DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
missionGTO
HTML https://missiongto.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Poker
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2--------------------------------------------------
Daily Questions / A's / Thoughts / Journal
By: xxHaZ Date: May 25, 2014, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's go
#Post#: 3--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's
By: xxHaZ Date: May 25, 2014, 4:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
1) How much equity do we need against our opponent's range when
we bet? Janda and Nick discuss needing >50% to bet. When are we
allowed to bet with less than 50% equity? If we are laying our
opponent 2-1 on a call, shouldn't we need only >33% equity to
bet?Intuitively I believe as SPR decreases we can bet with <50%
equity to maximize versus draw in 3/4b pots, etc.
2) Is there more incentive to bluff against larger or smaller
bet sizes?
In theory I would argue larger, as small sizes are majority
value whereas large sizing consists of a higher proportion of
bluffs - also we maximize the equity of bluffs in our range by
putting out a large bet (raise) ourselves (very important).
3) A general rule of thumb we discussed in our skype group is
not re-opening for small (<50%) sizings IP. I think as ranges
get more polarized this argues for smaller sizing in certain
spots. OOP this is deemed fine, but I can't recall this
perfectly... come up with some questionable spots.
4) 3b linear versus polarized ranges? Versus regulars who open
wide in late positions I am beginning to use more of a linear
range.
5) Janda 4b ranges - don't think they play particularly well in
practice where people aren't flatting vs 4b's IP as much. May be
more value in Ax removal, etc.
#Post#: 8--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's
By: xxHaZ Date: May 27, 2014, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Concept based off a hand:
3b As Ac SB vs CO, CO 4b's, i call. flop is Th Qh 4h. i check,
opponent bets, and i CRAI.
A draw prefers to see two streets so it wants to get the money
in now. An over pair vs a good quality draw is flipping on the
flop (AhKx, AxKh, etc). AI on flop our EV vs good quality draw
is ~0.5*(dead pot + opponent's call)
On brick turns a draw's equity gets split in half. AI on turn
our EV vs good quality draw is now .~74*(dead pot + opponent's
call)
Our best option with As Ac seems to be to call, and jam blank
turns. We get a brick turn 71% of the time.
#Post#: 10--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's
By: A Date: May 27, 2014, 6:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just keep writing them down as they come to you. It's likely
most will be answered during our study.
#Post#: 82--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's / Thoughts / Journal
By: xxHaZ Date: June 7, 2014, 1:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Had a pretty off-day in terms of productivity so instead of MoP
and playing real poker I decided to bink an MTT and watch Sauce
vids all evening.
One thing I noticed Sauce (and Snowie) doing that I am not is he
has multi tiers of bet sizing for each given street (based on
relative ranges/board texture/etc) - this may seem trivial and
standard but compared to my own play I almost always bet the
sizing that my value prefers to play ("to put money all-in").
This is based on a weak understanding of how different regions
of my range prefer to function.
For example, 66 bvb cc on 3JJr Sauce calls a bet, and puts out a
half PSB vs a check on a 4x turn. In this spot I'll naturally
lean towards large > 1/2 PSB sizing because "my Jx prefers to
play this way (and FH's)." This demonstrates a pretty big gap in
thinking. 0Human0 also uses small 1/3 PSB sizing bvb on 4A4tt in
a 3b pot against Sauce. I would have thought naturally all value
should bet large there, so it seems he must be splitting his
range. He shows up with QQ after a check down to the river which
demonstrates this point. This actually reminds me of a couple
nemesis spots/ranges Nick devised and shared with me (the higher
EV with QQ on A-high two tone flops vs nemesis who attacks
capped ranges relentlessly may be to bet flop once and check
out).
Plan is to keep working on Toy Games from Chapter 11. Usually on
days when I haven't slept well (which is rare since I've got my
own room - but sometimes Paula's mom forgets people are trying
to sleep, etc) I can't really do anything that is too mentally
strenuous or engaging. It is the weakest part of my work
ethic/drive. So far I can't do much to get around it. So, I try
to do things that are mundane or creative... I'm still trying to
figure out how to apply this weak mindset to somehow strengthen
facets in poker (I think you can always use your circumstances
to your advantage). I can grind MTT's or SNG's but even after
making money at those it feels like I've lost an entire day of
productivity. Best thing I can do for myself is prioritize sleep
and living bulletproof currently.
#Post#: 83--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's / Thoughts / Journal
By: A Date: June 7, 2014, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One thing I noticed Sauce (and Snowie) doing that I am not is he
has multi tiers of bet sizing for each given street (based on
relative ranges/board texture/etc) - this may seem trivial and
standard but compared to my own play I almost always bet the
sizing that my value prefers to play ("to put money all-in").
I noticed this too. The bots in Sauce's review video of the
competition among poker bots from 2013 also do this. I don't
think it's trivial.
I think there's a lot of shit to be "solved" in No-Limit Hold
'Em.
What's kind of funny is that while doing work last night on BTN
vs SB vs BB, I kind of realized that the BTN (and probably all
other positions) should have multiple sizings pre-flop with
various types of hands. When I logged into RIO this morning and
looked at how the bots were playing in that Sauce video, it
actually conformed to this.
Best thing I can do for myself is prioritize sleep and living
bulletproof currently.
If you find yourself getting into bad sleep habits, I would
consider fasting all-day and then just going to bed when you
think you should. It seems to be a pretty effective way to
reset the circadian rhythm pretty fast. Also, look into
earthing/grounding.
