One quick question: If one says „Player A has MORE very strong hands than player B“, does that mean „he has a very strong hand more often than his opponent does“ or „he has more combos of very strong hands in his range than his opponent has in his range?“ (e.g. 20% very strong vs 15% very strong / one has 18 combos of boats vs one has 8 combos of boars, regardless of the proportion it takes in the overall range?
Me too. It's fascinating how things have changed over the last decade. All this new information has gotten me interested in poker again. I'm studying new ICM and strategies from solvers and going to try playing live.
BOL! Horrible players at the micros and Aggros at MID. sometimes it pisses me off when I get called off with 95 and my AQ+ loses. *shrug* it is what it is
17:24 Can somebody share an example of a board / hand you’d like for this point? like lets say flop is 76ss Jc then turned 2h river Kd. if we have the JdAs as the caller I’m guessing we’re “blocking the missed flush draw” right? And why is that good? If our opponents shouldn’t be bluffing with the missed flush doesn’t that just mean it’s more likely they’re bluffing? Or is the point that since we’re blocking the missed flush it’s more likely they’re bluffing with a different kind of hand? Maybe my example was kind of bad. I didn’t want to give hero top pair great kicker and make it too obvious of a call like I wanted it to be a hand where blockers were fairly relevant.
On step five you mention not wanting to barrel KQss when you don’t turn a flush draw because you block auto folds. we typically like barreling KQ because we block KJ and QJ though right? What would love to see frequencies for barreling each suit of KQs after that flop and when the turn bricks.
In that case then yes absolutely. In ANY scenario in all of poker when you’re the OOP preflop aggressor and your range is forced to check a bunch on the flop, you will follow it up with a solid x/r strategy. The trick is knowing which hands want to x/r!
@@garyblackwoodpokerinteresting I was a keen follower of DougPolk-DN Hu challenge I don't recall much of OOP checking, esp when it's a >3bet pre , there were quite a bit of cbetting Wouldn't OOP checking be less frequent in HU given both players are playing large % of their hands ? (And so you need to valuebet more?)
not bad. A lot of this sounds like moving the goal posts. A new strat to counter the old. How long before the old counters the new or we start talking about 3 betting the flop as the new norm? This also explains why pots are getting so big so fast.
It's about getting as close to equilibrium as possible. If someone is 3 getting the flop too often, they're going to lose a lot of money to someone playing closer to GTO
Having lived through both those eras, this was so good, that it made me feel very old. One point though: i thinkg your suggested river small block bet range was exploitable. Opp can raise way wider when facing that small block bet.
Mike, I have a suggestion - your audio is clipping on every episode. It grates on the ears quite a bit. Dialling that back would sound much better. Other than that, these episodes are gold.
"Fold to live to fold again"...... Stu Ungar was calling as light then as a solver calls today. And he was as gangster and aggressive then as a solver is today. The best player of all time because of this. "When the cards are dealt I just want to destroy people" ..... Stu Ungar too
@@Samuel88853 Yes and because solvers didn't exist players didn't know how to defend their ranges against such a gangster strategy. And thats why Ungar won 3 Main Events of the WSOP (2 on a row).
Bart Hanson says larger bets work better for him in live cash games. Small bets can also often trigger a raise from players who perceive them as weakness.
I'm finding this to be true at small stakes MTTs as well. 33% pot is treated like weakness and bad players get station-ey with all kinds of garbage, but closer to 50% prompts more predictable actions and ranges so I tend towards that size for "small" bets. I also size up larger bets accordingly. I try to identify which players know when to use proper bet sizing (preflop raise sizes are great indicators) and use the correct smaller bets against them.
K, I don't understand these but I'm only at part1, what exactly is betting initiative? I guess this vid applies to high and mid stakes? It's not plus ev from a bleeding edge or low stakes live level to say there's no such thing as non donk bets when opponents are playing scared money while also sitting out for pay checks and cold calling with air or some weird combo hands.
Can someone ELI5 why nut advantage has importance comparable to equity advantage? If I have lower equity than my opponent but also I have nut advantage, mechanically speaking why would that nut advantage sometimes counteract the equity disadvantage?
