Lol “game flow” ngl though one of the only reason to come on the forums nowadays really is to see this kind of stuff and lol about it When I’m bored

Yes game flow matters - let's see your results to prove me wrong.

what's the difference between game flow and reads about player tendencies?

flowiness.

interested to hear how people construct opening range estimates.

are there resources that use data to arrive at population open estimates??

That’s no fun but could be fun to bet on it somehow - (open to finding a way to make this happen) lmk
Def. not wasting my time compiling all my mtt results to prove anything to you.

Player tendencies can be evaluated with a hud
Game flow is something that Doyle talked about in super system when he was like when I win a pot, I’m playing atc the next hand

I'm looking at the potential combos for different scenarios and this is what I see:

14 combos of big value hands I see for Villain: AA(1)/33(1)/TT(3)/22(1)/AT(6)/A3s(2)

28 combos of potential flush draws on the turn ( & ) with no pairs: KQs/KJs/QJs/K9s/Q9s/J9s/J8s/98s/97s/87s/86s/76s/65s/54s

28 suited combos ( & ) as above except complete misses.

5 club flushes with a T: KTs/QTs/JTs/T9s/T8s

12 combos of suited Tx ( & ) as above that have no flush draw (note that ATs have already been accounted for)

24 combos of big Aces: AK(8)/AQ(8)/AJ(8)

14 combos of suited Aces ( & ) that chop with us: A2s-A9s

48 combos of PP: JJ-KK(18)/66-99(24)/55(4)/44(2)

The question is what % of these types of hands would Villain bet all 3 streets with?

First I would assume that Villain is cbetting all his hands on a T33 flop.

I am also assuming that Villain will bet all Tx/3x/PP/flush draw hands on the turn except TT maybe.

For now, assuming Villain bets all of his hands on the turn, Villain arrives on the river with:
56 combos of hands that are ahead of us (32 2 pair+, 24 1 pair AJ+)
14 combos of hands that chop with us (AXs)
102 combos of hands that lose to us (PP's/Tx/missed flushes/air)

We are getting over 2:1 on the river call so if villain plays all his hands this way its a call.

But there is some % of hands we beat that Villain checks on the turn and some % of hands we beat that villain checks on the river.

Lets say that villain checks half of his air/flush draws on the turn but would follow through and jam with all of those remaining hands on the river (some of which are flush draws and AJ+ that hit). As for PP's and Tx that didn't improve lets say that villain also jams the river with 50% of those hands. This is what we would see:
37 combos of hands that are ahead of us (32 2 pair+, 12 1 pair AJ+)
7 combos of hands that chop with us (AXs)
30 combos of hands that lose to us (PP's/Tx/missed flushes/air)

So now it is still a call.

It looks like if villain followed through on less than 20% of his bluffs on the turn and river we should fold.

So the more aggressive Villain is I guess the more we should be calling.

I think the deciding factor for me is that the river is an A. This is a great card for villain to bluff with. Yes we can have 7 combos of AXs of (we won't have AKs/AQs of ) but aside from that, the only hand we could have that improves on the river is AT. And we shouldn't be calling with ATo pre-flop (either we should 3-bet or fold). So that limits us to just two ATs ( & ).

Also Villain may be pulling an Ivey. Jamming with a hand that chops with us.

Given the level of competition in a $2,650 event, I think its a call. Unless I have a read that tells me otherwise.

Got some basic math wrong... But I think think I would call. Villain has to be bluffing less than 25% of the time to fold. Or his range has to be tighter.

It takes two seconds to post a couple screen names - if you don't have great results in MTTs than just be honest.

They don't - they load up a program with ranges in a vacuum and make decisions off of that.

That's not true

I have my database with 100ks of hands in it and I have a custom population report that I spent hours building and fine tuning and I can filter for literally anything including position and stack sizes and I have Open% as one of many stats (actually I have custom stats I spent hrs coding up in SQL, including splitting btwn Open-not-all-in and Open-all-in) and I can see not just the empirical frequencies but the actual experience (# opens and # of open opportunities) so I can put binomial confidence intervals on the data.

I've personally never used a single thing prepared by someone else so at least when it comes to the OP of this thread your comment is just wrong

And I can confirm that there is 100% credible data (thousands upon thousands of open opps in this exact spot--28 to 32bb eff with antes--saying people open about 23-27% from HJ

And I also have done my own research about what is the Nash Eq HJ open range here and TBH it's even wider than the pop is deploying so if V's good he's opening in excess of a quarter of the grid here.

