plug it in pio you’ll see for yourself, otherwise we could argue any sizing is fine on flop on any texture
Ran some tests here
pot = 50
IP EV with overbets and lots of sizings: 32.95
IP EV with 25% only and checks: 31.94
IP EV with 25% sizing range cbet: 31.8
by not having an overbet sizing in there we lost 2.3% of the pot on average with our range, it's not huge, but in reality I can see people making more mistakes vs overbets than small bets in there, not sure if it's worth studying the equilibrium for that specific texture only, because it can be only applied CO/BTN vs BB(people are supposed to slowplay AK pre vs MP/UTG) and that knowledge can't be extrapolated to AQx boards neither.
Hello Rapidesh I just started reading this epic thread (only page 16 atm lol). I was wondering, can you post your lifetime cash game graph since the beginning of this challenge? Just curios to see your results since you put tons of volume. I am myself playing but am at nl2cents right now.
is 40% rfi otb actually standard? I see it thrown around a lot but it's hard for me to come up with a button opening range that contains less than 50% of hands.
about 42% rfi yeah, monker doesn't open A2o and A3o. It doesn't open hands like 53s, but it opens T6s. any decent reg will prob be a bit higher than monker ranges because of the exploitative opens vs weaker ppl in the blinds.
Alright rapi, assuming equilibrium defending ranges for one of 2x, 2.5x, or 3x btn 40% rfi (in a high rake environment like the games you play), what is difference in EV for btn cbetting range for 33% or using a mixed strategy of checking, betting 33% and overbetting?
You say its fine sooo how much EV is btn giving up? You can choose whichever rfi sizing and you can change 40% open to something else if you want to.
Show me a human who can calibrate a cb range of checks/33%/ob that can mimic pio and generate the ev it shows for that strategy mix
IP EV with overbets and lots of sizings: 32.95
IP EV with 25% only and checks: 31.94
IP EV with 25% sizing range cbet: 31.8
by not having an overbet sizing in there we lost 2.3% of the pot on average with our range, it's not huge, but in reality I can see people making more mistakes vs overbets than small bets in there, not sure if it's worth studying the equilibrium for that specific texture only, because it can be only applied CO/BTN vs BB(people are supposed to slowplay AK pre vs MP/UTG) and that knowledge can't be extrapolated to AQx boards neither.
Counter argument is that by simplifying flop strat you reduce human error and will realise much closer to the EV pio would realise at equilibrium (100% accuracy in the case of range 25% cbet). In a lot of cases people will sacrifice more than 2.3% of pot share by trying and failing to implement a mixed strat.
If you break the EV differential down by board texture (you can use the 184 sample flop textures that PIO provides to do this) then you will see that there are certain textures where we sacrifice a lot by range cbetting, and other textures where we sacrifice very little. A good way to get ahead of the curve pretty quickly is by learning which is which and trying to implement mixes where it generates low hanging fruit EV.
Counter argument is that by simplifying flop strat you reduce human error and will realise much closer to the EV pio would realise at equilibrium (100% accuracy in the case of range 25% cbet). In a lot of cases people will sacrifice more than 2.3% of pot share by trying and failing to implement a mixed strat.
Just because you can simplify flopstrat by rangecbetting small, doesn't necessarily make the whole gametree that much simpler to play. You could even argue that rangebetting small OTF requires higher frequency of multiple sizings on later streets which makes the game a lot harder for humans to play.
Just because you can simplify flopstrat by rangecbetting small, doesn't necessarily make the whole gametree that much simpler to play. You could even argue that rangebetting small OTF requires higher frequency of multiple sizings on later streets which makes the game a lot harder for humans to play.
Yeah very true. I did consider basically writing exactly what you’ve said when I first posted, but didn’t want to go to far down the rabbit hole. Suffices to say I agree. In my opinion turn strat is quite a bit more intuitive than flop strat at least, with many hands being frequency mixes on turns that are pure strats on flops, so it’s a bit easier to just get by on intuition.
this is actually a pretty interesting discussion. imo it's much easier for villains to play turns after flop 2/3 which ultimately makes me prefer 1/3 mostly on flops, at least in my pool
Counter argument is that by simplifying flop strat you reduce human error and will realise much closer to the EV pio would realise at equilibrium (100% accuracy in the case of range 25% cbet). In a lot of cases people will sacrifice more than 2.3% of pot share by trying and failing to implement a mixed strat.
