lol

In regards to the specific hand in a vacuum I think folding bottom set is criminal. However when I look at the hand in conjunction with 1/2 player populations and their tendencies I must agree with the camp that states they rarely if ever are bluffing or not putting in tons of money on the river with anything but the mortal nuts/second nuts.

If I were to fold my strong but not super nutted hands everytime I faced a massive bet/raise/jam on the river in my 1/2 player pool I'd save a ton of money.

Again I don't know if I played at a more established place (my room has maybe 5-6 tables going with almost always the same player pool) vs Encore who get 15 tables with players I rarely have played against then I'd see more examples of maniac's or people overplaying pocket pairs/TPTK etc.


I also ask the forum this; what type of hands are you 3b/b/b/jamming with on this run out if your V - QJ, QQ, JJ. I feel like AA or KK, or AQ may slow down on the river and make not such a massive bet. If your snap calling with 22 on this run out facing this betting line, what are you folding; AQ, KK, AA, KJ, KQ ?


And to the people arguing saying I only posted this because I was losing and its a trivial spot - I think the pf action/plus sizing is worth looking at, and even the idea to xr or donk at any point is worth a look.

what's the point of posting a thread if everyone gives you feedback and you just say nah you guys are wrong he's never value betting worse and never bluffing here sry. max exploit is going to out perform solver if you're right but you've played 2 hours with the guy and you don't even know what equilibrium looks like here.

in the actual hand you need to win 36% of the time on the river. even with your absurd range of QJss, JJ, QQ, you win 25% of the time - 2 combos of QJ, 3 combos of JJ, 3 combos of QQ so youre losing somewhere in the neighborhood of 100$ via calling. as soon as you start discounting JJ or QQ or adding any kind of very low frequency bluff or valuebet with AA or random j8ss type 3b you're going to start printing money. you need literally 2 combos of hands you beat for you to breakeven calling vs that range. in actuality i think you're making an absurd amount here and everyone except larry who has a unique way of looking at things has told you that. you're just making way too many assumptions (none of them in your favor) vs basically an unknown, almost certainly because you lost the hand.

if you're looking for actual analysis, gtowizard gives a free solve every day and you can take a look at how the spot is supposed to be played. take a look when the spr is similar (here its 4 so the actual stack depth doesnt matter as much as that despite the thread being deceptively titled bottom set 300 bb deep while only 225). if you really think the guy isn't bluffing much you can get rid of some of the fringe calls - some of the jx type hands, and some of your AQ/KQ stuff and you'll still be (way) overfolding. you will also see what to do with 22 otr is irrelevant because you're supposed to raise flop or turn - the only justification for calling with it twice here is because you think hes likely to over bluff or value bet the river too light compared to b/c the turn.

but beyond that there isnt much to really talk about. you dont seem interested in anything beyond telling us villains in my game literally never put the money in without the first or second nuts without looking at context or the situation. that might be true, i have no idea i dont play in your games and i havent played 1/2 at all in a very long time. but if thats the case whats the point of posting the hand? its impossible to have a discussion if you start with the conclusion my hand is a bluff catcher and he has 0 bluffs and are unwilling to explore deeper. again, your simplification might be entirely correct, it seems extremely unlikely to me, but if it is there isn't really anything to discuss.

pre is generally a fold in this position with a trace amount of opening for board coverage if no one limps and people behind play tight and you have some chance of winning the blinds (while using a much smaller size). here there's nearly 0 chance of that occuring which is why its likely a mistake to 5x this. if you were closer to the button or it was just the fish that limped i could potentially see it making more sense. id imagine over calling is the best ev option but once you raise and face this small of a 3b with a coldcaller, its a non issue you need to see the flop.

