A Lesson on Turn Probes: Solver 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 9 Comments...
Stellar video!
2nd hand, I try to look at these types of spots from time to time and create what-if scenarios with nodelocks like you did here to help improve my understanding of how I should be deviating with my bluff catching or bluffing regions with respect to the hypothetical villain's expected strategy, and it's nice to see an in depth discussion on the topic, because these spots do really come up all the time, especially at lower stakes vs most regs and recs and on American sites, where the villains can be incredibly unbalanced in a lot of spots, and you can really start deviating on the turn and sometimes even on the flop or preflop against certain villain tendencies.
Specializing in making those deviations isn't going to help when you want to move up stakes or play different sites if you don't remember the base strategy that you're deviating from, because you're basically carving a niche and forming habits that could be losing over large sample sizes when the populations and rake are different, and you could be running yourself into a wall whenever trying to take a shot.
I'm sure there's a balance that can be had for attempting to create a close to Max profit strategy that's more easy to adjust to different stakes or populations. For example, instead of deciding to fold (or call) 100% of bluff catchers in certain regions in these spots, you can decide to call (or fold) somewhere between 0-10% at a lower stake, and maybe 5-30% at a higher stake (in a spot where Pio would bluff catch 50% of the time, and the actual percentage you choose could be decided by specific factors).
This shouldn't decrease your expected profits significantly but also help make your strategy and decision making much more robust to changing populations and also help a bit more in those spots that you'd end up making the wrong deviation or if you end up in a situation where you get out leveled, and we know it can be very costly to get counter exploited.
My point was with the video was that modeling choices have a very large impact on how the hand plays out in PIO. Change betsizes/raise sizes and all of sudden "GTO" is a completely different strategy. I'm all for trying to maximize profits against unknown players, but I think at some level people are deluding themselves that their particular sim is "GTO". It's closer to something like "given my modeling choices" this hand was played in a fashion that could be reasonable if the rest of my strategy was mathematically balanced. If the rest of my strategy wasn't mathematically balanced, then well, my hand being played in a particular way is likely actually very exploitable. Take my bluff or the 88 call in the first hand, yes this is potential line for an overbet, but if I alwasy choose it with my J3s-J5s region, then you'd expect that 88 is an easy call here -- but that's not actually accurate because I could put more straights and two pair into the line then pio suggests too. Then the exploitation here comes with a different region, when I check the turn (maybe AK, KQ goes overbet, overbet). So making any sort of hard conclusion on how the hand was played vs GTO approximation is really speculation. If I have the right flop ranges and betsizes and access to a computer to do the math, then yes my strategy should be very strong. But on some level this just isn't practical in the 12 seconds, I have to make a decision.
hand #1 3min mark when you probe the turn, I was wondering if it's better not to hold hearts and bet the other 3 combos of J3[s,c,d] instead. I expect a lot of bdfd for btn to bet the flop, so blocking hearts are some of btn's give up hands.
The one hour or so mark at the end was pretty eye opening where taking out 3-6 combos of like 600 combos quickly makes hand +EV call and on the other end bluffing frequency can go way up from population over folding. Reminds me of Dekkers hand with AA on QT9hh-7x turn where he folded turn where PIO is a little +EV to call. Much like the TT on the J43ddd-7x-4x board it might be +EV on the turn, but as you said getting one of the best river cards and still have to fold, why not just fold the turn?
Enjoyed the video a lot, mostly the 2nd half where you showed some of the PIO tricks on how modeling can greatly impact the river decisions.
Popular video style recently is coaches rolling high at lower stakes. Would like to see you make one of these at like 100NL or 200NL.
I generally don't worry too much about blockers when the ranges are very wide like 300 combos. A deviation of 1-2 combos in this spot isn't going to generate much EV for me. It has a much bigger effect when there are 70 or so combos and we block say 6 or 7.
I think that small deviation large effect here of strategy value drives home the fact that playing GTO requires a level of mathematical precision that is hard to obtain in game. GTO isn't really something you can tell a story about, it's more about have really well structured ranges in each situation (where even a dozen combos have a big impact on strategy value).
The video hasn't been approved yet, so could change, but I just shot a subscriber review video at 200NL.
RunItTw1ce approves
i loved this bro
Thanks Joe! Appreciate the love :)
Like it? This vid was fantastic.
Thank you rosebud!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.