I'm having trouble seeing how solvers have proven that initiative is no longer a thing. 1) all the solvers that I'm aware of don't know who the preflop raiser is when solving postflop, like don't they just try to maximize from a starting pot at postflop? how can they prove something doesn't exist when it's not even a factor they recognize? 2) Even if the solvers are correct, humans have problems facing aggression and tend to make mistakes when put into difficult situations, only against the most elite players would I think that initiative would stop being a thing. As an example look at Addamo's style and how hard it is for even the elite to properly play against hyperaggression.
On many boards the aggressor should give up with missed FDs on the river as they block the most likely folds for the opponent. Think of a board like JT6 with a flushdraw where the turn and river brick (don’t compete the flushdraw). If the aggressor bet flop and turn, then some of the first hands that the caller arrives to the river with that will now fold are going to be missed flush draws. This means that as the caller when we have a card that is the same suit of the missed flushdraw (say a hand like AT with the ace matching the suit of the on board flush draw) we actually make it more likely that the bettor has a bluff. Obviously this concept is highly sensitive to your opponent’s strategy. Sometimes it’s very appropriate to bluff with missed flushdraws, and some people will tend towards bluffing missed flushdraws even when they would be better served to give up. In those instances calling with a hand that blocks the missed flush draw becomes much worse.
@@NateKantnerMusic it depends. On some boards you'll be very deficient for bluffs and so you will have to still bluff missed flush draws. But on a board where you have a variety of bluffs to choose from, the missed flush draws should be among the first to be excluded from the bluffing range.
@@michaelalper8651 in practice, against opponents who don't know they should be giving up with flush draws, it's bad to block the flush. But at equilibrium (aka solver poker), it is good to have the missed flush draw when facing a bet because you unblock bluffs (i.e. they're supposed to be giving up if they have the missed flush draw you block). Key note though: against low stakes opponents this is not very relevant because they'll probably still bluff with the missed flush draw.
I think you have to x/r K with decent kickers, x/c K with bad kickers and other pairs, x/r two pairs, sets, oesd and some backdoors and cbet mainly air?
First point of number five is very confusing to me.. mainly the latter half. We want to call more when we have a missed flush draw because we block their missed flush draws. They shouldn't be bluffing their missed flush draws so they are more likely to bluff with other air here? It's really confusing to me.
If they don't bluff their missed flush draws, that means by having a missed flush draw yourself you "unblock" their bluffs -- i.e. it's a bit more likely they're bluffing. That said, many opponents still bluff with the missed flush draws, so in practice it may actually still be bad to call when you block the missed flush draw. It depends on your opponent. Good players will know not to bluff the missed flush draws, but most players don't.
@@UpswingPoker if u hav the A spades then u r blocking a bunch of floats on a spade flush board, so he would be less likely to be bluffing, not more likely.
@@asdffdsafdsa123 they are not "supposed" to bluff those hands, so in solver land having the A of spades (for example) unblocks their bluffs. As mentioned above, though, in practice you're right that it will just mean they're less likely to be bluffing. You have to be playing against a top player or a computer for this mechanic to "work" as the solver says.
@@UpswingPoker I am puzzled by this too. I think the idea is that holding a hand that they would bluff with makes it less likely their bet is a bluff because you removed that combo from the range of hands they would bet with. And so holding a hand they would *not* bluff with makes it more likely their bet is a bluff because their remaining combos include more bluffs? I think the question I still have is whether it also makes a value bet from them more likely? If you block their non-bluff range but also their value range with the same hand - let's say KhJh on a Jack high board with two hearts - the % chance their bet is a bluff seems higher but the % chance their hand beats yours (AhJh, pocket Jacks, two pair etc.) is also higher? Can anyone clarify this?
What you say in 17:20 doesnt make any sense at all. Obviously low stakes players arent going to apply that logic , because 95% of people in lowstakes dont know that they shouldn't bluff miss flush draws.
It absolutely makes sense. That's how the solver treats missed flush draw hands at equilibrium. I agree that against low stakes players, who probably don't know to give up with missed flush draws, having the flush blocked becomes bad again because they probably bluff with it.
What you said doesn't contradict what was said in the show. At that timestamp Gary basically says it's mainly mid and high stakes players who understand that concept. He said "some" low stakes players understand. Assuming your 95% guess is accurate, 5% would be "some"
Yeah... much like ALL the content Ive seen (so far) on the topic, this video doesnt explain the fundamentals per se. (It does a MUCH BETTER job at talking about the concepts using plane english). Sure, if you're already fluent in GTO all of what they say makes sense. But if not, there are basics on where to improve this type of content. For example; #3. how is the % of Equity Advantage calculated? Indeed what does the % even mean?
