Samu Patronen

Little bit confused about the T3s analysis: You said that you are ok with bet/calling every bluffcatcher if your opponent is overbluffing with the raise, but you are not ok with putting yourself in that situation more often than you're supposed to. Wouldn't opponents overbluffing justify going for those thin block bets? Or are you simply worried that your strategy becomes too obvious for your opponent at that point?

Cool vid, enjoyed it!

Pokerdope variance calculator!

Preflop defence seems fine to me, the squeeze size is small enough.

Flop may just be a fold right away, villain cbets into two players and we still have one player left to act. Seems fairly close tho and nut equity gets better multiway.

As played you could bet the turn. On the river bluff shove seems quite alright to me. Villains line is not all that strong and we have the best bluff blocker.

Welcome to Run It Once!

I can't think of any PIO guide videos on runitonce off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's something. I personally learned to use the program by just watching RIO coaches using it. Piosolver has it's own youtube channel, you may want to check it out if you want to start from the bottom up!

Preflop: I squeeze out of the SB with AKs, now I prefer to raise bigger pre, maybe to 19BB as I am OOP against two players. Thoughts?

Yeah I also think that your squeeze sizing is a little bit small, I would personally go a little bit bigger. 18 or 19 big blinds seems pretty good to me.

Flop: I flop the NFD. However not quite sure how to proceed against two players. I think this flop is good for their calling ranges (containing 99, 88, 98s, JTs, QTs, QJs etc.). How would you likley proceed here?
Do you c-bet with that part of your range and for what sizing? Or dont you c-bet, maybe planning on check-raising?

These multiway spots are a little bit tricky because you actually cannot solve multiway spots with PIO. I think the fact that we're 3way and the flop hits both of their ranges fairly well, I would probably just check my entire range and go from there. With our specific hand it's hard to make a huge mistake though.

1. We don't need to get a ton of folds given that we're investing little to win a lot.
2. Villain should still have stuff like 88/86s/97s that are in a tough spot.
3. Villain may think that since you're shoving so little that it cannot be a bluff. :)

That sounds right to me, total rake you pay is what matters (rake minus rakeback).

The name of the video is also perfect.

This is THE run it once training video I've always dreamed about.

I had a losing day after a long winning streak. I am sure it is because of over-confidence.

Don't read too much into daily results, those are mostly determined by variance.

I'm not exactly sure what "playing too confidently" means. One (and only) thing that comes to mind is that we overvalue our assumptions about how the game works and/or how our opponents are playing when we're actually just wrong or missing some major piece of the puzzle.

I like your play and your analysis. I think we prefer to get protection on the flop rather than let people realize equity almost for free.

MDF model only works if bluffs have 0 equity in the pot. That is clearly not the case in most preflop situations (some of your defends are calls so "bluffs" realize some equity), so the MDF model doesn't work. Don't use it for preflop!

Turn bet seems pretty nice to me against a really wide and weak range.

I would call the river. It's very easy for villain to bluff too often on such a dry runout if he is ever inclined to float turn and bluff river.

Yeah I would also fold preflop. Not crazy about the turn bet either, this is a flop that hits the 4bettor extremely well and even when he checks, I would expect to be up against a very strong range that we can't bet a lot against. A strategy that just cbets everything and occasionally checks some KK/QQ type of things is not that uncommon either.

Well our hand is crap but I like the spirit!

In all seriousness this probably just works despite not being optimal in all likelihood.

Looking at a turn report, it's one of the worst cards for our range's equity behind a bunch of 5, 6, 7 and 8s. Why is this the case here? I thought we would have more Jx in range.

A big chunk of our advantage in 3bet pots as the aggressor comes from having overpairs. Cards that reduce the "nuttiness" of our overpairs generally makes us want to play more passively with our range. On the flop our overpairs are extremely strong, whereas on the turn we're in a situation where our overpairs are just decent and both players have a lot of Jx.

Yeah I like a slight overbet, we only really want to be betting a straight or a bluff so our range is extremely polarized. But I wouldn't go absolutely huge either because villain can also have 8x sometimes so going overly large shrinks villains calling range to a point where he only calls 8x.

Yes.

Bluff seems alright, a lot of 8x lead the turn I would imagine.

I would probably shove KK and call AA due to difference in getting protection.

It all depends on what you're trying to do. You can always figure out the best sizing(s) by adding and removing different sizes from your sims and comparing EVs.

I think simplifying our strategy is very good and even necessary. That said, if you always use only one sizing in every sim, you never get to see how other sizes work. I think it's fine for our sims to be complicated, as long as you don't have any delusions about being able to execute that strategy in game. Our goal with solvers should be to understand the game better, not to "see how to play".

Nice hand!

Seems fine to me, I don't think we gain much by going smaller or bigger on the river and two mid high cards that aren't hearts work fine as a bluff.

I definitely underestimated the value of having structure at the beginning. Poker provides you with a lot of freedom and very little structure. Not needing to use an alarm clock is a luxury but can also make things more difficult.

Regarding finances, I think a lot of people go pro too early. It's hard to build a bankroll and move up at stakes when a big portion of your earnings go to living expenses each month. It's also very stressful.

I'd limp, but that could be because I'm impatient in a live setting.

A) when we use the smaller sizing with a range bet, I think we bring a player like this close to equilibrium, because he will accurately decipher that we are betting all of our range/may think we have a sizing tell and therefore float wider/check raise more.

This sounds to me like giving a lot of credit to a player who limps and coldcalls 3bets with bad stuff.

Fishes tend to be fairly inelastic to sizings so I'm suspicious of the theory that he would overdefend against 1/3 and underdefend against 2/3. I guess some of them might.

You always have a range of hands, and your overall range has an impact on the EV of all the hands that are in that range.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg came first. The mother of the first chicken wasn't a chicken.

Using the MDF, we look at the portion of our range that we need to call in order to remain unexploitable by bluffs. Based on pot odds, we actually call the portion of hands that makes the call a winning play.

You got it.

MDF is not applicaple in all situations, it is most useful in pure bluffcatching situations on the river.

You can definitely move up with those results. The difference between NL2 and NL5 is not very big, whatever you did to achieve your results at NL2 will most definitely work at NL5!

Is that a good reason to fold?

I don't think so. Because AQ is such a strong hand, I would need something more scientific to justify folding.

Preflop sims that I've seen play this hand UTG vs CO as a 3bet, but it's possible that a tight UTG open and high rake make this a fold.

Rest is fine, folding river would be a fairly big mistake.