A deep dive into c-bet size. 10% off GTO Wizard: gtowizard.com/p/giraffe See more of my content on Run It Once: www.runitonce.com/users/keuwai/ Coaching details: www.pokergiraffe.com/
one of the best videos i've ever watched. many other GTO videos are a bunch of "blah blah blah" technical jargon that doesn't even make much sense for the beginning/moderate poker player. they sound like they want to satisfy themselves by seeing how many technical jargons they can use
I have seen a bunch of flop bet videos but this one is by far the best one. Finally I understand the reasoning. The explanation is very educational and lucid. Thank you.
So good. So clear. I also love all the graphs/diagrams and the players with no inner monologue--"Thanks!" when the Q comes OTT after flop XX haha. Excellent video.
QY is a legend. I booked 10 hours of coaching with him and it was worth every penny. He has a great style that keeps you engaged and he finds a way to simplify such a complex game.
This was very clearly and concisely explained, thank you. You have a gift for explaining things. Most people would have taken an hour to explain this, or charged hundreds of dollars for it. Easiest subscribe click of my life, right here!
Would be interested to see some more info on overbetting flops and how these overbetting ranges are constructed. I assume they would be polar, but I would like to see how to pick the right bluffs depending on board texture and bet size. And also, how we would play middling hands that are neither strong or air. Great video, thank you.
Nice Video! Maybe a topic that fits pretty good to this topic is that in general it is more profitable to simplify to only play one sizing on flops IP. Its easier to learn which sizing to use and you dont punt on later streets because you dont know what the strategy is behind betting some hands small on flop. for examole everyone bets 40bb btn vs bb ip 25% on A72 but most ppl dont split their sizes. if you only use one size it should be around 60%. And you dont really lose much ev by using one size.
I'd say I like it as always, especially about why the marginal hands bet or x on different board part,I used to just thought it was just frequency assignment tbh
i always thought charging flush draws was rlly unintuitive. Unless you’re charging them more than they have the potodds to call, ur not really doing anything… they’re going to call and they’re going to win enough for the call to be worth it, so to truly charge them you would need to overbet fairly huge which i feel like is inherently a bad idea. it makes way more sense to “charge” hands that are significantly behind like two over, second pair, gutshot and an over etc. Anyway glad to know I’m not crazy (even if my logic is probably flawed.im not really good at poker lol)
Protection bets work even if BB doesn't fold over cards. If he folds great, if not, you get value (over cards have around 30% of equity). The main factor that determines ev of these thinner bets is how often you'll get check/raised and what range will raise. On K74 you have easy call with 7x because your 2p+ outs are clean and you have good equity vs bluffs otoh on 974f outs are not that clean and his bluffs have a lot of equity, so 7x ev gets crushed facing a raise. Yes, protecting the checking range is also a factor. I'm not sure if it's the biggest. Most runouts will uncapp BU range enough, so BB can't go too crazy by OB 4x even if BTN doesn't check too many 7x.
Those are all good points. Regarding most runouts uncapping IP range - If you do a bit of nodelocking you’ll find that even if BB doesn’t get to overbet most turns, the betting volume still increases, because BB gets to block much thinner when the turn is a K for example. 4x can go for thinner value because of the lack of 7x in your range. And this will in turn increase the EV of checking flop with 7x.
The strategy becomes a lot more complex, eg on AQx we start betting lots of Qx due to our huge range advantage. So you’d expect to see a small bet strategy similar to on K72, but the problem is that the small bet doesn’t get raised much because our range is too strong. Which makes it necessary to have some bigger sizes, otherwise our nut hands lose too much EV when they size down. TLDR it’s complicated :)
@@PokerGiraffeis it partly because BB has a higher concentration of AQ combos in tighter positions? iirc PFR still primarily plays an OB/check strat on AKx in every position.
Thank you! In most cases it’s because the aggressor has more Qx. But it’s not always true - if SB 3bets large vs BTN for example, BTN’s calling range is very weighted towards AQ. Which leads to lots of checking on Q-hi boards.
Is any of this relevant for low stakes? I just want to bet big when I have a hand and bet small when my hand is weak. I doubt people really pick up on that and start XRing when I bet small.
Great video. Do you think checking 7x on 974 but not K74 could also be because your hands like Q9, JJ etc really want to bet big and would lose too much EV to go smaller to allow 7x to bet and be protected?