We highly recommend checking out our extensive blog on upswingpoker.com/blog! We have a ton of great content that will help you learn about concepts like range advantage. For example, here's our article about the different types of advantages: upswingpoker.com/nut-range-positional-advantage/ To quickly answer your question, equity advantage (AKA range advantage) is simply who's range of possible hands has a higher percent chance of winning versus the opposing range of possible hands. The % is how often that player would win if we just ran out the rest of the board and see who had the best hand.
This is all great theoretical information. And as @skellington2000 pointed out, GTO and good game theory only works on people who understand what good game theory is. But even then, if they understand you are playing a GTO style they can adjust and exploit it. So GTO and understanding GTO is a great base for playing the game. But if you aren't studying your table, opponents and the dynamics of both in real time and attempt to exploit what is going on, then you aren't actually playing optimally. I think that is one concept that goes largely misunderstood for most poker players. A maniac sitting at your table and what position they are in and what position they have on your has a massive effect on table dynamic and how you are going to play your hands. If all you are doing is playing GTO against a maniac from out of position consistently, you are most certainly going to get crushed unless you find an insane amount of run good.
GTO means that nobody can exploit you. Is an unexploitable strategy by definition. If they understand that you are playing GTO how they will adjust and exploited you?
ya bottom guy cause of his accent, is mumbling, talking way to fast - this isn't a conversation it is supposed to be instructional - he slow down and enunciate better
I reeeealy don't want to be that guy, but I just can't watch this content with M.Brady. I'm sure he's a fantastic guy and many people love him, but for me it's a big no. I don't even know what it is. Perhaps, it's just this overly animated talking and moving for me as an introverted person. Obviously, no one forces me to watch the videos; I'm really only writing this because there is a chance a lot of people share my opinion. I love the project, wish you guys all the best. Gary for me is a great host. Hopefully, this is not taken personal, just meant as a friendly advice.
Learn all about the new PioSOLVER Crash Course upswingpoker.com/piosolver-crash-course/
One quick question: If one says „Player A has MORE very strong hands than player B“, does that mean „he has a very strong hand more often than his opponent does“ or „he has more combos of very strong hands in his range than his opponent has in his range?“ (e.g. 20% very strong vs 15% very strong / one has 18 combos of boats vs one has 8 combos of boars, regardless of the proportion it takes in the overall range?
Been out of playing professionally for about 12 years. Thanks for the perfect and not excessively long video to update me on how the game has shifted!
Me too. It's fascinating how things have changed over the last decade. All this new information has gotten me interested in poker again. I'm studying new ICM and strategies from solvers and going to try playing live.
What do you do after having been a professional poker player? Just curious
Love this content. The moment I bink a big one, an upswing poker subscription is being purchased.
we'll see you in the Lab soon, Matthew!
Really great video, I don’t know how to use solvers but these concepts are helpful in improving my game
This was really helpful as someone thats taken a break for the last 6 years and wanting to start online again
BOL! Horrible players at the micros and Aggros at MID. sometimes it pisses me off when I get called off with 95 and my AQ+ loses. *shrug* it is what it is
How's that going? Did you start playing again?
17:24 Can somebody share an example of a board / hand you’d like for this point? like lets say flop is 76ss Jc then turned 2h river Kd. if we have the JdAs as the caller I’m guessing we’re “blocking the missed flush draw” right? And why is that good? If our opponents shouldn’t be bluffing with the missed flush doesn’t that just mean it’s more likely they’re bluffing? Or is the point that since we’re blocking the missed flush it’s more likely they’re bluffing with a different kind of hand?
Maybe my example was kind of bad. I didn’t want to give hero top pair great kicker and make it too obvious of a call like I wanted it to be a hand where blockers were fairly relevant.
What do you do if they call your check raise
(09:36 Playing Out of Position as Pre-Flop Raiser)
Fantastic!
Great stuff Upswing!
Thank you for this information UpswingPoker!
