rattapeale

At 3:22 why do you choose a half pot cbet sizing with AK over third pot?

is it possible to get same spreadsheet for 8 max, 9max?
sorry, im noobie in excel

One of the most impactful training videos I have ever watched, loving your latest content! This is coming from an MTT player btw.

more of this kind of stuff pls

51:20 I feel the range that I am going to assign the opponent for checking back this turn is quite different than what the equilibrium solution is going to show us.

We should be able to use "node locking" function to change villains post flop tendencies.

Wha I mean is that we can use PIO to combat exploitable strat as well.

4:36 u say u need to call the shortstack.

i agree that math wise u most probably need to. but i think u can make an exploitative fold and keep opening massively wide vs others guys cause as u are the CL, everybody else is handcuffed when the shortstack is still in. it gets better the more icm aware are the middle stacks. even if the other players know that u are opening any2 they are so pressured for the ladder that i think the population will pass up a lot of profitable jamming opportunities.

A2o OTB at 17:50 - Why would you pass on +EV shove pre? Doesn't seem that great to raise / fold there, when we have so much equity vs SBs resteal range. Also, why not just jam flop at SPR=1? You are autoprofiting on a jam for sure and SB would need to overbluff turn with his air for checking to be better than jamming. Every time SB opts for a passive strategy on the turn and the river, i.e. not putting any more money into the pot with his air unless he improves (which I'd assume happens quite frequently), checking flop is a dominated strategy.

In the AQ hand, what about making it ~775 - most players defend vs this by flatting wide, we keep all of his dominated hands in (which there are a ton of!) and get into a very profitable postflop spot, where it's really hard for him to defend anything close to 1-a. With the sizing you chose, most villains will perceive this as a shove/fold spot where they can't really make a huge mistake vs us and you also put yourself in a pretty marginal spot when shoved on.

For the sizing you chose, I'd very much prefer to further polarize our range to something like TT+, AK for the upper pole and A & Kx blockers to balance. In parallel, I'd have a linear 3betting range with a smaller sizing (750-825), which would include hands like ATs+, KQs+ with stuff like AA and KK mixed in as well. I think constructing our ranges in this manner fits particularly well into the current metagame, where even good regs rarely defend vs small 3bets (which obv rep merged ranges) by 4betbluffing aggressively enough. Instead, since they are getting great potodds on the call pre, they opt to flat the vast majority of their range, while still 4betting linearly quite often, which leaves them with a pretty weak range when they flat. It's really hard to defend a wide flattingrange properly, especially in 3bet pots at MTTesque stackdepths and this is where you'll extract the biggest edge: by putting their marginal hands in tough spots and making them overcall / overfold. Much more potential to make money there imo, rather than turning this into a preflop push/fold spot most of the time.

Why isn't this getting any attention / feedback from RIO people? Excellent idea, esp. with the pros commentating on the action.

@ 16:00 You iso 44 vs CO shove and say it's a clear iso. HRC begs to differ: https://gyazo.com/448f6bbd2b83c502cedf0cf83d7c480b

Curious as to what your thought process is if you want to stick 10bb in there without giving it much thought. You say you "crush a lot of hands he shoves", but when you look at his whole range, you are crushed much more often than you crush the occasional 22, 33, A2-3, K2-3s. Most of the time you are just flipping. This is obviously a fold with ICM considerations, but even with chipEV (jamming 44 vs CO nash range is +0.09), I'd probably pass up on this spot as there will surely be better spots coming up given particular stack dynamics & hero's general edge over the table.

i actually made a mistake in the logic with the c-betting as its not part of the formula.

and i was thinking that fold equity is part of the realization equity. but im starting to see maybe its not like this. ur estimated 100% equity realization is purely for postflop. would u mind going into detail about this. u estimate, that on certain flops villain will fold a better hand etc. maybe u have run some numbers and have a rough estimate for on avg across all the flops how often u will be c-betting and how often villain will be folding. so far from what i have seen all the equity realization models are pretty simplistic. and i have wondered if somebody has ever tried to add many variables etc. or maybe its a useless practice.

interested to hear ur thoughts on it

minute 30:00 where u estimate that hero realizes 100% equity. u put it into a formula of:

0.36 * 0.475 ( 6 + 6 + 0.5 + 1.125) = 2.33 BBs postflop

in not really sure the formula represents the equity realization correctly. i see it like this:

when hero c-bets he gets called 47.5% of time and realizes 100% equity. if this is true then in total hero should be realizing close to 200% of equity because when we count in the times villain folds and we win the pot it adds up to equity realization.

secondly it seems counter intuitive that when hero c-bets and villain calls then hero realizes 100% of equity because our bluffs are very seldom good or oudraw the opponent. its true that hero´s value hands add back some equity realization (basically because we are bluffing 65o then our AA gets paid out more often and this adds equity realization to the whole range. im not sure if this is correct to say but 65o gets on its account some of the BBs that AA wins)

but basically when: villain folds(1) + villain calls(2) = should add up to 100% equity realization. right now in my eyes the formula represents that hero realizes 100% equity when villain calls which i think cannot be true. i see it like this: (1) + (2) = 100% equity realization. ur formula is:
(2) = 100% equity realization. then if we add to ur formula first part(1) the grand total for equity realization should be getting close to 200% (its a guess, im not entirely sure how to calculate this number precisely)