#Post#: 84--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's / Thoughts / Journal
By: xxHaZ Date: June 7, 2014, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you find yourself getting into bad sleep habits, I would
consider fasting all-day and then just going to bed when you
think you should. It seems to be a pretty effective way to
reset the circadian rhythm pretty fast. Also, look into
earthing/grounding.
Ya I actually use an Earthing mat all day while I'm at my
computer, and at night I sleep on an Earthing sheet. And yeah,
from everything I've tried and read I agree with the fasting.
Thanks for the tips.
Playing around with Snowie a little before I head out with P.
#Post#: 93--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's / Thoughts / Journal
By: xxHaZ Date: June 10, 2014, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
After toy games I'm very interested in solving boards for
various bet sizing. From what I've seen of the (winning) high
stake players is they are much more competent in this area. I'll
try and ask Nick how he went about solving against Nemesis
either on Skype or RIO then propose it here -- implementing /
solving is a ways away but by the end of summer I want to
understand how regions of my range prefer to play against
exploitable opponents, GTO, and nemesis.
My AM schedule is 1 hour on MoP and forum, and 1 hour of a RIO
vid. Usually by the end of the day I'll come back to the forum
and work a little more or at least think about the next topic
for the following day. I'd like to add in PR and CR:EV at some
point too, once I understand how to use these tools effectively
(and for what cause). In this section I'll also jot down some
Q's related to the video I watch... and likely propose it on the
chat board under the vid.
I think there is a lot of value in admitting how little I
understand certain things and pouring over the details (as Adam
is recommending), which is a new (and exciting!) approach I'm
learning.
Sauce 6-max part 3:
- One concern I have for using different tiers of sizing is how
capped we are "by using a small sizing range" -- this is
generally why I've always leaned towards large sizing. Small OOP
sizing that is not balanced will be ran over by nemesis, upon
which point a mixed counter adjustment will be to start betting
all value for small (such that betting value for small will
yield a higher EV against playbacks than betting value for
large). At equilibrium a mixed strategy will be betting some
value for small such that you can protect yourself against
raises, and betting the rest for large (which it functions more
congruently at). It's interesting to see how value which prefers
playing for large will use a reduced sizing to protect multiple
ranges and this is the GTO strategy. This is unexplored
territory and I look forward to going down this avenue... first
at least need toy games and preflop ranges covered.
- He never answered my last q about betting his whole range as a
unit on peels that strengthen his range -- yet he uses a hand
which has thin value.
The more I think about this in-game the more it makes sense
@13 mins
#Post#: 97--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's / Thoughts / Journal
By: A Date: June 10, 2014, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll try and ask Nick how he went about solving against Nemesis
either on Skype or RIO then propose it here -- implementing /
solving is a ways away but by the end of summer I want to
understand how regions of my range prefer to play against
exploitable opponents, GTO, and nemesis.
Nemesis is, by definition, actually the most exploitable
opponent.
#Post#: 100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Questions / A's / Thoughts / Journal
By: A Date: June 10, 2014, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sauce 6-max part 3:
- One concern I have for using different tiers of sizing is how
capped we are "by using a small sizing range"
I think one thing to realize is that even if small bet sizings
are capped, it still might not matter. The whole idea of
playing "GTO" is that you can't increase your expectation by
taking different lines against me.
Assume static equity.
From an expectation standpoint, it doesn't really matter if you
bet the flop and I call with hand X, or if you check the flop
and then I bet the turn with hand X for the sizing I would've
called. The same amount of money goes in either way.
When equity is not static, game theory is more involved, because
it takes ranges and other things into account, but from a pure
expectation standpoint there's no difference.
When you have weak trips on a paired board, for example, it
doesn't really matter that if you lead out on the turn after
I've checked back the flop and then I raise you, because if you
do it with hands that are calling two streets anyways, then even
if I make a large raise against your turn-bet, the same amount
of money has gone in. If you're capped at weak trips, for
example, you were probably calling three barrels anyways, so I
don't gain expectation by somehow "trapping you" by checking the
flop and raising the turn. This doesn't make you felt any wider
than you would have to begin with, the money just goes in
differently. What you're doing when you use small bet sizes
with "weak" hands after Villain checks through (or even if not)
is like, you're kind of saying something like:
"Well, there's a certain amount of money that was supposed to go
in to the pot when I've got this hand on this board, so since it
didn't go in on the flop then I'm just going to put it in myself
on the turn. "
It's a little more complicated than that, but I think it's the
general idea. We're ignoring some things about constructing
your ranges, but I think that has less of an effect than you're
thinking. Work through an example hand and you'll see what I
mean. The Villain should not be able to increase the
expectation of various hands by taking advantage of your thin
value-bets. Usually those thin value-bets will have
check/called a previous street anyways, but now since you're
using them as bets, you get to add some bluffs and so on. I
think that's why Sauce likes doing this, but I'm not sure how
good some of the latest things he's doing is. He experiments a
lot.
Another example would be like when Villain donks into you, from
an expectation standpoint, if we assume static equity, then
figuring out how much you would've put in on a double barrel,
and then making a flop raise to that same amount, is just making
sure the same amount of money goes in but in a different way.
If you then check back the turn after Villain calls, you've put
in the exact same amount of money as if you had double-barreled.
This was something that a very good player taught me. Like I
said, I don't think it's quite as simple as that when you start
getting into the nuanes of range construction, but it's a lot to
realize.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page