Thanks for the video, It was awesome. I think I have an easier explanation for question 5. The reason why we want to bluff with the flush blocker, is because by having the blocker we remove blockers he is going to have, and he is more likely to bluffcatch with those blockers (even if we dont block any flushes).
Nuts content. Only got two, the two last. For the first I though that AKx would be played like A7x where we don't have an 2p+ advantage but I missed the equity deny goal of the little bet size that is useless on AKx.
I'm early on in my poker journey relatively speaking, and I'm so happy that getting question 2 wrong helped clarify a big way I mess up while jamming on the river.
"I can rule out A (in q2), because if you lack bluffs, then you can claim the whole pot". Bruh I always thought that we had to size down to adapt to an appropiate amount of bluffs to make villain indifferent with bluffcatchers! Have I misplayed the nuts my whole life? 🥺 and the few bluffs that I had in regards to my nuts? OMG I feel happy but also sad that I missed it.
What you’re doing isn’t wrong, because you still win the whole pot on average (villain has 0 ev when you bet, and you’re betting all the time). It’s just unnecessarily complicated because you could just as well jam your entire range, and have exactly the same ev!
@@PokerGiraffe But it isn't the same EV, unless villain understands that he should fold all of his bluffcatchers to the shove... So one of 2 things will happen: A) Villain reacts perfectly, folding all of his bluffcatchers 100% of times. In which case yes, EV will be the same between what I was doing and now that I shove my whole range (I win the whole pot). B) Villain folds less than 100% of his bluffcatchers, and no matter how much less, the EV of our shove increases (due to not having enough bluffs, any calls by his bc's increase our range shove's EV) So by shoving everything, we get a freeroll to increase our EV, and worse case scenario we get the same EV as prior. Hence yeah, reducing sizing due to lack of bluffs is indeed a mistake, in the sense that we let go of a freeroll to increase EV
As a rule of thumb, nut advantage is less important when SPR is low. So the fact that we are missing 2p and sets doesn't hurt us as much (since there is not enough stack behind for the 3bettor to fully capitalize on his nut advantage). We also tend to raise more 1p hands for protection/thin value, since we lose so much less the times we get stacked in a low SPR situation. Basically there is less downside to raising, and about the same upside -> we end up raising these hands more.
The answer of first quiz wrong is in my expectation,cause I'm not sure which is the deciding factor 2 (nuts ad or no overcards); The second quiz I finally made the same choice Tombos did, but we were both wrong...lol but I like the toy game it's very interesting;glad I made the last three quizs otherwise I will be depressed;btw next video I will watch you to answer his quizs! can't wait tomorrow, maybe just tonight😺
If our range lacks many bluffs but still has some, we would want to size down because shoving all nuts and one combo of bluff could be overfolded but we could still get value with a smaller size by making villain indifferent. If we have to check back nuts some to make villain indifferent we’re just losing ev. Also if they overfold significantly to a big size but underfold significantly to small size then small size is better with value
In theory the equilibrium is for us to shove entire range and for villain to fold entire range. This captures 100% of the pot, which is really the maximum you can hope for. But yes, in practice it's possible to "trick" an unaware opponent by sizing down with some value. But it would not work against the solver, because solver is folding entire range vs every size.
@ but couldn’t we then size down to a block size and then have a bluff ratio that becomes overbluffed and exploit the overfold? Maybe I’m overthinking it ahahaha but I definitely see where you’re coming from.
Really great video, appreciated your free content very much! Dear QY, based on one of the quiz riddles, I have a question for you that requires a long intro. I have done several solves on A-K-low rainbow boards in SRP for HU scenario. There is a clear trend that mixed 33%/150% bet strategy has more EV than 150% only strategy which has more EV than 33% only strategy. However, this is only in theory. In practice, I assume that 33% bet is much harder to play against for real humans (especially weak regs and recreationals), who in order to exploit range 33% would have to X/R much more and call with many marginal hands that are counterintuitive. Defense against 150% is much more clear and intuitively close to GTO (basically defend pairs and straight draws). I assume that opponents will make many more mistakes against 33% than against 150%. But the main question is this: in HU Holdem would you rather go for extra value and complex strategy that creates many more game tree possibilities on later streets? or you would go for a simplified strategy which definitely loses EV (not sure how much exactly, but my solves show that it is around ~0.05 for switching from mixed to 33% rangebet)
I'm not a HUNL expert, but if you mean 0.05 as in 5% of the pot, then that's a huge EV loss and I would definitely go for the big size. But more likely you mean 0.05% of the pot, which is pretty much nothing, and so both strategies are perfectly fine. Another point is that even if your opponent is making mistakes vs the small size, you still need to adjust in a way that capitalizes on them. Playing GTO doesn't gain any EV, unless your opponent is making HUGE mistakes like folding hands that are pure calls, and vice versa. If he is only making frequency mistakes (calling or folding too much with hands that are indifferent) then it doesn't cost him anything if you don't actively punish those mistakes.
