CREV Hand History Review
Posted by Tyler Forrester
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 17 Comments...
Cool video, as always!
1) In the 1st hand, when we c/c turn, villain is supposed to bluff close to half his high cards. But when turn is checked back, he now is supposed to bluff them only 4% on the river. Why is there such a large discrepancy in villain's strategies depending on whether he bets turn or not? Is it just that when the pot is bigger, villain should have more bluffs?
2) A bit before that, on the flop, you said that if villain is playing rationally, he is likely either always betting AQ, or always checking it. Is it clearly wrong to play a mixed strategy in these types of spots? (i.e. my tendency would be to check behind, but i feel like I need to occasionally bet) I think Sauce talks about similar spots saying that it's okay to sometimes check and sometimes bet. Would you disagree?
Enjoy your vids!
1)When he checks the turn, he has such a low bluffing frequency on the river , because he rarely has an value betting hand. The 9 isn't a very good card for his range. If a higher card had come or he had checked more overpairs back then he would be able to bluff more more often.
2) Irrationality was a poor description of using a mixed strategy here. I assumed Noikul was playing a max exploit strategy here meaning he was always taking the action he thought had the highest value (in this case betting AQ). If we assume he was playing a GTO strategy, then we should assign he a check back range % with AQ. However, this is almost impossible for me to model because I don't know what the GTO strategy checkback % with AQ, so my model would become a wild guess.
Hi Tyler, great video!
Hand 1:
Would you prefer a close to 100% cbetting strategy or rather have a balanced check back range if you were villain, and why? I would think it makes sense to check back premiums a % of the time to balance check backs like AT+, but we might lose too much value by doing that. How would you generally try to balance your check back range OTF?
Hi Djunkell!
Welcome to the team! Whether I chose 100% cbet strategy or a balanced check strategy is going to depend on the player, I'm playing. Both strategies hold up pretty well against exploitation on this board, so I don't think it matter terribly much which one you choose. If I was going to balance my check back range, I'd want hands that could call an allin from villain through hands that could call two regular sized bets, one regular sized bet and fold to the second, and some hands that would fold to any bet.
Great video, this format suits you very well!
I would like to hear more indepth why you would want to cbet 100% as BB in the first hand. I personally think there are lots of hands that are high up in our range that plays way better as a check. Imo that goes both way, there are weaker hands with low eq that I would rather delay cbet because they will end up just betting flop and just giving up after that because they can't continue on many turns. There's probably a bunch of hands which is always floating flop if we're cbetting but could potentially fold on later streets if we check flop and bet or river instead for example, typically high-cards+backdoors / King-high-type of hands? I know we're giving those hands free eq, but when it doesn't seem like it matters that much when we are so low on equity with some hands.
Hi sweet!
I don't want to cbet 100% as BB (without some qualifications/reads), but I think my opponent was cbetting 100% and I was describing his strategy choice. The BB's flop strategy was to shape the range that my opponent likely had on the river.
I think checking the flop provides some profitable options as you point out and I would never discount it from my personal strategy choices.
Awsome sim of the QJo hand!
It made me want to think alot more about betsize in general.
I died at "the Sauce factor"
Hi tyler, thanks a lot for this video.
I wanna ask is it possible to get the CREV file of the first hand?
Awesome that you enjoyed the video!
Here's the link to the file:
66 CREV File
You'll have to let me know how you improve it :)
Tyler,
Nice video. I agree with a lot of the analysis, but the one issue I noticed is that @ 21 min when you "check the rationality" of the strategies in play by looking at the EV of check/calling JTs, you still have the turn inputted as the 4o. Floating a low equity hand like JTs certainly won't be +EV given a 4o turn unless IP is playing a very exploitable strategy (another issue here is that you have JTs X/jamming the turn given it calls flop, which we've seen is going to be a bad play).
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the feedback!
I used JT to (hopefully) represent our opponents strategies ability to make a very weak cards indifferent to calling the flop then bluffing later in the hand. It was never meant to be realistic value for JT; only a place holder to check the very lower bound of the robustness of villain's turn strategy against a turn c/r and flop float/bet river lines.
Floating uno cards (JT) here goes about 6 bbs negative, which seemed reasonable because the real JT is going to spike a pair and win occasionally.
Do you have a suggestion of a better way to check the exploitability of the strategy?
As always your input is appreciated :)
Tyler,
That makes sense. I scare quoted "check the rationality" because I wasn't sure exactly what you had in mind by that phrase, if your goal was to see if weak cards are indifferent to a flop float, using the JTs combo in the way you did makes sense. .
I often do similar things in CREV, where I'll use a few different combos to check my strategy choice even if I don't plan on doing a full range v range tree.
Great stuff Tyler!
Great video! I really like your CREV videos.
great video! really good at talking through the CREV hands.
1. how did u know his 86.66 make ATs indifferent to calling?
2. on a related note, (this may be dumb question but can't think of the exact answer) why does the EV go way up if we have AT and QJ in our range? these are effectively the same hand versus his range
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.