Usually our stronger hands are fine with betting small, because we generate lots of EV from villain raising with weaker TP. Most of these hands would just call if we bet big, which tends to even out the EV of betting big and small :)
I suppose you are using General ( bet sizes ). But if you study using Simple you see 66% bet on the flop it depens what strategy you want to study / play
6:00 If we put this in the grand scheme, betting big to charge flush draws is a flawed concept because when we bet small, we also sometimes do it with flush draws, so our own flush draws "protect" our made hands OTF by betting small. Is this thinking okay?
Bluffs follow the sizing of our made hands, not the other way around. An example would be on AQ2 twotone, where the flush draws are betting big because our value hands are betting big.
Funny story. Im a sucker for a 30% or 66% pot bet size when I'm usually unsure what to do with a vulnerable top pair on a low board, or other hands that need protection. I entererd a Bounty Builder tournament today with this new knowledge in mind and only betting either 25%-50% or overbet something like 110% +. I ended up winning this tournament. 1st of around 400. Ok, i also ran good. But my bets were getting through and it felt like I was in full control of my decisions. This felt good after a nearly 2 month long downswing.
It really depends on the runout, but yes, on most clean runouts we want to get the money in geometrically with nut hands. Something like AK might want to go a bit smaller on the river though (if it’s valuebetting at all).
So what are the 3 sizes you consider to be generally most optimal. Since I have 3 seperate bet sizing options in Pokerstars, I decided to 33, 66 and 125% as my defined sizes. Should I change to 75 instead of 66 ? I play tournaments btw.
How come this is only the case in the complex solutions (with a ton of sizes) in GTO Wizard? If you look at the aggregate reports for almost any other solution, 50, 66 or 75% sizes are featured prominently. Seems like this is only applicable for playing a ton of sizes.
i liked the vid but i feel like all of these positions depend on pre flop action, position and stack depth and it is to simpel to just say, bet 125% on aq2, with top pair + because even if thats the case, the goal is to extract value with your good hands, even if they are vulnarable, so betting that size vs the big blind defending ranges accomplishes nothing other than them folding most of the time. GTo might say otherwise and for example likes to bet 125% with ak on that board, but in real life, people fold way too often to that size then they should, so you just loose value, and cant extract from backdoor flushs, straights middle and 3 pairs, which bb folds too often to that size, which they shouldnt if they would play gto. aks goes larger (75-100% depending on villian), ak with heart goes small (10-35%) Especially in low and mid stakes, people play way too tight, they fold to often, defend too tight, dont 3 bet enough so a lot of these ranges can be exploitet a lot. neverthelss i agree, betting 66-75% was a size during the old days used "to charge draws" and doesnt accomplish that enough anymore.
i love the 60% cbet in live games as an exploit. in the games i play, people over defend pf, and over defend flop cbets. they get to the turn with an extremely weak range, and double barreling generates ridiculous fold equity, so much i can do with almost any 2 on most runouts. as such, when playing live cash, i have 3 total cbet sizes. small, 40%. big, 60%. and massive, 150% all 3 spots on most flops people get to the flop and turn with a range too weak, so these bigger bets work wonders. if villian is properly elastic and has properly constructed ranges, i lose alot of EV with this strategy. so it is a risk, but its paying off so far
as specifically why i choose these bet sizes, its due to inelasticity of recreational players. maybe they defend decently well against 25%. but if i go 40% and they defend the same, their range is essentially playing at a disadvantage, because im cbetting more in line to what a 40% would be (ty gtowizard), but they arent defending appropriately. the thresholds for this ive found are around 25%-40% 40%-60% 60%-150% 150%+ you can bet the top percent of that, and verse a range that should be continuing vs the bottom.
Very interesting comment. You never think about using very small sizings against some specific profile (more aggressive) for exemple CB 10% for trigger bluffs?
@@raphaelhousni8346 yes i can use these sizings vs regs, and as you say if i expect over aggression sizing down may have a positive impact, although its not common.
@@PokerGiraffe I guess I'm wondering where the line is between betting the same amount to not have bet sizing be a tell and changing the bet sizing on different boards and giving away a range of hands. I feel like I must be missing something
"protection" is a term that I don't like using so much when trying to explain myself what a solver does. We know that the reason 7x would check back has to do with an EV comparison between checking and betting ,and yes,it can be kind of hard to be 100% accurate about the reasons behind that behaviour,still the ideas exposed in the video are really good.
Mostly happens on rainbow A+broadway boards, as well as boards like 982r. Our strong hands can go really large because of the lack of high equity bluffcatchers in BB’s range.
@@PokerGiraffe,it s exactly the opposite, IP can bet huge because BB range containt big amount of Blufcathers (hands that beat bluffs), what happens if you remove all Ax combos from BB s range ?