Maybe he learned something from it. Maybe someone else learned something from it (like GTO means next to nothing at live 1/3). Not everyone learns the same way. You have this issue where you think your way is the only way. There are millions of ways to skin a cat in almost anything you do. You are so set in your mind that the solver will make every small stakes player a massive winner. Its not the case. Game yesterday I played had such a weird dynamic over 8 hours. The first four hours it was pretty loose and then people were calling massive turn and river bets with TPTK. The second four hours everyone folded the second you put in a raise. A solver can’t show you how to move with the tide of the game. And the tide of the 1/2 and 1/3 game is completely unpredictable without being there to experience it. No solver can show you when to call vs certain player types. Doing a free solve a day is a complete and utter waste of time for 99% of players. Go watch old Crush Live Poker call in videos on youtube and learn 20x as much about what actual live poker is like in half the time in a much more entertaining way. And if you want to get into the solver stuff, Im sure they have courses or content you can purchase that will translate to the real world. Doing a free solve of what you should do online vs GTO RTA using opponents is just not relevant. You have a huge issue comprehending that.

i dont know why you keep saying that to me. nearly every thread i post in i say what the solver output is and where i think people are deviating and how to adjust. ive been a live pro for the last ten years lol. i think the best way to learn is to see whats right and then decide where that is going off the rails. its not really possible if the conversation starts at the conclusion as theres no place to really go to. idc if you play like solver or not ingame, but out of game when you're reviewing hands, how else do you figure out what to do?

fwiw i like crush live poker, theyre the only place ive found for double board content, but average person is going to be infinitely better looking at a solver for a month as opposed to listening to bart hanson's take on hands

i feel like you're under this impression that im telling everyone to play exactly like the solver and that isn't what im doing. but when you look at hands and analyze them, thats generally always going to be the starting point. What's right? -> What are they doing wrong? -> How do i take advantage of that?

The solver is set up to tell you how to play against GTO opponents. I have seen one GTO opponent in my lifetime at 1/2 or 1/3. Why would you waste time spending hours on how to play against opponents you never play against.

Nick Saban in the interview. I’m not sure why we sucked against Georgia. We studied the film and gameplanned for Pat Mahomes all night. We did all the right things.

solver is to understand poker theory. you can "easily" set up solver to play like your tricky opponents at 1/2 that the computer cant possibly compete against if you want

do you understand how high a computers winrate would be in your average 1/2 game? you may outperform it in some scenarios (particularly facing later street raises and maybe bluff catching river) but its going to absolutely destroy a table full of people who have no idea what equilibrium looks like in any spot

again the idea is to find places we can learn from it and add to our game not just blindly mimic it. dunno why u find that so ridiculous

It's funny you mention CLP. I'm a CLP sub and tune into Bart's live call in show. He often discusses what the solver would do in a given spot and then explains why that may or may not apply to the specific situation and how he would deviate.


The best exploitative players have some understanding of baseline IMO. Without knowledge of baseline it's very hard to explain why your deviations are profitable...so I consider having some understanding of GTO to be valuable for articulating strategy and thought process. In particular submersible does a good job of explaining why he thinks particular deviations are needed (eg this opponent won't value bet enough if we check so we should decrease our checking frequency ...etc).

His postflop sizings are horrible but I would go for three streets here with an overpair. Hero is not supposed to have 22/33/JJ after calling flop facing a small bet. I would have bet 35 flop, around 120 turn and then jammed river for around 2/3 psb with KK/AA/AQ.

My thought process in Vs shoes would be that hero doesn't have enough sets to defend his range and is supposed to call down as wide as KJs/AJo/maybe AQs (backdoor flush draw) here. Flop SPR is 4 so jamming OPs should be fine.

I haven't checked solves, but that's what I'd do.

I'm not sure postflop sizings are "horrible". Sure, perhaps they're not optimal but 1/4 pot isn't completely unreasonable multiway on an ultra-dry board. Indeed the limited info we have suggests that the CO is probably a somewhat reasonable player: on the tight side but usually raises, then goes small in that flop situation.

If you like you can say it's nothing to do with solver vs non-solver. It's about whether a line makes sense with a given hand. You can't just blindly say "oh low stakes, any sort of aggression means the nuts". Some particular situations are indeed value heavy: for example river check-raises, or any sort of postflop 3bet. But all we see here is a 3bet followed by 3 streets of postflop aggression. In a low stakes vacuum that would be more indicative of AA/KK than anything else. But a somewhat reasonable player will be much more likely to (1) do this with a bluff, eg AK; and (2) go for thin value...and I wouldn't consider AA/KK/QJ to be "thin". The only slightly iffy thing is the river overbet sizing which might count against AQ and similar somewhat, but if he thinks you are going to get sticky with a Jack then it's definitely a plausible play.

