sgperfect

I do still enjoy his podcasts a lot so my comment came off pretty harsh. I just think if he cut out a smidge more bullshit but still kept it casual it'd be better.

It's joey, he's likeable but if he just made his conversations/interviews a bit more "professional" they'd be more interesting. A professional comedian could get away with a relaxed style like he does but he's simply not funny enough to pull it off.

Dude

Hey Ben, w/r/t cold call opportunities in position. Is it possible you are underestimating the EV sacrifice of allowing the original raiser more strategic opportunities preflop & HU vs an in position 3bettor than vs an in position caller.

Re-opening the action vs the raiser and allowing him to put more money in the pot with parts of his range affects our ability to realize equity with our range. We kinda give him the opportunity to do what we're trying to do ie. prevent equity realization of the bottom of ranges (and just like open raising and folding isn't fun 3bet folding is very expensive!). Calling never allows the preflop raiser to act again unless we're squeezed.

Interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks!

To solve this issue what other hands would you select in your 4bet range? Suited connecters, Qxs?

Lucietta you keep saying that "we should just assume GTO ranges for both opponents" and "play our own range perfectly". Well ideally our sims would have this option "input GTO range" but we don't and nor do you so your estimates are as good as anyone's. In short what you are describing is a method for testing an unexploitable strategy only we're calling it a model or simulation and you're calling it poker.

To expand briefly, I think what you are suggesting and what modeling may also attempt to do ambitiously is to: 

Make up ranges for each player based on experience that is our closest approximation of GTO for a given preflop spot. We then see how these ranges connect with a certain flop at a certain SPR and attempt to define how each range should play, we usually need to reduce the strategic options somewhat to keep things manageable. Importantly in this kind of sim you would assume that each range is face up and hence each player can adjust their strategy to maximally exploit the other which leads to many oscillating changes. Ultimately the aim is to achieve an equilibrium whereby neither strategy can gain anything by deviating - i.e. a Nash Equilibrium. Once this is achieved you can say "okay I don't care what you're going to do I'm going to play my range like this: (!@#$%^)" I have never reached anything resembling a NE other than simple river situations with assumed ranges for example.

This solution, however, would all be based on your assumptions about the preflop play which is exactly your point. So the disagreement in the thread is simply that you suggest that we give opponents GTO ranges (no argument here), whilst others are acknowledging that this is not possible and therefore our most recent understanding of poker theory is our best approximation of GTO. So you're either in fairyland or you have solved poker.

And besides, figuring out how to beat your own ranges which aren't GTO can be useful for plugging leaks. I still agree with you somewhat... I wish I was better at poker. I'm definitely interested in you're new age ways of improving poker intuition, models take time and if I can save some of that I'd be happier for it.

EDIT: I wrote this for my own cathartic reasons since I'm not expecting a satisfying response from OP (although I hope so), but I am also interested in anyone's opinions about my explanations and assumptions about modelling. I'm not much of a modeller and only a learning poker player that has studied game theory.

subgameperfect

outstanding video thanks

I think not. AT+ and bluffs would be my standard.

I agree that versus just a turn check his range is likely uncapped (but still weighted to more SDV) and hence facing a river bet he can have nutted hands. Facing TWO checks I think his range is more capped and it was this situation I suggested an overbet.

what about this strategy:
Check back turn with all Jx, Qx, Kx(one pair), AT, T9 and ocassional FD and air hand.

Facing river bet: Call AQ+ or wider if he bets small / fold Jx, air / shove trips+ and some weak Qx

Facing river check: overbet shove trips+, air and Jx / check back Qx-Kx

an issue I see with this is that I am treating Jx like SDV on the turn by checking back but using it as a bluff in all river situations so it never realises it's SDV making betting turn as a bluff an option. However cheking back turn avoiding a checkraise allows it to river 2pair+.

I think we'll have about 11-14 combos of Jx on the river and a few combos of air say 4 combined with around 29 combos of trips+ that we want to valuebet making shoving reasonable given the ratio 29:15-19. (I used the range I came up with for checking back turn and asked odds oracle about our hand categories by the river).

