Pitsquared

Oh nm. I thought sb opened and you 3bet. Totally different dynamics. It’s probably ok to barrel off. He should have a fair amount of missed draws that floated flop, PPs that instafold. but again, when the K turns it’s tempting to fire nearly your entire range and not concede that you range bet flop and show up to the turn with your entire 3bet range. It probably comes down to whether or not you think people are calling rivers w 9x and how wide you think he’s peeling flop and turn. Intuitively I feel that most people slightly over fold all three streets

Are you betting high frequency OTF? Even if you’re not you still end up with lots of bluffs OTR if you’re barreling all your gutters+ and you’re repping Kx+ for value, so if you think villain can ever call you with worse than Kx you need to be selective with your bluffs. 87 would be one of my top candidates to give up, blocking 77, 88, 79-89s if you think he XC XC XF those hands and not blocking any value hands. You can probably get away with it if v is folding too much OTR

VS really good players bet sizing starts with how thinly you are going to bet for value. I ask myself, what is the weakest hand I'm betting for value? The answer to that isn't always easy. It requires that you are aware of each player's range enough to know the hands you would be targeting OTR for value. Then decide the size that will accomplish that and bluff with the right frequency. If people are calling too many bluff-catchers, you value bet more and bluff less.

VS most players, if you can stack your assumptions in a realistic way and have some idea of their range and how they might respond to different sizes, you just choose the size that is going to elicit the highest amount of overfolding, exploitatively, unless you give them enough credit to figure out what you're doing and pull the trigger on that read.

If you're triple barreling 60-75% pot OTR and getting called by Ace high it's likely that you should just stop bluffing and value bet more thinly.

I like to evaluate things out loud almost as if you're teaching it. This is my process:
1. Evaluate the characteristics of each player's range and how that will factor into each player's overall strategy at this node.
2. Forecast how the entire branch plays out. Take SPR, texture into account. (i.e. BB vs BU 3bet pot, OOP pure bets small, IP mixes call & fold, continuing threshold is overs + bdfd, any pp + bdfd, etc.)
3. Forecast how your hand class plays (size, frequency) compared to overall strategy betting freq. and why?
4. Forecast how your specific hand plays compared to how hand class plays and why? Make your guess and then go to the solution and compare similar hands to try to understand blocker effects.
5. Optional; Node lock guess and check.

Yeah it takes awhile to get through a whole hand but trust me, you will retain what you learn. And the process becomes faster and more automatic the better you get.

Just piggybacking on the helpful point made above. Since the relative strength of the range with which we want to put money into the pot goes down as SPR goes down, on boards where equities shift more easily on future cards, such as the flop you mentioned, our prime motivation is to put money in with those hands before they are devalued by a connecting/flushing turn or river, which is why you see solver choosing a bigger bet size at a decent frequency. This is something you notice often on volatile flops in general. Yes, the turn will often devalue our one pair range but that is why it’s important to put that money in otf, to get the amount of value your hand wants before a turn comes that deters both players from putting huge sums of money in the pot. Very often the turn will be a blank and we can continue putting in large amounts of money in the pot with the range that is motivated to do that. I think you are concerned with being in a spot where the pot is bloated and you are OOP with one pair. Yeah it’s not fun but if you’re playing a good strategy and are aware of villains range you should have a robust turn/river strategy to not be run over. Remember, villain has those same hand classes and even though we may have to fold our one pair hands to lots of action when the runout is a certain way, many times we’ll show down cheaply and win after putting in that large bet otf.

Just imagine if you checked all your strong one pair hands and only bet two pair+ and draws, or even if you checked your entire range. You would never get enough value with those strong pairs and you would be very easy to exploit.

Tbh I'm not sold on the main driver for betting hands like JsTs being to build a pot for when we do improve. I think that leaning too much on a heuristic like that might lead me to bet too many of my draws. I think that a better way of looking at it for me is putting in more money with hands whose equity/EV isn't squandered when called/raised. In other words, when opening or reopening the betting we prefer to do it with a more durable range. I think that JsTs is just a robust hand that gets called by worse, better hands to fold (some Kx), has extremely durable equity when called or raised, allows us to have a distributed betting range such that we have some Jx when a J falls OTR, and it blocks a crazy amount of OOP's high EV range so we reduce the frequency with which we're called/raised. I think that evaluating hand qualities in a more nuanced way leads to better results for me.

