Which shortcomings do you see in that article?

he claims that this solution is gto or at least gto (given the restrictions).

his proposed jamming range vs UTGs 4bet is KK+ A5s, A4s. in his model 4bet is to 27bb. this equates to merely 36.23% equity needed for UTG to call the 5bet.
vs KK+, A5s, A4s the following hands have enough equity: 66+, A5s, A8o+.

earlier in the article he simply claims however that UTG is only going to call QQ+, AK.
why bother including bluff combos (to give QQ enough incentive to call iirc) if hes already proclaiming a fixed calling range.
he could just try to build the most exploitative ranges then.

he claims however that the ranges found in the article are gto.

i think btw that the ranges arent that bad for actual play at for example nl100 and the assumption about people always stacking off with QQ+, AK is true for a lot of regulars. this doesnt make the findings gto though.

Good points. I'll have to think about that. I had the feeling that he uses some well-known heuristics without proper justification.

In the article there's also a problem with position. By his model when UTG opens he doesn't distinguish between if the caller is in MP or BTN, and it doesn't consider any cold calling or cold 4betting from players behind. But still a great estimate and seems close to optimal.

I am currently working on setting stack goals and fixing my leak of making 'haste plays' (ie: not thinking through situations properly before making the play). Also learning to cope and handle playing under poker pressure (especially late stages). Not being able to handle pressure has been a leak of mine for years.. now I am starting to learn to love and thrive under pressure.

I hope to improve my game by reading Mathematics of Poker--I'm currently on page 70. Seems like an awesome book. A lot of the conversation in this thread seems to be about working beyond the material in MoP.

I'm on a brief hiatus from live play at the local casino, but hope to bring a stronger game when I resume play in a few weeks.

Thanks Cangurino, I know what you mean. I have seen people make the mistake of thinking that initiative exists outside of the hand distributions. My main concern is that optimal hand distributions might always be such that donking is not part of the strategy.

I haven't looked at any of the bot matches yet but will do if the information is publicly available.
There was a thread earlier that was similar to the situation that you describe. The calculated optimal strategy did donk a small percentage of the time so I am pretty sure that it is part of some simplified games. The problem is that we don't know if that situation would ever arise in the full game under optimal play. The reasonable ranges that we assign are probably far from optimal.
I agree but playing against a fixed optimal strategy is easier in some ways. For one thing, we don't have to worry about having the correct bluffing frequency on the river. Since we are indifferent to bluffing we can just bet for value. It could be the case that while the strategy is unbeatable it is not too hard to break even against. Given the complexity of the game my guess is that this is unlikely.

I got that information from P.Newall's LHE book.

For those of you who are using CREV can someone please comment on the following:

• What is the largest game that you have been able to find a GTO strategy for?
• Roughly how long did it take to calculate the solution?
• Does CREV provide some kind of indication of how accurate the solution is?
• Do you get a more accurate solution the longer you let it run?
• What is stopping you from finding a solution to a larger game (if it is a technical limitation)?

I had a look at the trial version a while ago but must have missed the GTO functionality.

Interested in 6-max nl preflop 3bet/4bet/shove ranges, for every positition, vs every position. Also adjustments depending on player types, betsizes, resistance, stacks etc. I just started working on this so any input would be highly appreciated!

Can't open the simulator now to verify... you mean the one where you input a winrate, std and number of hands and get a bunch of graphs?

Not sure why you'd use pre-rake winrate and substract rake later... I guess it gives the same end result for each graph but makes the graphs harder to interpret (like "how likely will I visit 2000bb below my starting point with given parameters" for example).

Just use your "fresh from the table" , i.e. post rake winrate. You could actually use wr+rakeback, if rakeback is paid somewhat frequently (optimally: after each hand).

Oh no not this thread again...

Oh no not that argument again...

Anyone want to help with some graphic design for a post I'd like to make about 100% cbetting in limit holdem?

Graphic design?

Yeah I went on a math trip and drew some graphs that are now in pdf form and I don't know how to host pictures. I'll share it with you, rusty, before posting. I'd be happy to hear some comments or criticism.

You can email it to me@rustybrooks.com

If you have pictures in some internet friendly format, I can host them (png, gif, jpg, etc)

I can prob help; PM me if still needed.

Hello,

I was bored so I thought I'd bump this. Here's what I've been working on:

Bluffing theory for limit holdem:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/35...ffing-1376811/

practical application:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...layer-1377236/

Also, I've been working on constructing 3 bet ranges for limit holdem in the specific cases of 3 betting in position with underdogs that have near or more than their fair share of preflop equity against an open raiser and a coldcaller. I've come to the conclusion that suited hands fair much better than offsuit hands. For example:

HJ opens(25% standard range), CO coldcalls(fishy 40% range with the top 10% cutout), I 3 bet 55+, A8s+, AJo+, KJs+, QJs, JTs on the button.

The weaker hands are underdogs to HJ's range, but due to the nature of preflop play in limit holdem, I can't be raised out of the pot so I can jam with second best hands because of the dead money that the CO invests, in theory...

Results have been meh, but over a small sample. I think there are a few auxiliary benefits:

1) HJ, and others, might tighten up, which would be awesome.
2) I might get more action on my good hands later in the game.
3) The table might erupt into an awesome display of righteous poo flinging, where spite caps, light coldcalls from the blinds, and all around Tom Foolery rule the day.

I'm not working on it, but I think this is the most interesting area of no-limit poker theory, which I would like to learn more about. I have not seen any really comprehensive theoretical treatment on the subject.
Anyone know of any good references?

GTO:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...izing-1353289/

Exploitive:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...-cash-1348961/

Whether they're good or not? You be the judge.

This seems to have been a popular thread; the search function can be fun sometimes:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...sizing-439774/

Improving my river play OOP in PL/NL games.

+1

I'm studying playing bluffcatchers multiway in limit holdem:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...tcher-1409015/

Bluff catching OOP in 2bet pots on connected flops. Example cbettin flop and x turn...

I'm studying small blind heads up vs the button in limit holdem:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/35...s-imo-1479761/

Cliffs:

3 bet or fold preflop. Bet the flop a lot. Bet 3 bet the flop depending on board texture. Bet call the flop and check raise the turn depending on board texture.

I'm working on taking into account the Nash Equilibrium while shortstacking in cash

I'm trying to convince another poster that gto check/bet/call/raise/fold frequencies will change depending on board texture. I give up cus he just keeps saying the same thing:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/35...-lead-1577831/