The point is that we are betting big not because of nut advantage, but because our marginal hands are not interested in betting. And this is something that we can apply in plenty of other (real) situations.
A better toy game to understand 2. Is to let OOP have either nut flush or air, and IP have bluffcatchers like 80% of nut flush blocker (ace high) and a one pair hand. Going allin in this situation is dominated by the fact that IP folds less than MDF by simply pure calling his nut flush blocker combo and pure folding his second pair combo. I already ran that toy game wich let me know the answer for this one 😊
On Q4 you assume the Villain has to make us indifferent between checking and bluffing with the 72, but I disagree! Imagine we can bet 50 combos for value for a pit size bet, thus we can bluff 25 combos to be balanced… Then we bluff all our 16 combos of 72 (assuming we have all of them in our range), but we still need to bluff 9 extra combos. Shouldn’t our opponent make us indifferent with those combos instead ? Furthermore, in almost every situations the 72 combos will still remain a small part of our entire range. One also have to keep in mind the 72 value is higher the smaller the pot is (assuming the money stolen from each player is a constant, eg 5bb). Thus even in very narrow ranges spots like 4bet pots, 72 will be quite rare and may not affect strategies. Tbh, I never solved any spot with the 72 rule (is any solver able to do it ??) but it would be very interesting!
These are great points, it definitely depends on how much 72 we have in that specific spot. If it's a small amount then 72 could very well be autoprofit at equilibrium.
the second question is very hard to digest. do you think that the toygame can be transferred to the real world? i see from time to time that the solver or even human players choose a non-all-in size on the river. i think that ip (hero, polar) often has these two arguments: 1) when holding value: size down to give villain more incentive to call, because for example the boards runs out so bad for oop that he probably has a hard time to find any bluffs in heros range. 2) when holding a bluff: size down to make the bluff cheaper and because hero thinks that a high bet size does not increase the probability of villain folding (inelasticity). however, these are exploitive considerations and the solver seems to come up with a totally other reason. regarding your q2 toygame, it seems like AA highly benefits from the few KQ calls, but it needs some 76 bluffs to give ip some incentive for calling. it completly ignores the AK combos, since these have a highly profitable call (blocking AA and shifting oop extremly towards his bluffs). therefore 76 should be a highly negative bluffing hand, but its not. it just gots the right amound of folds from the KQ combos. very weird toygame indeed xd.
I think we see this effect on paired boards, especially those with a high paired card (AA2, KK8). Even with the nut trips, we bet a bit smaller than you might expect, to get called by more hands that we don’t block.
this is what happens when you get people who are ESL make english videos. the questions are asked all wrong and backwards, the first question was asked from the BTN perspective at first (i think) but then it changes to BB perspective which in turn changes the answer. Your not using proper english and its messing up the questions and answers. just FYI. "what happens if we remove 2p+ from BTNs range?" ur asking that from the BB perspective but you actually meant it from the BTN aggressor perspective am i right? the question posed to one or the other will have different results obviously. and the question it self is just posed so awkwardly. In reality if your opponent can remove 2 pair plus from ur range, guess what? ur in big fkn trouble. but in this question your asking it like ur opponent is doing u a favor by letting u know he knows 2 pair plus is not in ur hand range? like huh? what fkn poker are yall playing over there? no wonder ive never heard of either of you two and i been playing poker for 20+ years. The execution of questions on this so called quiz is atrocious.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch me get rekt by Tom's quiz:
ruclips.net/video/t3Jqs4_Rz1A/видео.html
How did you fare? Let us know in the comments!
I got 2, 4, and 5 correct. Guess I won't be playing 1kNL any time soon.
What a fun collaboration, thanks QY! Your edits made me look much more decisive 😄
Loved the part "how to figure out why we do the thing is to ask yourself the question: what can my opponent do if I don't do the thing?"
Great advice from Tombos as usual!
Thanks for the video, It was awesome. I think I have an easier explanation for question 5. The reason why we want to bluff with the flush blocker, is because by having the blocker we remove blockers he is going to have, and he is more likely to bluffcatch with those blockers (even if we dont block any flushes).
Yup, that's what I was trying to get at :)
Coaching with you is clearly very effective. Got the exact same answers as Tombos ;)
Nuts content.
Only got two, the two last.
For the first I though that AKx would be played like A7x where we don't have an 2p+ advantage but I missed the equity deny goal of the little bet size that is useless on AKx.
