dodgybob

Really cool plan, good luck with it!

The river call is definitely not 'good'. It's probably a low frequency call in PIO on a c/c, c/c, c/c line, but I doubt it's ever played on this line. You would need to have an incredibly strong read on your opponent for playing it this way to ever be good.

That QQ hand tilted me just watching it

This was a really fucking good video.

By bluff-stacking, do you just mean working back from the river? i.e. calculating turn bluffs assuming all river bets are considered value.

Stats look fine, you're probably just running bad.

Nooooooo. Why is this your last video? :'(

The onus is generally on the person asserting the absurdity to show cause. Please prove to me that 3b 93s is >= 0 ev.

If a hand isn't a profitable 3b, then you shouldn't 3b it.

More importantly, it exponentially increases the size of the game tree. If you look at tools such as GTORB and PIOSolver, the time and memory required to calculate equilibria increases greatly as bet and raise sizes decrease, and as more strategic options are included (e.g. leading).

So I think the plan was to put it in a part of the gametree that it had spent very little time on, and force it to rely more on what are presumably, not very good interpolation algorithms.

Sorry, missed this. 'Sauce' bet is a small lead (20% - 40% psb) on (usually) a board pairing turn after c/c flop OOP.

MP's river raise is clearly for value, not as a bluff. It's somewhere between slightly non-standard and mildly unusual to take the check, check, raise line IP with AK, but it's certainly not bad. BB is prob a fish given his <100bb stack.

Also, completely ignore everything KorolelLev said. That might apply to 10z, but it certainly doesn't apply to 500z.

Well, my model probably isn't a great guide, as I only gave the bot one sizing option, whereas I assume (?) that it has at least two possible bet sizes on this board texture, so it's psb range would likely be much more polarised, which would imply that Doug's decision not to shove is probably correct.

In terms of frequencies, bot is cbetting ~36% on flop and 49% on turn. IP is calling 53% on flop and 41% on turn. Best hands to call with are the obvious ones (sets, 2x) and then overpairs and 9x. Most of your 9x hands aren't doing that much better than breaking even though. A3 and A5cc are doign better than K9 - J9. 4x is pretty much indifferent.

Interestingly, PIOSolver tells me that the ev of jamming Ad9d is about 10-12% higher than calling...

I thought he led out for 100 OTF, but I could be wrong.

Edit: Nvm, I am obviously, given size of pot OTR.

I'm not sure, I'd need equilab or flopzilla or something to look at the ranges.

Looks like it's about 74 (??) combos though, so if I defend the 3b around 30%, and 50% ish on flop, it leaves me with 74 / 200 ish combos?

I'm not the best HU player going around (obviously?), just thought I would have a stab.

Oh, I am a pretty huge calling station though, yes.

Turn (in order of absolute strength)

22, 99, 44, A2s, 42s, JJ-TT, A9s - 89s, 97s, 96s, 88, A5s-A3s, AcQc-Ac3c

At work so I don't have access to Flopzilla or anything. Might have missed a few.

Not sure about KQcc, KJcc, probably calling though. Also not sure if the weaker 9x and hands like 88-33 are a profitable turn call.

Also, I'm reasonably confident that BTN's cbet strategy would be sensitive to the inclusion of some strategic options that I don't have the capacity to include in my mode (e.g. BB sauce bet turn, BB overbet turn, minleads etc).

I've put together a crev model based on the work I've been doing with PIOSolver. I'm going to toy around with the model a bit before making a longer post, but if anyone wants a look the forum block is here http://justpaste.it/ksxt.

In terms of frequencies, BTN is cbetting ~60% (56.37% in PIO), BB is c/c 47.4% (44.42%) and c/r 7.1% (7.51%).

Couple of interesting things:-

o BTN is always (90%+ in PIO) cbetting KK, K7, K2, 77, 22
o BTN is pretty much always cbetting AK - KJ, and cbetting KQs-K8s almost always (80%+) - KTs - K8s without the bdfd gets checked back around 30-40%, and K8o-KTo more frequently than the other Kx
o BTN tends to favour giving up with its hands that don't have a bdfd (Q6-Q3s, J6s), but still bets those at a low frequency
o BTN is cbetting the majority of its 7x except 78o, and a few of the lower 7x with no bdfd
o BB is c/r 7.51%, which includes 22, 77, K2s, K7s at close to 100% frequency
o BB tends to favour A3-A5s w/bdfd as c/r bluffing hands, with around 50% frequency (calling the other times)
o KQs, T9s, J9s, T8s, 86s, 75s, 76s, 74s, 65s and 54s make up the rest of BB c/r range with a lowish frequency (30-40%)
o BTN never 3b flop - but this could be a product of the raise size I used, I want to try giving it a min3b option
o BTN defends the c/r as wide as T9s and 89s w/no bdfd, and it's overall call is 53.1%
o BTN calls the c/r with pretty much all 7x and 2x, 33-55 at a low frequency

I'm going to come back to this post shortly. I have noticed that it really is incredibly hard to come up with a flop defending range to a c/r.

Hey Pardol,

I would recommend checking out Steve Paul, Simon Couling, James Hudson and Cameron Couch. Their vids are probably the most 'basic' in terms of fundamentals.

They still cover some pretty advanced topics, and they are all certainly excellent players.

Definitely watch Sean Lefort's videos too.

That should give you a pretty good base to work from.

We have to call sometimes, otherwise the nemesis response would be to jam 100% on this river given the action (because we would be way overfolding, so the bot would effectively be capturing 100% of the pot).

We know that it's unlikely that the bot is using a strategy of jamming 100%, so we have to make an educated guess on how often we should call to maximise our ev.

Obviously we can have the nuts with some frequency, because we hold the As.

So we call when we have the nuts, but it seems likely that, given the bots range is obviously wider than jamming the nuts, we can also call with some worse hands.

Yeah, given Sauce has a series examining bot play already, that would be incredible.

Or maybe the WCG information is too valuable.

I'm kind of surprised he has such a large overbet as a strategic option that includes non-nut/nut blocker hands though.

I actually wonder if his bluffing range is largely As, in which case we would presumably have a better bluffcatch with non As hands.

Gotta be a low % call right?

My guess is that the epsilon equilibrium the bot is using will result in you calling all single pair AsXx combos with a relatively low frequency.

On that, do we think the ev of calling As2h is higher, lower, or the same as As8h?

^^ this lol

It's actually pretty annoying, because now I have to remember to close down the poker client, which I normally just leave running.

Whoops, just typed out an answer than accidentally deleted it.

Spades unblocks more of his bluffing hands, because V will be bluffing the river with non-spade hands (that don't block the missed flush draw) more often than with the missed flush draw.

That's just a guess, I haven't run PIO on this hand to look at.

-40 in BB and -20 in SB is roughly standard for reasonably good regs I think?