Additionally, I think Jx with have <10% equity after facing two checks.

Good point, although I do often play some air/draws passively on the turn in situations like this and rep thinner value hands on the river, admittedly with a smaller bet than an overbet shove however. This board might not suit it though since most of our flop floats improve on the turn (i think).

I'm thinking weak Jx might be the only hands we would want to turn into a bluff versus two checks, do you think an overbet would not be suitable given our range? What do you think of checking back a flush draw occasionally on the turn avoiding a checkraise and being uncapped on spades?

Do you think villain will checkraise turn often?

I actually love it, and I think it's a good way to play our straights coz

1. we protect our turn check back range which we will do a ton with hands like this, so we get to SD more often with marginal hands since he can't bet as thin for value otr

2. we get to bluff shove when he bets, and still bluff catch effectively

3. when he checks twice we can overbet shove river against a very capped range with value/bluff and check back marginals

its a creative and perplexing line that I think would cause major head aches if I were villain.

What Kx 3bet bluff hands do you like to 3bet here?

As played I think check-fold is best. Should we be check-calling some of our AK combos on the flop though?

Yes I'd be interested in a second group. I play 100NL 6

i did this analysis as well, the main reason I didn't post is simply that we don't know. It's possible this guy never bluffs here. here's a tight value and bluffing range that we break even against, it's very easy to come up with a range that makes it a snap call of course like guys who go to town with any two. I like a call now I admit but it's not a spot I see people bluffing a ton (when I call lol) and I thought that his timing made him very polarized i.e. he wasn't snap shoving A2, who knows though.

http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/show?b=AcAdTd9d4h&g=he&h1=Asqs&h2=AJ%2CAT%2CA9%2CA4%2CQdJd%2CKdqd%2CQdJ%2CKQd%2CQJd%2C8d7d%2Ckdjd%2C7d6d%2C9d7d%2C8d6d%2C6d5d&s=generic

dont know how to post the pic like others do. essentially he needs to be bluffing all kq and qj with diamond if more than that we're good or more hands A8<.

Additionally, folding so much and being conservative took so much fun out of the game (as does losing), so I'm glad I came to this realisation with help and can go back to playing poker keeping the pendulum somewhere in the middle.

Hopefully I can post some less embarrassing hands in the future.

Good good, after starting off poker as a bluffy station I've morphed into a loose preflop, weak tight postflop reg, this has slowly gotten worse the last 5 weeks or so as I couldn't post a win over any stretch of time and thought that my leaks were the same as when I started.

After posting this hand, reviewing some stats and simply observing my redline take a hand-break right turn I see where I'm going wrong, i've been looking for reasons to fold and trying to justify them. I've been telling myself for too long "people don't bluff enough" "people are nits on the river" etc etc. I think my brain had set up a defense mechanism for seeing a SD and losing which has led me to loose a lot more woSD, the worst part is that I've progressively been tightening up and tightening up lately, so stupid I only realise now you can't win when you fold.

I'll just re-attach my balls after I've found them.

I guess I've been trying to widen my BB calling range especially when getting great odds, but I get you're point ATo just doesn't play that well.

On the flop I thought that fish was cbetting basically 100% for this size, and that btn can have draws, worse Ax and KQ sometimes but maybe I was being optimistic.

Thanks heaps for the input, I'm definitely playing too loose now I realise, especially as I thought I was being nitty by folding turn.

50-60%,50-60%, shove for about 66% (roughly)

I think turn is a check call because his range is more polarized than yours. If turn goes xx you can value bet the river. If he bets turn and shoves river I think we just call with the top x% of our range on each street. I would put JJ in our check call turn range as well and bet turn with some Tx, 9x and 8x. Not sure what the line is with all your FDs, maybe put a few of each in each turn range with more SDV in the checking range?

Wow thank you , that was an excellent tutorial, I'll definitely download the trial to experiment.

Yeah missed some of the flush draws , 

First HH post on this forum so thanks for the feedback guys. 

I agree with mplecki about the river. 

About sizing I agree with just bigger generally. I think making it 11-12bb pre would make life easier when deep. Do you think making it 12bb affects calling ranges much?