Hi Daniel,

ive also read jandas book and got a few ideas from it.

firstly jandas book is for 6max 100bb deep cash so there is room to span strategies over 3 streets.

then i thought that in mtts the stackdepths are a lot smaller then maybe its possible to construct close to gto strategies that complete their actions on the turn.

and maybe those strategies would be superior to 3-street strats. as nobody has constructed them nor knows about 2 street optimal play. so population would be making bigger mistakes against a player who has balanced his ranges for 2 street play.

i also thought that being shortstacked we create the biggest edge by denying our villain his equity, atleast by jandas words as he suggests getting it in with top pair weak kicker, middle pair. etc in 20-30 bb effective spots. he says we dont love our life when getting those hands in but should be good. so this connects with the logic of creating ranges and strategies that end on the turn.

and could u go into more detail about why 3 street is more optimal than 2 street. i mean where does it come from. stack depth correlated with betsize and the range?

@ 28.23 , pads jams 5-bet jams his A9o. i ran it in HRC but cant get the same scenario. i either get the initial 3-bet right but then 4-bet is off. or i get the initial 3-bet at a lower size but then 4-bet is the right size.

anyways i gave saldoon 58% opening range and then got the following nash numbers:
here the initial 3-bet is smaller but 4-bet is the right size as in game

and these are pads 5-bet shoving EVs

same calcs with bigger 5-bet size than in the game

we can see that pads´s shove was somewhat ambitious in nash but its a small mistake. i dont know what saldoon is calling in that spot but A8s and ATo seem ambitious for him too. so probably pads did make a +ev shove. the first set of calcs where the 4-bet size is similar like in the game, ur assumptions that pads should be more weighted towards suites aces and low pockets is right.

the only problem with these calcs is the low-mid pockets in the 3-bet and 4-bet ranges. do people actually use 66-77-88 for 3-betting and 4-betting with the 40bb stacks?

could u create a realistic scenario in hrc for this spot or atleast tell us what range are u expecting saldoon to open, what range is pads 3-betting, what range is BB cold 4-betting, what range is btn 4-betting and what is pads shoving.

i think people can be making very big mistakes in their calling ranges against shoves. already at 20bb deep we might need to fold AQs.

A9o at 11:00
u say that if villain (BB) thinks hero c-bets too much then villain should go for a call rather than a c/r. maybe in this given case when villain had FD + pair this is reasonable. but if villain had a naked pair or low pocket then should he be raising? because if he is just calling then hero will be realizing all his equity for overcards. and basically hero can rep all the turn overcards so on lots of turns villain will hate his life with middle pair or lower.

have u put anything into numbers and compared for these kind of spots where BB flats LP open and low board comes in and how important it is for BB to push villains off their overcards equity

would it be possible to get the excel sheets u were using there

at around 24:45 u say that green probably doesnt call enough on the river and then u filter for the onepaired hands and get that green is good on his river calls 43% of the time. u estimate that this number should be lower depending on the betsize but i guess we are looking for a number around 30%.

but at the stakes green plays people probably dont have enough bluffs in their range / dont size their bets accordingly. in theory could it be that green adjusts his river calling range very good accordingly to his villains stats. so there are villains against whom green folds too much cause they have too few bluffing hands. and there are villains against whom green calls more often because they too many bluffing hands. and this skews greens river calling statistic higher than what the river pot odds indicate it to be.

so say green´s villains bet 70% pot on the river and suggest that green´s river calling statistic should be around 29%. is it possible that due to the above explanation there is a divergence in the stats and green´s 43% river call stat might be optimal.

32:45, imalucsac opens 99, str8homey flats. board comes 8 T 8. homey check folds. now my question is if lucsac would call homeys check jam on that flop with 99. and what is the whole range that lucsac would call the check-jam

32:55 lucsac opens TT and sam jams his KQ and says he cant flat it 20bb deep. im thinking why cant u flat? i understand that setherson can put tons of pressure on sam and lucsac by 3-betting. but if sam jams then he is not gonna get value from lucsac worse Kx and Qx hands.

second hand where u flat 55 in mp vs ep open and the flop hits 4 6 7 and villain c-bets. would u consider raising the c-bet here?

im not sure what ur reads are here on villains c-bet range but if he does bet a lot of his range including Ax and broadways then we could make him fold his hands that have 25-30% equity against us and charge his FDs. and we probably will get to showdown without anymore bets put into the pot and maybe realize our equity more cheaply than by calling villains two barrels.

im am mostly concerned about villain realising his non-pocket range equity on his terms. what do u think

hey man,

i think u made a mistake in the last hand of 79 calculating how often ur villains gonna fold.

ur assumption is that villains will mainly fold their nut flushes. u say that button will fold around 70% of time and that SB will fold around 50% of time. the problem is that the villains both block eachothers folding ranges. so if BTN folds then he most likely blocks SB folding range and SB will not fold 50% of the time as u expected

At 16:00, you call A8o on T87. What do you think about raising flop here for value? Our opponent should have many draws and 7x, 8x here that are folding and our hand really need protection. If you choose to call flop on this board, then what turns are you continuing on? I feel that this is a board where V is going to double-barrel with a very high frequency (if he chose to cbet in the first place), so calling one with a plan to give up to a double barrel most of the time seems like burning money. Appreciate your thoughts.