matmat

Imo, the video would have been better if the student had just recorded a session and watched the playback video with the coach and discussed the spots then. I think it would have made for a better video as they would have been able to pause the action at interesting spots and discussed it in depth, during live play those discussions were a bit rushed because the student had to make a decision, or had action on the other table.

It also would have solved the ethical problems, although Pete didn't intend to and stated at the start of the video his intention to let the student make the decision first and discuss the decision afterwards, there were clearly a number of spots where the student changed his decision in game on the advice he was getting from Pete.

I did enjoy having both the student and coach discussing the situations, i just feel it would be better to do this in a recoreded session rather than a live play.

Enjoying the course so far. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask specific questions about content, but wasn't sure where else to post as each video doesn't seem to have its own discussion thread. Apologies if this is the wrong place.

In Episode 7: Selective vs Unselective Cbetting you give examples of flops where you want to adopt a bet range strategy, and also examples of flops we want to take a polarized approach to c-betting.

However when I look at these flops in a solver, the solver seems to take a different approach.

For example, the flops AdKh3c, Ac9s7d, 8s4d2d, JdTh4c are all given as examples of bet range flops for the BTN. When I run these through a solver, all of them are bet <50% for a small sizing, when given the option of a 33%, 75% cbet or check, indeed the 1st 2 flops are hardly ever bet for a small sizing and are checked half the time.

Likewise in the polarized examples the flops QcJsJc & 7d6d3d are both bet for a small sizing a good majority of the time.

I realise this is dependent on the ranges I input, but I think the results should be similar giving BTN any reasonable Uncapped opening range, and the BB a reasonable capped flatting range.

I can't really figure why the solvers have such wide & diverging cbetting strategies for flops that seem to have somewhat similar characteristics. It doesn't seem to relate to the Equity or the EV of the range.

Can Peter or anyone else help me with this as I'm just getting a bit confused in terms of when I want to take which cbetting approach.

A video on adjustments to make in splashed pots please!!

Enjoyed the video and liked the format of analyzing a specifc spot with specific reference to the decision points.

Analysis on Hand 1 was a little confusing, you start off by stating his value range is only straights, then go on to say he is a strong player and you are not surprised he value bets top pair. Pio seems to cut off value betting on the river at around half the 3rd pair combos of 7x.

I'm not a Pio expert but don't you want to be inputting as few of your own assumptions as possible? If you start at preflop your only assumption is his 3b range from btn vs our UTG open, which with the use of player pool tendencies and relevant HUD stats we should have a reasonable idea of. If you start at the river decision, then we have to make huge assumptions about his cbetting and double barrel frequencies and hand selection on this board texture. (as well as really understanding our own range). And the differences between your assumptions and Pio's solution looks pretty large if it leads to a difference between never leading the river and leading the river over 1/3 of the time OOP.

If you start at preflop, while your ranges will be different to Teunuss, they will probably be similar enough to give you a similar solution of not leading the river OOP. You can then use the lock node feature if you want to explore assumptions that you want to make that differ to Pio.

I don't think you should be checking your whole range, but I think we have to be careful of not thinking in absolute terms, "this is the top of my range" and using that to justify or make a decision. Our bd nfd's, A5s, and Qx hands that we turned into a bluff pre are likely to be mixed on this flop between chk and bet. I agree AA is very high up in our range, but it's not the very top, and we need to consider villain's range. We may still decide AA is too strong to fold (I'd be happier if we had the As) & that's fine, but we need to be careful not to use "I'm at the top of my range" as an excuse for a decision (something which I myself do to much).

Not sure this should be the absolute top of your range. Think you should have some straights and flushes here. Seems a close spot, but I think I would lean towards a fold, it's hard to come up with bluffs for villain here when he takes this line. Theoretically it might be a call, certainly if this is the top of your range, but vs a low stakes player pool, without a specific read I'd fold.

Really enjoyed the video. In the KJo vs Ah6h hand 13:00, what was the thinking with sizing the river so small? After the 4b shove it seems like such a strange hand for value or as a bluff, but I feel vs the population it's a fold as I just never see bluffs here, although you do say he is a stronger reg and is capable in these spots.

