Aman Daby

Too baller for card match

Yo,

You make a couple of marginal defends in the bb multiway ( j4s and 72s if i remember correctly albeit against weaker players) . I keep going back and forth on this.... do we defend big blind wider or tighter as the pot goes multiway? So like obviously the suited hands play okay blah blah blah, but don't we realize less equity the more players enter the pot as we generally get to see less free cards etc. Plus flush over flush is gonna suck.

Also slight tangent: defending wider vs tighter as we get deeper oop vs 3 bet HU. As we get deeper most people seem to argue to me we realize more equity with lets says all our small pocket pairs etc. But if villain is effectively overbetting us, surely deeper stacks just favor IP as he can apply more pressure and xr becomes less appealing for us as larger SPR on later streets is gonna make things dicey?

Cheers

Your turn sims will be far from optimal since you don't have oop obing river. If you notice in the first example, we have no slowplays because of this (capped to a9). This is probably a reasonably sized mistake that will cost ev vs good players.

K62s board. I think for a true fair apples to apples comparison you need to lock villains range in the original sim to be under check raising also. I don't think it's true to say your actually gaining 0.7 chips ev by using the 1/3 pot. Villains who undercheck raise probably do so vs all sizings. But yes I think we can see that ev of the multisize strategy roughly equals ev of the 1/3 pot strategy for negligible difference, I just disagree with the conclusion that it might in fact be better based on your sim results.

Yo,

Question regarding multi-way pots and small protection c bets etc (so referencing Vitamin pro 1/4 pot c bet 3 way on q65r in 3 bet pot, where you say you think "his strategy is probably well thought out") , and if i remember correctly a few spots in part 1 where you advocate similar strategies.

So as a mid-stakes live player this is really relevant to me... I've gone back and forth quite a lot between employing a polar c bet strat multiway in a bunch of spots (especially oop where I have started xing range on a tonne of boards) and strategies where I use a lot of small sizings. Could you just elaborate on how you think these strategies should be used?

Some of my thoughts are that the small protection bets work well mostly in 3 way pots when opponents have a tonne of overcards for example. Even more so when we play against people who are under raising and not attacking the small size. I do get concerned that this strategy could get wrecked by some of the better regs. 4 way pots I've kind of gauged that our equity vs the field is just too low, the protection bets just become too thin and we are better off playing the polar strategy.

Cheers

Thanks a lot for the detailed response. Makes a lot of sense.

okay yeah, you myth busted that one pretty quickly haha

Also quick question about some stuff I use in game with regards to OB size:

If we didn't have the luxury of pio and had to construct a theory based approach to solving what our thinnest OB value bets should be/which size we should use (I guess these two things are pretty interchangeable) , would this mechanism be sound:

Iterate through: X seems like a reasonable ob size >>> at this size villains mdf would be y >>> against mdf range y our thinnest value bets have z% equity . If z<50% reduce size until thinnest value bet has z=50% and vise versa.

Does this seem like a sound approach for producing a reasonably solid strategy? Or if we don't know closely what Pio would do in a given spot should we be taking a by eye approach along the lines of "meh villain seems pretty capped to roughly this combo, but may have some slow plays so il size down a bit to roughly this size which seems okay, and it doesn't really matter because EVs of the strategies will run kinda close"

Sorry if that's an earful. Thanks

a2 v kqo hand....

Yes agree with above comments Pio is playing a mixed strategy on flop with a2o. Looking at aggregates reports, the 9 turn is a pretty neutral card for both players ranges. Pio however doesn't agree with your analysis on IPs turn betting range. Im not sure how to interpret some of my results...for example Pio seems to have no concern for protecting its x back range almost pure betting made hands down to TT, and continues to push its flop EV advantage on turn. Why do we think this is?... The conclusion I have come to is that on board as dynamic as this we will still have nutted hands on a bunch of rivers, by mixing in a solid proportion of fd and overcard type hands into x back range. Bricks like the 3c are so uncommon that it doesn't matter that our EV drop to rough 1/3 pot share. Does this logic hold?

The above turn strategy therefore implies your suggestion that "strong players will have a small but reasonable proportion of qq 99 55, therefore a large raise but not shove is best" is not correct.

Here are my sim results for river where Ip does and does not have boat slowplays:

vs capped range:

vs 20% qq 99 55 slowplay:

So your strategies vs various villains seem pretty spot on. Which turn strategy do you think is consistent with what you see from the different pools?

Nice vid. Regarding part 2... I think looking at how the EVs of each strategy change when faced with poor counter strategies for IP will be really relevant to live poker, so thanks for that. Also, please include something where you add stack depth in as an extra variable. maybe including some larger turn or river barrells (if you have enough RAM to do so) . I assume X 100% will be MES for OOP if we increase stack size to lets say 500bb (something I'm often dealing with).

Sauce,

Do you think oop's EV could be increased here if we gave more strategic options. For example I'm thinking about a 1/3 pot c bet size. Is there a reason you didn't include this as part of the sim?

My guess would be we would see a relatively high c bet frequency from oop. Maybe I'm simply underestimating oop's EV disadvantage and it would be tough to defend xing ranges, but this strategy intuativly seems to have a lot of benefits on a board where IP can aggressively raise. Thoughts?

Ps sorry I don't use Pio otherwise I'd posts some outputs.

Cheers

I love sauce