Zenful

You're the man Julian <3

+1 Tyler Forrester r.e. betsizing.

Does the average reg in this pool gets to this river spot substantially tighter than optimal play would suggest? How does this affect his range composition? Do you think the average reg is in this pool is capable of making consistent laydowns with his bluffcatchers? Just a few relavent questions.

Ultimately as Tyler said it's a sliding scale thing which trends from +ev to -ev depending on given assumptions.

This is all a conspiracy. I am a bot, Saulo is a bot, actually didn't you realise all the threads and videos are dedicated to advancement of bot making and how to cheat effectively?

Past performance shouldn't be used as an indicator of current level. Many pro's have gotten complacent and have not worked on their game enough to keep up with the current climate. There are far less winners now than pre-black friday or when stars decided to cut rb. You're only as good as your last session.

Just go and research man, people are winning everywhere. Are these all bots and colluders? The botting and collusion problem is real, but unless you're play HSNL where the pools are much smaller and IS a massive problem you can move through the stakes. For pretty much everywhere in the world if you're beating 200+ at a half decent clip you are making a very good wage imo.

If you're playing lower stakes (I presume you are), I would spend more time studying - it'll save you a lot of time grinding in the future. Best of luck Fellipe

This is ridiculous, there are loads of people beating the game in 2018. It's a complete fallacy that poker is dead, and is more likely to come from players who are already struggling. The games are playing so far from GTO even at midstakes...

That being said its not 2009 and it takes a lot of relevant study, mental game and game selection to move through the stakes. No doubt there are bots and all kinds of issues - but the cream still rises to the top. Hope your journey works out.

Love the name reads Peter - good punctuation = reggy --- sloppy = degen :D

In terms of BB defence frequency you advocate tightening up at 50, looks something like removing the bottom 10%? I guess there are a couple of lines of reasoning here - more rake at 50 therefore we shouldn't be able to defend as much but then I expect players to play worse on average and there should be more scope for exploiting their leaks (passivity, etc.). In terms of hourly what do you think the meta is?

Love the conceptual idea of this video, would like more like this - but perhaps looking at it from a db standpoint? Keep up the good work mate!

Been saying for a while Paul makes better content than a lot of Elite coaches, very well deserved Paul!

@12:00 yeah I was going to ask if we're folding this turn then we're better off folding OTF since we're basically saying that his raising range OTF is substanitally underbluffed? I would assume to realise the EV of this hand then we need to SD some % of the time. Fwiw I think villain's raising range is more merged, and unlikely to be balanced as this line doesn't make much sense theoretically. Players at these stakes play terribly vs small bet sizes.

A lot of this sounds assumptive, I'd get a DB first and confirm what you're saying is true - actually this should give you a lot of the answers you're looking for.

Otherwise as people have mentioned here, value betting well and good bluffcatching efficiency with a good blueprint strat for your pool (emphasis) is the way to go.

Also as Saulo mentioned variance is likely to be high playing that deep, with that many spazzy players.

As a starting point I think you should start to think about what you said and try and empirically assess the whether there's distortion in your belief system:

The root of these problems I think are that pots are multi way like 4/5 times and it's like impossible to isolate. There could be 4 limpers and im in the BB with AA and i make it 6x the bb and I get like 2-3 callers all the time with a cold calling range of like 40-50 percent.

From there developing a strategy and sticking with things you're sure of should allow you to have some confidence in your strategy during the dw. Once you understand your edge it makes it easier to have stable confidence when things aren't going well.

Hope you make it bro

It's an annoying problem to have, and toxic to this community. I agree something must be done.

However there are a number of issues:

1) Copernicus feeds off the attention he gets from his regurgitated posts, and I would imagine at this point expects backlash from the vast majority of the community.

2) Other members have responded to his "constructive criticism" on a number of occasions and it's clear he's not interested in listening, let alone having a mature discussion.

3) While I would agree 100% he should be banned, and I'd fathom an educated guess that there'd be consensus for him being banned, he can appear under another account.

Nick's content speaks for itself, and many people have defended him and credited his products and content from their own free will as a result of the trolling. So I suppose there's a silver lining :)

I just wanted to say a big thank you to you Kevin. Your posts are a source of great knowledge, experience, inspriation and information.

Perception is reality seemingly, and while we all like to share in our success we tend to trivialise or even hide our failures (as men I think it's further amplified). Thank you for your honesty because it's taught me how important failure is to growth - instrinsically and extrinsically.

Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value - Einstein

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5uSoawpYAM

Some gems of advice on the topic 4star

Still the boss Tyler, mad respect for such a comprehensive an insightful answer. Another building block in the foundation of your poker game - take note anyone playing these stakes filled with whales.