For IP vs BB? Usually we go 25-33% in order to bet weak pairs and AK. AK benefits a lot from equity denial, and also gets called by some worse Ax. As long as it bets small, of course.
Doesn't make too much sense for me... Betting 33% against flush draws is giving correct odds for the villain. You can't possibly win if your opponent doesn't make mistakes. Besides, I hardly think that on a AQ2 board a bet of 75% with AK would make a hand like KJ fold, so higher value as well. Exception is against aggressive players who are MUCH more likely to check-raise your small bet, but I don't know is it is a risk worth taking in the long run
Flush draws are only a small part of villain's range - the best betsize is one that maximizes value against their overall range, not just one part of it.
Hi. If considered in a gto environment, this is correct. But if we take the environment of people, we see that people check-raise not enough. Which gives us the right to bet exclusively small bet on many structures. Because of small resistance we have increased realization + all hands have additional fold equity.
For sure, it’s important to think about how to adjust to population mistakes. I think what you said mostly applies to bluffs and marginal hands, though. Our strong hands hate betting small when we don’t get checkraised enough.
Sure you do, give it a try. You can even exploit this at play money tables. You bet small you keep your opponents wide, you bet big you narrow their range, sometimes you don't want them narrow when they have tons of equity anyway.
@@ticenits1926 First of all, you can't play GTO physically. Secondly, by playing "GTO" you get less EV than you would if you played taking into account population leaks.
That betting big against flush draws is a false concept doesn’t make sense. Flush draws are only about 20% to hit, not 40%, as claimed. The drawer to the flush only has equity to call if the stacks are large enough. The reason it’s not optimal is because there are other factors involved to consider besides flush draws.
on the turn there is a 19% chance to hit the desired suit, the river gives you another 19.5% chance. In total on the flop when we hold two cards of the same suit and two are on the board we have a 35% chance of hitting our flush draw if we exclude times where both turn and river the same desired suit, if we don't we can just add those two numbers and get 38.5%.
@@maximilianospillmann3341 This was at 6:15. The math here was incorrect. It was talking about one street, not two. Betting big to charge flush draws is not a flawed concept. The reason the solver didn’t like betting large here is that it maximizes e.v. and there was a more profitable line, for reasons the presenter correctly described (the other reasons, not this part, which he goofed on).
@@ewallt Ive never seen anyone calculating ev for just one street, im pretty sure its always calculated using the equity of the hands which are always based on odds of winning at showdown. I don't think its fair to say he was incorrect with his math. Yes evaluating ev for a hand like this with just one factor (do I hit flush draw) is oversimplified but the math checks out.
@@maximilianospillmann3341 EV is always calculated street by street. If it were a multi-street calculation, it’s still incorrect. A correct calculation would have to consider all the different branches, and be very complex. The only way the 40% number would be correct would be if the better went all-in, and in this case it would still be +EV, and not be the case that denying flush equity is a flawed concept. It’s not a flawed concept. It can never not be +EV to bet when you have the best of it, it’s a question of what’s the most +EV.
We've come full circle to the point where people are using solvers to play like bots. Good luck betting huge on your top pair top kicker flops and getting labeled a GTO Andy who is super predictable and easy to read. Anyone following the advice in this video will get a note of "bets big when they have it and checks when they miss" when I play against you. The problem with solvers like this is it's only concerned about winning the hand and not concerned about winning a lot of chips. Telling us to not bet strong when we hit a pair on a flush draw flop is goofy. "your opponent will miss 60% of the time but will hit the flush 40% of the time".... why is this bad? Isn't this what we want? We want to make them pay for a 40% chance to suck out, because 60% of the time they miss and we get more out of the hand. I'm taking betting as a 60/40 favorite all day. Making a tiny bet on a flush draw flop because you're afraid they might hit their flush 40% of the time is insanity.
Try watching this for a deeper explanation of why bigger isn’t always better: Why Good Players Don't Bet Big on Wet Boards ruclips.net/video/a1O75yVsa4M/видео.html
In your example that AK on a K heart heart board should not bet big because if our opponents has a flush draw he will call anyway and has a lot of equity (40%) and since he will make his flush a lot it doesn’t make sense, you are still winning 60% of the time with top pair top kicker, and you get High value from the 60% of the time you charge villain for his draw, you are making huge profit with 60% over his 40%
If that were the case, we should just go all in with AK. But the reason we don’t is that our opponent’s range doesn’t consist of only flush draws. If you size down a touch, you can often get called by weaker bluffcatchers with less outs. And this outweighs the value that we lose against flush and straight draws. You can try watching this if it’s still not clear: Why Good Players Don't Bet Big on Wet Boards ruclips.net/video/a1O75yVsa4M/видео.html
I don't get why you say "betting big to charge flush draws is a flawed concept" . if we only bet 100 chips then our ev is +20 but the more we bet the more ev we will get if they call. So shouldn't we be charging flush draws the maximum. I would understand betting smaller on that board for lots of other reasons, (disconnected, we block top pair) by betting larger we would only make worst hands fold, we want to keep in low pairs and straight draws. Maybe im missing something but I can't understand why "betting big to charge flush draws is a flawed concept".
