Benovi

Great video. I will definitely try to at least start recognising spots where I have a good bluff catching hand and value blockers...but will be careful to use this as a tie breaker and not a justification for a bad call/bluff.  I've definitely overvalued blockers a few times in my life:)

Great video as always Simon.  MeleaB chose some great spots on the river.  After watching this video I realised how much work my river play needs. I play live 1/2 and 2/5 mostly and people don't bet fold the river that often (unless bluffing), so I usually chose to call/fold and don't 3-bet bluff rivers that often or ever. I need to start looking for spots like these against regs that know me for showing up in spots like these with nutty hands...but even the better regs would have a hard time folding a 9 on that TxT9T board. They seem to always put people on AK...haha. I always find that funny, when they justify bad calls in 3-bet pots with...oh no..I put you on AK... 

My logic for not 3-bet bluffing rivers is this...why choose a rather risky spot where I am risking a significant # of BB when I can pick lower hanging fruit spots with fish.  Unfortunately that means my range is very unbalanced and my level of play is capped.  Fortunately most people don't adjust appropriately to my range, and surprisingly keep paying me off.  So I think my logic is right for my games, but to improve my game and win rate and move up faster I need to stretch my comfort zone.  

I am playing full ring .10/.25 now on Merge. Last night I was the third or second tightest players at the table with 25/15/4, which seems pretty loose at the tables in the video. I play the same range live and seem like an uber NIT. 

So me question to you is what game/stakes do you recommend where the competition would be pushing my level of play without risking to much monetarily? I was considering HU, but am honestly a little intimidated to try it.  Usually only one player in the que and at .10/.25 (the lowest level on merge) I could easily go on a pretty big down swing playing a sick HU specialist over and over. Maybe I should just grow a pair and give it a try... 

Thanks Simon. Great video.  

Thanks for your thoughts.

Thanks for the video.  I don't incorporate bluff raising rivers enough in my game, so its nice to see some spots where you do and the reasoning behind them. I play mostly live 1/2 and getting people to fold MP,TP, or overpairs is impossible...even when I obviously have the nuts, so bluff raising rivers to balance my range is not a huge concern.  I do occasionally pick bluff spots against better thinking players or weak NITs, but have had mixed results.  I am assuming these spots shouldn't come up very frequently, but should be in my tool kit.  Especially against regs I play alot, simply to have a bluff possible in my polarized range.  

Agreed. You got it!  To be unexploitable you have to be constantly exploiting.  That's the definition of an equilibrium...constantly changing to cancel out the force of the other side, so in theory GTO is when you are perfectly exploiting all of your opponents in real time. A "nemesis" would be perfectly exploiting you at the same time and therefore create a perfect equilibrium or zero sum game.  

In poker a few interesting things questions/ideas I have would be.  

Could edge in poker could be defined as a difference in time between you understanding the villain and the villain understanding you?  The faster you recognize a players tendencies, which are constantly changing, the more edge you have. If you adjust every game and your opponent adjusts every other game you will be ahead of the equilibrium and therefore be a winning player.

GTO should be in a constant flux and therefore poker is extremely difficult to solve.  I believe poker is similar to a chemical equilibrium and is never static. When extreme actions are introduced the math becomes extremely complicated.  A true GTO poker bot would have to account for the possibility that the opponent has changed his/her preflop range and bet sizes randomly because they are on tilt. Chess and other GTO games don't have the same human element.  Even though we are simply algorithms, albeit extremely complex algorithms.

Great feedback Nick, thanks for your thoughts.  haha, "table quads and look like a badass". 

Great video, thanks Phil.    

Thanks for the video.  I play almost exclusively with fishy players (live 1/2)...and agree that most the internet videos/forums don't touch on the subject more than "bet your value hands", so thanks for posting.  I frequently have debates with myself on my sub optimal lines or style, that would not be recommended against online regs, but against fishy players extracts the most value.  I think in the games I play finding ways to exploit (hero calls, over playing TP+) are abundant and trump GTO, whereas online I tend to struggle to find an edge.  

I would like to improve my understanding of GTO/"good" play by playing better players though.  What is the best bang for the buck practice for a US player?  I was thinking of playing HU .25/.50 (the lowest possible HU) a few sessions a week online, the sites I available to play at just don't have a very large player pool (only a few that play HU, maybe one at any given time) and seem to have really strong players.  So it might cost me a bit for a while.  I guess I could just budget it as "coaching"..haha.          

Great video, I few of the your points that really rang true to me was the idea of exploitive folds and math being a useful but insufficient model.  I never really thought of folding as exploiting, great perspective.  

The black swan reference is a great example of why the math (pot odds/blockers/combos) doesn't really matter when the villain doesn't have a bluff/monster in their range.   

Cool thoughts.  I have been wondering the same thing.  Lately I have been playing almost anything on the BTN  live because everyone limps and plays fairly predictable at one of my local 1/2 games.  I have used online mostly for practice because I live in the U.S. Online .05/.10 is harder than my live 1/2 game and online 1/2 was insanely ridged.  I have been having the same conversation about my Live play.  Could I exploit Live games by playing a more ridged aggressive online style? I think so, to a certain extent.  

If I am on a predictable table I have found playing an 40%+ hands in position is profitable especially small pots.  After an hour or two I will have $50+ in small dom chips just from stealing orphaned pots. However, if I am on a table with a few manics and gamblers I have found I spew chips and need to tighten up to compensate for uncertainty.  Also I feel most people adjust pretty fast to loose aggressive players, so you definitely have to have a solid understanding of physical reads or you will be caught spewing your chips into quads and have a one step forward two steps back phenomenon.

