Poker

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Poker

Post by Garja »

Goodspeed wrote: ↑
12 Aug 2022, 20:13
I mean sizes in general, I have only one profile rn. You use different ones with 3bet pots?

While the solver is running it gives a dEV number (and percentage) which I assume means the possible delta in EV as a sort of confidence factor. It lowers the longer you leave it running (confidence increases).
Or am I doing it wrong?

Interesting about the sizes. I should work on that I guess. I often bet 1/3 or 1/2 pot on the turn and river. You saying you never do?
I mean, I kinda know what dEV is, but what did you mean by dEV 5? Also I don't get the connection with sizes.

Turn and river cbetting range is mostly polar (bluffs and value above a certain threshold) so the size should be big. OOP on the river it sometimes makes sense to have a small size to block bet (mostly because a certain part of your range doesn't want to bet big nor check/call a big size).
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

Garja wrote: ↑
12 Aug 2022, 21:33
Goodspeed wrote: ↑
12 Aug 2022, 20:13
I mean sizes in general, I have only one profile rn. You use different ones with 3bet pots?

While the solver is running it gives a dEV number (and percentage) which I assume means the possible delta in EV as a sort of confidence factor. It lowers the longer you leave it running (confidence increases).
Or am I doing it wrong?

Interesting about the sizes. I should work on that I guess. I often bet 1/3 or 1/2 pot on the turn and river. You saying you never do?
I mean, I kinda know what dEV is, but what did you mean by dEV 5? Also I don't get the connection with sizes.
The number in the screenshot after "dEV: ". The percentage is the % pot I think.

The connection with sizes is that if you add more possible bet sizes (e.g. go from 33% and 75% to 25%, 50% and 100%), the game tree expands and the solver takes longer to generate a solution with a lot of confidence. It's mostly an issue in single raised pots because the ranges are bigger and effective stack larger.
But my PC isn't that great so maybe this is never an issue for you.
Turn and river cbetting range is mostly polar (bluffs and value above a certain threshold) so the size should be big. OOP on the river it sometimes makes sense to have a small size to block bet (mostly because a certain part of your range doesn't want to bet big nor check/call a big size).
I see. Now that you mention it, I guess the solver always goes for the big size on the turn and river and basically ignores the 1/3 pot option. So I'll change it to 75% and 125%.

Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Poker

Post by Garja »

I usually solve SRP for 0.8%, 3bet pots with 0.25% and 4bet pots with 0.1%. You still get an accurate result but save lot of time.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

I'm too impatient for that I guess
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Poker

Post by Garja »

Goodspeed wrote: ↑
13 Aug 2022, 13:06
I'm too impatient for that I guess
10% really is inaccurate. Anything over 1% is iirc.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

1% would take half an hour for me in SRPs. Maybe some other setting is wrong?
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Poker

Post by Garja »

You probably have too many sizes all over the place. Also be sure to put 0 to OOP flop size (no donking allowed). I also mostly nodelock for range bet on the flop for IP as that's what happens in most of the hands I play. A SRP for me takes usually a minute or so. BvB can take several minutes but that's because I do have multiple sizes there and the tree is way more complex.
Ah also the bigger the spr the longer it takes. I usually just put 100bb effective stack even if in the actual hand we were deeper.
Image Image Image
Netherlands don_artie
Dragoon
Posts: 418
Joined: Oct 4, 2019
ESO: don artie

Re: Poker

Post by don_artie »

@Goodspeed probably just prefers 99 over tt cus u can backdoor into straight on 852 and the strength of the pair is indifferent vs the range you gave the 4better (he doesnt have any 99 or tt hand) so 99 is slightly better then. also dont expect 4bet bluffs hardly ever from low stakes players
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

What really sucks about the process of learning poker is not knowing if what you're doing is working until you've played >50k hands against the field. Just so much time investment before you even know if you're doing well. I can play one game of Go and know I'm worse or better than my opponent. Takes 100 hours of poker to know

That said what I'm doing probably isn't working, I'm now down 8 buy ins after 20k hands. Feels like I'm running really poorly though so it'll be another 20 before I know for sure.

