First hand, when we have a nut advantage and conceivably a range advantage, is it bad to bet turn with a much higher freq than solver and look to barrel many rivers?
9:30 so we min raise and as such bb range is wider, so we cbet more for thinner value and to move him off more of that wide range, and you mention getting him off the q7s of the world. However, getting him off q7 will require a double and likely triple barrel. My understanding is the more we cbet the less we can barrel in general because our range is so much wider and thus we have less turn value and less turn bluffs. I'm not sure what to make of this.
13:30 for the High-low bluffs for low AX (with a spade) its all future bluff combos. The spade allows you to bluff river spades. The low card allows you to unblock some of the AJ AT JT J9s stuff and also allows you to block some low straights that complete on this KQ54ss board on any (2-8) that hit on the river where IP will have these straights and OOP will only have the higher end straights.
In most databases these AXs hands are losing money from LJ/HJ because people don't understand how to make these High-Low bluffs. Very advanced concept for micro - low stakes but crucial for these hands to turn a profit.
Took me a long time to learn not to just choose equity driven bluffs. Where I would CB AXs with bdfd, then barrel when I turned a FD. Once I fixed this in my game you can see the graph below filtered for small AXs really takes off.
Nice work! That's an impressive turn around with your suited aces. It's definitely the region that solver pickups as profitable bluffs that we didn't figure out without the computer models.
SoundSpeed I haven't played online in over a year now, but I think most of the profit came from finding the turn OB IP B33-B130 and less CB SRP OOP. Able to XF the flop a lot more rather than B-XF. I wouldn't say only bluff the river when a straight completes where low AXs or low KXs has a blocker, but also when an over card or just scare card in general falls. I was playing on ignition for anonymous zone games so make of that what you will. I think I just had too many bad or simple heuristics in the past that led to a more equity driven range, but over time slowly plugged these leaks where OOP will be more equity driven, IP can find more of these polarizing bluffs, etc. With enough runitonce videos some of it finally clicked.
Video request for different types of bluffs on turn that follow through on the river.
1) Equity driven bluffs - which ones barrel river? (usually worst draws barrel BBB and best draws FD, oesd, etc BBX give up unimproved).
2) Polarized bluffs that do not have equity besides 3 outs to an over card or maybe a gut shot on the turn and do not mind getting check-raised a long with some strong equity draws that play BBX. These polarized bluffs will barrel river when river completes a low straight or flush and hero has a blocker. Can see on image below the spades give up, so if hero is too equity driven on the turn there are not enough bluffs on the river. Spades can still bluff, but mostly the ones that now interact with the possible straight 63s/86s.
Maybe in the future -- I'm going to continue my focus on turn barreling situations for at least the next couple of videos. The next video is going to deal with turn-raising regions.
Not sure if you had mentioned this in a prior video (going through the archives) - but what does it mean when solver provides a solution on the turn that is mixed. For example, both protection betting and non-protection betting. Is it that we have such a range/equity advantage - that we can now treat our marginal value hands requiring protection betting?
The nut region basically always wants to defect to giant sizes, so the solver uses some techniques to limit the sizing of the nut region on the turn (mainly the threat of the c/r). On some boards, we have enough nuts to cover the small bet region against raises, while still having some nut hands leftover that can defect to bigger sizes, so the solver splits ranges.
Hey Tyler -- I really enjoy this type of two-parter (three will be nice :D) where you talk about the fundamentals/theories deeply first and follow up w real examples!
On the first KQo hand I feel you kind of end it abruptly and didn’t bring conclusive notes on how to deviate vs real human.
You are saying we make the assumption of villain is capable of getting all the money in OTR hence we will need to pay more attention in the xback line, as the consequences, our turn range construction will be more polar to cover river runout in order for us to have bluffs on every river.
However, do you think that will be the case for rec players? Since -
1) they wouldn’t have enough strong hands xjamming river to attack our BXB line;
2) they probably aren’t thinking about board coverages/bluff density regarding different river runouts.
Should we still be focusing on building a solver-alike turn barreling/checking range? Does that really matter if we are playing weaker players?
I tend to agree with your assumptions -- and I think it's pretty easy to show emperically that slowplaying the turn here against recs is has been quite bad. I'd also arguing checking hands that make lots of nut hands on rivers is also quite bad due to the under-raise. The solver sees some exploits in these decisions so chooses to play a bit more passively in position.
Loading 20 Comments...
Great video, Tyler!
First hand, when we have a nut advantage and conceivably a range advantage, is it bad to bet turn with a much higher freq than solver and look to barrel many rivers?
9:30 so we min raise and as such bb range is wider, so we cbet more for thinner value and to move him off more of that wide range, and you mention getting him off the q7s of the world. However, getting him off q7 will require a double and likely triple barrel. My understanding is the more we cbet the less we can barrel in general because our range is so much wider and thus we have less turn value and less turn bluffs. I'm not sure what to make of this.