You kind of answered the question actually - betting big would make sense if our opponent’s range only consisted of flush draws. But in reality, he has other hands like middle pair and underpairs. And the value we lose against these hands by sizing up outweighs that little bit of value we generate against flush draws.
Yes poker is gambling, and luck will always play a factor. That’s what makes poker so beautiful. It really is an allegory for life. You can make all the right decisions in a hand and still lose, but if you make thousands of “right” (+EV) decisions over the course of your life, it will show in your results.
Don’t forget that flush draws are not the only hands in their range! Why Good Players Don't Bet Big on Wet Boards ruclips.net/video/a1O75yVsa4M/видео.html
@@PokerGiraffe obviously. But you're conflating rules with specific instances. If the specific instance is a donkey who overcalls, then you obviously make the most by betting the most. This is why GTO is overrated in most live cash games (at least, the games you should play). It's like if you're playing rock paper scissors with a donkey who always plays paper, the GTO says "stick to playing a third of everything, you can't lose!!". It's like, uh no, we adjust by playing scissors every time until our opponent adjusts.
Not only are sports infected with nerds and analysts but now poker is as well. Yeah, keep playing like a robot against regs and pros or against anyone that knows what they're doing, and see how far you get. Poker is so much more than plugging numbers into a spreadsheet telling you what to do.
Игры
one of the best videos i've ever watched. many other GTO videos are a bunch of "blah blah blah" technical jargon that doesn't even make much sense for the beginning/moderate poker player. they sound like they want to satisfy themselves by seeing how many technical jargons they can use
You have a great ability for describing complicated subjects simply.
One of the best videos ever, about a topic largely exposed before. Thank you very much mr giraffe
You’re most welcome!
I have seen a bunch of flop bet videos but this one is by far the best one. Finally I understand the reasoning. The explanation is very educational and lucid. Thank you.
So good. So clear. I also love all the graphs/diagrams and the players with no inner monologue--"Thanks!" when the Q comes OTT after flop XX haha. Excellent video.
Yeah that QT player is so rude.
Immediately subbed. Been waiting for a solver based channel.
QY is a legend. I booked 10 hours of coaching with him and it was worth every penny. He has a great style that keeps you engaged and he finds a way to simplify such a complex game.
This was very clearly and concisely explained, thank you. You have a gift for explaining things. Most people would have taken an hour to explain this, or charged hundreds of dollars for it. Easiest subscribe click of my life, right here!
Thanks for the kind words!
Nice video! I’ve been wanting to see a video that consolidates solver strategies in a way that’s useable.
Would be interested to see some more info on overbetting flops and how these overbetting ranges are constructed. I assume they would be polar, but I would like to see how to pick the right bluffs depending on board texture and bet size. And also, how we would play middling hands that are neither strong or air.
Great video, thank you.
very high quality, keep this up!
bro this is simple and making so much sense, direct and clear!
谢谢观看！
@@PokerGiraffe GOAT
Very interesting content. and usefull content. The best I´ve seen on the internet.
very concise and clear, thanks!
Incredibly valuable video. Amazing!!!!
Nice Video!
Maybe a topic that fits pretty good to this topic is that in general it is more profitable to simplify to only play one sizing on flops IP.
Its easier to learn which sizing to use and you dont punt on later streets because you dont know what the strategy is behind betting some hands small on flop.
for examole everyone bets 40bb btn vs bb ip 25% on A72 but most ppl dont split their sizes.
if you only use one size it should be around 60%.
And you dont really lose much ev by using one size.
Agreed, I also use 1 size on the flop :)
The giraffe is back !! Thanks and hope to see more
He was never gone 😎
I'd say I like it as always, especially about why the marginal hands bet or x on different board part,I used to just thought it was just frequency assignment tbh
i always thought charging flush draws was rlly unintuitive. Unless you’re charging them more than they have the potodds to call, ur not really doing anything… they’re going to call and they’re going to win enough for the call to be worth it, so to truly charge them you would need to overbet fairly huge which i feel like is inherently a bad idea. it makes way more sense to “charge” hands that are significantly behind like two over, second pair, gutshot and an over etc.
