matlittle

Thanks, will DM you about it

Completely agree that for you its probably the best strategy choice, given that the regs you are playing are unlikely to have major leaks facing a probe. In the games I play though, almost all regs over-fold to turn probe, so for me I think its probably not the best strategy choice to have just a low frequency massive bet size here as it doesn't do a good job of exploiting this leak that my opponents have. In that case, do you think I should just use one small bet size here like 33%, or attempt to mix in a huge betsize with it too, e.g. a 33%/200% mix?

Also, I feel like in general, betting here out-performs compared to the EV generated in the solver. In most of these scenarios the small bet usually garners more folds from humans than it would from a solver I think? Not sure about on this specific board-pairing turn as OOP might check a lot more strong hands than usual.

I had a look at this hand in the solver, because I was curious as to whether betting turn with 65 was a mistake.

The solver will basically pure bet it with a heart, and check without. The other suits block more of the weak back-door hands like 86ss, 86cc, 86dd, 85ss, 85cc, 85dd.

65 can also bet-call the turn here for close to 2bb in EV too, so you are not folding a bunch of equity if you get raised.

Yeh there's lots of variables to consider for flatting here, especially when we consider the specifics of the recreational player. I hadn't paid much attention to offsuit hands going multiway before though, and how stack depth can interact with that, so I have been paying attention to it this week!

Completely agree with that. Would you play check-shove with your exact hand here though? Equity wise, I think you have enough to shove, the only issue is that I can't imagine you will get many calls. Perhaps a different sizing here would be higher EV for this type of hand?

I am playing 100nl and 200nl, in these games the river is chronically under-bluffed by regs on average in big pots. For both hands I think the standard would be to fold the river vs most regs at these stakes. Thanks for the sim for the river in the A5 hand, on that hand I think an aggro reg/rec would most likely overbluff. So I guess player profiling is probably the key consideration in these spots.

By default do you attempt to add the strong limp-raising hands here for balance? For the moment I am just playing a very simple face up range of hands that want to limp, then only if a player behind begins to ISO very frequently do I start to add those strong limp-raising hands.

If I shove a spot in the future and our opponent tank folds then I know they folded value and thus shouldn’t go for thin value in the future.

That's a nice idea, I will try to look for that in my games! Presumably that kind of read would also allow us to bluff jam a bunch instead?

Thanks Sam, some really good advice here. I will start with a very simple plan that involves important work at times in the day where I have best energy and focus and move from there. Hopefully neither of us will be in the WSOP PLO events next summer!

At the end of the video you touched on the idea that if we are trying to talk to ourselves with compassion, we might consider what we would say to a friend struggling with the same issue. Why is it that in general we talk to ourselves in a tone that is harsher than we talk to others? In many other ways humans can be self-interested, yet when it comes to compassion we can dish it out to others but don't leave much for ourselves?

I think I recall in the book that Jared said this might indicate that you don't have the knowledge completely nailed down, so you fail to execute in the moment. The solution being further study/revision of the topic/skill you couldn't perform well. But I'm wondering if some instances of poor execution are more due to poor mental state hindering the decision making process? How can we discern which of the 2 factors is limiting us most and therefore which to focus on?

"Knowing something in general vs knowing it under pressure" - this reminds me a lot of conscious competence and unconscious competence that Jared Tendler talked about in his books. You talked about how our ability to know things can be affected by things like our mental state. If we find that we are unable to implement things under pressure, should we target improving our mental state during execution, or should we practise this area of skill/knowledge more before needing to execute it again, or both?

Found this diagram really interesting, it is very accurate in depicting each emotion and how I personally experience them. Is this diagram generated from a scientific method, or simply from one person creating it based on their experience?

Hello Sam, as someone who would be a multiple bracelet winner in the WSOP (World series of procrastination), this video was super helpful for me! I would benefit a huge amount from planning out important parts of my day, however I have lots of internal resistance to implementing this. I once tried to plan out an entire week, hour by hour, but after day 1 of not sticking to it, I gave up on that idea. Do you have some advice on how to overcome this resistance and plan out at least some of my day so that I am not drifting from thing to thing based on mood?

Completely agree with the analysis on this one. Would need villain to rip in a considerable number of weak flush draws to make the call with AQ here profitable. The flush draws having considerable equity too means we need even more of the "bluff" combos in villain's range to make us indifferent to calling here.

Given that we shouldn't stack off the 1 pair hands, do you think then that villain's raise is a bit too thin too (despite getting a good result here)? Seems like calling flop and trying to fade a flush turn would be much higher EV for them. Then on turn jamming/calling will be higher EV than this flop shove?

