tinyelvis58

Good video Peter Clarke . I think a series on bvb would be very informative. I personally struggle with the bluff portion of turn barrels (as I'm sure others do as well). It would be nice to concentrate on turn bluffs and then explain the exploit portion as to whether these bluffs make sense or not. While picking certain combos to value bet is nearly impossible (mimicking the solver), it's even harder in my mind to do this with bluffs. So the question becomes how do we pick our turn bluffs in a way a human brain can conceptualize.

Ex: @30m you analyze 9735 rbw. Your pio output mixes bluffs with almost everything outside of the best Ax (including hands like K2x, Q2x). Following this could lead to some serious button clicking. This is the point my brain usually explodes. Help:)

Interesting. Def agree that offsuit broadways perform worse. Would just be curious how 64o performs 5 ways (no way of running a database analysis to see). In this spot 2 of 5 stacks have under 100bb, pfr has 120 and you’re 200bb deep w one player as well (not exactly a deepstack scenario). This hand is case in point how hard 64o is to play. You get a great flop for your hand (open ended) and it’s still tough to play aggressively due to the multi-way nature.

Hand 1 - you think defending straddle multi-way w 46o is +ev? I’m assuming so. Can you describe what factors make this a call for you?

Francesco Lacriola I like these simple concept theory vids a lot. Helps shift mind from trying to blindly replicate solver. Quick question:

If playing in a live game with the following scenarios what would be some general adjustments you would make to preflop GTO charts: a) Time rake (rake doesn't affect preflop ranges), b) 3 blinds, c) Much less 3b/squeezing and many multiway pots

My guess is as follows: Open/3b more linear, reduce sc openings especially from EP, open bigger

Luke Johnson you and Saulo debating this topic as a video series would be amazing

Luke Johnson fyi there are diff range/strat scenarios at GTO wizard. This was one response on our discord

Luke Johnson in full disclosure I have a discord discussion on GTO Wiz channel trying to understand this (not saying one is right or wrong). A lot of the feedback has to do with nobody seeing their own sims that pure 3b bdwys and some other pure 3b that your model incorpoarates. I guess if bb pure 3b bdwys the most common boards would be Cbet in your model at a much higher freq.

Again mainly trying to o understand how vastly different strays (that are both winning) would do against each other and implications on how much we should rely on these models.

Appreciate the discussion and response. Thx

The bb 3b under the wizard strat is 13bb as opposed to 12bb.

Either way I believe this highlights how different villians will play vastly different strats/ranges. It’s interesting to think about how this affects our own strat and who is actually getting exploited?

If you’re playing against an assumed range and it’s actually vastly different are you getting exploited? If you’re cbetting too wide vs a tighter range than assumed I’m assuming it’s a Leak. Or vice versa if bb assumes a different button range and they are folding too tight vs a Cbet (since you’re cbetting at a higher freq than you “should”) are they leaking?

This is where GTO makes my head explode. Is it only as good as the model assumptions?

Luke Johnson Response from GTO Wizard as to why the cbet freq and assumptions differ

“I am fairly sure it is because of the larger 3bet we have used, as this is what GTO likes. The range composition of 3bet will be different than the smaller 3bet, thus also altering the calling range. Calling range now consists of more middling hands, because 3bet is more polarized with bigger 3bet size.
Also there is a possibility that the aggregated reports from other sources, like excel sheets are not weighted by the amount of real flops which will of course make the averages very different. - “

Luke Johnson all GTO wizard preflop ranges are said to be solved using moniker allowing for preflop calls. Obviously everyone doesn’t use these ranges so strats will all be different. What about their ranges are not correct? Not arguing just generally curious .

The ranges are different. Luke ranges 3b more of the broadway hands and SCs and calls more Axo, k7/k8o, etc. I’m assuming this makes it more difficult for bb to defend on flop and thus allows button to Cbet a higher freq.

Lets get that course!

Great vid Tyler Forrester . At 44m you speak of PIO using small pocket pairs at correct precision on AK2. You say PIO is both strong and weak and it’s weak bc this sort of exploitation (using these pp at correct freq at each node) is almost impossible. Almost every sim I look at has some actions that is incredibly difficult to execute and humans/population aren’t really doing.

That being said how do you use PIO effectively if a lot of what it’s saying is just noise? In this case you need to balance 18 value combos so are you just doing that with a different bluffing range?

