Tyler Reviews Proverbs282 From Pennsylvania
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...
The timing tell with aces is cool. and thank you for explaining rhe 33/11. I played a lot of black jack as a kid so make total sense. I like how you said they are more reasonable.
You are welcome, man. Glad you enjoyed the video!
Even though you felt there wasn't a lot of interesting hands, I feel the video was quite educational.
18:00 top right kqo. Do you ever develop a preflop call rng in the sb vs btn in order to avoid 3,4,5 bet wars in order to realize some eq with decent broadways and medium pocket pairs?
Thanks!
Okay so just generically SB calls don't make money. The main regions that are candidates for calls are suited Aces, 44-88s and KJo+, ATo+. I used to call extensively from the SB, but as the BB play has improved and rake has increased. It doesn't seem to be as lucrative as it was.
You can call KQo here and probably be better than folding but truthfully as a long as the 4-bet isn't too high (think 15-20%) , there's no real advantage -- because KQo is stackable on most Kx and Qx boards and is clearly profitable 3-bet.
Edit: The reason regulars play 3 different stakes is due to AM traffic with only a few tables being available and also a stars leaderboard for each stake.
Tyler Forrester regarding the UTG limp, BTN iso 5bb and hero 3bet to 12bb in the SB with A5s. Would you just use a linear range here and dump the A7s-A2s hands here? I think the iso is probably only going to be around 15-20% of hands on avg. I was thinking 3 bet range would be closer to 77+, AJ+, KQ+, A9s+, and suited broadways. Maybe some K9s/T9s. But I would also want to go at least 3x to 15bb if I was going to 3bet. I am not sure what the small 3bet 2.4x accomplishes. Maybe it folds out some QJo type hands, but not much else.
RunItTw1ce I play on a site with low traffic and it is common to be up against the same regulars on 3 different stakes. Many of them 9-12 table so they will have like 6ish tables at 200nl, 4-5 tables of 500nl, and 1-2 tables of 1knl.
I'm not a fan of the small 3bet from the SB with A5s. I think it is more optimal to use small 3bets oop when you have a more linear range against weaker players and should go bigger when you have a more polarized range. A5s would fit in my polarized range here so I would want to go bigger. I would be more inclined to call A5s pre here depending on BB and rake.
If I remember right, that the cap on the number of tables on stars PA is pretty high, so the idea for lots of regulars would be to play as many profitable games as are available. I suspect table volume was pretty low with only one or two 2-5 games running, so the regs were filling up with whatever other tables they could find. As I said in the video, even one $5 mistake at $500, because of the $100 dollar tables basically negates the extra winrate from the $100 dollar games, so I'm not a big proponent of the strategy.
On the ISO range construction, suited Aces are always predicated on fold equity preflop (outside some headsup/button situations). If you don't have it, you can't 3-bet.
I've got the average iso percentage on button at 27% since the limper will sometimes have AA-JJ, close 3-bets against CO like A9s, K9s are going to be -EV. Without running a sophisticated model, I think 7-8% are clearly profitable. That's like 88+, ATs+, KTs+, AQo+, QJs. We can get closer to exact ranges if we know more about Master Edges preflop play.
Edit: The decision here on sizing is actually very complicated (because limper slowplays now make 15bbs as opposed to 12.4bb, and IP strategy is going to start to include jams preflop (22bb of dead money is a lot of incentive to develop jamming ranges). The smaller size has the advantage of allowing a postflop SPR that resembles a 3-bet pot at 15-16bb we start to move into 4-bet SPRs.
With the pocket 55 hand where a 3-bet is perhaps only marginal +EV and folding is 0 ev, you mention that you can choose the low variance route. I wonder, is this often the case?
So for example, a player opens and we have TT and we 3-bet. We get 4 bet now. Maybe, its +EV, but you can also decide just to fold here. Because of Zero EV.
Also post flop, we have a AK on AT7, we bet 85% on the flop, player calls, we bet 73% on any turn and player raises. Sure, we might be ahead sometimes but often enough we are not. In cases we obviously are, it's clear.
Or for example with opening ranges.. 78s in MP, not sure if it's really a good idea. Just fold.
So to summarize, my question: Is it okay to take the low variance (particulary folding since that is 0ev) route at times you are not really sure? ..or is that losing massive EV in the long run? Or is that question impossible to answer and way to philosophical?
With the AJcc hand with the overbet on the river. You say you call 1/3th of the time. How do you keep track of that?
So I get the benefit of seeing the cards later, which lets me adjust to situations, I thought were 0 EV, -EV but were actually +EV. I think more practically -- it makes a lot of sense to sometimes pay off 0 EV spots in games where you can't see holecards, because you need to have some data collection to determine whether you were right or wrong. Preflop the 0 EV spots are going to be all about adaptations -- if you're opponent doesn't care you fold 87s or 55 and still plays like you have them then it's fine to fold, but if they tighten up because of the lack of extra hands then you're going to have to play them.
Your poker level of thinking is so much ahead of mine that I truly understand I am asking you a somewhat unclear question. I play at microstakes. So, small +EV spots, matter not so much and I have to deal with rake. So, I was wondering, and that's also what I seemed to hear in your 55 explanation, is that it's actually okay to fold your hand if it's only slight +EV (maybe!).
