Flemeth

Starscaption ---> HUD ---> Player panels ---> [sizing] [actions]

I would love to know, though, how he displays the raise size as a percentage of the pot, instead of the pointless multiplier of villain's bet, which is shown by default using the [sizing] tag.

Great, I'll watch it as soon as I get a subscription. Thank you for reminding me.

Awesome, thanks a lot.

Let's say we are IP on the river, with SPR=2. We have a value hand, OOP checked and he's not allowed to raise after we bet. Most people know that a 100% equity hand (nuts) want to bet as big as possible, 200% pot (all-in) in this case. We also know that hands with better than 50% equity when called are good enough to value bet.

Let's say ranges are wide enough and OOP has mostly bluffcatchers. He can't raise, therefore we can be even more flexible with our sizings. We've a good hand but not close to nutted, that after going all-in and get called has 52% equity, therefore betting is the correct play. However, this combo probably will have higher EV by sizing down and having higher equity when called. We can size down a lot, maybe to the point that we win 95% when called. Well, according to my experience with solvers, this won't be optimal either. Usually the optimal size will fall in the middle, something like 70% equity when called seems to maximize.

My question is, is there any way to take a look at this in a more analytical technique? I find it interesting to know around what equity maximize EV after getting called and be able to put some logic behind that number.

Cheers

Very solid response, although in this spot solver often will size down on turn 2nd broadway card (40-50% pot, targeting OOP pocket pair heavy range), which allows hands like AQ to barrel a bit more often.

Excelent video, your application of theory into practice is great and kinda unique.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, you put it way better. Something similar at 50:30, the reason you don't raise AT shouldn't be "because its not high enough in our range", since we're talking about hand EV (call/raise comparison) vs villain's range. You might want to talk a bit about how the strength of our range affects the opponent's betting range, in order to avoid confusion.

Cheers.

24:30 - Here I found the logic a little incomplete. EV of AQ ott vs IP bet doesn't really change much in function of the rest of your range (maybe just a bit, because there's one street left). It actually changes according to villain's betting range. The thing is, villain obviously should adjust his betting range when facing a stronger range, which ultimately might alter drastically the EV of different combos on OOP's range. But let's say villain delay cbets 100% frequency on turn K, and we have a slightly +EV call with AQ. Well, now we can make our range as tight as we want, AQ will still be good vs full range delay cbet, might be even higher EV in case we are more protected otr after check-calling.

I just wanted to point this out for now, because I saw the same logic in another video of yours and it sounded equally odd to me. I'll continue watching until the end because it is definitely worth it, great job.

Cool, somehow I missed your previous comment, but it seems like we're on the same page here.

Great video!

2nd hand --- I think A8o usually checks otf because it dominates worse Ax and some combos are probably pretty close to 0EV continue vs XR. By comparison, A5o-A3o get folds from better Ax for that sizing, and it can fold easier vs a raise (at least without Ah). Assume these particularities have more weight than the blocker effect in this situation, when making a flop decision.

Great video! Really liked the K9o analysis. People often say they don't bet x hand because it can't continue vs raise, which I find very inaccurate. They should say something like "my hand is in the worst possible situation after getting XR, by being close to 0EV decision, which is a reason for checking in the first place".

Bet-folding is part of a strong strategy, obviously. Some players even force a larger size ott with a specific combo, just to be able to barely call a raise-shove, which is often a terrible reasoning, imo. If you can continue vs raise but it's very close, your situation has not improved. I guess it's for the thrill of gambling.

What do you think about the 2nd barrell with QQ? Does PIO prefer betting the double flush-draw blocker combo, or not blocking those? It seems another interesting hand to look at. Cheers!

Great stuff, Patrick. Nice to see someone talking about 4bet pots, spot so often overlooked.

I'd have liked a longer video, though. A follow up video analysing additional hands would be very nice. It could also be interesting to see situations where the caller is OOP, maybe emphasizing the strategic differences between both spots (just an idea).

Make sense, thank you for the quick response.

33.00 with JTs on Q935, I agree there's no need for having a raising range ott, although wouldn't mind jamming strong hands that need some protection like AQ, mixing some high equity bluffs like combo-draws and nut flush-draws. I like your play with JThh, think it could be a little bit too weak to jam (low equity when called).

21.40 --- Do you see any merits in explotatively using a medium size with value hands, because people would overfold vs big bets on this runout?

31.00 --- After you checked, what would you have done if you had faced a 75% PSB on the river?

33.00 --- Would you play any raises vs 2nd barrel on this turn?

Great video, thanks!

Ran my own sim to try to understand it better. Got similar results. The flop XC line for OOP is infrequent (even for b66) and extremely condensed. As PrankCallRiver said, this results in IP attacking turn very thin for value and very polar relative to OOP range. Once IP XB turn, his range on the river is super weak, but has some flushes left. OOP's range continues being mostly condensed, despite his huge equity advantage, so it mainly likes to either block or check, protecting the middle range (JJ-TT, 9x), while still getting added value with flushes after IP raise-shoves thin with QTs. IP facing block bet otr:

The spot is weird and difficult to analyze tbh, largely due to the low frequency XC line on the flop. I don't think these results are very relevant in practice, but still interesting.

