InsideMan

@39:10 KissMyAceplz shows up with t984ccss, which he flatted against conejin_20's preflop open. Do you think that's a reasonable defend in that spot?

I was just thinking about what you said at 06:23 regarding that our range doesn't really hit this board etc. The point I'm trying to make is that I think we can bet some hands that are not at the top of our range on this board if we have a betting range or do you disagree? The way you make it sound is as though you would like to construct your range here so that you are never giving up to a raise. Perhaps this is also some exploitative adjustment against the way you expect the population of opponents to play here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we can bet here liberally for protection, but I feel there are some hands we could bet given how strong the rest of our range is, that might benefit a lot from being able to take down the pot and don't really help our checking range. A lot of KK would fall into that category, and they don't represent many combos, so they are not likely to skew our range.

Sorry, I think I meant table one ~ 9 mins.

15:20 QsKs7dKh - Are you check your entire range here?

Ok, thanks for elaborating, I see my mistake now. I usually don't use that notation for some reason. I would have written JOO or J:OO, which is the same as JRR. I usually only use $R which is a macro for a broadway card, that's why I thought you were writing J[A-T][A-T].

At 12:15 you set Mathipeluri's check-raise range to include J:RR. Is this a common assumption you would make in these games or player specific? I wouldn't assume most players to be check-raising a hand like AQJ or AKJ here.

I agree with your sentiment, I think when a lot of people think of improving they think about getting coaching without even looking into what other options there are out there first that may often have a higher ROI.

I think your last sentence is interesting. My friends and I were hypothesizing that if you could find a player who wins at a similar rate than you do, but plays a very different style, it could be very beneficial to get coaching from them. I guess I could see an argument against that being that if they are not capable of understanding your approach to the game, they may not be able to give you constructive feedback on your game. However, assuming you have the competency to understand what they are doing and figure out if it complements your game or not, it could be quite valuable.

Thanks for your response. What are your thoughts on 1-on-1 coaching? Do you think it is necessary? Cooperating could be considered as loosely including coaching, but I know some people are adamant about coaching, others are neutral and others don't think it is necessary as long as you are improving.

By "new strategies", I was just trying to reference what you said in your video about finding out something new. E.g. a recent development was/is that people are way under-defending their blinds preflop. Something like that might not be something you just stumble upon, because it might not be intuitive that some of the weakest hands preflop are profitable to defend without looking deeper into it. Hands that are folded preflop before putting money into the pot are rarely analysed. That could be something one figures out through the deliberate process of looking for things to improve on.
I guess that is something you personally figured out by comparing your stats to the biggest winners and then digging deeper. So that would be one way you figured out something "new".

In the video you mention your process for figuring out new strategies and that you haven't found much lately. Is this something you've done deliberately, or have you've just had epiphanies along the way following your daily routine? If it's deliberate, what is your process for going about finding out new things? I think this could be interesting content for a video.

I was initially thinking of the challenge to include rakeback and I was considering looking for action on a side bet. Seeing that somebody has already done this challenge without rakeback, I don't really see that sort of bet generating much action. If I did the bet it would just be a challenge for myself, but I have no plan of limiting my game selection to just playing 100z at the moment.

Just the defaults.

Below is an example of the sort of problems I see when running Poker Juice. The equities show as 50% which is wrong. In this case it was easy to spot, because 50/50 seems like a suspicious equity distribution, but I am concerned that my intuition might not be as good in other spots and I might therefore be creating new false intuition by using Poker Juice. The correct equity here should be 62% for the SB, 38% for the BTN according to PPTOO.

Now these results were generated using a new machine. In this case a virtual machine that I am using through Google's cloud compute. I am not sure of the exact hardware being used, but the machine is an Ivy Bridge Xeon with 4 virtual cores, 15gb of RAM and a 50gb SSD running Windows Server 2012 R2.

My native machine is a core-i7 3610qm, 8gb RAM and SSD running Windows 7 Pro SP 1. And on both machines, that are independent of each other, I experience these issues. I therefore find it hard to believe that Poker Juice is running well on everybody else's machines when I was able to replicate the same type of error on two separate machines.

a) The value is that certain types of analysis is faster with Pokerjuice, even if you are already pretty efficient doing analysis with PPTOO (for example by assisting your analysis with spreadsheets) you will still save time.
Another benefit is that it just helps with overview due to the UI being much better than that in PPTOO. However, I don't see PJ as a replacement to PPTOO, more as a supplement. If I had to make a guess, I would say I do 70% of my analysis in PJ and 30% in PPTOO.
b) Not very important.
c) Hard to say since I am unsure what you intend on presenting, but I would say it is at least a little easier.

100z means 100 Zoom.

Wow, that guy absolutely destroyed that challenge. Thanks for posting. I've never seen anybody play with a red line like that and actually have a solid winrate.

Or folding is out of the question ^_^

Can somebody tell me where I can find the turn bet after flop raise stat and the fold vs turn bet after calling flop raise stat please? Or were these generate with Notecaddy?

Just saw your post. The big stack is shoving 95% or so, so that isn't really relevant. It also makes intuitive sense for the big stack to do that since everybody is massively overfolding due to ICM.

Yea, I didn't even really consider calling as an option, but I think you are right given the situation and the transparency we have over his range. I also didn't intuitively think our equity could be so low on some boards vs random. Thanks for your input.

I see your point about having to raise-fold top set in a marginal spot. At the same time, the point of raising is to get value from his calling range. I don't think we should be too concerned with the times he calls and the river is a diamond and he bets into us or when he reraises and we are in a tough spot, because that won't be the majority of the time and all other times we should be getting value.

I think two pair + broadway flush blocker is worth more than three pair on this board.

Q89T with 9c or Tc is also a decent bluff catcher on this board on the river though and shouldn't require too much protection on the turn.

I am not sure I would have him bluffing the river with AK, but he could also potentially bluff without 9T on this river, so that doesn't necessarily mean his range is too tight.

I don't think you can generalize and say you should never bluff catch this river. If he's barreling the turn wide enough and can exploit overfolding by overbluffing, then that is something we should be concerned with when there is uncertainty about his play involved.

I think being on the button helps, as it gives him more incentive to barrel the turn and helps him reach the river with a wider bluffing range.

Thanks for sharing your analysis. Given current pot-odds, this would mean we have to realize 79% of our equity. We have 2 nut outs and a six should be good a very high percentage of the time and give us some implied odds. So we have 3 fairly nutty outs with positive implied odds. In all other instances we are pretty much bluff catching. If villain could bet GTO against us on those hits, then we would not realize our equity a fair amount of the time, which in turn decreases our overall equity.
Exploitatively, I expect villain to play worse than GTO against us on our hits, but our lack of nut draw equity certainly hurts us.

When you break down ranges like you did, I think it is also interesting to look at an 'Equity Breakdown' for the river. I think it's a good intuitive way of getting a feel for how much equity we can realize on hits, without doing more tedious analysis.