2003 be like „don’t bet if you can‘t call a raise“
2023 be like „XR your air to fold out better air“
That one famous hand between Ivey and Jackson happened 20 years ago, not entirely a new concept
Sorry for screaming my intro I'm just so excited to talk to all my best friends (youtube commenters)
Keep screaming... no worries...we luv vids
♥️
I still don’t understand solvers
My best strategy is to learn solvers , and claim your own game within that game because you know most people are using this method
Awesome!
On step five you mention not wanting to barrel KQss when you don’t turn a flush draw because you block auto folds. we typically like barreling KQ because we block KJ and QJ though right? What would love to see frequencies for barreling each suit of KQs after that flop and when the turn bricks.
Does that out of position check-raise strat apply to heads up as well?
which timestamp?
@@garyblackwoodpoker I think he's talking about the frequent checking OOP to check-raise as PFR.
In that case then yes absolutely. In ANY scenario in all of poker when you’re the OOP preflop aggressor and your range is forced to check a bunch on the flop, you will follow it up with a solid x/r strategy. The trick is knowing which hands want to x/r!
@@garyblackwoodpoker Thanks guys! 🙏
@@garyblackwoodpokerinteresting I was a keen follower of DougPolk-DN Hu challenge
I don't recall much of OOP checking, esp when it's a >3bet pre , there were quite a bit of cbetting
Wouldn't OOP checking be less frequent in HU given both players are playing large % of their hands ? (And so you need to valuebet more?)
PIO 🐐
Thx for the vid ! Do these apply in cash as well as tournament and vs any opponent (especially rec players) ?
About point number 6: can you suggest the most two common (one for the block, the other for the big bet) sizes as a % of the pot? Thanks.
I use 30 and 150 but it doesnt really matter. 25 120 or 33 200 works fine as well, just got to adjust your ranges
what the previous commenter said is a great answer, I have nothing to add
not bad. A lot of this sounds like moving the goal posts. A new strat to counter the old. How long before the old counters the new or we start talking about 3 betting the flop as the new norm? This also explains why pots are getting so big so fast.
It's about getting as close to equilibrium as possible. If someone is 3 getting the flop too often, they're going to lose a lot of money to someone playing closer to GTO
Wtf r u on about? A lot of these strats are equilibrium so they can’t be exploited in balance.
Having lived through both those eras, this was so good, that it made me feel very old. One point though: i thinkg your suggested river small block bet range was exploitable. Opp can raise way wider when facing that small block bet.
it's extremely important to have very strong hands in your small block bet range for this reason. If you don't, you are very exploitable.
@@mbradycf Thank you
Mike, I have a suggestion - your audio is clipping on every episode. It grates on the ears quite a bit. Dialling that back would sound much better. Other than that, these episodes are gold.
"Fold to live to fold again"...... Stu Ungar was calling as light then as a solver calls today.
And he was as gangster and aggressive then as a solver is today.
The best player of all time because of this.
"When the cards are dealt I just want to destroy people" ..... Stu Ungar too
True. There have always been very genius players that have used many of these strategies before solvers.
@@Samuel88853 Yes and because solvers didn't exist players didn't know how to defend their ranges against such a gangster strategy. And thats why Ungar won 3 Main Events of the WSOP (2 on a row).
Bart Hanson says larger bets work better for him in live cash games. Small bets can also often trigger a raise from players who perceive them as weakness.
I'm finding this to be true at small stakes MTTs as well. 33% pot is treated like weakness and bad players get station-ey with all kinds of garbage, but closer to 50% prompts more predictable actions and ranges so I tend towards that size for "small" bets. I also size up larger bets accordingly.
I try to identify which players know when to use proper bet sizing (preflop raise sizes are great indicators) and use the correct smaller bets against them.
small bet sizes are for better players, great hand readers
Thanks guys
Next topic can we get Monotone flops please? Thanks !!!!
K, I don't understand these but I'm only at part1, what exactly is betting initiative? I guess this vid applies to high and mid stakes? It's not plus ev from a bleeding edge or low stakes live level to say there's no such thing as non donk bets when opponents are playing scared money while also sitting out for pay checks and cold calling with air or some weird combo hands.
Can someone ELI5 why nut advantage has importance comparable to equity advantage? If I have lower equity than my opponent but also I have nut advantage, mechanically speaking why would that nut advantage sometimes counteract the equity disadvantage?