I need to think deeper about what you are answering, because it flies over my head a little bit to be honest. Sorry for that, I am just a microstakes player with a Elite membership :)
Just so I'm clear, you should always play +EV spots especially at microstakes, because there is no consideration of variance when you're playing for lunch money. It gets more complicated when it's a substantial portion of your savings.
Okay so think about EV as a range of outcomes from -199 big blinds to +199 big blinds (we include the money in the pot). If EV was just picked by chance, it wouldn't be very likely that it would be 0 EV about 400:1 against in our example. So practically because we aren't playing a computer, it's fairly unlikely that any situation would actually be 0 EV. It's more likely that the situation we are referring to is either +EV or -EV. We want to make the best decision on these nodes and in many situations against most opponents especially at small stakes, the 0 EV hands in PIO are actually slightly -EV, because the overcall and underbluff compared to PIO.
The challenge becomes finding out which side of zero these situations are and that's why I said, I'd pay off more often on these nodes without knowledge in a normal game, because I'm not able to learn anything by folding. I never see holecards and since I don't see holecards I don't know whether I was right. The same with the preflop spots. I can use data to figure out whether 87s is a profitable open in MP, but it's going to be harder to determine if I can't see hole-cards later. One option is to open 87s, 55 type hands and then use math to to determine whether they could be profitable opens. Sometimes, they just aren't.
Thank you for the explaining. And these are purely in slight EV spots right? It’s not like we are going to call a 200bb river shove to learn more about certain players I assume
It’d be more like I have something that I determine is close against my pool. So maybe bottom set in that scenario. I’d use a random number generator to call at some low frequency as.opposed to just folding.
emsterdad Here is a video from Qy Yang that should help you explain what Tyler Forrester is saying about some hands that are 0EV.
Thanks!
Tyler thank you for spending so much time articulating your thoughts and giving me actionable, coachable advice. I sent a rather average session and appreciated you digging deep to help me! If I were to send you a PnE video again I would definitely articulate the #s behind the decisions I am making both stats for players and range/frequency wise. I under-articulate when recording and just say the most significant points to the whole thought process.
There are parts of the video where you call for stats, unpause, and then I look at the stats. I realize you cannot tell because there are no abbreviations but I have things like RFI from each open spot, fold 3b positionally, etc on there. In the video, you can clearly see me looking at them for relevant players and decisions.
In particular against Master he is a player I play with most weekdays. I have over 50k hands with him and we talk some outside the tables. I would say we are still actively doing stuff trying to figure each other out. There are clear spots where I get too involved in that history, so you helped me see some bigger picture pf stuff with him.
In the hand vs Master my 55 4bet AxxxQ did you not see that he showed KT? I was hoping this was a spot where you would talk about range construction given that he showed a hand outside of the range I was building strategy against. My strategy and understanding of this spot is pairs are best, IP is better, and what you hope to get is a board that is safe so you're likely to get your hot/cold equity. On Axx I have to take flop price with lower pair. Turn better to realize then bluff/deny is my thought but would love to be more robust w strategy and range construction knowledge here. When the river broadway comes it opens up QQ set to vbet, ME would X all Qx, he has his Ax that he wants to B X B, and then he has bluffs from missed broadways blocking my Ax. I thought this range was really small like some KJs/JTs. Granted if he was more value oriented (around TP) I think he would have gone B B B so B X B not as much value as I think. Like he wouldn't be betting A5 for value on river so blocking that combo is not relevant since he doesn't have it in that node at that sizing. Him having KT there was outside of my constructed range for him and now realize that was smaller size pf used.
There are other thoughts like this about the A5hh hand but the most relevant I wondered is can I not reduce turn strategy from ~20/150 to 75%. I don't think that I would actually delay block so the smaller sizing is not relevant and overbet is too strong of a polarization and those hands would be better in my flop range bet ~33% anyway. That is how I arrived at that sizing and I think it makes sense given there are combos like JT/KJ that now have value and would forgo flop bet. I will now just keep my best value in the range bet flop.
You're talented and more importantly patient, thanks Tyler you taught me some valuable things!
I think your hud seemed really thorough and again you might just have everything memorized -- but I expected to see you scroll through and look at the stats, before you made your decisions. Like the A5s hand or 55 are both marginal plays, so looking at hud stats to determine whether to do make them makes sense. Even at 50K hands with Master, I'd be so used to looking, it'd be automatic in these spots.
On the 4-bet pot with 55, every single computer generated preflop model here has KTs as a fractional 4-bet. In fact the 55 call isn't marginal, it just plain -EV unless he has KTs type hands. I think in video, I mentioned hero-calling river and if he does have KJs-KTs, K9s, it's probably good. I'd review the gto wizard 4-bet ranges in these spots, it'll give you a sense of what the regs are going to 4-bet.
If he's really only betting AK+ here, then the hero call is actually quite good, because range-wise , he's just going to have more than 28% of Kxs in his betting range.
The A5hh hand is more trying to figure out what you are repping. I don't think people expect many bet-folds from top pair in 3-bet pots, so repping top pair with the nuts just loses value, because he doesn't go after the pot with his bluffs and tends to find folds with under-pairs (unless he thinks you're really spewy). You really want him to try to bluff to increase the amount of betting volume that goes in or alternatively get him to make some hero call for big sizings (again increasing betting volume). I'm not sure that you're line looks particularly weak though because it's so polarized -- it could be perceived as weak.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.