Anyway glad to know I’m not crazy (even if my logic is probably flawed.im not really good at poker lol)
Protection bets work even if BB doesn't fold over cards. If he folds great, if not, you get value (over cards have around 30% of equity).
The main factor that determines ev of these thinner bets is how often you'll get check/raised and what range will raise.
On K74 you have easy call with 7x because your 2p+ outs are clean and you have good equity vs bluffs otoh on 974f outs are not that clean and his bluffs have a lot of equity, so 7x ev gets crushed facing a raise.
Yes, protecting the checking range is also a factor. I'm not sure if it's the biggest. Most runouts will uncapp BU range enough, so BB can't go too crazy by OB 4x even if BTN doesn't check too many 7x.
Those are all good points.
Regarding most runouts uncapping IP range - If you do a bit of nodelocking you’ll find that even if BB doesn’t get to overbet most turns, the betting volume still increases, because BB gets to block much thinner when the turn is a K for example. 4x can go for thinner value because of the lack of 7x in your range. And this will in turn increase the EV of checking flop with 7x.
thank you very much for the new video :) please upload great videos more often
Great video! Helpful too
A perfect video that explains modern c-bet theory.
Another great video, thanks!
Great video.
How does this change with tighter opening range, ex. HJ vs BB?
The strategy becomes a lot more complex, eg on AQx we start betting lots of Qx due to our huge range advantage. So you’d expect to see a small bet strategy similar to on K72, but the problem is that the small bet doesn’t get raised much because our range is too strong. Which makes it necessary to have some bigger sizes, otherwise our nut hands lose too much EV when they size down.
TLDR it’s complicated :)
@@PokerGiraffeis it partly because BB has a higher concentration of AQ combos in tighter positions? iirc PFR still primarily plays an OB/check strat on AKx in every position.
It depends on the ranges you use too - if BB range is wide enough, UTG will start betting entire range including Kx, mixing big and small bets.
This is incredibly informative
you are a gift to us, this channel is truly a gem! 10/10. Thank you so much Giraffe!!
Thanks for the kind words :)
Wow what An amazing and succinct video. Perfect.
Can you do a video on why Q high boards favour the preflop 3 bet or 4bet caller etc?
Thank you!
In most cases it’s because the aggressor has more Qx. But it’s not always true - if SB 3bets large vs BTN for example, BTN’s calling range is very weighted towards AQ. Which leads to lots of checking on Q-hi boards.
Very interesting, I was sad that no J/T high boards were shown.. I would imagine that those flops hold most of the 66% bet sizes
Nice video! Thank you!
Is any of this relevant for low stakes? I just want to bet big when I have a hand and bet small when my hand is weak. I doubt people really pick up on that and start XRing when I bet small.
That’s a good strategy at low stakes for sure. No need to protect your checking range, if opponents are not attacking it in the first place :)
Very Interesting?? Not to disagree with anything mentioned here but I'm very curious on what Bart Hanson would think of this from a GTO point of view
Great video. Do you think checking 7x on 974 but not K74 could also be because your hands like Q9, JJ etc really want to bet big and would lose too much EV to go smaller to allow 7x to bet and be protected?
Usually our stronger hands are fine with betting small, because we generate lots of EV from villain raising with weaker TP.
Most of these hands would just call if we bet big, which tends to even out the EV of betting big and small :)
I suppose you are using General ( bet sizes ). But if you study using Simple you see 66% bet on the flop
it depens what strategy you want to study / play
6:00 If we put this in the grand scheme, betting big to charge flush draws is a flawed concept because when we bet small, we also sometimes do it with flush draws, so our own flush draws "protect" our made hands OTF by betting small. Is this thinking okay?
Bluffs follow the sizing of our made hands, not the other way around. An example would be on AQ2 twotone, where the flush draws are betting big because our value hands are betting big.
Funny story.
Im a sucker for a 30% or 66% pot bet size when I'm usually unsure what to do with a vulnerable top pair on a low board, or other hands that need protection. I entererd a Bounty Builder tournament today with this new knowledge in mind and only betting either 25%-50% or overbet something like 110% +. I ended up winning this tournament. 1st of around 400. Ok, i also ran good. But my bets were getting through and it felt like I was in full control of my decisions. This felt good after a nearly 2 month long downswing.
Hah, that probably has more to do with you playing/running well as opposed to the actual betsize. Still, glad that you won :)
Dude please make more videos. PLEASE
This is pure gold
i think for low disconnected board not betting small size is also because of bb XR frequency are lower
For sure, the lower XR frequency is also related to BB not having that many high equity hands.
