JulianR

This depends on whether or not he can bluff. If he can bluff with missed diamond gutshot FDs like 6d7d, 7d8d, JdTd, QdTd, QdJd it's a call on the turn with about 40% equity. If he can only bluff half of these you can fold.

Asumming he's bluffing enough on a blank river, it's a borderline profitable call. Ace high flushes, blocking his flushes are best to call.

To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, "You don't give they public what they want, that's why they're the public! They don't know what they want!!"

Political polls (Brexit, Trump etc) having little predictive value. Asking the wife, "what's wrong?" is a sure fire way for fireworks.
People don't know, are too scared or can't enunciate what they REALLY want. Polls have little informational value. Do polls have value as advertising and community engagement? As advertising, they're ok. As community engagement they're hollow. Because on a deeper level, we know that if the poll runner really cares about and wants the best for his product they're not going to listen to us.

So the pollsters client becomes disenfranchised.
A perfect example of this feeling is recently I accidentally opened "Google Assistant" on my phone, googles version of Siri. Under my breath, I replied "fuck off google". Releasing some frustration and hoping some smart programmer may have programmed in for Google Assistant to go away and let me do what I was doing previously.

Instead, Google Assistant replied to me something like, "I can see you're frustrated. I'm sorry you feel that way, is there something I can do to help?"
There's nothing like being patronized to by a robot.

How they listened to some 3rd grade psychologist and implement this response is curious indeed. A robot can't feel empathy, so we don't care when it empathizes with us. Instead it feels hollow and belittling. I'm quite sure this is not what google intended.

Same goes, if perhaps on a smaller scale, for polls where the pollster doesn't, or shouldn't care. This is important for RIO poker to be aware of. Because being a smaller, more agile offering, you should be able to out compete others with REAL community engagement and customer satisfaction. Copying others in this sphere would be a mistake. This is an area that matters to net depositors and will have farm more impact than minimal table number caps.

The little informational value that polls have is for new ideas that haven't been previously thought off by the pollster.

OK, now I've got that off my chest and finished my rant on value or lack thereof of polls, I'll tell you what I think.

4 v 6 tables. I need to play more either way, so I'll play across sites to get enough tables. 6 tables is better IF they are good tables. The difference between 6 and 4 on game quality is going to be small. A company hamstringing itself by restricting it's cheap as fuck scalability for little benefit is not seem very smart. Maybe if it were between 6 and 20 tables, and there was a legit concern about detrimental game quality this would be an issue.

Table designs - More is better, I've long used 3rd party add ons to get table designs I prefer.
Simple, quick deciphering is better. For everyone, not just mass tabling pros. i.e. Card back 1 and card front 3.

As always, good luck.

I'd just get it in on the flop. Missing out on coolering his made hands is very costly.

Preflop call is fine. Call turn. He has bluffs, gutshots, fd's & random shit that he's barreling because the K is good for him.

It's fine, if you are happy about playing OOP against BB in a 3b pot.

You can just fold the flop raise. If he does have any bluffs 89 gets there on the turn.
I'd raise preflop larger, 6-8bb or more.

It looks all good. I had been hoping for more, a revolutionary approach.

Poker has been losing players hand over fist for years now in a global growing gambling market.
The problem isn't recs losing too fast - it's not like pros are doing well right now. The problem is the game is dying and needs to be reborn.

It's too easy to be a 'reg' and there is a very marginal benefit between the skill of a world class player and the skill of a reg in a 25/50c game. And then seat position on the fish can just throw everything out the window.

Game is for all intents and purposes, pretty much solved. Which has had the effect of changing poker from a tiered skill ecology to a near binary ecology.

Until someone comes up with and markets a game that,

1. Has multiple discreet advancements in skill, instead of the near binary reg/fish.
2. Can't be destroyed by solvers.
3. Captures the imagination of the public

, all efforts to beat the last ounce of blood out of the dead horse will be exactly that. A poor alternative to casino games.

Also fwiw having played a fucktonne of anonymous in the last couple of years. Not having a hud doesn't have much affect on my winrate against fish. It does however hugely reduce my edge against regs. If this is the same for everyone? It would further exaggerate the binary ecology. But I suppose it does churn more rake...

Called in here to check for any updates. None yet, so I'll rant a little.

One thing that's been bothering me recently is the new offerings from poker sites with stuff like stars 'beat the clock'.

A cash game that is raked 10% every 5 minutes. This isn't beatable. It isn't poker. Isn't a game of skill. It's a casino game. A nefarious, unbeatable game that is marketed and provided as poker. A skill game.

Poker sites shouldn't do this.

1. This should be illegal. Casino games should be a segregated from games of skill.
2. A poker site should be proud of it's winning players and open about their win rates (or lack of) and publicly provide this information. This should be mandatory to class a game as a 'skill game'. Because if there are no winners, by the default of game design (i.e. blackjack) OR because the game provider removes too much money from a skill game so that the game becomes unbeatable, that game is no longer a skill game. It's a casino game.

Charging a fee isn't conductive to a fair game.

Personally, I think sites should provide it all. At the moment we have a similar situation where guns are illegal, so only criminals have guns.

