angel_zera

If anyone's curious, I've run the spot here. Please note that I disabled OOP flop donks, but that OOP donking flop is very much a thing on these types of boards--it's more about the fact that only a very % of the player pool is actually implementing them. It changes IP's flop strategy a bit, and I encourage anyone curious to run 2 sims to compare on boards such as this.

Note that b100 is the most common sizing for IP when he does indeed bet. Also take a look at A5 combos, as well as KK. These boards are definitely difficult to play.

If you ever think particular villains are being super lazy and simply betting a ton of their range for third pot or whatever on boards like this, I definitely encourage running a nodelocked version of this sim to see how to exploit that--though a lot of the exploits are pretty intuitive and perhaps can be figured out without even using PIO.

(images on RIO are hard to see, but the sizings here are, in order, b33, b66, b100, and b150)

i.e. 1-alpha defense frequency

Villain bets 2.2 into 2.8, so from villain's perspective, if this bet is generating a fold from Hero at least 2.2/(2.2+2.8)=44% of the time, it's immediately profitable (even if we assume Villain always loses the pot when Hero calls, which is obviously not the case, and as such makes the situation even more favorable for Villain)

So, Hero needs to defend 1-.44=56%, or more, of his range at this node to prevent this situation from transpiring. Alpha here equals 0.44

Hi, haven't finished the video yet, but just wanted to say--for the first sim, I've noticed on those sorts of 3-wheel (non-Ace) boards, with a LP open v. BB defend, PIO tends to use multiple bet sizes at appreciable frequencies (for IP)--so these parameters were a bit of an indirect nodelock (giving only b33 for IP flop cbets). I have a feeling that if IP was offered b33, b66, and b100, not a single one would wash out (at bare minimum, 2 sizes would be used, with b66 being the most likely to wash out)

Of course, you may have done this intentionally, but wanted to mention it

[I've actually seen some pretty wild stuff with these flop textures--stuff like BTN open, BB defend (~30bb eff), and on, say, 643r, A6o using a pure b100 on flop for IP (but don't quote me on that specific one, I'm half asleep in bed at the moment)]

Cheers

Hello Seth--for the first sim (987ccx BTN v. BB ~30bb) you may have been consciously forcing the b33 b/c that's what villain used in game (a node lock of sorts)--if not, though, I recommend giving IP b33, b66, b100, and b150 (or some array similar to this). I've seen some really tricky IP strategies on these sorts of boards at shallower depths (for example, A9 and QQ for IP will prefer the larger sizings almost exclusively)

I realize now the images are too low-res to see much detail--it was my first time posting images on RIO--if anyone is interested I can just host them on Imgur and post the links, which is what I now plan to do in the future

Ok, so here are the PIO results. The two images I'm posting in this comment are IP's turn strategy (A4o highlighted), and then IP's river strategy on a bricky card (7s), given turn checked through, with A4o highlighted. As we can see, on the turn, A4o (and more generally, the weaker Ax combos) check as their most frequent action--when betting, they opt for b66. We can also observe that these combos then b100 on the river as their most frequent action when checked to--I think I captured the intuition behind this spot in my other comment but very much welcome others' input on this if they have more to add.

In the next comment, I will post my tree settings as well as the IP & OOP ranges I used. Wish I could just post the tree itself in a succinct manner, but such a manner isn't coming to mind.

Yeah this hand was really interesting for me I think mostly b/c of the relatively "null" 3 turn (though less null given it's a BB defend vs. an LP open so he should have an appreciable proportion of 3x in his range)--do we agree that some Ax for Hero should be checking turn (to place a large bet [b75-b125 range]) when checked to on most rivers? If so, I imagine the weakest Ax would be what PIO would choose to place in this region, with greater preference toward those Ax that do contain a diamond (the ones that do not obv. unblocking IP's diamond draws). I could be wrong about this and may run this spot and report back with my findings. I'm in total agreement that AT+ (approximately) loves bigbet on turn. Just thinking that it must be the case that we need to partition off some small proportion of Ax into a turn check/river bigbet range--this also allows us to bluff stuff like 98ss when checked to on river, combos that have no hope on turn (utter lack of draw/equity I imagine makes PIO not super enthused to bluff it on turn), but that likely seek to bluff OOP out of better unpaired combos/some Kx when checked to on river--i.e., crap combos that don't like bluffing turn, but do like bombing river when checked to. Will run this if I get time tomorrow.