If only there was a way to analyze how you're doing that takes variance into account. Would be a nice tracker feature. The all-in adjusted winnings are nice and all but what I really want to know is am I getting the same amount of top pair better kicker, set over set, better flush, full house vs flush, flush vs straight etc as my opponents are getting vs me.
User avatar
Latvia harcha
Gendarme
Posts: 5136
Joined: Jul 2, 2015
ESO: hatamoto_samurai

Re: Poker

Post by harcha »

but that's probably because it has become such a game of statistics, at least against randoms. on the other hand go has more depth.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Poker

Post by Garja »

Goodspeed wrote: ↑
17 Aug 2022, 14:02
What really sucks about the process of learning poker is not knowing if what you're doing is working until you've played >50k hands against the field. Just so much time investment before you even know if you're doing well. I can play one game of Go and know I'm worse or better than my opponent. Takes 100 hours of poker to know

That said what I'm doing probably isn't working, I'm now down 8 buy ins after 20k hands. Feels like I'm running really poorly though so it'll be another 20 before I know for sure.

If only there was a way to analyze how you're doing that takes variance into account. Would be a nice tracker feature. The all-in adjusted winnings are nice and all but what I really want to know is am I getting the same amount of top pair better kicker, set over set, better flush, full house vs flush, flush vs straight etc as my opponents are getting vs me.
Yes. That's why coaching is key in poker. You need someone with more experience to spot your leaks regardless of the results.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

Yeah that would really help. Sadly I'm not on a forum with a bunch of online crushers
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

Here's today's biggest losses that I'm unsure about

River bet because the ace is good for my range and I have no showdown value
Image

Flop call maybe incorrect?
Image

Turn check too passive? I figured he wouldn't call the flop unless he had something
Image

Turn & river checks too passive? I figured it's a bad board for my range
Image

Preflop call too loose?
Image

Fold too tight? Kinda weird for him to have a 7, could be bluffing with a flush draw
Image

Overplaying the TT?
Image

Overplaying the JJ? I didn't give him credit for 54s since he called the 4bet pre. He could've had the flush but also an overpair worse than JJ
Image

JJ again...
Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Poker

Post by Garja »

Goodspeed wrote: ↑
17 Aug 2022, 16:54
Here's today's biggest losses that I'm unsure about

River bet because the ace is good for my range and I have no showdown value
The river bet is fine as you land there with many Ax hands but in general OOP you shouldn't bet that much OTF. 866 is quite a bad flop for the PFR in BVB. You should check a lot (can check range).
Also can't bluff all the air OTR, should distribute between turn and river, also better no made hands just check to SD/give up.


Flop call maybe incorrect?
BB 3bet vs UTG is very snug even in theory (6-7%) and I expect players at lower stakes to only 3bet strong hands (should be a polar range with some garbage hands in low freq). So you can basically just muck 99 pre. However if you really want to play the hand then probably it's already a fold OTF, especially vs 50% pot bet.

Turn check too passive? I figured he wouldn't call the flop unless he had something
In general you have to know how a certain dynamic plays out in terms of range interactions with each other and with the board. on 995r SB vs MP 3bet you have quite a range advantage so you can even use a bigger size for range (or just play polar with very big size and checks). Vs 1/3 range bet it is correct to float most strong Ax and strong broadways suited with backdoor flush. OTT you must know what is you value range and what is your bluff range. Then you think about possible deviation as exploit vs the specific opponent/field and decide whether that's a bet or not. OTR you hand is just a give up.

Turn & river checks too passive? I figured it's a bad board for my range
As squeeze size you can go bigger (OOP make it x5). BTN range in this situation should be capped and full of small pairs and such. If he's a bad player he also has stronger pairs and garbage middle hands such as J9s. Because of that and because position unfortunately matters, AKs on that board is kinda trash. You can basically just give up. Range bet is not ideal but I guess okish if you don't get raised enough with bluffs. If you hit a K or A OTT you try to showdown/get one street of value depending on how the opponent plays the hand. Against too much action you're dead.