I have heard similar stories about Gus playing an insane amount of hands in any position.  Does anyone have any footage of people playing like this.  I am curious to see the table dynamic and the style of play.    

Might be interesting to try a buy in or two with out looking at my cards and see how much I learn.  

Credibly is a relative concept in poker.  You "credibly" repping a strong hand here, might not be credible at all. The only reason I say this is you mentioned you have been getting called down frequently and even snap called down.  You might need to adjust to your image or adjust your image to make these spots work. I don't think the villain here should be belittled for calling either...he snap called and was right, so I that tells me you were predictable and he made an awesome read.  A little introspection and personal honesty might help you pick better spots. Good players adjust fast to over aggressive bluffers and spots like these can turn into very profitable gifts. 

Good try though, I don't know that I could make that call.  I like your attitude about trying new things even if you lose a hand or two.  I think thats how you get better and gain an edge over the group think. 

It was such a good spot though...

Nice hand, I agree with erdian that you took a very high variance line. I disagree about calling though. I don't think you should ever just call on a table like this with AK.  If you are really that worried about people calling you should buy in on the shorter side to decrease your variance and just ship it pre with AK in situation like this, AQ will still probably call:) By calling though you are never going to know where you are and are taking your edge away.  With a 7 way pot you have to hit two pair plus to really feel good and on a AK2 flop are you really going to get called by a worse hand? By calling you set yourself up to lose a big pot or win a small one.  Not an optimal risk reward scenario.     

I would have for sure have raised to 20-25 instead of called, unless your were fairly certain someone else would raise.  After calling you played it fine, but just took a high variance line.  I think your 100 raise was too big.  I think a 45-55 would have had the same effect and given you room to get away from it on the turn without feeling pot committed.

I found the key to success for me on these high variance tables is to be very picky about spots.  AK is a must play and a must raise/3-bet preflop.  Once people put money in they don't like to fold, so you have to make it hard for them to put money in the first place.  Once the calling chain starts more people call justifying it with odds.  So you have to raise or 3-bet ASAP to winnow down the field. 

You don't have very much equity in a 7 way flop, but heads up or 3 way you are a favorite and have a potential to win without hitting. 7 way would most likely be a check fold.  In this hand however, villain is obviously not folding the top end of his range.  If he played every pot, I don't know why you would think he would fold AQ ever preflop.  When he leads out that is strong to me, but since you have two over cards and a draw I like your ship. Well played. Bummer it didn't hit.     

Cool hand. As played I would fold the turn because you don't know enough about the player and a reraise all in here feels like it's begging to be called by AX.  

I think this hand is much more complicated than it seems and you have to think more dynamically about it. What's happened on the table so far? Have you been caught c-betting and folding too much? What's your image? What's the villains float %? Does the villain over play the button? Or check too much? Without any knowledge of my opponent or my own table image I am c-betting 100% of the time here.  

As far as the turn bet being OP sucks here, you check the flop and you will have to fold the turn if you miss and if you c-bet and hit your A or K your turn bet is not getting called by worse hands. For that reason, I would check the turn.  You are not getting called here by very many worse hands. Not many players would re raise an A on the turn in a three bet and c-bet pot without 2 pair or better or a strong draw. So i don't think a total bluff is in his/her range.

That said I think the key to this hand is your knowledge of the villain and table history.  I would snap call certain people here and snap fold to others. I might three barrel certain people or check call three streets to others.            

Considering the Villains range, and blind on blind dynamics (did you notice any previous blind on blind tendencies? Some nits will all of the sudden go crazy in these situations). I don't like the bet on the turn.  The villain could easily have you beat with AT, KT, TT+, 88, or 33.  Also people tend to get creative when in blind on blind action, so with good show down value I would hate to get blown off the hand by giving the villain another chance to steal the pot.  As far as calling the c/r on the turn.  I don't think calling is good unless you are willing to call a river bet when a blank comes, so probably a fold or jam situation for me of the turn,  I would lean toward jamming if I think the opponent can fold and folding if the villain seems committed.  You do have a flush draw which gives you outs if you are up against a set. I don't think the villain is folding here though, I would lean toward fold.    

On a contradictory note, if you bet folded the turn or checked the turn called the river, the outcome would likely have been the same, however with the bet fold you would be left questioning and the check turn call river you would know you made a bad call.  I like your fold on the river, with five virtual streets of value it feels like the villain had at least an over pair.  

With most NITs pot control/trapping is a -EV situation because their bluff rate and value range is too small to make it worth giving them free cards and you will likely be calling a value bet that has you beat on the river.  So protecting your hand is more important than inducing thin value bets or bluffs.  So knowing that, I don't mind barreling more against NITs, but when they call or raise the turn, you have to give up on medium strength hands.  So when villain c/r the turn, I think you are usually beat, and its a good idea to give up. I like your fold on the river.     

I agree with R0b5ter that the check check to bet/min raise looks strong, I stacked off yesterday in the same type of action, but it was small boat vs big boat.  A large majority of the time the nuts on this board is Tx, you have the 2nd over nuts.  Also min opening with TT is strange. I would think for most people Tx would be in their range here more often than TT.  

I like the loves big picture comment to, I am sure you have stacked off with much worse absolute hands in different situations such as AA maybe even bottom pair or A high and not given it a second thought.  Quads over quads is as cooler as it gets, so cooler that casinos pay you when it happens...hopefully your casino has a bad beat jackpot, then you win either way.