Markus

guys, one aspect about moving up to z500... if you get 5-7bb/100 at 200 with basically no swings. why triple your swings and half your winrate for the same amount of money?

great content

min 9 the 87 vs 42s hand: wasnt a misclick by killeroo, he just likes to play pots vs weaker players
min30: think the kk fold is good vs population, fistpumping fold at 1/2

great addition. looking forward to the vid

Another Q crossd my mind:
Why are you trying to figure out OOPs strat when you yourself are never playing 29bb? Figure out possible deviations and therefor exploits against the pool/player?

Hey Krzysztof

Thanks for the creative input once again. I have worked with CREV before but have not really dug deep into that but your video inspired me to get GTO+ along with CREV again (appreciate a video on GTO+ btw, have played around a bit and it seems to have all features that PIO has and the user interface is so much nicer when you got used to it).

A few problems with using the knowledge in-game have come to my mind tho.

1) Naturally in an in-game decision we see one combination rather than the spectrum of hands and decisions we could use. If you now split up a combination into 3 different categories (B large; B small; X) or even more on future streets or facing action, I may get that this hand belongs to B large with frequency X but never in reality will get that f.e. 20% of that hand will now belong to the third category. The way you have set it up the frequencies seemed kind of off the top of your head and since the perspective in an in-game scenario is vastly different compared to seeing the whole spectrum right in front of you the practical implementation is missing for me a bit.

2) Picking up the frequencies you have worked with, I see that it can be helpful to compare the used frequencies and compare them with PIO, but I have not had the feeling that you are neatly comparing your used frequencies for hand-groups with the one PIO is using. Maybe you are experienced enough to compare this with a glance, but I would be interested A) How you detect flaws in your thought process more precisely and B) again build a mental bridge from having this great overview in programs like that to make the precise decisions in-game as good as possibile when fully focused.

What I struggle with in Poker is not necessarily the theory itself but the implementation and performance when nto having access to the programs used. Maybe you can give me some tips on how to strengthen my abilities there.

Thanks again for the great content, once again :)

i dislike the fact that you chose hands for this vid that were played vs recreational players as
i think most players watching this will be able to make the adjustment of lighter calldowns vs spewy donks.

range vs range analysis in reg vs reg situations. especially vs guys who you rank highly would be much more instructive imho.

again very precise and clean comentary, thank you.

I would love to see the risk/reward scenarios in those situations as well. In my limited experience counterexploits made way more EV than the initial exploit generated

one can tell, you took some time to make this video and organize your commentary.
much better than many careless live-play vids you get to see here.

thank you

Thanks again for a cool video, I tried to reproduce these 100% Cbet-strategies as well and I did not get a result that was making me happier than my fine-tuned-estimated ranges.

Nice takeaway is that these simplified strategies could be a very good option in situations where every combination is mixed. So this might be the case for situations with very condensed/small ranges. On the other hand you have to be more careful in these spots because in a MP vs EP 3bp scenario taking different 4bettingcombos probably has a huge impact on the solution.

Another thing in regards to putting in the hands manually:
I think I have through this work gotten way way better (try-and-error plugging in ranges until I am <0,5% EV loss) in on the one hand figuring out what suits and combinations on the Flop are playing an important role in being good backdoor-equity hands or bluffing-hands (because on some runouts it's just important to have bluffs when there are few natural bluffs) and what combinations on the other hand do (not) suffer from not getting protection/can realize their foldequity on later streets/not being in our range in the checknode as a good bluffcatcher on future streets.

It's just so complex and has so many factors on how to continuation-bet that experimental videos that show a different perspective on how to get better at this stuff and what concepts to take-away are very valuable for me personally.

Not through, yet, but funnily you can see the frequency in the beginning of each combo on the right end as you hover over the combos trying to nodelock. Pretty sure your unconscious takes note of that even though seemingly your conscious didn't :D

But that's the exact reason why you should not node-lock all streets with mixed strategies.
The moment, somebody deviates from solvers strategy slightly, your 100% J5s overbet becomes catastrophal probably, without even anybody trying to exploit something. And on the other hand, if you are overbetting at more than the given frequency, which is probably very low, this node in your tree becomes way more substantial to your EV than it was before.

