Seven777

Hello,
I'd like to know if the required equity when bluffing and bluff catching on the river works like this when accounting for a 5% Rake on Pokerstars (uncapped or within cap range to make it simple) :

Bluffing
- You bet 75% on the river, normally you'd need to get folds 75/175 = 42.85% of the time in order to break even.
- When accounting for the rake, is it correct that you'd need to get folds 75/(175x0.95) = 75/166.25 = 45.11% of the time?

Bluff Catching
- You face a 75% bet on the river, normally you'd need to have the best hand 75/250 = 30% of the time in order to break even.
- When accounting for the rake, is it correct that you'd need to have the best hand 75/(250x0.95) = 75/237.5 = 31.58% of the time?

=> Or does it work completely differently, and if so how? I'm playing on Pokerstars, I tried to check in HM and H2N but they seem to take the rake into account in different ways so I'm confused.

Hello, I have a question for people who worked with 6-max preflop softwares (like simple GTO).

Say CO opens and BTN 3-bets, SB and BB fold. When building the CO defending range, will the solver take into account that SB and BB were yet to act and defend less than it would heads-up as a result?

To make things simple let's say you open CO to 3 bb 30% of the time, BTN 3-bets to 9 bb and CO decides to play 4-bet or fold. You'll need to defend 30x0.33 (9/13.5) = 10% of the time. But let's say SB and BB both cold 4-bet 5% of the time each.

1) Will CO still defend 30x0.33 = 10% of the time when it gets folded back to it?
2) Or will it defend 30x0.23 (0.33 - 0.05 - 0.05) = 6.9% of the time?

I know it's an exagerated oversimplified model and it's more complicated that just calculating the MDF, but I do want to know if the solver takes SB and BB into account when building CO defending range and I'm worried that if I don't oversimplify it I'm gonna get a non-answer.

Thank you for reading this.

Hello,
Is there a way to use HM2 to find out the overall opening ranges of your player pool by position?

I know you can in theory create an alias with everyone in it in HM2 but it's not doable in practice. One (possibly stupid) thing I've tried to do in HM2 is to check the number of pots when I'm in MP and the EP player open raises, then divide it by the number of unopened pots when I'm in MP.

This exact example kinda checks out (= roughly 20%) but when I try in other positions (e.g. BTN and CO, SB and BTN) the results look inaccurate (CO supposedly opens 35% and BTN 57%, but I know my player pool is tighter than that) so I might be missing some math concept that screws that up.

Thanks for reading, any answer would be appreaciated.

Hello,

Pokersnowie recommends doing that when opening the SB for 3 bb and facing a 3-Bet for 9 bb (the green hands are the ones Snowie wants to min 4-Bet) :

Usually I think there are pros and cons to Snowie's preflop strategy, but the one thing I think Snowie does well is measure the EV of its hands, and the interesting thing about BVB when facing a 3-Bet is that Snowie thinks the EV of min 4-Betting is worth far more EV than calling or 4-Betting bigger (just 4-Betting to 23 bb rather than 18 decreases the EV of every hand significantly).

E.g. 55 when facing a 3-Bet gives that result (just a random example, same thing applies to every hand Snowie chooses to min 4-Bet) :

1) Has anyone tested that strategy and if so how good is it in practice?
2) Does anyone know why Snowie thinks min 4-Betting is worth so much more than any other move (sure that puts the opponents hands like J8o in an awkward situation but the difference in EV is truly gigantic)?

Thank you for reading, any answer/thought would be appreciated.

Hello,
1) I'm trying to copy Pio Cloud BB Ranges (screenshots at the end of the post), are there a few rules of thumb that can help in order to do that (for instance I'm rounding everything to 1/4 and am wondering if there are further ways to simplify that)? Like how do you approach trying to copy a somewhat GTO BB Range?

2) a lot of hands are 0 EV so I'm reluctant to play them, is that necessary to do so (espacially since the rake in the Cloud Ranges is lower that mine)? Or does that only apply to some hands and not others? I imagine cutting hands that cannot make straight isn't a big deal but I don't know if I can do that with those that can.