If you break the EV differential down by board texture (you can use the 184 sample flop textures that PIO provides to do this) then you will see that there are certain textures where we sacrifice a lot by range cbetting, and other textures where we sacrifice very little. A good way to get ahead of the curve pretty quickly is by learning which is which and trying to implement mixes where it generates low hanging fruit EV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctor877
Just because you can simplify flopstrat by rangecbetting small, doesn't necessarily make the whole gametree that much simpler to play. You could even argue that rangebetting small OTF requires higher frequency of multiple sizings on later streets which makes the game a lot harder for humans to play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kangal_
Yeah very true. I did consider basically writing exactly what you’ve said when I first posted, but didn’t want to go to far down the rabbit hole. Suffices to say I agree. In my opinion turn strat is quite a bit more intuitive than flop strat at least, with many hands being frequency mixes on turns that are pure strats on flops, so it’s a bit easier to just get by on intuition.
Sick strat posts, thanks! As a more conservative person I will always choose simplification over potential EV, if there's one thing that poker taught me during all the time I played this game is that I'm not as good as I think I am and that I can turn into a massive whale out of nowhere lol, so simple = better, bad players will still make mistakes vs simple strategies and better players won't be able to exploit us as much, we will have way less opportunities to mess things up.
13 days without nicotine! Played my first session today and didn't even feel like smoking, it was way easier than I thought. Obv I had support from friends/family/weed, will never go back to that garbage! Going to play mostly 50z this month, will take it easy and focus on not getting stressed, I heard that after 21 days our brains reprogram themselves with this addiction stuff, so won't go nuts until then.
Some hands
H1: someone pointed out that this guy was the worst reg of 50z lol, I thought there were worse guys out there, but I think I might have been wrong about that haha, he snapped the 4-bet and snapped the flop
How does h1 indicate he might be the worst reg in the pool?
Extremely small 3b sizing OOP and call vs 4b (despite getting good pot odds) in a player pool were 4bet bluffs in these positions are basically non-existant?
How does h1 indicate he might be the worst reg in the pool?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kockar
Extremely small 3b sizing OOP and call vs 4b (despite getting good pot odds) in a player pool were 4bet bluffs in these positions are basically non-existant?
His play with his hand is fine pre and even postflop it's decent.
The thing is that this guy is defending vs 4-bets so much that it was obvious that I should be 4-betting JJ/AQ+ for value in those positions vs him. By snapping that I think he is just super tilted and defending close 100% of his range OOP in a spot where population underbluffs which is insane.
His play with his hand is fine pre and even postflop it's decent.
The thing is that this guy is defending vs 4-bets so much that it was obvious that I should be 4-betting JJ/AQ+ for value in those positions vs him. By snapping that I think he is just super tilted and defending close 100% of his range OOP in a spot where population underbluffs which is insane.
It is a game where you should play your range and not your actual hand. I highly doubt that you want to use such a small 3bet sizing OOP with your range.
It is a game where you should play your range and not your actual hand. I highly doubt that you want to use such a small 3bet sizing OOP with your range.
3.5x from the SB it's fine, it would be bad if he did that from the bb imo
It is a game where you should play your range and not your actual hand. I highly doubt that you want to use such a small 3bet sizing OOP with your range.
why shouldn't different parts of our range use different sizing tho?
why shouldn't different parts of our range use different sizing tho?
Imo the highest EV line in a high rake pool like 50z is it to use one bigger sizing with your whole range. The benefits of such a strategy are: you are negating the positional advantage of the IP player by lowering the SPR (at least to some degree), increasing preflop fold equity and playing less pots OOP in a high rake structure. Also by having just one sizing you are avoiding the need to balance your sizings which makes the strategy more simple.
However, you should go with the strategy that suits you best and is the most profitable vs your pool.
I've decided that I will start putting some reasonable volume from now on and will play some 100z when it's soft. Still won't force volume like crazy, don't wanna stress out much. 21 days clean! Gonna try to study a bit more of pio too
Some hands
H1: vaaaamo! Not sure if this is any good but gotta do it
H8: Vs nit 18 vpip nit, I can see merits of folding OTF, but the small sizing could induce some thinner value raises, OTT I just can't see what I beat vs him. Good fold?
Bad time to start putting in volume cuz zoom just got alot tougher with regular table regs transferring to zoom.
I'm not afraid of reg table regs, imo those who choose reg tables over zoom do it because they can't beat zoom or aren't confident enough in their skills to play it.
Sure that some few competent regs opt for higher winrate and lower swings, but they are the minority. I always enjoyed zoom because it's democratic, there is no scripting/table selecting/ jesus seat.
The only thing that scares me is that stars is going through a lot of creative ideas to increase the rake/reduce skill/reduce edge of regs. I'm afraid in the future they will increase the rake even more. If rake goes up by 1bb/100 in the games I play it will become significantly harder to beat it.