trying to be charitable to all players in my analysis in the video. Gun to my head, I'd prob make some medium confidence assumptions about what they were actually likely thinking etc that differ from the higher confidence analysis I'm doing in the video and make more use of my reads from competing against them at the tables. Keep in mind these players are my colleagues and in many cases friends, and it's important to me that they look as good as honesty permits in the video.
I think your line of reasoning makes sense, but it should be a fairly low confidence conclusion. For example, it's entirely possible Charlie misses many of the pure bluffs that Pio makes, but finds a bluff with the 84. It's also entirely possible there's significant model error, coming primarily from the preflop ranges.
I recall watching Charlie play a hand on Twitch bvb where he had something like A5o no draw and tripled off on a QJ9xx type board because he said that players will call too often ott with pair +sd type hands and then end up over folding with them on the river, so he just massively over bluffs this line. so jdstl analysis is bang on imo.
I've never seen him doing any randomising before and if you are a player who likes to bluff (I do too) and do not use one it is very easy to start being exploitable when our frequencies get out of wack and we over bluff a ton of spots.
It's obnoxious to the way Charlie was acting. It's also -EV to stare down Patrik Antonius.
very interesting video. Like for this format.
@16:25 I don't understand why pio has oop blocking 58o on river?
Do better hands actually fold vs this sizing?
you mentioned vivek can have some shoves pre, can he just shove this combo? seems like with icm and such a strong player in chidwick that will defend so much and play so well maybe vivek can shove?
Should he be raising preflop with 84o? Since he is OOP, shouldn't he be playing tighter than that?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.