Thanks for the comment - I just checked and it is indeed the 'fold to 3b' stat as opposed to 'fold to 3b after raise'. I agree the second gives greater insight snd is more useful so have swapped it for this one - thanks for the heads up!

Ahh, I had a high-stakes player me message in a panic over the same stat in PT4, he had the same confusion in this video that I did and thought he was overfolding massively to 3-bet.

It's a lot better to have the fold to 3-bet after 2-bet on the hud. It's definitely possible at small-stakes to find players that overfold to 3-bets preflop and it's a good source of profit. So good in fact, it's died out completely at mid-high stakes.

I made this same mistake on ACR. I kept seeing like 75%+ for F3B. So I started 3betting more hands like SCs, AXs, 66+ etc vs MP, but I kept getting 4bet! I had two thoughts 1) My timing absolutely sucks! 2) Maybe the 4bet isn't being taken into the 75%+ ?

Glad it only took me a single session to realize my mistake after looking at my own stats.

I've put in place already your tagging system - so much more helpful. A lot of information that I wasn't taking advantage of and using in my decision making.

Great to hear to Darchas! I think there is a ton to learn about exploitative poker at small-stakes. The variety you see is so much wider than at higher stakes and learning to beat all those different player types, really helps winrate when you move up, because you understand how to beat the recreational players.

That was definitely interesting - I think to some extent it comes down to personality type also and just generally what works best for you. Eg it's probably a big leak but I find on regular tables I end up really overthinking and often over-adjusting. I'll see one showdown and then really go too far extrapolating from that to the detriment of my game. Or just level myself in a spot thinking about history of the table and would this player really do this after x hand etc. So I just don't enjoy it as much. I find playing zoom is better for my mental game as well because I just in general don't take things as personal as I do when I'm sat playing with the same players every hand! Having said this I'll definitely put some thought into Tyler's advice here.

Just on a personal note, I know my game suffers if I play more than 200-300 hands an hour. I actually drop down in stakes if I'm playing 2-5 Zone/Zoom, because I know that my winrates will be lowered because I can't think fast enough to find the most profitable lines against each individual player.

darchas I think over adjusting long-term isn't a bad thing. You're going to make lots of mistakes in your poker career, however the real focus isn't that the mistakes are made (I still make them), but that we learn from them. I think especially at fast-fold it's easy to immediately go on to the next hand/situation without having time to reflect on how the previous hand could go better. If you're playing a reg table, it's not a 30 second delay between the current situation and the next one. It might be one or two minutes. That's a lot more time to say "I over-adjusted here, I really need to think harder about my equity in this situation, because I'm not getting the over-fold/hero-call/over-bluff that I expected".

RunItTw1ce

You'll probably improve playing poker, by playing poker, but poker is a game where the variance in the game completely swamps any rational thought process. The only real way to get better at poker is to use tools as simple as hold'em equity or as advanced as a solver to model what hands your opponent likely held and how your hand should be played against them. The thing as about using solver + fast fold is that the you lose the "hands your opponent likely held" part of the equation, because you don't have enough time to really think about and observe how your opponents are playing.

darchas

I find playing zoom is better for my mental game

This can be deceiving because zoom the variance hits much harder with the lower win rate that comes with it and more hands per hour. I know Tyler once mentioned one of his students lost like 10 buy-in over a 30 minute span and everything was really standard. Your mind doesn't get a chance to relax in zoom compared to regular tables. I completely agree with the over adjusting part though on regular speed tables. I did this more in live games though, where samples are even tinier. Its just a race to see who can get the fish money first before they bust, leading down a rabbit hole of a lot of -EV spots preflop to try and capitalize on post flop play.

66 - yes I mainly fold here but do mix depending on the player.

The colour coding was a big eye opener for me and so obvious and a bit embarassing to have it pointed out! I started yesterday updating all my tags in a a very similar way to your scheme above. So much more useful and I'm already taking advantage of it. I think in the past I've made the mistake of over-adjusting to hud stats in general, so for a long time have really just been focussing on trying to play a standard type game, but yes crazy really to not use the stats when I have them there to use to make decisions and to make money. I do think my work on some of the more fundamental stuff actually helps in adjusting to HUD stats as it gives me a place to adjust from, so with that knowledge I wouldn't expect I''d end up over-adjusting this time like I have in the past.