Hey Phil and co,

I saw the tweet and thought it was just another statement trying to put pressure on existing sites. Which is nice, but like bringing a rubber spoon to a gun fight. But a new site! Exciting!

My initial concerns (which don't need answering) are:

• RIO is more a 'reg' site. Is an offshoot poker site of that going to be able to attract enough recreational players?

• General poker site startup barriers to entry: regulation, licensing, policing of bots, getting critical volume, software, etc. This looks so scary.

• The poker environment of poker as an increasingly 'solved game'. IMO the next super successful sites (perhaps industry) are going to be ones that brings new games that are not easily solvable (and therefore bottable), such as NL and to an extent PLO, yet still incorporate all that poker 'goodness' which made poker such a successful game over the last few decades. It makes me happy that at the very least you understand a little of this 'goodness' and plan to implement it as a core part of your project. Unlike current operators, whose new games appear to be predatory, gambling rake traps.

It would be great if your site could shake up the status quo of the industry. I hope you can go on and be wildly successful. Good luck, I'll be one of the first to sign up!

Also this is my cover letter to apply for a role on teh 'new games team'. :D

If raise should be on flop, turn is call

ah ok thanks, i think if found it, the $fi15 stuff on this page
http://help.pokerjuice.com/hc/en-us/categories/200116138-PokerJuice-Preflop-Ranges

so i assume steve is checking if a random hand fits in one of these ranges

flop is a better cbet or x/r

1. Spend some time essentially doing flash cards - randomly pick a plo hand and say the earliest position I open from. Any that are close check the pokerjuice rankings.

How do I check the pokerjuice hand rankings?

Having geometric bet sizes on the turn and the river for a nuts/air range, does not infer that the bot won't or shouldn't save some % of the nuts from the turn to put into a bet turn smaller, shove river (nuts or air) range.
So I don't think we should assume from the turn bet that the bot should have some Kx hands in it's river shove range here.
Bot's KK will have a very large % in a river bet smaller range for later raises, so blocking KK is not a big deal.
I think the limiting factor to the bots shoving value range on the river is saving enough strong hands (Kx) to be able to value bet effectively at a smaller size against hero's large range of medium strength (Jx) hands.

Call the second hand and fold the first.

The 67 isn't really too helpful with blockers. I don't think the 6d makes much difference because the bot prefers to bluff with air rather than draws. Calling sometimes with A6 seems better as the bot is likely betting some better trips with a better kicker.

With the second hand the 9 blocks the bots main value shoving range 99, A9, AA, 95 and 55. I think given the 9 river, the bot won't have much 9x, and the bot would expect dong to lead the river at a very high % and will have its ranges slightly off compared to the first hand. So when checked to the bot is probably betting a little thinner for value, with some AK and A5 and unfortunately a small % of flushes.
If the T was a heart I think it's a call. But... I don't know, I think it's a coin flip without it. I think leading 9T on the river is better than checking it.

yo GT with the 2nd hand the graphic doesn't match your hand history text. The river is different, I assume the graphic is the accurate part and the text is a typo.

What ranges did you give the bot?

I think Claudico has some % of sets+ and a small % of KJ. I don't think the bot is going to exploit overfolding marginal hands or not having a mixed calling range. I think it's going to be pretty well balanced and it's limitations with blockers don't have much of an effect at that final node in the tree. So I don't think it really matters what hero calls with. I'd call KJ+ and sometimes K2-k4, J2s-j5s for the stream!

I don't think the bot has K3, K4 in its shove range.
I think K3, K4 are in the same boat. Assuming the bot gets to the river with a slightly smaller % of 33 and 44, but it will also be shoving a slightly smaller % of 22. So it's much of a muchness.

I'd call turn with gutshots, nut fd's and >tp
River: K9s, A2s, 99, 44, 22. and I guess would need to call about half of the rest. I'll assume that blocking the bots broadways for his overpairs and Kx air that barreled is going to be the best. So TT, A9, J9s, Q9s.

swear & toss a coin

I assume it's to exponentially increase the size of the game tree to a size Claudico can't handle accurately.

why do you think this? I think there's quite a bit of survivorship bias regarding 'elite players'

I'd guess a ROI of about 100%, with ITM a little better than 10%. With 100 entries @ 100%, chance of earning >EV would be about 35%.

I'll take against.
No ones ROI is that high and one tournament makes the bet close enough to random anyway.

no one knows

The sizing doesn't matter. Why people make it small is because sauce did it, its easier and/or as an exploitable play.

What value hands would you do this with on the river?

With such a range advantage, hero should probably be betting this river with all Kx and a good chunk of stuff like 99-QQ that gets to the river this way. Villain would need to call with some Ace highs.

1. I'd bet flop a little larger, so could bet,bet, shove with a slight overbet on the river.

2. Shouldn't you be happy seeing a check/raise? It's a horrible card for villain. And that's even if he's floating the flop with a decent chunk of Kx. He may even be x/r a hand like KQ.

3. In isolation, villain's river bluffing frequencies (unless they're way over the top) shouldn't influence the the turn decision.