When you cbet 125% on Aqx board and get called, are you barrelling 125%? and shoving river? This is just in single raised pots?
It really depends on the runout, but yes, on most clean runouts we want to get the money in geometrically with nut hands.
Something like AK might want to go a bit smaller on the river though (if it’s valuebetting at all).
Does it apply to MTT? Great video btw :)
Not the exact sizes, but the concept will still apply :)
top explainer !
i was so confused till i figured out it s about cash fame
What are the overbet bluffs on flop? We can’t just overbet with strong top pairs or opponents can over fold
Any hand with a backdoor flush draw is fine to overbet
Thank you🙏
What spots does the solver say you should bet 3.5x pot with. Big combo draws?
Mostly boards like AKx where BB is capped.
good shit
So what are the 3 sizes you consider to be generally most optimal. Since I have 3 seperate bet sizing options in Pokerstars, I decided to 33, 66 and 125% as my defined sizes. Should I change to 75 instead of 66 ? I play tournaments btw.
Either way is fine - betsizing is very flexible on the flop, 66 or 75 will not make any difference.
Wait, what ahha, what about the title of your video ?@@PokerGiraffe
That mostly refers to high disconnected flops for BTN vs BB, but there are plenty of other boards and formations where 66% is fine :)
I don't know if KJ is finding a checkraise on K74 against a bet enough.
How come this is only the case in the complex solutions (with a ton of sizes) in GTO Wizard? If you look at the aggregate reports for almost any other solution, 50, 66 or 75% sizes are featured prominently. Seems like this is only applicable for playing a ton of sizes.
Probably because the hands that want to bet 90-100% are all forced to bet 75%.
Not bad, but you have to think about bet sizing more 😅, look at utg vs bb solutions, AK7 vs AK2
very high quality video, moar plss
i liked the vid but i feel like all of these positions depend on pre flop action, position and stack depth and it is to simpel to just say, bet 125% on aq2, with top pair + because even if thats the case, the goal is to extract value with your good hands, even if they are vulnarable, so betting that size vs the big blind defending ranges accomplishes nothing other than them folding most of the time.
GTo might say otherwise and for example likes to bet 125% with ak on that board, but in real life, people fold way too often to that size then they should, so you just loose value, and cant extract from backdoor flushs, straights middle and 3 pairs, which bb folds too often to that size, which they shouldnt if they would play gto. aks goes larger (75-100% depending on villian), ak with heart goes small (10-35%)
Especially in low and mid stakes, people play way too tight, they fold to often, defend too tight, dont 3 bet enough so a lot of these ranges can be exploitet a lot.
neverthelss i agree, betting 66-75% was a size during the old days used "to charge draws" and doesnt accomplish that enough anymore.
ill be smart someday too
i love the 60% cbet in live games as an exploit. in the games i play, people over defend pf, and over defend flop cbets.
they get to the turn with an extremely weak range, and double barreling generates ridiculous fold equity, so much i can do with almost any 2 on most runouts.
as such, when playing live cash, i have 3 total cbet sizes.
small, 40%. big, 60%. and massive, 150%
all 3 spots on most flops people get to the flop and turn with a range too weak, so these bigger bets work wonders.
if villian is properly elastic and has properly constructed ranges, i lose alot of EV with this strategy. so it is a risk, but its paying off so far
as specifically why i choose these bet sizes, its due to inelasticity of recreational players.
maybe they defend decently well against 25%. but if i go 40% and they defend the same, their range is essentially playing at a disadvantage, because im cbetting more in line to what a 40% would be (ty gtowizard), but they arent defending appropriately. the thresholds for this ive found are around 25%-40%
40%-60%
60%-150%
150%+
you can bet the top percent of that, and verse a range that should be continuing vs the bottom.
obviously u cant cbet 100% of ur range on all boards. but if you do cbet, try double barrelling alot more. their range sucks. attack it
Very interesting comment. You never think about using very small sizings against some specific profile (more aggressive) for exemple CB 10% for trigger bluffs?
@@raphaelhousni8346 yes i can use these sizings vs regs, and as you say if i expect over aggression sizing down may have a positive impact, although its not common.
Imo its all about the stakes you're playing aymt micros dont bluff and go for full value and value bet thin learning gto is for nl100 or higher imo
This is so good
But would this strategy not make it super obvious what your hand range is because your betting size becomes a massive tell?
How?
On AQ2...
Your Range is polarized.
On k72, your entire range is betting small....