At 30:20 you briefly mention villain playing an "old school" polarized cbetting strategy, when he fails to cbet 43hh on J74, and that such a strategy is much harder to execute well. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts in a bit more detail either in comment or a future video on polarized cbetting strategies.

In general I'd prefer to 3b preflop, esp at stakes where the rake effect is huge, rather play a bloated pot with a range advantage or end the pot preflop.

I wouldn't have a raising range on the flop as it favours villain's range so heavily. As played I don't mind bet/call or check/shove on the turn.

I don't hate your line. I can see why you raise the flop, we probably have the best hand, we can get value from draws, future streets are going to be tricky multiway. When he 3 bets it's tricky because of how deep you were, so I see why you fold, but I think with the board so draw heavy, and his value hands may even just be 88 & 33, that we need to continue IP and reevaluate the turn (basically not planning on folding unless the board texture worsens.)

Think betting flop is fine, but fold to x/r. It's going to be hard to get our equity to showdown, and he played preflop passive, and has now taken an aggressive flop line. As played I think fold turn, we do block some value and unblock bluffs, but we don't really have any info on villain and he has taken lines that suggest he is a weak player, in spots like that I prefer to take a straightforward approach and just play the value of my hand.

16:30 - You say you would expect Gigaloff to nearly always be raising a flush on 6th, and especially if he had a low draw to go with it. But with him only having 2BBs behind, wouldn't he want to flat most of his strong & very strong hands to keep the 3rd player (you) in. He seems likely to be led into on the river, so he's going to be able to get most of his stack in anyway & isn't losing much value on 6th, and potentially gets more value by keeping the pot multiway. If he should raise is it to squeeze you out for protection, or because he may lose value if you & lb have draws that will pay 2 bets now, but will c/f bricked rivers.

Really enjoyed the video. Is the Tipton bet sizing spreadsheet you use, something that is freely available? If so, do you know where we can get it. Thanks

I would have thought that most RIO subscribers watch predominantly for education purposes over entertainment. There are lots of free resources available to cater for people who want to watch poker for entertainment. Poker tv shows, you tube vlogs, other you tube poker channels, twitch etc...are all mostly geared towards entertainment, and have a better format to deliver entertainment than a live play video. When I want some poker entertainment I would choose those free formats over RIO.

I subscribe to RIO to try to improve my play and when I watch a video here I see it as training to get better. Obviously it's always better to get content in as entertaining and engaging way as possible, but by far the most important aspect is am I learning something that I can use to improve my game.

There is a place for live play videos and session reviews for people who are trying to improve their game. But these types of videos are massively over-represented in the RIO library and what is been released on a weekly/monthly basis.

Agreed. I think it's a weakness in the business model here at RIO. I assume coaches are paid per video, or a set amount for x number of videos. From the coaches perspective a live session or session review takes next to no prep and maximises their hourly, whereas producing a theory video with slides, analysis, spreadsheets, poker software, finding appropriate examples etc...could require 10x as much work for the same pay. I'd be more than happy to have less quantity of videos for videos that take longer to produce.

That's why old live guys do the $10 for a ten raise. They've been playing for a long time and know how the poker gods work.

Liked the idea of thinking of the pro nit as a placeholder who makes you money by allowing you to play shorthanded with the weaker players, never thought of it like that before.

Do you use any tools to formulate your strategy vs each player? Thinking of stuff like note-taking etc...Seems difficult to do stuff like make notes on opponents play while maintaining a crazy/fun image at the table.

Well written article Sam. Personally I don't think it's a case of the players been more/less interesting in the 'new school' or 'old school', it's simply a reflection of the changes in society and more specifically technology. 10-15 years ago, there was a lot more table chat/banter simply because there was little else to do at the table except to get to know the players around you. Now everyone has smartphones/Ipads etc...more people stay in their own little bubble at the table rather than engage with the people around them. Invariably when I sit at a live poker table at least half the table will be immersed in their phone/Ipad or some other device...what do I do to break the tedium of sitting for hours at a table where there is no chat or banter, I pull out my phone or Ipad.

Would defo sign up to elite if mixed games were added. 90% of my play is mixed games and as I play low stakes $100 per month is a bit much for me when so little of my play is nlhe/plo. There are already a few coaches at RIO who play a bunch of high stakes mixed games, would love to see some mixed game vids from them.