31:28 upper left--did we miss a 26bb jam w/ 55 here? or do you think flatting out performs? obv there's a depth above which we're essentially pure flatting but I think 26bb is under that threshold

Quad 7s at roughly 6:25--any merit to CRAI on river? Haven't run the spot so just speculating here. We get a guaranteed bet from all of his Ax (some of which might hero fold vs. this but that's exploitative), and potentially some bets from 86/89/et al that have to continue vs. your b30 turn donk. Also makes sense range wise, no? We get a healthy amount of donks on this particular turn (many of which are bluffs) that don't feel too comfortable continuing on this particular river (e.g. if we have 86 on turn, it can only feasibly get villain off Ax via a massive overbet on river, and maybe not even then, so it likely gives up at a high freq.). All this to say--when we do indeed continue on the river, we're likely exploitably strong in practice.

on a serious note I don't think it would be insane to just flat with the A5s here, no? the 3b sizing is too small (for OOP + flat caller), we're not super shallow...obv flat caller's reshove frequency play a huge role here but I wouldn't expect him to be trapping here much (he's somewhat deep at ~57bb so I'd expect him to be mostly 3b his value, this combined with the fact that there aren't many reshove stacks behind him [the only one is the rec in the BB for whom one would a somewhat low reshoving freq. and a somewhat high flatting rate])

best part of this one is the quick reference to foxen the rec around 20:48 lol

Re: KQo bluff ~17:50 mark, agree that this hand wants b66 or larger and I think the intuition behind the "feeling" you were describing is b/c w/ this combo we block some of his broadway/A-hi "autofolds" (i.e. w/ a combo that does not do this, we can b33 more b/c villain will have a higher proportion of those autofolds in his range against which the sizing is sufficient)

BTN AQs vs. BB 87s hand: I noticed a couple of things in addition to what you addressed that seemed like errors...perhaps I'm crazy?

1. Flop sizing by OOP (b21%)--this seems way too small both with combo and (generally) with range for this board/this ICM setup, no? OOP's 3b range will contain a lot of strong Ax combos that want to go at least 40-50% pot, as well as a lot of bluff combos that want to force immediate folds from the weaker parts of IP's range...seems like 21% is far too low to accomplish either of these things. Vs. b21%, IP should be continuing with any pair (even 33 no BDFD has the BDSD...), which doesn't seem like a good result for OOP.

2. GIVEN b21% from OOP on flop, AQs BDFD just seems like a raise for IP, no? Vs. b21% this combo for IP just seems like fat value that wants to get more money into the pot immediately...I say this cognizant of the range interaction at play (IP's range has to play with deference to some degree to OOP's 3b range), but still.

3. As played, facing b36% from OOP on the river, again, AQ just seems like an easy raise for IP, no? Really have nothing more to add to this bullet point other than saying that this combo is just...really, really strong given the action leading to this point, and given OOP's betsize. Obv. vs. b100% or whatever we're just snap-flatting AQ, but vs. this size it seems criminal to not squeeze more value out of our combo, no?

Turbo vs. regular would simply affect ROI--assuming the same player pool, whatever your ROI% is in a regular structure, it would go down by some degree in a turbo, and then down some more for a hyper. So, although it doesn't take structure variance into account directly, it does so indirectly via the ROI parameter.

2.5 years after the fact, I have to say--this is some of the best FT (and just generally speaking) analysis I've ever encountered with regard to tournament play--even by your standards. I've watched this whole series a few times at this point.

Yep, of course. Thanks for your replies GeeTeeOh.