2/5 is not bad tbh!
I'm early on in my poker journey relatively speaking, and I'm so happy that getting question 2 wrong helped clarify a big way I mess up while jamming on the river.
Amazing job! Really like the content you have been posting.
Got 2 questions wrong here!! But never been happier to be wrong!😁
Well done!
"I can rule out A (in q2), because if you lack bluffs, then you can claim the whole pot". Bruh I always thought that we had to size down to adapt to an appropiate amount of bluffs to make villain indifferent with bluffcatchers! Have I misplayed the nuts my whole life? 🥺 and the few bluffs that I had in regards to my nuts? OMG I feel happy but also sad that I missed it.
What you’re doing isn’t wrong, because you still win the whole pot on average (villain has 0 ev when you bet, and you’re betting all the time). It’s just unnecessarily complicated because you could just as well jam your entire range, and have exactly the same ev!
@@PokerGiraffe But it isn't the same EV, unless villain understands that he should fold all of his bluffcatchers to the shove...
So one of 2 things will happen:
A) Villain reacts perfectly, folding all of his bluffcatchers 100% of times. In which case yes, EV will be the same between what I was doing and now that I shove my whole range (I win the whole pot).
B) Villain folds less than 100% of his bluffcatchers, and no matter how much less, the EV of our shove increases (due to not having enough bluffs, any calls by his bc's increase our range shove's EV)
So by shoving everything, we get a freeroll to increase our EV, and worse case scenario we get the same EV as prior.
Hence yeah, reducing sizing due to lack of bluffs is indeed a mistake, in the sense that we let go of a freeroll to increase EV
@@fedea82 Spot on! That’s why Tombos mentioned that not shoving is a dominated strategy.
@@PokerGiraffe thank u so much!
can you make please question for 3bet pot why we raise flop as caller where we dont have AK+ in flop AK6 and we raise aq vs cbet
As a rule of thumb, nut advantage is less important when SPR is low. So the fact that we are missing 2p and sets doesn't hurt us as much (since there is not enough stack behind for the 3bettor to fully capitalize on his nut advantage).
We also tend to raise more 1p hands for protection/thin value, since we lose so much less the times we get stacked in a low SPR situation. Basically there is less downside to raising, and about the same upside -> we end up raising these hands more.
make other videos with him. you are amazing two
The answer of first quiz wrong is in my expectation,cause I'm not sure which is the deciding factor 2 (nuts ad or no overcards); The second quiz I finally made the same choice Tombos did, but we were both wrong...lol but I like the toy game it's very interesting;glad I made the last three quizs otherwise I will be depressed;btw next video I will watch you to answer his quizs! can't wait tomorrow, maybe just tonight😺
If our range lacks many bluffs but still has some, we would want to size down because shoving all nuts and one combo of bluff could be overfolded but we could still get value with a smaller size by making villain indifferent. If we have to check back nuts some to make villain indifferent we’re just losing ev. Also if they overfold significantly to a big size but underfold significantly to small size then small size is better with value
In theory the equilibrium is for us to shove entire range and for villain to fold entire range. This captures 100% of the pot, which is really the maximum you can hope for.
But yes, in practice it's possible to "trick" an unaware opponent by sizing down with some value. But it would not work against the solver, because solver is folding entire range vs every size.
@ but couldn’t we then size down to a block size and then have a bluff ratio that becomes overbluffed and exploit the overfold? Maybe I’m overthinking it ahahaha but I definitely see where you’re coming from.
In theory villain is supposed to fold everything vs every size, so your EV ends up being the same regardless :)
Really great video, appreciated your free content very much!
Dear QY, based on one of the quiz riddles, I have a question for you that requires a long intro.
I have done several solves on A-K-low rainbow boards in SRP for HU scenario. There is a clear trend that mixed 33%/150% bet strategy has more EV than 150% only strategy which has more EV than 33% only strategy. However, this is only in theory.
In practice, I assume that 33% bet is much harder to play against for real humans (especially weak regs and recreationals), who in order to exploit range 33% would have to X/R much more and call with many marginal hands that are counterintuitive. Defense against 150% is much more clear and intuitively close to GTO (basically defend pairs and straight draws). I assume that opponents will make many more mistakes against 33% than against 150%.
But the main question is this:
in HU Holdem
would you rather go for extra value and complex strategy that creates many more game tree possibilities on later streets?
or you would go for a simplified strategy which definitely loses EV (not sure how much exactly, but my solves show that it is around ~0.05 for switching from mixed to 33% rangebet)
I'm not a HUNL expert, but if you mean 0.05 as in 5% of the pot, then that's a huge EV loss and I would definitely go for the big size. But more likely you mean 0.05% of the pot, which is pretty much nothing, and so both strategies are perfectly fine.