For instance :
Vs a 15% 3 bb Opening Range A9-A6s are 0 EV and so are AJo and KQo.
Vs a 20% 3 bb Opening Range K8s-K7s are 0 EV and so are ATo, KJo and QJo.

I want to cut all of them (especially since Pio only plays them at some frequency so I'd have to waste time looking at the RNG only to fold them some of the time unlike the +EV hands that are either called or 3-Bet so are never a waste of time) but don't how big of an impact cutting the offsuit broadways would have. And if it does have an impact is it better to keep them or cut them and also change the entire range to make it less unbalanced.

Those are the 2 example ranges I'm talking about.

BB vs 15% OR 3 bb : media.runitonce.com/post_img/3fb0b33a-9687-11e9-892a-ce244252800b.vs+15%25.png

BB vs 20% OR 3 bb : media.runitonce.com/post_img/600dbd62-9687-11e9-892a-ce244252800b.vs+20%25.png

Thanks for reading, any answer/thought would be appreciated.

Hello,

I see most good players use a 1/3 cbet in spots when they are betting their whole range, however I spent a lot of time on Piosolver (with rake) and 1/4 is actually almost always yielding more EV when betting range in spots when you want to cbet small (usually very small difference like 0.1-0.2% pot, but on some boards it's up to 1% pot).

When cbetting range the strategy doesn't get any more simple for us so even though the difference in EV is very small I feel like it should be logical to choose the sizing worth more EV, but the good players use the other one.

Does anyone know why? Is there an advantage to choosing 1/3 that makes up for the difference? Probably sounds like a worthless question but since cbetting range spots happen very often that feels important.

Thank you for reading, any answer/thoughts would be appreciated.

Hello,
(if that's relevant I'm a Zoom cash game player)

I've spent dozens/hundreds of hours on Piosolver but I'm kinda running around in circle. I subscribed to the elite rio for 2 months and watched tons of videos but the only thing I got out of it is that you can cbet range on spots where doing so "won't cost you too much EV", but no one ever mentions how much EV is an acceptable loss.

So I drew an arbitrary line at 2% pot loss in EV at first, but then came the problem of playing hands where I arbitrarily decided I couldn't cbet range. When I build a strategy close to what Pio suggests but that can be reproduced IRL in a timely manner I get an EV very close to what an optimal strategy would be worth (minus 0.2% pot or so) but usually exploitable for 7-9% of the pot.

I tried looking all over the internet for ways to simplify/quantify all that but the only thing that ever comes out is the cbet range thing, again without any indication on what an acceptable EV loss would be like, and the very few posts I ever saw on how to play a range without cbetting all of it never mentions how much you can be "exploitable for".

So basically I'd like some kind of baselines :

1) Around what would be an acceptable EV loss when cbetting range? If there isn't a static number is there a way to figure out the one that applies for you? (that's really important cause without a baseline you're just gonna end up cbetting range on every flop that's not too awful for you, and the 2% pot I temporarily settled on is very random)*
2) Does being exploitable by Pio even matter? And if so around how exploitable can you be when not cbetting range so long as your strategy yields an amount of EV similar to an optimal strategy?*
=> The reason I ask if it even matters is that Pio assumes both player are omniscient, but realistically your opponent should barely be able to figure out what your preflop range is, let alone how you play it postflop if you don't cbet range (unless you play dozens of thousands of hands against that specific opponent and he takes a considerable amount of time outside the table to research you, and at most stakes I imagine close to 0% of the player pool is gonna qualify). So really so long as we're reasonably balanced we can pretty much flush the "exploitable for" variable down the toilet right? That's the conclusion I more or less came to, but then comes the last problem : if you ignore the "exploitable for" and just look at the EV you go right back to cbetting range on every board that's not awful for you. Hence me running around in circle.

Thank you for reading and any answer/thought would be appreciated.