Not really a tell.
That’s correct! Either way we have bluffs, so it’s not like our opponent can simply overfold/overcall
@@PokerGiraffe I guess I'm wondering where the line is between betting the same amount to not have bet sizing be a tell and changing the bet sizing on different boards and giving away a range of hands. I feel like I must be missing something
"protection" is a term that I don't like using so much when trying to explain myself what a solver does. We know that the reason 7x would check back has to do with an EV comparison between checking and betting ,and yes,it can be kind of hard to be 100% accurate about the reasons behind that behaviour,still the ideas exposed in the video are really good.
Completely agree, I think “equity denial” is a more precise term than protection. And even then it’s not the only reason like you said.
What are the 200-350% cbets? Low freq plays?
Mostly happens on rainbow A+broadway boards, as well as boards like 982r. Our strong hands can go really large because of the lack of high equity bluffcatchers in BB’s range.
@@PokerGiraffe,it s exactly the opposite, IP can bet huge because BB range containt big amount of Blufcathers (hands that beat bluffs), what happens if you remove all Ax combos from BB s range ?
Ironically the size that sucks the most in GTO is the size regs suck the most against 😂
Not hard to deal with it. Overfold unless you have TP or better
I often bet 66% on low, paired boards. Is that a thing?
For IP vs BB? Usually we go 25-33% in order to bet weak pairs and AK.
AK benefits a lot from equity denial, and also gets called by some worse Ax. As long as it bets small, of course.
@PokerGiraffe Thanks! Appreciate the feedback, great video.
Esto aplica a omaha?
The concept yes, the specific hands/sizes no
Doesn't make too much sense for me... Betting 33% against flush draws is giving correct odds for the villain. You can't possibly win if your opponent doesn't make mistakes. Besides, I hardly think that on a AQ2 board a bet of 75% with AK would make a hand like KJ fold, so higher value as well.
Exception is against aggressive players who are MUCH more likely to check-raise your small bet, but I don't know is it is a risk worth taking in the long run
Flush draws are only a small part of villain's range - the best betsize is one that maximizes value against their overall range, not just one part of it.
Hi. If considered in a gto environment, this is correct. But if we take the environment of people, we see that people check-raise not enough.
Which gives us the right to bet exclusively small bet on many structures. Because of small resistance we have increased realization + all hands have additional fold equity.
For sure, it’s important to think about how to adjust to population mistakes.
I think what you said mostly applies to bluffs and marginal hands, though. Our strong hands hate betting small when we don’t get checkraised enough.
@@PokerGiraffe I agree! If we are not check-raised enough, we are obliged to bet a lot with strong hands :)
im glad im already doing exactly that, i also only deviate my betting patterns against recreationals or players who are insanelly unballanced
Awesome!
OK this video explains why I suck at poker
-Helmuth probably
we don't need to play GTO
Sure you do, give it a try. You can even exploit this at play money tables. You bet small you keep your opponents wide, you bet big you narrow their range, sometimes you don't want them narrow when they have tons of equity anyway.
@@ticenits1926 First of all, you can't play GTO physically. Secondly, by playing "GTO" you get less EV than you would if you played taking into account population leaks.
Actually we don't even need to play poker
We only need GTO (Great Teacher Onizuka)
Yeah, GTO is for your live 1/2, 2/5 cash games. If you're doing this against regs and professionals you're going to be exploited.
Can some one please define high boards for me?
In the context of this video, J-high and above
Thank you!
66% is my favorite bet size :(
Nothing wrong with betting 66% in most spots, it just doesn’t get used much for BTN vs BB, on high disconnected boards :)
Interesting
That betting big against flush draws is a false concept doesn’t make sense. Flush draws are only about 20% to hit, not 40%, as claimed. The drawer to the flush only has equity to call if the stacks are large enough. The reason it’s not optimal is because there are other factors involved to consider besides flush draws.
on the turn there is a 19% chance to hit the desired suit, the river gives you another 19.5% chance. In total on the flop when we hold two cards of the same suit and two are on the board we have a 35% chance of hitting our flush draw if we exclude times where both turn and river the same desired suit, if we don't we can just add those two numbers and get 38.5%.
@@maximilianospillmann3341 This was at 6:15. The math here was incorrect. It was talking about one street, not two. Betting big to charge flush draws is not a flawed concept. The reason the solver didn’t like betting large here is that it maximizes e.v. and there was a more profitable line, for reasons the presenter correctly described (the other reasons, not this part, which he goofed on).