Given the large turn raise size here, I don't think hands like JTcc can call. Villain can have T9cc for sure, but 54s some regs don't open full frequency from MP. AXcc also seems somewhat marginal to call vs turn raise given the large sizing, and perhaps the stronger ones like AQcc, AJcc, ATcc might check back flop here, especially given the 1/2 pot cbet size. I think once we discount a bunch of hands in the river bluffing region then it becomes very marginal to call river here and probably slightly -EV in my opinion.

Also for the other worse combos that villain can have - you listed 4 AQs combos. If we assume that villain is calling AQs with BDFD on flop, he only had 3 combos on flop, then Qc blocks one on river, so there's only 2 left, AQss, AQhh. Even for these combos I would not call the river raise here unless I was convinced that my opponent was a complete sicko. To counter the good pot odds, it is still an extra 70bb to put into the put in a spot where I can't imagine almost anyone would consider a bluff shove.

This was a very spooky line from your opponent with the river overbet! BB can river a bunch of QX here, so I really don't get why you would overbet here with JJ. Seems like the nut-worst bet sizing on the river? Even after seeing this line, I'm not convinced I would shove here vs this opponent. I'm not sure everyone is snap calling all of their value hands here vs the raise. You get good pot odds but its probably a very very under-bluffed raising range.

You raised an interesting point here with regards to the SB not getting much value these days on this type of board because most good players know that this type of board is set-heavy for the SB, so the SB will often struggle to get value. Does this mean you only play 3bet or fold here? If there was a recreational player in the BB, would you then revert to adding in a flatting range too? Presumably the EV of the rec in the BB is still sufficient (for most recs) to warrant a flatting range here, despite the issue you mentioned (plus being capped on certain boards)?

For this board you mentioned that its different in HU compared to 6max, HU you bet small, 6max you bet big. Is it simply a product of wider ranges meaning BTN has more 3x which want protection? Or is there more to it than that?

Also I'm curious as the to what extent you would attempt to balance this range? You mentioned you might overlimp a strong hand here so that you can limp raise. My feeling is that you don't really need to balance it that well, for 2 reasons:
1. The original raiser will limp some premium hands that limp raise, so there is already one player who is uncapped and with a raise frequency
2. The blinds are not incentivised to raise wide here as the original rec limper will call way too frequently vs the raise anyway, so ISOing a weak hand here will lose money

Hey Tyler, missed this video from a while back. For limping behind on BTN do you have a good idea of which hands you will opt to limp here? Is it mainly hands that want to see the flop but are slightly too weak to ISO? Presumably it is hands that play well multiway too, so KTo for example won't make the range?

Another thing that resonated with me was when you were talking about the pareto principle and how 80% of results come from 20% of efforts. For me this is important when I am doing a task as I often find myself doing it in an extreme level of detail. When it comes to poker study I have great knowledge in one area but then completely neglect other areas. It would be far more efficient for me to study more areas in far less depth, but as a perfectionist I find it hard to leave something I don't consider to be completely covered. How can I overcome perfectionism to become more efficient?

Hello Jan, you talked for a while about the need to pass up instant gratification for harder more important tasks that have future payoffs. This is something I need to do more, but I find difficult as too often I opt for the wrong option and avoid tough long tasks that require significant effort. Do you have any advice on how to make the right decision when you are in the moment and picking what to do with the next few hours of your time?

This part was interesting to me too and so was this question given that I started listening to the exact same podcast. I used to have the assumption that self improvement material could only be beneficial, but I have also come to the conclusion that too much can be detrimental. With Huberman, given that lots of the advice is health based, I find it can induce misery/anxiety being told about a huge number of things that are bad for you/slowly killing you (currently listening to the one about microplastics which is the nut-low for this!). Will definitely be more selective in the future!

In this hand your opponent bet block on flop then 1/2 on turn. This is obviously a clear overbet spot and you noted that his bet size didn't make sense at all and was likely a middling strength hand betting exactly what its worth. After seeing this, what specific adjustments can you make in the future? Presumably this player won't have many natural calling hands on the river in spots where they opt to check back turn? Would you have gone crazy with raises if you saw this type of turn sizing again? What would be your assumptions if you see a similar spot and the opponent instead makes an overbet?

You mentioned that this sizing isn't solver approved. When you see someone make an overbet on a turn they are not supposed to overbet on, do you assume that they are value heavy? Or that they simply misunderstand the spot and the appropriate bet sizing?

Hey Nuno, cool video, did you record the next round(s) too?

For this hand, you faced a small probe then a 1/2 pot on river. You said that you felt this line is under-bluffed and decided to exploit fold your hand. Is that based on MDA research, or just your feel for this spot?

For this board, you were keen on a turn probe size for the BB of 200% only, and said that you wouldn't add a 2nd bet size here in the probe node. Is that because it increases the complexity of the strategy a lot but doesn't add much theoretical EV in the solver?