Exactly. Sam Grafton made a good video about it where he says sizing down is helpful when villain has a decent amount of strong hands that want to put in a lot of money while also having a decent amount of money that don't want to put in any more money such that we realize equity vs his weak hands while saving money vs his strong hands.

What I do is solve the flop subset provided with a tree that includes multiple sizes (up to 6). Then I look at each flop to see what size(s) the solver prefers and also whether or not there is a clear correlation between size and hand/hand class. Usually, when it is clear that certain parts of the bettor's range want to use one particular size over others, it tells me that there is more EV to be gained by using multiple sizes. Conversely, when there is no clear correlation such that most betting hands use multiple sizes, almost indiscriminately, where all the different colors run together, I usually discover that I can capture with one bet size (a catch-all size) most of the EV earned by multiple sizes. Then I try different sizes, one at a time using my initial subset as a guide, for each flop to determine which size or two earns the most EV. I also take into account complexity when developing my strategy and I usually only use multiple flop sizes when my range is condensed (3bet, EP open, etc.). My challenge with two flop sizes is randomizing bluffs/draws where many times there is no clear direction. Would love to hear how better players are doing this.

After trying for awhile to figure out some kind of bet sizing formula it has become apparent to me that, excluding spr and villain's strategy, bet size is a function of range composition in relation to the texture. How much of villain's value range wants to put in large amounts of money? How much of his EV is earned from draws? How much of his range needs to fold to almost any bet size? Related to that is how likely equities are going to shift on future streets.

The ice analogy wasnt as helpful for me because you're not really testing the integrity of the ice as much as leveraging the fact that OOP needs to fold a lot of his range to a small bet while allowing the bettor to realize equity and get value/protection with a wider range of hands. Facing a capped range OTT is a biproduct of the small bet, but not the main driver of the flop strategy. If that was the case then we would just bet small on all textures where the defender ends up with a capped range OTT to "test the ice" before we attack. But we know that that isnt the case because that applies to almost every texture.

Testing the ice, instead, is a better analogy for using a small bet exploitatively on textures where a solver would bet bigger because you think your actual opponent will perhaps raise too often with his high equity hands OTF thereby capping his turn range when he just calls.

Thoughts?

For anyone reading this thread who plays BOL i won the 10 NL jackpot months ago for 100 bucks and in spite of forseeable downswings i contknue to win there and have cashed out multiple times. Im not saying that OP doesnt have a genuine gripe. Im just attesting that from my perspective the site is safe.

Usually i get one bet size when i accidentally forget to unclick the get the money in smoothly with 2 bets left. Other than that it looks fine to me. Well...if you dont include a default bet size how is the tree builder going to define a size for all the nodes youre leaving blank? I would insert a 60-70% bet size as a default to make the raise sizes realistic. Let me know if that works

I use GTO+ but i can translate PIO training vids to my own use of solvers. Its the same output in a different format. Its especially similar now with the new updates to GTO+ and flopzilla.

And i think Nuno's message is sound but also lacks empathy. Imagine having perfect vision of every player's range, ev, equity, past and future strategy, and the highest ev action for each combo. Youd be the best player on any table you sat. Well thats what a solver does. The question is, how do you learn how to do those things? Well you practice calculating those things in your head and then use the solver to give you feedback. You learn why it does what it does. But thats the hard part.

And thats where trainkng videos and coaches come in. I agree that a solver video without context is not very useful. Its like...yeah i could have done that on my own MFer. But i think coaches are getting better at concluding WHY a solver uses a certain strategy and the WHY is something we can extrapolate. Its hard to understand the languagr of a novel program but it gets easier with time. And in time you start to think in that language in-game, so be patient with it.