@@ewallt Ive never seen anyone calculating ev for just one street, im pretty sure its always calculated using the equity of the hands which are always based on odds of winning at showdown. I don't think its fair to say he was incorrect with his math. Yes evaluating ev for a hand like this with just one factor (do I hit flush draw) is oversimplified but the math checks out.
@@maximilianospillmann3341 EV is always calculated street by street. If it were a multi-street calculation, it’s still incorrect. A correct calculation would have to consider all the different branches, and be very complex. The only way the 40% number would be correct would be if the better went all-in, and in this case it would still be +EV, and not be the case that denying flush equity is a flawed concept. It’s not a flawed concept. It can never not be +EV to bet when you have the best of it, it’s a question of what’s the most +EV.
@@ewallt what formula for ev are you using?
We've come full circle to the point where people are using solvers to play like bots. Good luck betting huge on your top pair top kicker flops and getting labeled a GTO Andy who is super predictable and easy to read. Anyone following the advice in this video will get a note of "bets big when they have it and checks when they miss" when I play against you.
The problem with solvers like this is it's only concerned about winning the hand and not concerned about winning a lot of chips. Telling us to not bet strong when we hit a pair on a flush draw flop is goofy. "your opponent will miss 60% of the time but will hit the flush 40% of the time".... why is this bad? Isn't this what we want? We want to make them pay for a 40% chance to suck out, because 60% of the time they miss and we get more out of the hand. I'm taking betting as a 60/40 favorite all day. Making a tiny bet on a flush draw flop because you're afraid they might hit their flush 40% of the time is insanity.
Try watching this for a deeper explanation of why bigger isn’t always better:
Why Good Players Don't Bet Big on Wet Boards
ruclips.net/video/a1O75yVsa4M/видео.html
Depends on the flop. But generally, good advice.
In your example that AK on a K heart heart board should not bet big because if our opponents has a flush draw he will call anyway and has a lot of equity (40%) and since he will make his flush a lot it doesn’t make sense, you are still winning 60% of the time with top pair top kicker, and you get High value from the 60% of the time you charge villain for his draw, you are making huge profit with 60% over his 40%
If that were the case, we should just go all in with AK.
But the reason we don’t is that our opponent’s range doesn’t consist of only flush draws. If you size down a touch, you can often get called by weaker bluffcatchers with less outs. And this outweighs the value that we lose against flush and straight draws.
You can try watching this if it’s still not clear:
Why Good Players Don't Bet Big on Wet Boards
ruclips.net/video/a1O75yVsa4M/видео.html
I don't get why you say "betting big to charge flush draws is a flawed concept" . if we only bet 100 chips then our ev is +20 but the more we bet the more ev we will get if they call. So shouldn't we be charging flush draws the maximum. I would understand betting smaller on that board for lots of other reasons, (disconnected, we block top pair) by betting larger we would only make worst hands fold, we want to keep in low pairs and straight draws. Maybe im missing something but I can't understand why "betting big to charge flush draws is a flawed concept".
You kind of answered the question actually - betting big would make sense if our opponent’s range only consisted of flush draws. But in reality, he has other hands like middle pair and underpairs. And the value we lose against these hands by sizing up outweighs that little bit of value we generate against flush draws.
Bro, I tagged the worst player at a table as a fish, one hour later he was chip leader. Poker is gambling.
Yes poker is gambling, and luck will always play a factor. That’s what makes poker so beautiful. It really is an allegory for life. You can make all the right decisions in a hand and still lose, but if you make thousands of “right” (+EV) decisions over the course of your life, it will show in your results.
huh? if you know a flush draw never folds (e.g. live donkey play), and you have >50% eq, then obviously you want to bet everything.
Don’t forget that flush draws are not the only hands in their range!
Why Good Players Don't Bet Big on Wet Boards
ruclips.net/video/a1O75yVsa4M/видео.html
@@PokerGiraffe obviously. But you're conflating rules with specific instances. If the specific instance is a donkey who overcalls, then you obviously make the most by betting the most. This is why GTO is overrated in most live cash games (at least, the games you should play).
It's like if you're playing rock paper scissors with a donkey who always plays paper, the GTO says "stick to playing a third of everything, you can't lose!!". It's like, uh no, we adjust by playing scissors every time until our opponent adjusts.
If someone is trying to play exactly GTO, they probably don’t understand GTO.
Not only are sports infected with nerds and analysts but now poker is as well. Yeah, keep playing like a robot against regs and pros or against anyone that knows what they're doing, and see how far you get. Poker is so much more than plugging numbers into a spreadsheet telling you what to do.
QY makes zero dollars playing online poker, the same as every other coach.
u got a sub in me !