So basically, a part of your tree that was negligable is now becoming far more important. Therefor the EV might change, but not because you found a more or less sound strategy, but because a part of the gametree that might still have some solving inaccuracies or has a higher/lower EV because it was the way the solver was balancing multiple strategies has now shifted to become a bigger part of the gametree.

And the solver would therefor change his whole strategy as a response, because you now have a lot of inaccuracies in your strategy (talking about your extreme example) but not letting it do that will just destroy the whole perception of what is possible to be played in that spot.

I just think for what you want to figure out the solver is probably not the right tool.
I understand what you are trying to achieve and what you want to figure out and I have had that thought before as well, but I just think trying to estimate strategies and getting closer and closer to equilibrium without mixing too much giving one a better understanding of how to construct ranges in certain spots is the best way to get better at this.

And for stuff vs different assumptions or playertypes, you can nodelock the opponents reaction and can figure out now what you have to do differently vs certain playerypes.
And you can still run some simplifications like betting range and figure out if this is better than your estimations and use that, which will be useful.

And if you are still far off you can compare your result with the optimal result and figure out in what way your estimation can get exploited. That is basically now my solution that I come up with because what I tried to achieve with the solver was not really possible in the way you described and I wanted to do as well.

Hope that helps a bit

I have now replicated this experiment and suits are (unsurprisingly) very important and I can get the difference between GTO and my assumptions down to -0,4% with mixed strats and -0,6% without any mixes.

I don't think I will be able to execute suitmixed going beyond 50% Bet/ 50% Check but I think this experiment will very likely be one of the best possible traininggrounds for being able to execute complex Cbettingstrategies and getting to know equilibrium-dynamics.

I will now compare these results with other 3BP as SBvsBU and BBvsSB to figure out what could be different there.

Very interesting to try to figure out in what areas simplified strategies could be executing better and in which we should get our brain working. Thanks for the inspiration

2 Thoughts that I had:

1st) I think we can figure out whether we would really get exploited by figuring out how weird and unnaturally connected the cards are where the EV shifts. When it is, for example, that the EV and EQ distribution shifts on two very similar cards differently, then it is likely that we will not get exploited by anyone in reality as the solver would.

2nd) You have figured out that Betting half your range has more EV than betting range. This is just an indicator, since our range is exactly structured as it would be with either simplification, that Betting range has simply less EV than checking range and therefor the EV changes. Checking Range would therefor have more EV than playing a 50/50 strategy.

So basically what I wanted to figure out with my question above and where I think you have an intuitive answer that does not have to be correct, but I am simply curious on what you think:
Do you think it is higher EV to try to imitate solverranges or would you think a somehow camouflaged, explored simplified strategy would have a higher EV [if like in the given scenario we have less EV with an imitating strategy than with a simplified one].

I feel like you are for imitating because it is tougher to play against us (as stated in the video) but I would believe that is the same with a simplified one as long as villain does not know that we are doing it.

Maybe your answer is still the same, then sorry for bothering, but I thought by rephrasing it i might be able to get an opinion :P

Thanks for the great content, really inspired me to work in sovlerland a bit more again

Very nice, I will try to follow this route for 3betpots trying to be more accurate.
For SRPs tho for example it is not possible to bet <20% due to only roughly 5bb being in the pot.
Thanks for this interesting idea!

I felt the same way of approaching this situation as Zachary is mentioning. Reasoning that the GTO solution is unexploitable, so our response that is not perfectly GTO but the best result us humans are able to achieve, with us deviating slights from GTO, Villain should still gain EV in a multistreet game where he is closer to equilibrium than we are.

So as a training to get closer to GTO this was a valid way of trying to "plug in" humanly playable ranges and figure out how close I can get to what the solver is suggesting.

Why are you thinking this is not an appropriate way of getting more knowledged in this topic?
Do you think, due to people accidantly or intentionally not being able to play the equilibrium solution, they could be exploiting us in a way the solver is not able to because we nodelocked a solution that is not perfectly exploiting our deviations?

I do feel like I/we are missing something but at the same time this is the closest way of trying to learn how to have as perfect Cbettingranges as possible I came up with.
And since all of my results were worse than the best playable simplification of bet/check range X% of pot, I went back to trying to be more precise in this way and still am wondering if playing mixed strategies would gain myself more EV

This is exactly the experiment I have done before, wondering if simplifying strategies but camouflaging the stats with having pure Checking and Pure bettingboards (at least in SRP vs BB situations) would be better than trying to play mixed strategies that would perform worse than what the best pure strat would have as a result.