How do you gain vision over balancing an empirically driven exploit and an intuitively driven bet (check) timing tell? While it feels like we need more empirically vision over bet timing, without this at what confidence interval do we fall back on the empirically driven exploit? Does vacuum theory application in such spots form a resonable fall back option (in relation to the alternatives) in spots where we lack enough confidence in balancing our empirical vs intuitive read?

Thanks Nick

Moving from stars was the best thing I ever did.

Your river bet here doesn't really accomplish anything. Sb 3b vs utg is gonna be JJ+ (TT at some frequency depending on villain). You're never getting called by worse in this spot and when you make a small bet like this you shoot yourself in the foot as you price yourself in.

You have enough sd value to check back so I'm not sure why you think it sucks?

Have you run it in pio?

Also best of luck with the comeback.

Thanks Tyler, that makes sense intuitively as well as mathematically. I'd actually love to hear more about your thoughts on this, you're right its quite a complex topic. I think a lot of the time it's easy to see a showdown and think it's just bad/spew, but trying to process a stronger players deviation and reason for it, and adjusting proportionally to the information you're given is easier said than done in game.

Look forward to your next video! Keep up the great work

Wow, thank you for that Mark! Completely humbled.

Fascinating video Mark, great structure to the video. Would love to see more of this format.

When IP in this scenario on boards which equities could change quite dramatically (985 2 tone), I normally check back my range a lot vs good players as a simplification. Is there a good metric for splitting your range otf?

Thanks a lot :)

I feel like a parrot saying this, but once again another fantastic video Tyler. Found it particularly useful the way you interpret the relationship between the cbet flop/turn/river before making river decisions.

In anonomous pools, how much turn/river aggression information (in terms of sample) do you need before you deviate from your blueprint bluffcatching strategy? I find myself torn sometimes when I get an intuitive read that some stronger opponents are deviating from reasonable aggression stats but I obviously don't have the mathematical sample size to justify adjusting my strategy. In game it can be quite frustrating. So for example would one big showdown read be enough justification in an anon pool to deviate from your blueprint strategy against villains?

You're a credit to this site Tyler, I will riot if they ever terminate your contract! Thank you for the video :)

I think a lot of the community would find value in two pro's discussing and demonstrating this. I think there are a subsection of people here who learn primarily through discussion, and it adds another dimension to the video :)

I would add if you're playing anon tables there's an added incentive to not worry about balancing your lines, and focussing on exploiting the opponents tendencies hard as a lot of the time you're playing like a couple hundred hands till the table breaks, and most opponents (at 100nl anyway) don't bother to adjust.

Just remember guys PIO is clairvoyant over your strategy, real pools don't even come close to understanding what you're doing - especially when you're using hard pio exploits.

Fantastic video as always teunuss, great to see you play at lower stakes. Especially noting some of the adjustments you're making against fun players is important for a lot of the members here. Can't wait to see the other parts.

When fun players go mad with automashing pot, I usually find they are nutted or spazzing out. When I have the read they could be a non passive fun player I've started bluffcatching exceptionally wide. Theoretically I assumed this player by probability will show up with a lot more random bluffs than they do value so in the long run I assume this prints money. Am I far off with this thesis?

Keep up the great work bro, still one of the top coaches on here after all these years!

Great post Nick, future Nick and Nick collaborative demo on exploiting pools? :D

Haven't played mtt's for over a year, but with scoop now I thought I'd refresh a lot of concepts. Not only did I do that, I'm pleased to see you're using software for your analysis to enhance your on point instincts. Back in the day you were my go to MTT guy, as you explained things v. clearly and years on you're still the man. Thanks Sam

Says casually in analysis:

OTB's a good player

fouund this hilarious, loved how in depth the analysis is. first time watching one of your videos but i'm now a fan for life. thanks for the video Kevin

Thanks thereheis and Juan, that makes sense. In this spot do you favour 1 sizing or multiple?

Agreed there are lots of textures I've seen in pio better defend turns and rivers so there are better examples. If villains range is weak on the turn in average I'm curious to see whether pio likes an overbet on a few turns?

Hey Ben, what's your thoughts about 3xing btn with a wide range to exploit the pool's tightness preflop?

If so should we use a consistent sizing, or switch to a smaller sizing when we're raising into regs with decent defending and 3b frequencies?

I hope you decided this was too fun not to do a part 2, so much fun watching you play small stakes.

No offense taken Tyler, thanks for such a comprehensive response. Was not expecting such a next level response, you're a credit to this site. My understanding of the effects of high rake environments has improved dramatically, and so has my results so if you're ever in the UK you are owed a beer and a cheeky nandos (google this)!

That's really interesting, quite a significant change from 1bb to .75bb. This means in high rake games we need to be really perceptive of regs who are defending their bb wide as this could cost a lot over a decent sample.

So in effect does this mean in high rake environments there is an effective trade off between the effect that Daniel mentioned, and the one you've discussed above?