That said, not everyone learns the same way. Solvers can be dry when you dont notice the value it adds to your game. I have the dilemma of not knowing which type of study is doing the right most for my game. How do you really know that? I feel like you could watch someone good play and if you understood why they were doing certain things, that alone could make you a good player.

I'm ecstatic. Built in GTO Trainer...

Actually giving solver 30, 50, and 87% cbet sizes it chooses 30 and 50 almost exclusively and is Xing around 20% and very rarely Xs flush draws. Also the question is not whether or not IP prefers to X back some flush draws. The question is why X back these specific flush draws that intuitively feel like they should be bet having little sdv, back door possibilities and block OOPs continues?

Yeah its hu and im using pio hu 100bb srp ranges. Forgot the exact %s. Like 85% open

Ive won there for almost a decade with some pretty decent variance at both sngs and micros. Ive actually run pretty good as of late

I play micro heads up and am looking for a play/study partner to play and record our sessions to later discuss. I play 25nl to 50nl and $10 husngs. Offer is open to anyone. I have a pretty efficient study regimen that i can share too

I agree with Mikey. I struggle with wanting to protect a win too. At that point i either quit right then and there or i use that fear (what it really is) to challenge myself to continue making the most profitable play. Its like anything else. You have to practice dealing with that fear if youre ever going to learn to play through it. But booking a win might give you confidence to bring to the next session or it may inspire you to study more. It all comes down to what your goals are, booking wins or playing well longer.

Theres a youtube video replaying a recent hu match between Linus and Trueteller. I think it would be a great and popular idea to review that match and evaluate the play of the best technical player vs the best exploitative player. Sounds like popcorn material to me.

Its pretty much scripting. You can set up preflop ranges and construct the tree and solve hundreds of different flops by just letting the solver run all day long. That way i can have a whole database of solutions to study so that i dont always have to solve a new tree every time i want to study a specific situation. But 100bb trees with multiple sizes take forever to solve so id rather trade databases with someone

I would recommend the video by Sauce exploring the proper adjustments facing different cbet strategies. Basically he concludes that the less polar villain's betting range the less polar your raising range will be vs a bet. Also you will want to fold more of your weaker bluff-catchers because they have less equity/ev vs a linear range. You also want to bet pretty much your entire range vs a X because villain's X range is weak/unprotected. So it's less about villain's bet size and more about his range. Size does come into play because it affects SPR and that does affect your strategy (look at Apotheosis vid How stack size affects strategy). Also, as he stated above, bloating the pot with a weak range opens villain up to exploitation but only if you're defending properly.

I think Tyler and Juan Copani both have such videos

Also i remember the Tyler vid where he rails nosebleeds and cindy XR vs linus on Kh7c3h or something like that and barreled pot on an off suit T and Tyler said Linus prefers to continue ott w/ QhQx compared to QQ without a heart because when he rivers a Q it doesnt bring in the flush. That sounds like such a small effect because of how unlikely it is to happen but i guess when you consider how bloated the pot is becoming in both my example and yours it makes sense to block a possible "cooler".

I thought about your suggestion for a while before responding to make sure im being honest with myself. In the past i have had more of an issue with lack of focus and not knowing when to quit, trying to chase a loss to prove to myself that im not a loser. Or quitting too early to preserve a small win but more importantly preserving the "feeling" of being a winner. Ive learned how to recognize when im emotionally compromised and leave the table or leave when im unfocused. What im wondering is, does there come a point where you become less emotionally attached to results, good or bad, just by playing more and confronting those attachments? Do humans naturally adapt to losing, fear, etc. with practice?

Ive heard good players say that "we do a good job of blocking villain's higher-equity hands" that continue vs a bet/raise. I've also heard that "we have more equity when the flush does come in". For example if the river came the 3c we would have a more profitable bluff-catch after XRing turn? Im not really sure if the context of your question matches the context of what im saying but i hope it can continue the discussion of something that is interesting if not important. I myself dont have a game plan for XR turn (and playing rivers when called) on this particular texture with this hand category but ive seen this trend in solver outputs in other spots and would love some context for this mystery.