You are blind if you think 1/2 players are pumping 300 dollars into pots at the same frequency as suggested by your computer. And how much time would a 1/2 player have to put in node locking 500 things to get the correct outputs. It is a pointless time consuming endeavor. Again as Ive stated before, and CIE I hear what you are saying. You need a basic understanding of some spots and how to play. This does not mean spending hours studying solvers. There are plenty of great videos on youtube that show typical solved spots that come up frequently. Which I’ve talked about in the past. But consistently coming back and saying “this is what supersolver version 2.181991 says with these 29 node locks is beyond ridiculous. 1/2 is not rocket science. And for some reason you are turning it into rocket science. GG has zero variance. As close to it as possible. How many hours do you think he spent in front of a computer solving? You might not like his strategy, but there are so many examples of winning players who don’t priorticize solvers its probably 90/10 for 2/5 and below of winning players who have just a basic understanding or less of some solved spots. If every time we say “this is what a solver says, but this is why we go different” which is over 80% of hands what exactly are we doing?

Nick Saban on Monday before the Georgia game. “Pat Mahomes when he rolls out right we have extensive things to prevent the schemes and receivers he likes to target.” Georgia coach in his coaches meeting. “We plan to run it down Alabamas throat we have huge dudes and thats our bread and butter” Nick Saban postgame. “We knew the Chiefs gameplan inside and out, you canÂ’t fault us and our baseline of great defense that it didnt work against Georgia. I think we were really thrown off by Taylor Swift attending the Chiefs game. That was not part of baseline and threw off our simulations of the Travis Kelce plays they like to run. Maybe that messed us up in the Georgia game. But we still need to talk about the Chiefs in the future because that is what we are shooting for. A defense to stop the best offenses in the world.”. Reporter. “Coach Saban how are you going to stop Tua and the Dolphins?” Saban. “Great question. I know we don’t play them and he used to play for me but we are going to be working our asses off this week running the simulations to figure that out.”

alright man this is my last post here.

in what world are you guys going to make less money by getting good / better at poker lol?

i get its an intimidating amount of work, and if you're unwilling / too lazy / too stubborn / dont think its worth it / whatever reason it could be to do it that's entirely fine, theres more to life than poker. but telling yourself that learning poker / baseline strategy isn't going to help you make more money or thinking you know way more than the computer / have nothing to learn from it while grinding the lowest stakes offered in the casino is delusion imo.

re your analogy, you understand football isn't a solved game and 100bb nlhe for all intents and purposes is very close to being one right?

Flop is not unreasonable given multiway but the board is quite dry/static on the turn and so solver would probably want to go geometric on turn/river, so like 70%/70% or whatever, I assume -- still haven't checked though. Villain went 40%/overbet which I assume is not a thing - the geometric sizing is optimal because it maximizes EV by laying the most attractive odds across multiple betting rounds.

In the real world where time can be better spent. You pretend 1/2 no limit hold is solved. Its not. You have to perfectly node lock everything. Which makes no sense to spend that amount of time node locking when you can make simple real world population reads. We are not playing for the GG poker 1million dollar championship. We are playing vs the two indian guys who watched Brad Owens on youtubes, an 85 year old navy war veteran, two kids wearing ear phones and a hooded sweatshirt, grandma who is trying really hard to win that bad beat jack pot, and the drunk guy from Alabama who was driving through town and though this would be a great place to get a beer and try his luck. Explain your node locking process. There is no computer model you can make to simulate that game that wont take hours. And the drunk guy from Alabama will have already busted out by the time you make your model and grandma needs to finish that holloween costume shes been sewing for her great granddaughter so shes going to be leaving in a few minutes.

And the flop was four ways. Can your gtowizardrysolvermax run 4 way pots and optimal spots? CIE saying the river bet isnt even a thing in the solver? So how do you compensate for that? So now Im going to spend 40 hours of my life learning how to use a solver and node locking that barely works for 1/2 and 1/3, but man when I move up to 10/20 im going to need to know it? And everyone who doesnt is a lazy piece of ****? The old mantra work smarter not harder apparently passed you by submersible. Let me tell my carpenter buddies they need to go to college to find out the metal properties of the nails they are using so they can hammer at the proper frequencies and be better carpenters. Lazy pieces of ****.