Thanks!
So this is a little bit of black box to me, but the general gist is that we have to barrel turn above X% otherwise OOP should donk.
Otherwise, we need to barrel turn below Y% (on average) to keep OOP calling things like A-high on the flop.
I need to spend more time on the technical thresholds here.
13:30 for the High-low bluffs for low AX (with a spade) its all future bluff combos. The spade allows you to bluff river spades. The low card allows you to unblock some of the AJ AT JT J9s stuff and also allows you to block some low straights that complete on this KQ54ss board on any (2-8) that hit on the river where IP will have these straights and OOP will only have the higher end straights.
In most databases these AXs hands are losing money from LJ/HJ because people don't understand how to make these High-Low bluffs. Very advanced concept for micro - low stakes but crucial for these hands to turn a profit.
Took me a long time to learn not to just choose equity driven bluffs. Where I would CB AXs with bdfd, then barrel when I turned a FD. Once I fixed this in my game you can see the graph below filtered for small AXs really takes off.
RunItTw1ce are you only barreling river with the high low hands if the low straight comes in?
Nice work! That's an impressive turn around with your suited aces. It's definitely the region that solver pickups as profitable bluffs that we didn't figure out without the computer models.
SoundSpeed I haven't played online in over a year now, but I think most of the profit came from finding the turn OB IP B33-B130 and less CB SRP OOP. Able to XF the flop a lot more rather than B-XF. I wouldn't say only bluff the river when a straight completes where low AXs or low KXs has a blocker, but also when an over card or just scare card in general falls. I was playing on ignition for anonymous zone games so make of that what you will. I think I just had too many bad or simple heuristics in the past that led to a more equity driven range, but over time slowly plugged these leaks where OOP will be more equity driven, IP can find more of these polarizing bluffs, etc. With enough runitonce videos some of it finally clicked.
Video request for different types of bluffs on turn that follow through on the river.
1) Equity driven bluffs - which ones barrel river? (usually worst draws barrel BBB and best draws FD, oesd, etc BBX give up unimproved).
2) Polarized bluffs that do not have equity besides 3 outs to an over card or maybe a gut shot on the turn and do not mind getting check-raised a long with some strong equity draws that play BBX. These polarized bluffs will barrel river when river completes a low straight or flush and hero has a blocker. Can see on image below the spades give up, so if hero is too equity driven on the turn there are not enough bluffs on the river. Spades can still bluff, but mostly the ones that now interact with the possible straight 63s/86s.
Maybe in the future -- I'm going to continue my focus on turn barreling situations for at least the next couple of videos. The next video is going to deal with turn-raising regions.
Very analytical. and of course , very good!
Thanks Blanky! I appreciate the love.
Great video as always!
Thanks Winston! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Not sure if you had mentioned this in a prior video (going through the archives) - but what does it mean when solver provides a solution on the turn that is mixed. For example, both protection betting and non-protection betting. Is it that we have such a range/equity advantage - that we can now treat our marginal value hands requiring protection betting?
Really great question, Winston!
The nut region basically always wants to defect to giant sizes, so the solver uses some techniques to limit the sizing of the nut region on the turn (mainly the threat of the c/r). On some boards, we have enough nuts to cover the small bet region against raises, while still having some nut hands leftover that can defect to bigger sizes, so the solver splits ranges.
Hey Tyler -- I really enjoy this type of two-parter (three will be nice :D) where you talk about the fundamentals/theories deeply first and follow up w real examples!
On the first KQo hand I feel you kind of end it abruptly and didn’t bring conclusive notes on how to deviate vs real human.
You are saying we make the assumption of villain is capable of getting all the money in OTR hence we will need to pay more attention in the xback line, as the consequences, our turn range construction will be more polar to cover river runout in order for us to have bluffs on every river.
However, do you think that will be the case for rec players? Since -
1) they wouldn’t have enough strong hands xjamming river to attack our BXB line;
2) they probably aren’t thinking about board coverages/bluff density regarding different river runouts.
Should we still be focusing on building a solver-alike turn barreling/checking range? Does that really matter if we are playing weaker players?
Thank you!
Really great question!
I tend to agree with your assumptions -- and I think it's pretty easy to show emperically that slowplaying the turn here against recs is has been quite bad. I'd also arguing checking hands that make lots of nut hands on rivers is also quite bad due to the under-raise. The solver sees some exploits in these decisions so chooses to play a bit more passively in position.
Can you provide link to video 1 please? Thank you (you da man!)
https://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/tyler-forrester-turn-barreling-and-gto/
great video Tyler thanks!
Thanks TruePower
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.