As for making decisions in a vacuum that's not really fair either I use a HUD to try to glean deviations from the pop which isn't perfect but it's unilaterally better than not using one. In this particular case:



V has opened NAI 3/26 times from EP (right in line with the pop), 4/20 times from MP (right in line with the pop), 2/6 times from the CO, and 1.4 times from the BTN which seems tight but 4 opps is meaningless.

He's found several 3bets already.

He's only folded his BB vs a single raise in a HU spot 2/7 times.

All indications to me would be this person is at least as loose as the pop is.

TBH these observations I'd put a lot more stock into than something nebulous like game flow.

What do you think his open range is if you think it's that egregiously tight and why would you think it is so tight-what sort of game flow factors would lead you to assume he's opening as tight as he'd need to be before A9s becomes a fold OTB vs a minraise?

Want to find a bet on this? We can either compare mtt winnings, or something else. We could figure out an amount that could sting a little bit to bet that I’ve won more $ at the mtt pokerz than you.
Open to other ideas as well. So lmk or stfu

Sorry for the derail eggs

shame to see the discussion derailed so heavily by the ludicrous claim that A9s isn't a VPIP preflop here

+1

Question for Eggs regarding the following comment: "I use a HUD to try to glean deviations from the pop which isn't perfect but it's unilaterally better than not using one"

Do you use pop information when running sims to re-program V range/node-lock Pio outputs? If so, is this the correct approach? Since my understanding is that our goal when studying is to learn equilibrium first, before we consider deviations. So, rather than learning how Pio would play against actual V actions, we instead learn what equilibrium is from BOTH players to 1. learn heuristics (obviously) and 2. see from there exactly how the opponent is deviating. This prevents warping our understanding of a spot, since when we approach study with what actually happened then we gain zero insight into equilibrium, nor the exact magnitude of deviation - thereby warping our understanding rather than aiding it.

Hope that makes sense and as stated this is just my present understanding - I'm open to being wrong and this is actually only relevant if I've even understood you correctly - that you use pop data to alter sim programming.

It's gotta be at least 1k to make it worth the time to set all of this up - feel free to set up something here, but clearly you're dodging the actual question. Sorry to derail this one as well - I was open to a healthy discussion but this guys response was clownish and condescending so time to man up

Informative thread, even with the dick waving contest.+1

I'm sorry but you obviously do not understand this spot. Once upon a time this forum was dedicated to discussing the best way to play hands in order to win (or go deep) in poker tournaments, But the purpose of this forum is now to discuss Pio-solver results, and the best posters know that it is all about constructing the most powerful ranges, not about making decisions that will improve your chances of winning in the real world.

Either get with the program and explain why Q-7 suited is an obvious call pre, while only a dope would call with Q-6. Or GTFO.

Remember the good old days when people used to debate whether using a HUD was even fair play? many people used to think that using a HUD was akin to cheating. Now you have to have one or you have no hope of competing with the likes of Eggs and all of his computer assistance, let alone all of the other bots and cyborgs out there with their HUD's and solvers and RTA's.....

Yeah I can see how it came off it’s nothing personal it’s the internet the whole fun is to talk ****. I usually try to give some decent input into this sub forum for the most part though. But I remember back in the day on this sub if you came in all hot and heavy and you were off base you were definitely getting flamed.

But anyways. Dmed you

all of these data points would dramatically be altered by a single instance changing from a raise to a fold, or a fold to a call etc. the population tendency is a more reliable figure.

but the problem with the population overall is that includes many people who are clearly far, far out of equilibrium (in both directions with the balance being unclear).

that said, we can more or less infer than he's "reg-ish". can your program test for population tendencies that filter for hands played by players with specific attributes? ie: all players with vpip/pfr =< 1.5 with > 1,000 hands logged.

Did you mis-quote? Not sure what you're talking about.

Solvers are great for cash play or when you're playing against a field of professionals, but trying to range general populations is extremely challenging. Even in an online MTT setting, the general pop stats in a Sunday 109 Major vs a weekday 215 are going to be dramatically different. You want to play highly exploitative against most amateurs - solvers aren't great for that.

I agree that you need an exploitive approach vs most fields. But I think the consensus is that you should nevertheless learn GTO so that you can (1) minimize exploit savvy opponents will employe against you, and (2) understand theory better, which will help you gain insight about how and when to deviate your play in order to exploit.

+1, both very good points