Another point is that even if your opponent is making mistakes vs the small size, you still need to adjust in a way that capitalizes on them. Playing GTO doesn't gain any EV, unless your opponent is making HUGE mistakes like folding hands that are pure calls, and vice versa. If he is only making frequency mistakes (calling or folding too much with hands that are indifferent) then it doesn't cost him anything if you don't actively punish those mistakes.
so~~~~ difficult to understand! because I am a fish :D haha
4/5 got confused at the final question lol
What is the point of the first question.Its not like this is ever going to happen.Btn always has 2p+ in his range you don’t need to know this
The point is that we are betting big not because of nut advantage, but because our marginal hands are not interested in betting. And this is something that we can apply in plenty of other (real) situations.
A better toy game to understand 2. Is to let OOP have either nut flush or air, and IP have bluffcatchers like 80% of nut flush blocker (ace high) and a one pair hand.
Going allin in this situation is dominated by the fact that IP folds less than MDF by simply pure calling his nut flush blocker combo and pure folding his second pair combo.
I already ran that toy game wich let me know the answer for this one 😊
Nice example, will use this one next time :)
5/5 🎉
Well done! You beat the legendary Tombos :)
I missed one but that was a fun quiz!
On Q4 you assume the Villain has to make us indifferent between checking and bluffing with the 72, but I disagree!
Imagine we can bet 50 combos for value for a pit size bet, thus we can bluff 25 combos to be balanced… Then we bluff all our 16 combos of 72 (assuming we have all of them in our range), but we still need to bluff 9 extra combos. Shouldn’t our opponent make us indifferent with those combos instead ?
Furthermore, in almost every situations the 72 combos will still remain a small part of our entire range. One also have to keep in mind the 72 value is higher the smaller the pot is (assuming the money stolen from each player is a constant, eg 5bb). Thus even in very narrow ranges spots like 4bet pots, 72 will be quite rare and may not affect strategies.
Tbh, I never solved any spot with the 72 rule (is any solver able to do it ??) but it would be very interesting!
These are great points, it definitely depends on how much 72 we have in that specific spot. If it's a small amount then 72 could very well be autoprofit at equilibrium.
4/5, but no way in heck I’m firing bullets at NL1K anytime soon 😭
😂
I got 2 right im happy
the second question is very hard to digest. do you think that the toygame can be transferred to the real world?
i see from time to time that the solver or even human players choose a non-all-in size on the river.
i think that ip (hero, polar) often has these two arguments:
1) when holding value: size down to give villain more incentive to call, because for example the boards runs out so bad for oop that he probably has a hard time to find any bluffs in heros range.
2) when holding a bluff: size down to make the bluff cheaper and because hero thinks that a high bet size does not increase the probability of villain folding (inelasticity).
however, these are exploitive considerations and the solver seems to come up with a totally other reason. regarding your q2 toygame, it seems like AA highly benefits from the few KQ calls, but it needs some 76 bluffs to give ip some incentive for calling. it completly ignores the AK combos, since these have a highly profitable call (blocking AA and shifting oop extremly towards his bluffs). therefore 76 should be a highly negative bluffing hand, but its not. it just gots the right amound of folds from the KQ combos. very weird toygame indeed xd.
I think we see this effect on paired boards, especially those with a high paired card (AA2, KK8). Even with the nut trips, we bet a bit smaller than you might expect, to get called by more hands that we don’t block.
the idea in the last question is to block the bluffcatcher ?
Yup, to block the hands that block our value.
I beat 1knl and fail this quiz. What does that tell you? haha
More of these videos please!! New subscriber 😁
this is what happens when you get people who are ESL make english videos. the questions are asked all wrong and backwards, the first question was asked from the BTN perspective at first (i think) but then it changes to BB perspective which in turn changes the answer. Your not using proper english and its messing up the questions and answers. just FYI. "what happens if we remove 2p+ from BTNs range?" ur asking that from the BB perspective but you actually meant it from the BTN aggressor perspective am i right? the question posed to one or the other will have different results obviously. and the question it self is just posed so awkwardly. In reality if your opponent can remove 2 pair plus from ur range, guess what? ur in big fkn trouble. but in this question your asking it like ur opponent is doing u a favor by letting u know he knows 2 pair plus is not in ur hand range? like huh? what fkn poker are yall playing over there? no wonder ive never heard of either of you two and i been playing poker for 20+ years. The execution of questions on this so called quiz is atrocious.
the irony of criticizing somebody's grammar while not being able to spell "you're" correctly~~
I got 4/5 right but i still doubt i can beat 1knl 😅
Might be time to take a shot ;)
😬 *Promo sm*.