Hyper Focused: 3Bet Pots SB vs Button
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 8 Comments...
Very nice video ,I learned a lot.Thank you.
min 26 J33r:Solver likes two sizings ,small and big.Is not easy to kow what hand bet big or small .Plus some hands in frq bet big and small.So is better to just choose one sizing big or small to make it easier?Maybe can we choose 50% sizing and put everything in?(I am using this sizing on this kind of board to simplify)
min 31 AKJss: Same question here.Solver likes small/big and is not easy to implement that strategy .Can we choose a polar approach or just betting small high frq ?
Basically, if you see a mix between 58% and 33% like this with no discernible pattern, the solver is telling you that it actually prefers a betsize bigger than 33% and less than 58%. Usually the average of the bet sizing is a good guess as to the correct sizing here, which is approximately 41%.
On the AsKsJd, I think this is more discernible, which is there is a region that really prefers betting at geometric-- AK, AQ, AJ and it is balanced with bluffs like 44-66 and T9,T8 and spades. The rest of the hands generally prefer to be checked with the possibility that a small bet region centered around KQ, Axs is possible to add some value.
If you wanted to remove the small bet here, it will be a very low-EV loss against equilibrium type strategies, so I don't think it's an important part of strategy.
Great vid Tyler Forrester . At 44m you speak of PIO using small pocket pairs at correct precision on AK2. You say PIO is both strong and weak and it’s weak bc this sort of exploitation (using these pp at correct freq at each node) is almost impossible. Almost every sim I look at has some actions that is incredibly difficult to execute and humans/population aren’t really doing.
That being said how do you use PIO effectively if a lot of what it’s saying is just noise? In this case you need to balance 18 value combos so are you just doing that with a different bluffing range?
I ask this because taking away practical insights from a model and what to apply/not in my own game is an area I struggle with. If you’re not using these pairs like in the sim then are the future nodes of the sim essentially worthless/noise?
There's two ideas that you can use to try to make PIO a little more plus +EV.
You can just look at the number of combos of bluffs and use that number to design your bluff/value betting range. So like in the pocket pair examples, if you choose 44-55 with a spade, that's 6 combos of pocket pair bluffs, which is pretty close to the computer and will yield a very similar EV to bluffing the computer range -- but is much easier to execute in practice because you have whole numbers to work with.
The second is to realize that maybe some player types don't bother to make pocket pair bluffs 0 EV, so you can just take all the combos and turn a profit barreling. So you are choosing those regions, when you think your opponent will overfold slightly and otherwise ignoring them.
Really great deep dive into oop cbetting. This is one if the weaker parts of my game and I appreciate that you didn't just rip through each spot but took time to explain why each thing was happening.
Maybe this format can be a bit of a series with different betting concepts being the focus for each video.
The difference in cbet strat between the last 2 boards (akj vs ak2) is quite significant and a bit hard to wrap my head around. Are these boards really so different in how they interact with the rngs?
Thanks!
On AKJ, our opponent has a healthy number of suited Q,J,T that now have 17% equity against AK. It increase the bet frequencies to deny equity to those hands (or a least make them pay for it) .
On AK2 those same hands have between 1/4% and 4% equity against AK, so protection is not nearly as important.
Tyler Forrester I got a feeling that every time you said, " a player with a memorized range" you really meant "a non-thinking player with charts."
Hahaha, that's a little harsh. I'm more referring to a mid-tier pro who doesn't adapt much but has a strategy that wins a little bit.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.