I ask this because taking away practical insights from a model and what to apply/not in my own game is an area I struggle with. If you’re not using these pairs like in the sim then are the future nodes of the sim essentially worthless/noise?

QY delivers GTO principles in an easy to digest format. While he can’t give all of the answers, he can give the necessary tools to help your own study process become more effective and efficient. My only regret is not reaching out to QY earlier which would have saved me hours of time/money trying to study GTO on my own.

I just finished QY's 10 session course and it was a game changer for me. I've tried to study a lot of GTO/PIO sims over the past year or so and was having difficulty making sense of it all. I spent a lot of time staring at solver outputs, taking extensive notes, and trying to mimic the solver. QY helped explain the "why" behind solver outputs and theory. He was very patient and never made me feel stupid for asking certain questions along the way. While I still have a ton to learn, QY provided the tools/method necessary to become a better player. I can now develop a more efficient study/game plan after taking this course.

This was completely worth it (for me) and my only regret was not signing up sooner.

Thanks QY!

Good vid! Fyi you can set up the rng within pio2.

34m - Q74 you talk about raising all 2Pr pure but mixing Q4. Can you expand on this mechanic as to why top/bottom is mixed?

Great vid. Learned a lot

You mention developing a flatting range w AQ sb v btn at 200bb deep. 200bb+ ranges and strat are an area that I haven’t seen much training material on RIO. Obviously this is very applicable when playing live. Any chance you can make a vid about this in the future?

Nice vid Luke Johnson!
11m mark: you say easy call w 8c8s on QcTcTh2cJh when facing half pot river bet after b/c/x/x/x/b line. Can you expand a little as to why this is a call and what bluffs villian has (assuming all his value beats us on river)?

After running in GTO wizard it seems as if best bluffs are Kx bd/89o that didn’t bluff the turn. Yet 88 is about break even so if opponents are overbluffing turn with these hands then I’m assuming this is a losing call (def not a slam dunk). Thoughts?

As an aside, if you see a river call that is worth 22/1294 (1.7%) it's probably closer to break even or -EV in reality right? Since oop aggression and xr freq will rarely be as high as what a solver suggests?

Ran to .1% and now J9cc calls 100p. Thx for the help

Solved to .35%

Sorry for the sideway pics. The EV on this sim is 28.2 call, 0 Fold (original sim was a nodelock version but point is the same). This shows a 34% fold and 66% call. Strange.

Great vid Patrick!

17:45 - You make the comment that in theory you should 3b less vs small opens and more vs large ones (and that people get this backwards). Can you elaborate on why that is the case? Is it because you are risking more to win less when you 3b a small open?

Checking hands that allow villian to bluff more often on future streets makes sense and is something that I'll keep in mind. Appreciate the feedback and agree that overall frequencies significantly outweigh PIO lines by different combos.

Regarding comparing EV between different options what is a good threshold for a meaningful difference. For example, AA pure bets the turn (x .8% of the time). EV of preferred overbet size is 127.15 while x is 126.2. So x is -.95 chips w/ a bb equaling 10 chips (so approximately .1bb or -10bb/100). KQhh x vs overbet size is 98.77 (x) vs 98.55 (overbet) equaling a bet EV loss of -.22 or -2.2bb/100.

In this sim, bb pure folds KQo and pure continues AQ. QJx bd is pure continuing (mixing raise) and QTx/Q9x bd is continuing with calls around 50%. We 3b all of these combos pre around 25%. So you're correct in that AQ makes up largest percentage of oop Qx range but backdoors don't affect that % while holding hearts allow for a greater amount of Qx that we dominate (i.e. QJ-Q9x - though small # of combos). QThh uses a similar strat checking back turn 70% while betting QTss/QTdd around 70% and only x back 30%. QJx bets all combos at similar frequency with hh actually betting a little more often.

Only thing I can think of is some of the Kx bd that peel flop (KJx/KTx/K7x/K6x) would fold turn and bluff river some of the time.

Making sense out of PIO drives me into paralysis analysis sometimes:)

We’re betting KQss/dd. We’re checking KQhh. I would think hearts unblocks flop calls allowing us to dominate QJ/QTx bd hands villian calls on flop. I believe your rationale gives an arguement for checking spaces/diamonds (not betting as pio does).

Am I misunderstanding?