I'm having trouble seeing how solvers have proven that initiative is no longer a thing. 1) all the solvers that I'm aware of don't know who the preflop raiser is when solving postflop, like don't they just try to maximize from a starting pot at postflop? how can they prove something doesn't exist when it's not even a factor they recognize? 2) Even if the solvers are correct, humans have problems facing aggression and tend to make mistakes when put into difficult situations, only against the most elite players would I think that initiative would stop being a thing. As an example look at Addamo's style and how hard it is for even the elite to properly play against hyperaggression.
"Try to decide how good your hand is at a given moment. Nothing else matters. Nothing.”
Doyle Brunson
I don't understand why it's good to block missed flush draws when calling on the river. Could someone explain the concept
I get why having the Ace of spades would be more neutral then previously thought, but describing it as "really good" is what confuses me.
this one confuses me too. If we shouldn't bluff river with missed flush draws, what are we triple barrel bluffing with on 2-flush boards?
On many boards the aggressor should give up with missed FDs on the river as they block the most likely folds for the opponent. Think of a board like JT6 with a flushdraw where the turn and river brick (don’t compete the flushdraw). If the aggressor bet flop and turn, then some of the first hands that the caller arrives to the river with that will now fold are going to be missed flush draws. This means that as the caller when we have a card that is the same suit of the missed flushdraw (say a hand like AT with the ace matching the suit of the on board flush draw) we actually make it more likely that the bettor has a bluff.
Obviously this concept is highly sensitive to your opponent’s strategy. Sometimes it’s very appropriate to bluff with missed flushdraws, and some people will tend towards bluffing missed flushdraws even when they would be better served to give up. In those instances calling with a hand that blocks the missed flush draw becomes much worse.
@@NateKantnerMusic it depends. On some boards you'll be very deficient for bluffs and so you will have to still bluff missed flush draws. But on a board where you have a variety of bluffs to choose from, the missed flush draws should be among the first to be excluded from the bluffing range.
@@michaelalper8651 in practice, against opponents who don't know they should be giving up with flush draws, it's bad to block the flush. But at equilibrium (aka solver poker), it is good to have the missed flush draw when facing a bet because you unblock bluffs (i.e. they're supposed to be giving up if they have the missed flush draw you block).
Key note though: against low stakes opponents this is not very relevant because they'll probably still bluff with the missed flush draw.
Gazzy b my hero
Basically all these things solvers do is what experienced poker players have been doing long before solvers came around.
13:44 how is SB supposed to X this board 65% of the time?
I think you have to x/r K with decent kickers, x/c K with bad kickers and other pairs, x/r two pairs, sets, oesd and some backdoors and cbet mainly air?
I’m before the lock
First point of number five is very confusing to me.. mainly the latter half. We want to call more when we have a missed flush draw because we block their missed flush draws. They shouldn't be bluffing their missed flush draws so they are more likely to bluff with other air here? It's really confusing to me.
If they don't bluff their missed flush draws, that means by having a missed flush draw yourself you "unblock" their bluffs -- i.e. it's a bit more likely they're bluffing.
That said, many opponents still bluff with the missed flush draws, so in practice it may actually still be bad to call when you block the missed flush draw. It depends on your opponent. Good players will know not to bluff the missed flush draws, but most players don't.
@@UpswingPoker but why is he more likely to be bluffing if it is less likely that he has a missed flush draw?
@@UpswingPoker if u hav the A spades then u r blocking a bunch of floats on a spade flush board, so he would be less likely to be bluffing, not more likely.
@@asdffdsafdsa123 they are not "supposed" to bluff those hands, so in solver land having the A of spades (for example) unblocks their bluffs.
As mentioned above, though, in practice you're right that it will just mean they're less likely to be bluffing. You have to be playing against a top player or a computer for this mechanic to "work" as the solver says.
@@UpswingPoker I am puzzled by this too. I think the idea is that holding a hand that they would bluff with makes it less likely their bet is a bluff because you removed that combo from the range of hands they would bet with. And so holding a hand they would *not* bluff with makes it more likely their bet is a bluff because their remaining combos include more bluffs?
I think the question I still have is whether it also makes a value bet from them more likely? If you block their non-bluff range but also their value range with the same hand - let's say KhJh on a Jack high board with two hearts - the % chance their bet is a bluff seems higher but the % chance their hand beats yours (AhJh, pocket Jacks, two pair etc.) is also higher? Can anyone clarify this?
