Agarwa30

This not really a critique on Dan, but I feel that most professionals are so focused on mimicking the solver that they forget to understand why they are using the solver in the first place. Solver is meant as a guideline from which to deviate from. Even if you are playing Linus you shouldn’t be trying to mimick solver. And in tournaments it’s even more atrocious to play like that. In almost every node there is a clear exploit. And if you it’s a seasoned pro then you aren’t paying enough attention. And the closer you get to river you action needs to get more absolute. There is no indifference in real life poker. Talking about solver EV is asinine. It’s the solver EV not your realized EV. There is almost always a clear line that you need to take. The whole point of solver is get a baseline from which you deviate. If your aren’t deviating then it’s like cooking a meal and not adding any salt and spice. You did all the hard work but the thing that makes food flavorful is missing. It’s absolutely the key ingredient. No wonder likes of hellmuth, Ivey and dregs who haven’t really looked at solvers do well even today.

@5:55 it’s such an under rated and over looked statement.in live environment it’s even more applicable

12mins in and I’m quiet disappointed.
I’m not in the habit of calling mistakes out but he went ahead to say people in videos don’t understand the concept of making something zero EV. But he uses equity and EV interchangeably which is almost criminal. Come on dude? If you want to call others out atleast make sure you are right especially when you are recording and have the option to review and edit your content.
Here is some food for thought. Something that has zero EV doesn’t mean it has zero equity. And something that has zero equity doesn’t mean it has zero EV. Last one is more difficult to understand and doesn’t happen in all the spots

@29:29 we dont care as much about blocking or unblocking the mdf range. It’s more about blocking the x back range with K2. The EV of B10 vs X is same solely cause of the blocker effect. K2 isn’t trapping any thin value from IP so it should B10 to 100% given all weaker 2x are value betting. But it’s Kx blocker EV is enough to make is indifferent between B10 and X. ( you are blocking a big portion of x range of IP). Also notice that the EV B10 and X wouldn’t be too different since it’s a X-X- line. it’s easy for blocker effects to push a hand from one action to another when using small block bets.

@22:00 I disagree with the idea of not pre-deciding the play before hand. I think when playing thinking time is really short. So you want to defiantely use the time your opponent is thinking to think your strategy. which means going through the different actions/reactions. waiting for your opponent to act and then starting to thinking isnt ideal at all and most of the time you will be under time pressure

I don’t think these features amount to a new version which they are trying to rake in money. These are completely uncosequential updates. They have not addressed the clunky UI. Range comparison is from another era.
It’s tragic and frustrating that they have tried to make a last ditch effort to charge more money while providing very little.
No wonder people have migrated to GTOW

I have known and been coached by QY for the last 2 years.My understanding of the game from a theoretical and practical perspective has grown exponentially since. Very few possess both a deep understanding of the game and an ability to convey difficult concepts.
Moreover, he is very approachable, is constantly experimenting and updating his own knowledge. Coaching under him has been the best investment for me.

I really liked the video. Getting player perspective for high pressure hand reviews gives a glimpse into how professionals think and make decisions. Please keep making content.
As a suggestion for future video topics, I would really interested in understanding how you profile players online (when hud isn’t allowed) and in live games.

thanks for the content.
Could you please share did you get the RNG to show up on the table?

great lesson like always!

Regarding the 7-2 bounty quiz with 7 or 2 on flop:
-The EV of checking with bluffs in the bounty game is not 0EV but -ve. So, the bluffcatcher needs to reduce the EV of betting bluffs. Therefore, he defends more than MDF
- EV of calling with bluffcatcher not 0EV but +ve due to the bounty. So, inorder to make the EV of calling with bluffcatcher 0, i would expect under bluffing.
Is the reasoning correct?

How did you get the pie chart for the preflop ranges? What software did you use?

Hi Francesco,
I have come to become a huge fan of yours. I like how you approach the game and I have gained quite a bit on how to use Pio in my study.
I wanted to seek your opinion on what you think of PokerSnowie and how it can be used to supplement Pio.
Right now, I have been using Snowie's training software and whenever I find something interesting I run a sim in pio for the spot. However, I see that Snowie plays the game sometimes very differently from Pio and I dont understand which one to follow in that spot.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks and keeping making such high quality content.

https://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/stack-size-influence-checkraise-frequen/

Kris Kruks goes by apotheosis.

i have run it once membership mainly to watch your videos. I'm wondering if you offer private coaching service though i guess a player of your caliber may not have time for coaching

I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that PIO suggests ranges where combos are in fractions. To me this is highly impractical but more importantly it obscures meaningful insights. I think PIO needs to be used in a certain way that is more reflective of actual in-game dynamics. for example, preflop mixing of hands can be either done in fractions of .25, .5. or .75. That is to say I can expect a certain player to 3bet AQs 50% of time. Assigning it 33% or any other fraction doesnt make practical sense. How can a player even manage to keep track of which hands he has 3bet what percent of the time and from which position.
Coming to flop, PIO recommending raising 5.9 combos is all good but no player is doing that. wouldn't it better to a) assign post flop actions based on flop texture and range advantage? if the OOP shouldnt have a check raising range then dont set it as option in PIO. This will obviosuly affect the combos that can be bluffed raised
b) i think post flop actions need to be rounded to the nearest .5 or .25. any other fraction is meaningless. not because no player would ever be able to play in those fractions but mainly cause it obscures insight from PIO. this would help us under stand how to play certain types of draws.

I love your videos. I feel I learn a lot but more importantly it teaches a me about thought process that goes into making decisions. I feel that it of great value in all your videos.
Definitely gonna buy the Grinders Manual

Would love to see more Pre Flop videos like the one you did on 3-bet Pre Flop ranges

Noob question, but what does “run outs across frequencies” mean?