Preflop call too loose?
Yes definetely. A somewhat optimal calling range for that situation is AA at high freq, QQ low freq, JJ full freq, AQs, TT and 99 low freq, then full freq of 76s and 65s (which you're 3betting in low freq). In practice vs field you can just overfold and play for stacks preflop with AA and KK, AKs, and mix QQ and AKo at something like 75%. Use Equilab to see range equity agaisnt each other.

Fold too tight? Kinda weird for him to have a 7, could be bluffing with a flush draw
In general you shouldn't cold call others' 3bets. You most likely have a capped range and can be exploited (and if you put stuff like AA to protect the range, you're just missing value as it should cold 4bet). Just fold the tens there. OTT you're probably dead (even tho you would have sucked out the river) and if you're not the opponent has just outplayed you because of your capped range. He almost never has a 7 there but he has all the overpairs and you don't. If this is your stronger holding there you should probably call to not be exploitable but your preflop range just loses money.

Overplaying the TT?
Reasonable hand. Just vs field if your raise gets called you are probably behind. Not enough floats with broadways there on that flop. OTR I also don't expect field to bluff enough (will probably give up unimproved hands even if their range is super snug). So bluffcatching is ok in theory but in practice you're bluffcatching no bluffs.

Overplaying the JJ? I didn't give him credit for 54s since he called the 4bet pre. He could've had the flush but also an overpair worse than JJ
I mean, the donk shove and the cashout mean he's a recreational, so it's w/e. I would not fold JJ there but it's a shit spot. He can have worse pairs with or without the flush draw, as well as Ax offsuit hands with the flush draw. 3bet and call with 54s is probably correct in theory with an optimal range but this guy was probably just fuckin around and got lucky.
The 4bet preflop is standard, altho if you get action back you're not thrilled because sensed players at lower stakes will have a very snug range. You're moderately happy vs recreationals as they can show up a wide variety of weaker hands that lose the stack.


JJ again...
vs UTG 4bet you're not thrilled to have JJ but it still is a standard call (note that you need a protected range with AA and AK in freq to flat vs a real opponent). His pre size is gigantic (typical of recreationals with KK or AA) and you could just explo fold there. Postfop you shouldn't really jam because you are either crushed or crushing his range. 1/4 bet trying to showdown and probably just fold if he x/shove (again don't expect many bluffs at low stakes from an unknown).
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

All very helpful thanks. I guess I still cbet flop too much and especially calling 3-bets is probably costing me a lot. @don_artie told me not to do that before iirc but I guess it snuck back in over time because the solvers kept telling me to. I think I should probably stop following GTO wizard's preflop advice altogether on these stakes.

One problem I have with preflop is that I just can't be bothered to construct proper ranges for every single spot. I really should be doing that but there are too many and learning them all feels hopeless and boring. I just end up playing by intuition but that leads to big mistakes sometimes. How did you do this when you first started out?
In general you have to know how a certain dynamic plays out in terms of range interactions with each other and with the board. on 995r SB vs MP 3bet you have quite a range advantage so you can even use a bigger size for range (or just play polar with very big size and checks).
This part is interesting. Something I changed about my strat recently is to only use 1 size on the flop (30%). I was told by multiple sources to use bigger size on wet flops but stopped doing it because I didn't really see the point. After all, with direct flush and straight draws they will call anyway. But something I noticed about my own defending post-flop is that I would call smaller cbets with strong overcards whereas I would fold to bigger bets, so I started to think that's what I should be targeting with cbet sizes but never implemented it.

The fact that it's okay to float with suited broadways with backdoor flush shouldn't be relevant to our sizing choices right? After all it's always possible for our opponents to have that on any non-monocolored board. If we wanted to target that kind of hand we'd be using a big size pretty much always.

So my cbetting behavior would change to: 30% pot on boards that hit my range no matter what. 75% pot on low-card boards (dry or wet w/e, exception maybe monocolored boards?), and only in position (check OOP).