Oh my god I'm going to start XRing out of position so much and I'm going to fuck it up so bad.
can't hear half of what bottom guy is saying - talks to fast moves his head away from microphone and suddenly talks low
The poor audio on that microphone makes it harder to pay attention. Good topic though!
Chidwick makes a lot of small bets and big bets. He’s a great player imo…
🎉
Why don't you give any examples or create a standard 'example' corner to show a board/position and just make it concrete.
Is it possible to actually play against a solver? If so, where?
- Thanks.
We're coming out with a product later this year that will allow you to play against a high quality solver and get instant feedback on your play.
@@UpswingPoker I look forward to that. Do you know if there's one currently anywhere?
- Thanks.
I felt this small bets can be alot smaller and big bets have to be uge
betting small with a set all triggers the other dude to raise big
What you say in 17:20 doesnt make any sense at all. Obviously low stakes players arent going to apply that logic , because 95% of people in lowstakes dont know that they shouldn't bluff miss flush draws.
It absolutely makes sense. That's how the solver treats missed flush draw hands at equilibrium.
I agree that against low stakes players, who probably don't know to give up with missed flush draws, having the flush blocked becomes bad again because they probably bluff with it.
What you said doesn't contradict what was said in the show. At that timestamp Gary basically says it's mainly mid and high stakes players who understand that concept. He said "some" low stakes players understand. Assuming your 95% guess is accurate, 5% would be "some"
12 11 24
19 11 24
Yeah... much like ALL the content Ive seen (so far) on the topic, this video doesnt explain the fundamentals per se. (It does a MUCH BETTER job at talking about the concepts using plane english). Sure, if you're already fluent in GTO all of what they say makes sense. But if not, there are basics on where to improve this type of content. For example; #3. how is the % of Equity Advantage calculated? Indeed what does the % even mean?
We highly recommend checking out our extensive blog on upswingpoker.com/blog! We have a ton of great content that will help you learn about concepts like range advantage.
For example, here's our article about the different types of advantages: upswingpoker.com/nut-range-positional-advantage/
To quickly answer your question, equity advantage (AKA range advantage) is simply who's range of possible hands has a higher percent chance of winning versus the opposing range of possible hands. The % is how often that player would win if we just ran out the rest of the board and see who had the best hand.
@@UpswingPoker Hey! Wanna give you a shout out for that reply. Really clarified the concepts using clear language. Much respect!
This is all great theoretical information. And as @skellington2000 pointed out, GTO and good game theory only works on people who understand what good game theory is. But even then, if they understand you are playing a GTO style they can adjust and exploit it. So GTO and understanding GTO is a great base for playing the game. But if you aren't studying your table, opponents and the dynamics of both in real time and attempt to exploit what is going on, then you aren't actually playing optimally. I think that is one concept that goes largely misunderstood for most poker players. A maniac sitting at your table and what position they are in and what position they have on your has a massive effect on table dynamic and how you are going to play your hands. If all you are doing is playing GTO against a maniac from out of position consistently, you are most certainly going to get crushed unless you find an insane amount of run good.
GTO means that nobody can exploit you.
Is an unexploitable strategy by definition.
If they understand that you are playing GTO how they will adjust and exploited you?
\heck bro can possibly mumble and talk faster ?
just for you Bill, no
ya bottom guy cause of his accent, is mumbling, talking way to fast - this isn't a conversation it is supposed to be instructional - he slow down and enunciate better
There is no such thing as playing out-of-position. You simply play each position differently. That is how I look at it anyways.
interesting way to look at it!
All solvers do is teach intermediate players to be exploited
I reeeealy don't want to be that guy, but I just can't watch this content with M.Brady. I'm sure he's a fantastic guy and many people love him, but for me it's a big no. I don't even know what it is. Perhaps, it's just this overly animated talking and moving for me as an introverted person. Obviously, no one forces me to watch the videos; I'm really only writing this because there is a chance a lot of people share my opinion. I love the project, wish you guys all the best. Gary for me is a great host. Hopefully, this is not taken personal, just meant as a friendly advice.
what is the advice exactly? You want me to quit the podcast I produce?
No offense taken btw, different strokes for different folks.
Nice one boys! 🔥