You've given me a lot to think about, thanks for the replies--I've deleted my 2 examples as I agree that they both sort of missed the mark in their relevance.

I get what you're saying now--I think. Correct me if I'm wrong--the point you were making is that as payjumps are shallower (and therefore, as there's more other players that can bust before us, and also therefore with less "big money" in immediate view that would incentivize us to simply play cEV), ICM makes $EV and cEV diverge the most.

Then, as payjumps are deeper (and therefore, as there's less other players that can bust before us, and also therefore with "big money" for 1st in closer view incentivizing us to sway more toward cEV with our ranges), ICM makes $EV and cEV diverge less.

Does that sound about right?

Hi--not related to this video specifically, but something I'm curious about--how do you "roll" for your mixed strategies? I use a calculator on my desk that generates a random number with the press of a button, but I kind of wish there was something that would appear on my dock or desktop always, switching numbers every second. Thx

Such a terrific video. You "humanize" the PIO results very well. Would love to see a ton more of this and still need to go back through your library and watch the others. I'll preface the following with a disclaimer that I'm very much a recreational player, but it astounds me how far from PIO's turn strategies mine lie. Would have never known were it not for this video--and as a side note, I think this is what convinced me I need to purchase it and start toying around.

One thought I had while watching the AA vs. AKs hand around the 23:00 mark--there's a lot of hands villain has that would call our jam, but that very well may shut down on a wide array of flops. We were very fortunate that he flopped TPTK, as who knows how he would have proceeded had he not. At the very least, we wouldn't have gotten nearly as many chips as we did. But had we shoved pre, there's no escape for him.

Same goes for something like JJ (for villain) when a Q/K peels off. I guess what I'm saying is that since we assessed his raising range pre to be pretty tight/value heavy, we potentially lose a lot by trapping in this fashion.

tconservani
This seems, partially, like a more general concept on GT and Nash Equilibria--in response to those aspects of it, I'd just recommend a bit of research on the concepts (as applied to poker, or even more generally). Basically, there's two coexistent notions of playing Nash, and playing away from Nash for exploitative reasons. PIO will, of course, only ever provide the Nash.

As far as node locking a particular SB or BB strategy--I'm not well versed on PIO (I'm a recreational player--I don't own the software as of now), but my gut tells me that even if it's possible, there's very little point. You'd never know every aspect of a comprehensive BB or SB strategy, so you'd just be making assumptions to the point where the PIO solution would have little practical value. And even then, you'd just be solving for the Nash solution given that particular strategy--not the maximally exploitative counteradjustment, which is what I think you're hinting at.

Apotheosis--this dialogue between two people format--very conducive to quality videos--being able to bounce ideas off one another, and to have one person be the genesis for an idea/question that the other might not have brought up, has made these past 2 videos very enjoyable

Forgive the stray thought, but one thing I'd love to see a coach go through is a PIO assisted exploration of what hands we, as a mid-late position opener, can flat vs. a 2.5x 3b from someone who has position on us.

So often I feel like I'm doing a bit of guesswork with fringe hands in this spot and totally unsure as to whether I'm overfolding, overflatting, or over 4betting

Very, very high quality content

Thanks Pedro. If anyone is curious, the question sparked a good discussion over on 2p2, where one user ran some PIO sims. Worth a look IMO:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/183/mid-high-stakes-mtt/sb-v-bb-deep-320-a-1737937/

Around the 46:45 mark, you're talking about having J8s and saying that if you know a limpshove isn't coming, that you might have to be calling in that spot--later, you mention that we're seeing a limpshove, but it seems at that point your commentary is on SenorPokes on the right-hand table, despite the J8s hand being from the left table. I just want to make sure I'm not going crazy here hahaha

Good vid!

I think he means that the fold is better if he's holding a heart, as this reduces the number of combos the opponent can have of FDs, and thus increases the probability that opponent is holding a value combo. As such, the fold becomes better, as it's less likely villain is holding a FD combo that Ben could float turn and bet river, or raise turn, to make fold.

Or, I'm totally wrong :) the comment from him confused me as well.