John Doe

Would this type of filtering work in the 'All Players Report' as well? Been having trouble looking for guides

Simplest explanation I can think of apart from player pool skill is in Zoom you're playing more hands/hr so you're gonna see more swings in a session. If notice you're losing a ton quickly then it might be wise to decrease your Zoom table amount

I see. 68% should be required fold equity. Not sure why I always default to "I should be 68% good in this spot based on pot odds"

I see what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong). For your example spot, it seems like Villain's underfold against your 3bet and so you're selecting bluffs that have the most effective blocker effect (ATo, KJo, etc) instead of board coverage - ie. suitted gappers, lower suited connectors. Using the blocker hands in this spot effectively decreases Villain's probability to 4bet while increases the 3bet to be successful.

I'll look at these filters once I get home. I would normally filter for "positions" and the rest such as "fold to 3bet", "3bet %", and "3b call after raise" in the search tab and use the filter "NOT" player is Hero. What do you think of this?

Not sure about the sample you have on Maniac but I still would assume opening from MP would be a strong range and a CO 3bet would be stronger. I find the CC strong as well even though we're this deep. If Maniac is sticky I think we might want to decrease our bluffing range -- if we're cold 4betting K5cc against MP and a CO 3bet we might be 4betting too much because this means we'll be 4betting hands like A2-A5, K6-K7 (not exact hands but this is to give you an idea of how wide the 4bet is) and other hands that balance our K5s 4bet.

maco if we decide to cbet range here we're missing out on value with our stronger holdings like AK, AQ, A6, and 66 which could be placed in a bigger bet range. Wouldn't necessarily bet bigger with AA and QQ because we have the board locked down and we can use these hands to protect our weaker holdings like Qx and weaker Ax

CatorMan I do agree. We can mix some big bets with the A9-K9 because they deny equity but also unblock the J and Tx here. These holdings also blocks the strongest sets in their range. Even though these type of hands aren't the strongest, betting small will keep their range wider with more hands that can outdraw us on later streets. To add, betting small will also increase our propensity to get raised and getting raised with these hands which would be troublesome because of their lack of SDV (against the top of Villain's range) and smaller chances to improve on later streets.

Edit: I also think betting big with A9-K9 is great because the combinations that will want to raise our big bet range the most will be their 99, 55, and Q9(25%-50%). Again, when they have less sets and 2pair we expect them to have a lower raise frequency which would affect how they balance their range with their bluffs so this can be an exploit we can take advantage of if they raise this board frequently

Nice breakdown of actions.

Focusing on the flop, why do you think we're betting big with our sets and 2pair? What do you think about mixing a big and small bet with our K9+?

To add to this, the blocker effects of our holding are great. They increase Villain's propensity to fold while having a few outs to the nuts (high improvability)

No problem, I'm glad you found the stuff we wrote useful. Good luck grinding!

It depends on range construction, board textures and bet sizing. If your pool bets bigger most of the time, the x/r% is normally lower; If your pool bets smaller most of the time, the x/r% is normally higher. There's no one size fits all answer but those are the main factors.

I find it has the same relation to my VPIP and PFR scenarios where they get extremely tight when I'm playing in aggressive pools especially when I don't get hands that could cold 4bet. For example: I'm on BU with hand that can open and EP opens but gets 3bet by CO or MP and I have to fold a hand that's good enough to open in those CO/BU scenarios but couldn't CC or 4bet then I have to fold. If I run into this scenario a bunch of times in thousands of hands when not holding cold 4bet-type hands then my VPIP and PFR %'s decrease.

I say that because asking people for a specific x/r% wouldn't give you the results you would like (higher winrate) but understanding what works for your general population and how you and they construct ranges will help based on fundamental principles that support check-raising.

It seems like MDF is the way to go when it comes to calling in BB. Was thinking about pot odds as well?

Let's say Villain opens BU 2.5x and we defend in BB. Assuming we need 1.5bb to win 6.0bb then we would require an 25% equity to BE meaning we can call with a range that is 25% good against Villain's overall range. Does this sound correct?

I like the thought on range expansion based on how much they under defend. Will keep this idea in mind for future practices.

By saying "Villain should defend 50% of his range" when calling in the BB (let's assume he has a fixed 3bet range of X that is left out), do you mean they'll be continuing with a 50% range after we open in BU?

Agree with Jeff_ and the reason for the smaller bet is BB will have the nut advantage and range advantage on this board with the plethora of flushes while we'll have the stronger Jx/overpairs and top set. I think the problem with a smaller sizing is that it will be raised a fair amount in terms of BB raising more flushes due to balancing reasons -- if we use a small sizing on this board, BB will attack our range with even their weaker flushes - ie. 95s and the like - to get value out of our weaker holdings such as Jx, 7x, or even overpairs (possibly with a heart) that may continue against the raise. Getting it in on this board is very dangerous and I would prefer calling as well especially when we have a lot of outs heading into the river while being in position.

The best thing about the big bet here is that we're able to attack BB's somewhat "nutted" range here (excluding some stronger Axhh broadways since they're 3betting a lot of those) without getting raised as frequently as when we bet with a smaller sizing. Therefore, I think mixing big bet and small bet with our holding can work here.

After typing out the answer I just noticed how BB can SLIGHTLY less flushes in their range due to the 3bb raise preflop. This may change some technicalities but the overall logic may still work.

Consistent fast-paced progressive house or drum and bass. It's either that or consistent chill-step/melodic dubstep. Sure, the majority of the songs have lyrics but the majority of the songs are the drops that are very repetitive. The emphasis on consistent and repetitive helps me because it allows for white noise that doesn't bring anything "new" to my brain's attention. To add to this, I would listen to one song on repeat if I want to maximize the efficacy of the white noise.

Some say the hard core tunes make you play more aggro but in my case, they don't. Rap on the other hand does because it turns my brain to mush when the lyrics start getting the attention of my brain.

Never really employed bigger sizings when deeper because deep. Why do you say so? I'm interesed in this and might start implementing the same thought process.

For me, a larger sizing means Villain defends less with a stronger range

Drum and Bass and Progressive House. Something consistent enough where the music doesn't take away my focus.

Will try to play without music when things are quiet at home though

Thanks for the responses guys. Appears that we have a verdict of and increased x/r frequency. We all have JJ but less of the other two sets. I guess a X/R would gain value from MP's stronger Jx and CO's draws.

What I should've taken into consideration was the lower SPR encouraging me to put money in the pot with hands that aren't as strong as if the SPR would be much higher

Villain will have more 65s-98s than us in this spot given he is IP and called a 4bet. I'm surprised he called with 66 means that he's overdefending.

We block Villain's traps but we unblock the lower PP's 99-TT. We also currently have the equity advantage and we're ahead of villain's draws so we can cbet here. Would normally go with 30% but since we're OOP we can size SLIGHTLY (maybe 35%). Overall, we have the equity advantage and although we block Villain's Ah draws, we certainly unblock the lower connected heart draws

Currently use PT4 but I believe the 2 companies have merged recently. Should keep heads up to see what they come up with in the future

lIlCitanul thanks for the responses Citanul, just purchased GTO+ and will have to go through some videos about the software. If you have any recommendations on videos feel free to let me know.

So far it's been pretty good. Comparing it to videos that use Pio, I've noticed how close the sims can be

Just a note that MDF applies best in river situations where you either win or lose when you defend<

Will take note! I've been using the MDF to formulate preflop ranges in accordance to 3b% and F4B% against different types of Villains. Will have to look into river situations when I get there

joeeey JamesYang preflop is pretty standard. If Hero has a decent opening range the range will look range something from 30-38%. My standard would be opening ~400combos in CO. Villain's 3bet gives us an MDF of 39% so we should defend 156 combos not including the 4bet/call and 4bet/fold range.

If Villain has a 3bet% of ~11% and we plan on 4betting to 16/17bb then Villain's 5bet/fold range would look something like (TT+, AKo, AKs) vs that range we should be able to 4b/call (QQ+) [18combos] profitably and bluff (AQo, KQo/AJo 50% of the time)[16combos]. The 4bet ranges are assuming Villain's F4B is 50%. BU should be incentivized to 3bet wider here because CO's range is normally wide and BU wouldn't want SB or BB to gain EV from squeezing if BU + position post flop.

As you see, we still have to defend 156 combos to the 3bet excluding the hands we are 4bet calling and bluffing in order to make Villain's 3bet 0EV. 54s may or may not fall into the 3bet call range because of it's postflop playability as I would rather call with lower suited hands rather than with lower pocket pairs because of their inability to improve. It really depends on how Villain plays postflop in 3bet pots on whether I'm substituting the lower pocket pairs with other suited gappers etc.

Also, calling with lower suited connectors/gappers gives us the probability of having 2 live cards. It is sometimes tough calling with JTs-T9s because we're going to face domination issues in specific 3bet scenarios.

zinom1 The shove on the Turn is very interesting. If Villain's 3bet range is ~10-11% the hands we would be able to get value from are: AA, 99 (let's keep those in since he can slowplay top and middle set), A9s, A7s, AxKd and [maybe] AxQd (16 combos). The hands we lose to are KQdd, KJdd, QJdd, JTdd, T9dd, 98dd, 76dd (7 combos).

Hero risks $60 to win $196 and should be good ~30%. Hero's equity against those ranges is 1 - (7/16) = ~56% so it should be a +EV shove.

Definitely an interesting spot here and I think Villain should've played more cautiously if he called the raise with hands that don't block flushes. With the low SPR it's tough folding a flush since Villain might be shoving with hands that require a lot of protection -- a lot would vary on player tendencies

In terms of bluffs I can thinking of Ah9x turned into a bluff since he has the 9blocker and the nut flush blocker. Yeah, tough to really say because I block the weaker flushes that would call preflop and continue on the flop.