Warning: Nodelocking until the solver approves your punt may cause side effects such as overconfidence, regret, and serious bankroll depletion. Use this tactic sparingly, and if you find yourself punting too often, please consult the nearest local poker strategy expert. Thank you for using GTO Wizard! 😌
Jayyyseeeeeeerr we were waiting for you! I like the bluff i think its a very underbluff spot over all. I expect the overfolds of AT-A8 too but I also think that some players might over call with AQ without blocker. Besides it is an underbluff spot, some player might think that you need to call with more hands than flush, AA, A4-A5 and JJ low frequency. They could perceive AQ as a decent bluffcatcher, obviously its marginal, but i think its easy to make a mistake with the frequencies.
Calling AQo with a blocker is not an over call in theory or in practice: solver calls all those combos plus some combos without the blocker. If we expect that the villain folds those non-obvious bluff catchers, then the shot must be fired ;)
Thanks for the video. If you suspect that SB does not have a donking range, it means that his range still contains all the flushes once he checks river which means our bluff EV is going to be lower,; and that also means that IP's value threshold is higher since OOP's range is stronger (compared to someone who donk flushes otr), which also means that we cannot bluff as much proportionately to value, unless we intend to overbluff ofc.
That's right but only if we are talking about the balanced GTO strategy. If we assume that our opponent is not going to call down enough hands, then our own range doesn't matter and we can overbluff. Given that he didn't take any time on the river to think about leading (or to balance his timing tells) it looks like his understanding of the spot is rather intuitive which doesn't assume bluff catching AQo AT A9 etc here like the solver does.
Im not sure if or what im doing wrong but all my studies for spots like this it never goes crazy with raising once i nodelock OOP to overcbet/rangebet it just starts floating tons can someone explain pls.
It depends on the spot and the tree that you have in your solver. I analyzed this board in both GTOwiz and SimplePostflop and results were pretty much the same
@@Jayser1337 but shouldnt be the outcome always be the same or atleast similar? I tried multiple different ranges with the same sizings but the adjustment after nodelocking always has been less raising then before and way more calling.
You cannot assume only one player makes the mistake to justify yoour play. I can make any play look like an awesome play just by making very specific assumptions. If you assume mistakes in the opponent you equally have to analyze the your own tendencies and assess the true range you get to river with. Are you getting there with the same number of flushes as solver? Do you have those 66,65, at such high freq? You are making an assumption where you folding a ton of the opponents range. The calling range when from 62% to 51%. That’s like a 20% over fold. Folding 3 combos when opponents calling range is so narrow is a big assumption. If you folded say even AQ, you see your range bluffing even A7 if you had it. Bluffing A7 to fold out AQ isn’t sound poker in real life in the long run KT is pretty horrible even with the massive nodelock you did. It had an adjusted EV of 10? But a hand like 66 was 15. 1.5x diff. Analysis of how of good the play also has to be done relative to other combos. I think this type of coaching is dangerous.
Hi Jack, thanks for such a detailed post, it touches some valid points, indeed. You've mentioned that in poker almost any play can be justified which leads to false conclusions, therefore we must be very careful with making our assumptions and watch out for logical errors and biases. At the same time we must remember that poker is a game of humans, not solvers. That's why when we play against the real opponents the individual reads on them or on the similar player profiles are more important that the pure GTO/Equilibrium model. In the hand that I've played against the given type of opponent I believe my reads are justified by the experience and field research. Sure, we never know if those assumptions are correct - maybe they are not and we'll feel silly by getting overcalled in the spot where we went for maximizing our FE, only the long term results will be the judge. Also I'd like to emphasize that such play is not standard and this is NOT something I recommend to do in the vacuum. This hand was shown for recreational purposes to demonstrate my decision making process. It's a highly exploitable play based on my reads(which, as mention before, could be wrong), so please, don't perform similar exploits unless you have the reads and conviction. And good luck at the tables!
Good to see that even top regs use the good old strategy of nodelocking until solver approves your punt.
Haha wanted to comment the same
Warning: Nodelocking until the solver approves your punt may cause side effects such as overconfidence, regret, and serious bankroll depletion. Use this tactic sparingly, and if you find yourself punting too often, please consult the nearest local poker strategy expert. Thank you for using GTO Wizard! 😌
@@GTOWizard 😂😂😂 you have time for humour omg. Wizard you are so nuts 🥰😂
Jayyyseeeeeeerr we were waiting for you! I like the bluff i think its a very underbluff spot over all. I expect the overfolds of AT-A8 too but I also think that some players might over call with AQ without blocker.
Besides it is an underbluff spot, some player might think that you need to call with more hands than flush, AA, A4-A5 and JJ low frequency. They could perceive AQ as a decent bluffcatcher, obviously its marginal, but i think its easy to make a mistake with the frequencies.
Calling AQo with a blocker is not an over call in theory or in practice: solver calls all those combos plus some combos without the blocker. If we expect that the villain folds those non-obvious bluff catchers, then the shot must be fired ;)
Thanks for the video. If you suspect that SB does not have a donking range, it means that his range still contains all the flushes once he checks river which means our bluff EV is going to be lower,; and that also means that IP's value threshold is higher since OOP's range is stronger (compared to someone who donk flushes otr), which also means that we cannot bluff as much proportionately to value, unless we intend to overbluff ofc.
That's right but only if we are talking about the balanced GTO strategy. If we assume that our opponent is not going to call down enough hands, then our own range doesn't matter and we can overbluff. Given that he didn't take any time on the river to think about leading (or to balance his timing tells) it looks like his understanding of the spot is rather intuitive which doesn't assume bluff catching AQo AT A9 etc here like the solver does.
Excellent video as usual. Thanks Jayser
Nice video bro!! I like this style
Great video! Would be awesome with more HH breakdowns in this format!
SERGI we missed you. Welcome back
Jayser u r the best….unfortunately i am one of the worst
Im not sure if or what im doing wrong but all my studies for spots like this it never goes crazy with raising once i nodelock OOP to overcbet/rangebet it just starts floating tons can someone explain pls.
It depends on the spot and the tree that you have in your solver. I analyzed this board in both GTOwiz and SimplePostflop and results were pretty much the same
@@Jayser1337 but shouldnt be the outcome always be the same or atleast similar? I tried multiple different ranges with the same sizings but the adjustment after nodelocking always has been less raising then before and way more calling.
Nice bluff Jayser 🔥
please make video about sizes of fish players, something like you did in gtowizard pt2, thanks
This is something I've been working on for a while but I don't plan to make it in a TH-cam format
@@Jayser1337 please make any video about recreational players, because its unique content in poker community and you are very good at it
Beautiful hand
So basically it's not spew if it gets through (...more than 39% of the time lol)
S tier hand break down ❤
would u bluff this combo on a blank river?
Yeah, seems like one of the best candidates to bluff
Cool!
You say that AQ doesn't pay them?
I wouldn't discount AQo with a flush blocker from the bluff catching range, but other AQs or AQo combos are highly likely to overfold
👍
You cannot assume only one player makes the mistake to justify yoour play. I can make any play look like an awesome play just by making very specific assumptions. If you assume mistakes in the opponent you equally have to analyze the your own tendencies and assess the true range you get to river with. Are you getting there with the same number of flushes as solver? Do you have those 66,65, at such high freq?
You are making an assumption where you folding a ton of the opponents range. The calling range when from 62% to 51%. That’s like a 20% over fold. Folding 3 combos when opponents calling range is so narrow is a big assumption. If you folded say even AQ, you see your range bluffing even A7 if you had it. Bluffing A7 to fold out AQ isn’t sound poker in real life in the long run
KT is pretty horrible even with the massive nodelock you did. It had an adjusted EV of 10? But a hand like 66 was 15. 1.5x diff.
Analysis of how of good the play also has to be done relative to other combos. I think this type of coaching is dangerous.
Hi Jack, thanks for such a detailed post, it touches some valid points, indeed. You've mentioned that in poker almost any play can be justified which leads to false conclusions, therefore we must be very careful with making our assumptions and watch out for logical errors and biases.
At the same time we must remember that poker is a game of humans, not solvers. That's why when we play against the real opponents the individual reads on them or on the similar player profiles are more important that the pure GTO/Equilibrium model.
In the hand that I've played against the given type of opponent I believe my reads are justified by the experience and field research. Sure, we never know if those assumptions are correct - maybe they are not and we'll feel silly by getting overcalled in the spot where we went for maximizing our FE, only the long term results will be the judge.
Also I'd like to emphasize that such play is not standard and this is NOT something I recommend to do in the vacuum. This hand was shown for recreational purposes to demonstrate my decision making process. It's a highly exploitable play based on my reads(which, as mention before, could be wrong), so please, don't perform similar exploits unless you have the reads and conviction. And good luck at the tables!