Additionally we are simplifying our gametree into one less node while villain is still thinking we are playing with multiplay options otf.

So now getting to my question:

I think the amount the we get exploited on future streets comes from the the concentration of certain hands in our range that the solver is able to pick up on and give us less value on specific cards that we hit and is maximizing his potshare on cards where his range is performing better than ours. Which obviously is a terrible result.

Nonetheless, our opponents are never ever going to figure out what exact parts of our range we are "overcbetting" and which we are "undercbetting" and so in reality our opponent, if he tries to exploit certain things, is rather going to be imbalanced himself than being able to exactly punish us for those "imbalances"

I am putting these words in quotes, because I think for the solver we are for sure imbalanced, but in the grand scheme of range vs range interaction and frequencies, nailing what kind of hand is supposed to bet at what frequency should be our aim and is what makes us unexploitable in reality.

That is shown, in my humble opinion at least, in that you, as the great player you are and with the incredible amount of solver experience and equilibrium knowledge you have, can only pin down the approximate ranges with a 0,9% inaccuracy while in reality you are crushing because your frequencies with the hand-groups you chose are spot on due to the conceptual knowledge you have gained with observing dynamics in the solver.

So basically, I think this is a very very useful training that one can use to figure out what hands are supposed to belong in what "category" and trying to get a better result than any simplified strategy that is trying to lose one node in the tree for the sake of more correct manouverability on future streets. Still I don't believe this grouping and estimating how to play what part of the range results in the seen EV loss.

I am very curious about what you are thinking about my estimations and look forward to a response. Thanks for the insightful content :)

Hey man!

I have to partially agree with SnowAndFire. What I think is different seems to be

1) The deepness of your knowledge in this spot. If you know something better, you can simplify it more and then give people things on the way that are more valuable and can simplify things more practically with relevant and irrelevant frequencies. And this is connected to
2) Your summaries. This time you basically were writing down the hands you hovered over already. That might be good learning tool for you and this is how you can memorize this, but as OP said, this can be done by us in the same way looking at solves. You sorted hands more relevantly and and approached this thing, again, more practically than this time.

Just rewatched your summaries from the first part and it just was less "naked combos" but more things that just did not happen in such a detail. I don't know how to handle it, but it just felt you were able to give us more, better structured and more precisely formulated information. Additionally I think there was more reasoning included rather than combination-listing.
Maybe having leadingranges seems to make it more chart heavy as well so there is nothing you can do about that.

When you look at different bet sizings for example it is probably very helpful to try to find reasons, why certain hands are in a certain range, because this is what makes people take away something that they maybe are figuring out less on their own and this is what true usable knowledge is rather than trying to memorize the chart itself.
Again, without rewatching the old videos, I am pretty sure you did a better job of that in the past videos.

Saying that hands we get to this point with very low frequency (regarding defending vs IP 2nd barrel in a spot where we lead those hands and therefor X-decide frequency is low) are not worth talking about is not really as precise as I would like to see you work, because non of us will play solver-ranges and knowing why the solver decides X instead of Y is still the main thing we wanna accomplish by using it trying to make sense of the grids. And we probably get to the Turn in that spot with those hands because it is usually pretty tough to construct reasonable leadingranges.

So I really like your content, but due to all the PIO-work, you are the one that can share the experience and knowledge on how to use this stuff relevantly is the thing that I am looking for. Seeing a different perspective on how to interpret thise grids rather than "just" simplifying them for the use in the end.

Thanks for the video and I hope that helps you and is not too much at once.

tldr: imo Elite content, useful for me, but try to find reasons rather than summarizing charts, what I like to see is the interpretation of these charts from somebody who is truly knowledged

Thanks for the reply and making that clear. It helps me when you differentiate between exploits and GTO approach.

There will of course be players out there who are very good and vs
whom we shouldn't make these assumptions, which is why I am careful
with my wording when making these videos.