I would call river but there are certainly players we should fold against. This is not a fist pump imo.

You are blind if you think 1/2 players are pumping 300 dollars into pots at the same frequency as suggested by your computer. And how much time would a 1/2 player have to put in node locking 500 things to get the correct outputs. It is a pointless time consuming endeavor. Again as Ive stated before, and CIE I hear what you are saying. You need a basic understanding of some spots and how to play. This does not mean spending hours studying solvers. There are plenty of great videos on youtube that show typical solved spots that come up frequently. Which I’ve talked about in the past. But consistently coming back and saying “this is what supersolver version 2.181991 says with these 29 node locks is beyond ridiculous. 1/2 is not rocket science. And for some reason you are turning it into rocket science. GG has zero variance. As close to it as possible. How many hours do you think he spent in front of a computer solving? You might not like his strategy, but there are so many examples of winning players who don’t priorticize solvers its probably 90/10 for 2/5 and below of winning players who have just a basic understanding or less of some solved spots. If every time we say “this is what a solver says, but this is why we go different” which is over 80% of hands what exactly are we doing?

Nick Saban on Monday before the Georgia game. “Pat Mahomes when he rolls out right we have extensive things to prevent the schemes and receivers he likes to target.” Georgia coach in his coaches meeting. “We plan to run it down Alabamas throat we have huge dudes and thats our bread and butter”. Nick Saban postgame. “We knew the Chiefs gameplan inside and out, you can’t fault us and our baseline of great defense that it didnt work against Georgia. I think we were really thrown off by Taylor Swift attending the Chiefs game. That was not part of baseline and threw off our simulations of the Travis Kelce plays they like to run. Maybe that messed us up in the Georgia game. But we still need to talk about the Chiefs in the future because that is what we are shooting for. A defense to stop the best offenses in the world. “. Reporter. “Coach Saban how are you going to stop Tua and the Dolphins?” Saban. “Great question. I know we don’t play them and he used to play for me but we are going to be working our asses off this week running the simulations to figure that out.”

I'm mostly a lurker, so this probably won't mean much anyway, but I just can't resist saying that you, Larry, are easily the most exhausting person posting on 2+2 these days. Rarely have I seen a combination of confidence (based mostly on random numbers you're pulling out of your **s for all I can tell) and condescension as annoying as this one. I'm not even a solver guy myself, but I for one am very grateful for the free advice on this forum given by people who are better than I am and moreover have studied the game more extensively than I have. And I genuinely hope these people, submersible obviously being one of them, will not be chased off by some belligerent know-it-all on some sort of anti-Skynet crusade. I mean, you do you. Keep playing the way you want to play, and win a bunch of money while you're at it, but could you please fight your war somewhere else?

I would be completely shocked if submersible is a better player than you. Ive always respected your posts and you sound like someone who wins at a good clip. My crusade is against submersible calling a post I made “the crowd” because it goes against what he says about running some sims which are never going to be accurate to the games actually being played. And against submersible attacking the OP telliing him condescendingly that he should not even post if he already knows big bets are nutted then telling the forum solving is the single best way to improve and if you disagree you are lazy. If you are exhausted I apologize. I will give it a rest for awhile.

Post flop well played.

Pre you can limp behind or fold, but ISO is pretty bad imo as you are going to get called in multiple spots often and your hand plays terribly post flop 90% of the time.

Sometimes in poker if you're playing correctly you have to accept that getting stacked in some spots is just part of the game.

So what was the result op?

Op called and was shown QQ


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

https://www.youtube.com/live/vY8yzyp...JHSZb97G4O4me8

Epidsode from today touches on everything talked about in this thread Strong opinions both ways in their discussion. Go to one hour and 13 minutes. Stay til the end where he talks about 1/2 1/3 2/5 and how it relates to this hand.

Not a comparable situation IMO. This hand is 4.5 SPR on flop , 200bb deep 3way, That hand was 35 SPR on flop, 470bb deep 4way. Much deeper SPR means stack off points are much tighter.

1.5x pot river bet and 2x pot river bet. Yes we are shallower, but we also have a much worse relative hand strength than he does in the hand on the podcast..