My HUD has the same as yours has the standard Vpip / PFR / 3bet / F3B as well as CB, fold to cbet, BB fold to SB open and BB fold to LP steal. I find those last two really useful. I do think you can probably extrapolate a lot of other stats from the main ones, so it's a balancing act between finding what's useful and what is information overload. It's funny about the f3b mistake I made as I've done this before but because I used to show my own stats as well I quickly noticed I was using the wrong f23b. Since I changed computers I also stopped showing my own HUD and obviously haven't noticed this time I was using the wrong stat - big thanks to Williemarto for pointing that out! Sometimes it is helpul having your own stats on display!

I'm going to address this post in a couple of posts.

First on the 66 hand, I'd rather die than fold 66 to somebody who just opened then flatted Q6o UTG against a 3-bet. It's clearly a profitable situation. The idea of mixing implies two things. 1) Our opponent is adept at exploiting ranges that are too wide. 2) Our opponent is adept at exploiting ranges that are too tight.

I'll make the argument that only conceivable way that would be true is that a top 10 player in the world --- that's about the level that can actually exploit these mixes effectively -- lost all of his money in a bad investment and has no networking skills and is from a second world (First world countries normal pay will get you to a 100NL) and has now sat at your .1/.25 fast fold game. I assume this is most of your player pool.

So the question really here is under what conditions is calling 66 profitable. According the models that frequency is guaranteed at 15% and marginal between .5%-15%. So we need to ask ourselves how well our opponent can avoid getting stacked when we flop sets and how well our opponent is able to use his range advantage to move us off the best hand at the right frequencies. If either one of these things is off (pays off too much) or missed barrels on low boards, then we could play 66.

At your stakes, my default would be to auto-call anything less than 6-7bbs here with 66, because I'd assume that both of those things would happen with most of the players in the pool.

I'd use the more advanced stats of Hand2Note, if you're playing a named pool. Raise by position, 3-bet by position, 4-bet by position and 5-bet by position are all valuable with 1K hands or so. The other spots that a hud is very helpful in is flop play where you get c-bet frequency, fold to c-bet, c-r c-bet, c-bet 3-bet and then common lines around check-back and c-bet check-back and double barreling statistics.

The river against 3-barrel stats and 4-bet, 3-bet postflop stats tend not to converge very quickly so shouldn't probably be given as much weight.

3-bet by position

Tyler Forrester is it 3-bet by position or 3bet vs position?

Small sample below to show the differences I have. 3bet by position for BTN to be 13 here, it is probably a lot of BTN vs CO being 3bet. Then 3bet vs position BTN I have 15, which is likely SB vs BTN. Not sure which one would be of better use? I also noticed some of the RFI stuff, even for players I have 800 hands on is not converging very fast at all. They will have like 25 vpip EP and only 9 in the MP then 46 CO and 33 btn. Just kind of all over the place. I expected the RFI to show up pretty fast, but doesn't appear that way.

This sample here below is someone who 3bets a lot (12) but only over 344 hands. It looks like "vs position" converges faster?

Both ideally you want to know how often your opponent is 3-betting from each position against each position open. It lets you know what hands are profitable to play.

Really useful RunItTw1ce, thanks for sharing. I really like including the turn play as Eg one thing I see a lot are players that can play flop reasonably and then totally shut down on turn without a strong hand. I like having 3 bet pots on there too. Will definitely be incorporating these when I play tomorrow. I also want to do some work on colour coding various ranges to make it easier to zero in.

darchas Here is a link showing how to color your PT4 stats. You would do these steps for each player type 0-19 = nit orange, 20-28 tag yellow, 29-35 Red, and 36+ Green. Whatever you think the vpip stands for. Then do the same thing for their PFR and 3bet stats. I wouldn't do too many colors on your HUD, might start to get a little confusing looking at it, but the Vpip/PFR will help you with color coding a lot faster and help you recognize the type of player to your left & right.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm really a fan of just picking the sizing that combines calling frequency * size to get the highest value for the hand, but there is some instances where betting small can induce action especially against weaker smaller tags.