Maybe simply put it like "the majority of the pool in my experience is not able to adjust accordingly, but be aware that you are opening yourself up to being exploited by the best regs [at your limit]" or something like that

I will make sure to keep that in mind in my future videos. It is
difficult sometimes to not sound awkward repeating the word "OOP
player" or "The button" when talking about the same situation over and
over, so maybe I focus too much on trying to make the video flow
smoothly and not enough on making sense.

Maybe just sort the possible exploits into groups "by OOP" and "by IP". That would make it easier imo (still keeping them on one sheets you have done with the conclusions as well)

Happy you are open to constructive crtiicism :)

33:00:

When talking about the conclusions, calling the Flop because population will not overbet 50% OTT makes sense, since we overrealise our equity and win potshare back.

But when our opponent is not overbetting the Turn enough, against what kind of Turnaction should we call looser OTT.

If villain is not betting enough [but balanced] why would we call the Turn looser than equilibrium?
Or are you talking about that we should defend the Turn looser vs a smaller sizing than we would defend vs a bigger sizing? I am a bit confused by this.
If you defend the Flop wider, then you should already have gotten your additional potshare in case Villain does not overbet frequently enough and OTT we should then (imo) just call the solver-range given the ranges we get to the Turn with ("balanced").
Is this a correct assumption?

Additionally to this point: Is the leading River on interactive cards an exploit vs a Turn overbet or a "normal sized bet". Because I don't think IP should call too much one-pair hands after playing bet 50% / Bet 150% / interactive River getting donked into. But I could be wrong; guessing you mean the smaller (Turn)betsize tho.

In general as a feedback I would like to see you structure and talk differently when talking about the overall conclusions. Kind of like you do in the summaries of the different Spots with OOP and IP. You often use the word "we" when describing what a certain player should do. This gets confusing when switching back and forth between different exploits both players could make and therefor I had to listen to the conclusions multiple times to sort them in the way you intended them to be (hopefully at least ;) )

Edit: Saw you making it more clear on the last two presentation parts, I liked that more

Thanks for the videos, I really appreciate the content and for me the work you do is one of the most relevant PIO-workform out there. Especially the way you sort it relevantly and summarize your explorations instead of trying to make sense out of micro-cosmos-dynamics that the solver is doing is really making your video worth watching.

Keep it up!

27:20:

The way you say it, it sounds like something you are certain off while not really looking at the grids so I'll be nitpicky and point it out.
You say the NFDs with additional equity are "of course" calling, while hovering over A6s, the A6 (FD+GS) of spades is favoring a fold at a very high frequency

https://gyazo.com/f57dd9e042208fa9b5e08c27727802cb

Just so you might be aware in the future that vs that sizing OOP is even folding some of those hands vs that size on the texture ;)

i liked your thoughts about livepoker in general and players in live settings, your considerations when coming to a decision etc.
you seem very nice and enthusiastic and i think an online player could learn a lot from your livepoker experience.

but i dont like the content at all. what you were saying in the vid took too long and seemed very results oriented. moreover the hand is not interesting at all apart from the stakes.

7642 spot at the end of the video, right table. am i super off here if i want to bet the turn? i mean we have top two on the flop and a gutshot. the argument that it isn´t a good flop for us to bet with our range is certainly right, but to me, the Q on the turn doesn´t change a whole lot and facing another check i think betting for value and protection should be standard here? at least it is for me so far, would love to hear some thoughts!

i think setting the money on fire is better than spending in on vegemite.

preflop seems questionable, might be ok if bb is a huge whale, overcall of the 3-bet seems somewhat close but fine closing the action and in position. on the flop he gets a decent price to float, having a backdoor flush and straight draw, also blocking AJ and AT.

thanks for this video!

do you mind sharing your z500 results for 2016?
also: do you think, the games have improved on average? (you seem to have multiple fish and bad regs on your tables in this vid) i assume it heavily depends on playing times...

usually profit

It's interesting that someone who preaches simplification is adding a lot of complexity with the way he speaks. not taking anything away from the content you are providing which definitly has a lot of valid points regarding misusing pio, but for me as a non-native speaker I often have the impression to listen to a scientific book instead of some simplified analysis.

Nice video, didn´t have trouble to follow at all and i´m looking forward to the next parts. I´m also pretty interested to see you reviewing the >5bb hands of this footage, since you don´t do these type of videos very often and it´s a nice way to mix it up.