Pot and stacks are simulating a $5/$10 game, so yeah, -15 chips equals -1.5bb or -150$ for the 50/100 stake. In other words, -15 chips in a pot of 240 chips, equivalent to ~6.25% pot mistake otf. The check behind otr would be a 13bb mistake in PIO land.

Sure, there you go.

43 minute on the right, the AK hand seems like a huge mess by bit2easy. His call otf is losing a lot. It wasn't like Ben was check-raising every hand, so maybe he misread the suits, I don't know.

Then he allows you to showdown a hand that shouldn't be checking for any EV. The runout is pretty good for OOP, so the double checking line for OOP (turn and river) is very weak, allowing hands like AK to have a very high EV bluff on the river, even though it checks for decent equity (~21%).

Any additional thoughts on the hand would be appreciated, obviously. Very enjoyable video, with many details to analyze. Looking forward to the next parts.

Nice video, really enjoyed the different solutions for the last hand. I'd also think that increasing the weight of pocket pairs is a better representation of 500z games.

Another good spot for implementing very small bets is 3bet pot on boards like AJT/KQT, especially when IP has offsuit combos that flopped straight. Similar to your example on AKQ, but being OOP and facing more nutted combos I assume the strategy makes even more sense and see more and more high stakes players going for it. sim

If I understand correctly, according to the sim the XR play is losing 1.55 chips in a pot of 83 chips, which would cost us 1.8% of the pot. This is not a huge mistake, but quite significant one, imo. The sim structure is consistent with 5/10 blinds, where -1.55 chips equals -1.55$. So half dollars loss when playing 500nl.

Obviously the equilibrium change very quickly when the opponent overfolds or cbets too often. Reran it forcing IP to cbet 100% freq for that sizing. We have a break-even raise with Q7s now. sim

We need some pretty strong read on villain/population to make this raise profitable, imo. But it could be, for sure.

Thank you for your detailed reply.

35.50 on the left - Your XR otf seems quite loose vs b50 sim. i wonder whether it is an exploitative play vs player/sizing, expecting too many cbets, or just a low frequency play.

It seems like you open very loose SB vs BB but tight/standard on the button. Is it because the population are overfolding bvb? I'd expect your edge postflop being higher IP though.

Thanks!

Loved this one, I really like Lao Tse's quotes and you put them in poker context very well. Keep it up!

Right, I should've shown the whole picture. Let's fix it.

flop cbet
IP vs cbet

Great and instructive video.

18:50 on 9847 - I feel like this turn is really bad for OOP so we want to slow down a lot. As you said, IP is improving quite often, also he called a medium bet on a flop in which he probably doesn't do any raise, so his turn range is initially quite strong. I think it would make more sense to check turn very often and build a value heavy but still balanced check-shove range (risking a lot, facing strong equity driven range). Here is my sim.

It's true that your combo does a lot of betting, although it only uses small sizings. It's indifferent vs IP shove, but obviously quite happy in other nodes.

I usually like your videos, but I didn't like this one. It looked more like a hang out on twich than a teaching video. It sounded like you were in a rush most of the time. There was no time to get into details. Without pauses or hand selection, the content felt incredibly shallow. Quality over quantity, please, that's how people learn.

Nice review, Krzysztof. Few questions:

min 19, table 3 - Not sure why you were surprised by a single XR in this bvb spot. I checked it out on pio, sb checks flop around half of the time, having a pretty high frequency XR range, even for the large size that villain used in-game. sim

min 23, table 2 - It seems like a standard overbet or check turn spot. Do you think there are merits in sizing down against unknown opponents as you did? sim

Thanks!

Awesome stuff, thanks for the effort to keep bringing high quality videos.

Not Saulo, but I think it's a StarsHelper feature

Another great video. Thanks Sam.

Hey Saulo, thanks for the vid, you're bringing a lot of value to this site.

23.00 3BP on KT4 - I was surprised that you went for a polar c-bet strategy. It seems a spot where we have a huge advantage and the small bet will get a lot of folds.

On the turn, even though PIO wants to check your combo, I like your barrel, understanding that XR frequency should be very low. Once villain shoves, I think you could've folded. In theory it seems to be a close fold, while in practice I don't really see people bluffing anything but a few combo-draws, which you block.

Also, what about sizing down a little on turn? I think it would be effective on this paired and kinda dry board, having the benefit of gaining EV in XR/Xshove lines which, although they should be infrequent, I suspect they're more common and value heavy in practice.

I'd use the 'create subtree configuration' (from the turn) feature for these cases. In doing so 1) you save a lot of time and 2) the flop outcome will be better having more options for later streets. Only from there you limit the turn sizes according to the turn card and specific situation you want to analyse.