SoManyWatches

Hey, Ben. I'm curious about where most of the EV comes from when playing a tougher reg opponent like in this video. It isn't that obvious in this video other than the few exploitable calls or folds you make every now on then based on some assumptions you've made earlier in the video. This question might be too general but what are the biggest mistakes regs make against you in HUNL?

I've put in a few thousand hands at 100 PLO zoom and the rake is huge ~15bb/100. People who are more experienced on PLO zoom what is your opinion on how beatable 50 and 100 zoom actually are and what are the winrates you can expect at these stakes? I'm considering jumping straight into the 200 pool because of this...

Yeah, I have to agree with this. This was the something obvious I didn't think of when I made the first post, still it is an interesting play you could use purely for exploitable play.

I think this is the mistake. you can't give OOP an extra strategic
option with a range that looks anything like your XB range. it needs
to be far more protected if you want to avoid XR abuse.

Isn't this also true for a normal bet/check strategy where you add stronger hands to your checking range so OOP can't profitable lead 100% on the next street? IP's range would by split completely between betting and "zero-betting" with what I meant. It was established earlier that the maximum EV gain for the "zero-betting" strategy compared to normal bet/check is 0 against a good player because they can just "call"/check the "zero-bet" and continue like they would against a check.

If we replace the "zero-bet" with a min-bet I do agree in both cases that IP's "zero"/min-betting range should be a little bit stronger than it normally would because OOP now has an one more street to barrel with his range. On boards and spots where IP has the range advantage OOP's range is usually very capped, so if he starts raising and barreling early his range OTR is usually too weak on various different lines like raise-check-check, raise-check-bet or call-call-call and IP can very easily exploit this.

This would also effect IP's betting range because it would now be stronger so IP can use a bigger sizing than he normally would like potting or over-betting and some of the possibly lost EV comes back.

That's true even for river now that I think about it. I wonder how things change when you use a min-bet instead of a "zero-bet" though. OTR it would result to a multiple bet sizes spot, but I wonder how it would look OTF or OTT if you replace the "zero-bet" with a min-bet or something else small that has a tiny bit of fold equity.

When IP "zero-bets" OOP can close the action by calling or re-opening it by raising, like you would against a min-bet. If you meant the same thing as Steve Paul I gave him a better answer :)

By opponent never betting I guess you meant that OOP doesn't ever raise the "zero-bet"? That is something I didn't think of when I first posted this but it's still an interesting thought that checking behind could be more of a favor to OOP by not giving him the chance to make a mistake like you would with the "zero-bet".

Things change OTR though because now OOP has an incentive to raise the "zero-bet" with his stronger hands. I have no idea how idea how close or far from optimal this kinda of strategy would be though. In my mind it would be a spot where IP has a betting, "zero-betting" and a checking range OTR.

I think the easiest spot to run a sim OTR would be when IP has 2 barreled and now has to choose between strategies. The board also has to be such that OOP shouldn't have a leading range on so you don't have to worry about OOP exploiting you checking 100% since he would be doing that regardless of your strategy. That being said I mentioned in an earlier post that I'm not sure if it would work aswell OTR as it would OTF or OTT because the information you get doesn't "compound" in the same way as it would if you "zero-bet" OTF. I also thought that it might sacrifice some equity like you mentioned, but then again it could gain EV on a "zero-bet"/min-bet raise 3bet line.

I'm not that great at running sims but for a river spot where the "zero-bet" could be implemented on is a single raised HU pot on a AK623r board where IP has 2 barreled. On this board IP can consider using the "zero-bet" strategy also OTF or OTT.

The reason in a nutshell why I think this could be better than the traditional bet/check strategy is purely for the added decision points for OOP which gives more info to IP. This only works when IP has a range advantage though and I've explained it better in my other posts.

Yeah, I think that's good example but only when IP is the pre flop aggressor. Because if the pot is 3bet and IP is the caller then OOP probably should have a leading range on a flop like this.

No, that's not what I mean at all. IP will still have a pretty polarized betting range but only IP's checking range would be turned into a "zero-bet" range that has some stronger hands balanced into it just like it would with a normal bet/check strategy. So IP can still value bet/bluff normally OTR, but if IP has a "zero-bet"/min bet range OTR IP has to add some stronger hands to that range too to defend against check raises.

I agree that you are giving up the power of closing the action, but I also think that is a concept that is much more important when OOP has a range advantage against IP (think of a 3bet pot where IP is the caller). That's why the "zero"/min bet strategy would only work when IP has the range advantage (single raised pot where IP is the opener).

I think those are pretty good general examples but for a more specific one we can think of a HU hand in a single raised pot with a A72 flop, most people have a pretty polarized range cbetting here and could possibly implement the "zero-bet" strategy.

Take the same flop in a 3bet pot and OOP has the range advantage. Now it makes a lot more sense for IP to have a checking range for closing the action because OOP can just adjust by check raising and check calling everything like you said.

You summed up my thoughts pretty well with those points except for a). We only have an advantage when we have a range advantage on our opponent and those spots are generally the spots where OOP doesn't have a leading range because OOP can adjust to "zero"/min betting by check raising and check calling his entire range. The spots where OOP doesn't have or shouldn't have a leading range are the spots where you could implement the "zero"/min bet strategy to add one more decision point to the game.

The reason I posted this here is that I actually have tried it in game and it has worked pretty well so far. I was wondering if anyone could point out if there's something clearly wrong with it.

I actually didn't think that OOP could just "call" and lead/check with his whole range to combat the "zero-bet" which would keep the game as it was before so that was something obvious I missed. Still I am not convinced that the "zero-betting" strategy would be a mistake, because if OOP's optimal play is to "call" and then lead/check, like it would be against a check. You would just be doing him a favor by checking back instead of "zero-betting" OTF or OTT. And if instead of betting zero you bet something miniscule like a minbet you get a tiny bit of value and protection for certain parts of your range too.

I agree with what you said. The point of the "zero-bet" would be exactly to induce a mistake or get more info out of OOP even if OOP's optimal play would be to call and then lead/check. It still could be possibly used as a part of general strategy by that logic.

The only problem is that "zero-betting" could actually be a mistake and open you up to more exploitation but I can't think why that would be the case either.

The way I think about it is that OTF or OTT IP gets more information about villains range while giving away no extra information about IP's own range because villain can decide to
1. raise IP's zero bet
2. check/"call" IP's zero bet
and on the next street OOP can either lead or check.
This adds one more decision point for OOP and makes it harder to balance various ranges. IP gives away no more information than it normally would since the "zero-bet" and check back range would be exactly the same or atleast very similar.
This would only work in a few specific situations though and I'm not sure how it would work OTR either.