Does all that sound reasonable?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

Ah if I check on low-card rainbow boards OOP with like AKo, what do I do if they then bet say half pot? I probably still have good equity against their range but how often would they be bluffing in that spot assuming they're competent? Do I float once or just fold?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

Went through a bit of history and AKo is my worst hand at some distance lol, with minus 3.5 buy ins. TT second worst with -2 buy ins. Out of the last 10 flops I saw with AKo, only one had an ace or king, but I'm bluffing on way too many of them probably

Went back to the 2NL trenches because my bankroll was at less than 10 buy ins. Total loss $52 over ~20k hands of 5NL. Barely beating the field but not the rake
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Poker

Post by Garja »

As much as I despise GTOwizard, it is a fine tool to start studying GTO. The ranges are mostly fine (even tho they're tailored for pokerstars.com nl50 and nl500 rake structure). Vs low stakes field you have to adjust and overfold massively because players simply miss the bluffing part of 3betting ranges (in linear ranges that means it misses the weakest holdings, in polar ranges it means it misses the trash part).
Goodspeed wrote: ↑
18 Aug 2022, 08:53
This part is interesting. Something I changed about my strat recently is to only use 1 size on the flop (30%). I was told by multiple sources to use bigger size on wet flops but stopped doing it because I didn't really see the point. After all, with direct flush and straight draws they will call anyway. But something I noticed about my own defending post-flop is that I would call smaller cbets with strong overcards whereas I would fold to bigger bets, so I started to think that's what I should be targeting with cbet sizes but never implemented it.

The fact that it's okay to float with suited broadways with backdoor flush shouldn't be relevant to our sizing choices right? After all it's always possible for our opponents to have that on any non-monocolored board.

So my cbetting behavior would change to: 30% pot on boards that hit my range no matter what. 75% pot on low-card boards (dry or wet w/e, exception maybe monocolored boards?), and only in position (check OOP).

Does all that sound reasonable?
It is fine to only have one size. My comment was mostly to stress the fact that vs 1/3 pot he will have more floats with broadway hands that vs 1/2 pot. SO OTR he has more no made hands because his range was less filtered on the flop.
In general think of nut advantage on a certain flop to decide your cbet strategy. In SRP you can cbet range most flop when IP (OOP wants lot of checking overall), in 3bet pots you can mostly cbet range IP and OOP. Some boards you have nut disadvantage and you want to check a lot (might as well check range).
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »



Discuss
User avatar
Great Britain chris1089
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2651
Joined: Feb 11, 2017
ESO: chris1089

Re: Poker

Post by chris1089 »

Idk, doesn't make sense. But maybe she just doesn't know what she's doing?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

Yes that seems to be the case but for some reason some pros including Garrett himself are very suspicious of her (just look at his face right after the hand lol) and he's even gone as far as to say he's 100% sure she cheated. Doug Polk threw a 90% in there. She ended up giving Garrett the money back off stream to calm him down.

To be fair it is a completely insane call, and with her level of experience (not total beginner) and high level coaching it does seem very odd that she would make it, but hey, some people are just so dumb that even with xp and coaching they still have no clue how to play. None of her explanations about why she called ever made sense but the worst of it is that her story kept changing post-stream, starting with "I thought I had a 3" then when she realized she very clearly checks her hand just before calling it went to "I wasn't playing my cards just the player" etc.

Embarrassing for everyone involved
User avatar
Latvia harcha
Gendarme
Posts: 5136
Joined: Jul 2, 2015
ESO: hatamoto_samurai

Re: Poker

Post by harcha »

Recently we were playing poker with high school buddies and I misread the turn because I didn't have my glasses. Thought I had trips but didn't. Maybe she is dumb the same way I am. But it is an insane call.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

If she had misread anything she would've said so. In fact that was her first story, but it quickly became unbelievable when people pointed out she clearly checks her hand before calling. So she moved on to other explanations that are equally poor. She hasn't quite been able to find it in herself to admit that it was just a dumb play. She keeps saying she outplayed Garrett, had a read on him etc. She probably genuinely believes that I guess.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

Thoughts @Garja @don_artie
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Poker

Post by Goodspeed »

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/n ... st57848911
Suddenly looking a lot more likely there was cheating. /r/poker sentiment completely flipped, Garrett went from "bitch crybaby" to "absolute legend"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV