This is hands down one of the most instructive poker videos I have ever watched. I really appreciate how well your experiments instructed the basic principles of how wide and how much to bet.
@GTOWizard, Please keep uploading coachings to your youtube channel, they're very valueable. Personally, i was searching good lecture about cbets for years!
This content is pure gold, however so much of this I struggle to see how I can apply in real time. Seems like I can spend hours and hours trying to understand these concepts they're soooo deep though. Watching these is great yet I feel these concepts even if I study them just go over my head and are impossible for me to apply in real time.
There's definitely a disconnect between theory and practice. I recommend our free study plan to help engrain the material. Hiring a coach can also be a great way to bridge that gap.
@@GTOWizard Appreciate the reply I've been a sub of the platform for awhile had to stop it the last two months will be back on it next month. The content is greatly appreciated.
You need to be really careful when you use solvers in postflop simulations such as bet continuation bet sizes. The overbet theorem in only valid if villian has that range. In order to have that range he needs to 3bet the best of his range and that not always happens
First comment on TH-cam, I think this lecture is so valuable although the content seems too easy. However, most players even don't understand the logics of the easy move.
love the overbet board example you used of ak5, I was just thinking of a hand where I raised in late position last night with pocket fours, flopped a set on ak4, played small ball, 10 on the turn, and villain turned the straight with qj of course. very timely. next time I will overbet
On the AK5 one, if I’m reading the chart correctly, you could turn your hand face up (with one of the hands it wants you to overbet). You just want them to fold, period, is what it looks like. Realizing the equity now is what it’s all about. It looks like they’re aren’t any bluffs in this overbetting size is why I’m saying this, again assuming I’ve read the chart correctly.
At 38:20 you mentioned "removing the trash range" in GTO Wizard. I'm not seeing how we can nodelock/alter ranges. Is that feature only available in beta internally?
I play low stakes live and one weapon I use on many games. Is the small min bet preflop it builds the pot on the turn and river it gets much value and it builds a image of a more actiony player while not using much chips .
the sb vs co 4bp spot was very interesting thank you so much. In general I see most villains just c-bet 1/10 pot 100% of the time... if that's the case then no need to donk correct? better to check, face the small c-bet, and then develop the polar raising range.
At 40:00, why do you only look at the made hands to figure out the fold equity? Seems to me like the fold equity is mainly useful to the non-made hands instead. Don't we need to look at our full range △equity vs villains folded hands?
I highly suggest watching "the mechanics of fold equity", this question of yours is answered there in detail and also this video is based upon that one
@@fedea82 I've seen it. I don't think it answers the question tho. I'll clearify. In my understanding fold equity is the amount of equity villain gives up by folding his foldingrange (vs our bettingrange). In order to check this equity we need to see how well his foldingrange does vs our whole bettingrange. Not just the part with made hands.
@@meiliswein FE in the way he thinks about it refers to equity of folding range vs our betting type of hand, not whole range. That's what is explained in the other video. And then he goes to show how this type of value influences sizings on the part that triggered your question on this vid, that's why he was focusing on made hands, since they are very influenced by this concept. Maybe focus on this, hopefully it will help: Air of course wants folds, and is almost dead vs folding range, but made hands differ in their equity vs folding range and how this value differs matters in regards to the EV of betting said type of hand, and the best sizing for it's bet. So for example nutted hands don't want folds, since their equity vs folding range is immense, but bottom of value range benefits more from folds ocassionally since equity vs folding range is lower (hence higher fold equity). To summarize: fold equity=equity of folding range vs hand, particularly against value portion of our range (since remember, air betting has always around same fold equity)
@Fede A I'm still unable to see the logic behind only showing the evs for the value part. (btw I also disagree about the FE referring to hand v range instead of range v range) To further clearify: You say our air wants folds. So that means the amount of air that can bet along with the made hands is an important factor in seeing how benificial the FE is. Right? That's why I don't get why we don't include that part when trying to analyse it.
@@meiliswein what drives sizing will be (among other factors) the FE of your value hands, not your air (the only roles of betting air is to make bluffcatchers indifferent or exploit nits after all). And in the case of playing balanced, the amount of air aggressing will be a consequence of sizing, it's not the other way around. FE of our made hands is why we increase sizing vs draw heavy ranges, but decrease it vs polar ranges, or on dry boards (where folding range is mostly air). It's the equity of folding range vs our made hands what determines the bet sizing (we will have air on every spot in poker but it has insignificant equity vs folding range by definition and aggresses as a consequence of chosen bet size, or to exploit nits of course, since vs them giving up any air becomes a dominated strategy).
This is wonderfully in depth but I am struggling to apply this to the drill that it is paired with on the study plan. How do I know the difference between a wet-board and a very wet-board? How do I decide between a 75% pot bet and a 50% bet... .especially when the drill treats one as the best move possible but the other as an absolute travesty? What is the percentage that I should aim to get on the drill before I move on? I've had to simplify the drill so I can work my way up to choosing a specific bet sizing once I get a sense of when to bet and when to check. I'd recommend to others who might find this part of the course go from 0 to 100 way faster than the pre-flop stuff did... especially when the drill expects you play out the turn and river on top of the flop!
Really enjoyed the video! At 10:00 your explanation why BTN would go all in with AJ on JT8 double suited made a lot of sense. One question I had was how BTN's strategy with AJo would change as the effective stack size got deeper, for example 500bb. Would BTN still be able to over bet 1-2x on the flop in this spot or would BTN need to opt for smaller sizing, say 0.75-1x in this spot with AJo
Over bets are not preferred the deeper the stacks and especially so when out of position. Here the opponent can reapply maximum pressure on draws which is what over bets are likely to destroy at 100bb effective stacks. Your intent of the over bet is also to help destroy turn card equity going to the river. In a 500bb game, that is essentially gone.
Just to reiterate a point. You can still over bet for value, just don't expect the same outcomes due to the massive stacks behind which would normally cap the opponents draw.
At 11 minutes the title of the slide says SB vs BB SRP but you’re actually discussing SB vs BTN 3bet pot. Not a big deal just wouldn’t want anyone confused
Tombos: You mentioned that what counts as a "middling sizing"--indeed, what size the bet counts as at all--is related to the SPR. I have an idea for a line of study that maybe you would find interesting or fruitful. First, I'd like to make an analogy to trigonometry. One convention for measuring the size of an angle is to express it in degrees, where 360 is one full rotation, and any measure of rotations is essentially a fraction denominated by 360. But that ends up being pretty arbitrary (why 360 as opposed to some other number?). The convention of measuring angles in radians arose later in mathematics, which defined angles in a way that was more organically related to a circle. Radians essentially measure what the length of the arc in a circle of radius 1 is captured by the angle at the center of the circle. It turns out, this way of looking at circles and angles allows trigonometry to connect organically to lots of other branches of mathematics. The turn to poker: it turns out, simply measuring bet sizes as a fraction denominated by the size of the pot screens out a lot of information that we now realize is quite relevant to sizing choice. It doesn't take into account SPR or how to efficiently polarize, and so ends up being a little arbitrary upon closer examination. Maybe we should start standardizing bet sizings across situations as being in some way related to the geometric sizing for that street. It might end up as a straightforward fraction, maybe as some kind of logarithmic relationship, I don't know. But do you think that that would help us make sense of similar situations across different SPRs that look similar but use different sizings? Just a thoroughly theoretical thought. Would be curious what you think.
That's an interesting point, Stephen. Transforming bet sizes into a universal standard, like geometric sizing, could be useful for comparing different spots. I came up with this formula e = log(2 SPR + 1) / log(2 Bet + 1) Where SPR is the stack to pot ratio, Bet is the bet size as a percentage of the pot, and 'e' is the number of equal bet sizes needed to get stacks in.
This was absolutely FANTASTIC So in sum would you say the “vulnerable nut theorem” is more or less correct? I had just come to the conclusion last week that large bet sizing was generally caused by: (A) Nut advantage (B) need for “protection” (C) degree of expected interaction of opponent’s range with the board.
That seems like a reasonable heuristic! The vulnerable nut theorum isn't always correct (there are very few hard rules in poker), but it's a common overbet indicator.
So, after reviewing this video and hitting the table with it in my mind, proceeded to bet much larger than I normally do, won some flips, got a runner-runner (or two) and picked my spots aaaaand binked a local tourney thanks so much for your help; stoked to review your other videos as a follow-up, I know gto by definition is a 'balanced' strategy but could you please clarify how the strategy outlined in regards to betting larger when you are vulnerable doesn't make you place a bit face-up though? or do we balance it with nut blockers and draws?
I think you are mostly there. When I think about this, I think about how to apply the most pressure while still remaining somewhat deceptive to perceptive opponents. The key to any winning formula is to not do the exact same thing in every situation unless your opponents are just oblivious. A soft home game is example you can play straightforward. Also, if you are playing in such a way that it not easy to tell what you are doing then it is fine to play somewhat straightforward. For normal games where opponents are perceptive, it is important to think about what range they put you in just as much as you put your range on an opponent. That should guide your decision on how to best play the hand. That being said, you will need some over bet bluffs to protect the top of your over bet range. It is probably best formulated by utilizing blockers and semi-bluffs as cover but can also be viable with the occasional complete air in favorable circumstances (weak opponent, very wet board vs pre-flop raiser, etc) Also, don't preclude the fact that if a small or middle bet can induce a raise, then you can also make the most out of your equity advantage when over bets are preferred. Those small or middle bets can then provide cover for later action and protect your top and bottom ranges. Just don't forget to balance these out as well or it will scream monster.
When we overbet in situations where we are ahead of most of villains range but don't have tons of equity like with 9s on an 8-high board, what are we balancing this with, or are we fine with turning our hand face up since we just want to realize our equity without a struggle?
To clarify, betting geometrically will maximize villain's calling range, if you plan to get all the chips in by the river. This is the optimal betting strategy in polarized vs bluff-catcher toy games. instagram.com/p/CXlr-79P5tJ/
Thanks for sharing. Many slides could use far less text and more Plots, Diagrams, Tables, Symbols, Flop examples representing different textures etc. I find it hard to follow, if everything is just text and speech. And i assume thats not only me.
What would be an example of 'Villain has many hands with reasonable equity against the top of your range'? like Villain has flush draw and I have top pair?
Draw-heavy boards, for example two connected cards with a flush draw provides many hands in villain's range the chance to outdraw your top pair+ holdings.
Hello. I bought a sub for MTTs because I think this is the best app hands down in the market. I would like to know if you will do weekly coachings for MTTs as well not only cash games. These free ones are very valuable to tournaments as well but will there be any premium MTT coachings too?
Hello, thank you! Yes, we are currently looking for an MTT coach. Starting next week, we will likely let MTT users access cash premium coachings until we find a new coach just for MTTs.
Looks like a great concept, but there are a couple of things missing. One, ability to adjust how many sizes for the cbet we want. In theory having 3 sizes for every street is great, but in practice it's just not. Unless you are playing nl10k, it's also not necessary. Yes, some EV will be lost, but it doesn't matter. Some EV is lost with 3 sizes as well (comparing to let's say balanced 5 sizes). Besides that, I'm not sure what are the capabilities to adjust certain things like disabling limp on SB (it's silly that solver suggest it in the first place), or preflop ranges, or what sizing we want to choose. The purpose of the soft is lost a bit it feels. It's great to see we should 4bet JTo 15.7% of times pre, but in practice, we would like to round the frequency. So yea, the idea is good, but the execution is meh. It doesn't really solve the purpose that it should. We are not robots.
How do you know how to respond against different bet sizes if you only solve one size? I hear what you're saying about the complexity, which is why we're working on adding simplified solutions that use one size per node. That way you can choose your style!
Why do you reverse the positions? Wouldnt that mean that BTN is openfolding like JJ+ there and other premiums? Whats the knowledge gain for such a scenario?
Hi , i understand the vulnerability of 99 on 853 but not im not understanding on AK5 with AJ, with this combo are we not interested in the call of hands like bdfd and stuff to take more value in future streets ?
The strategic incentives on AK5 are very different from 853, however the same overbet indicator exists on both (AJo is way ahead now, not so much later). Solvers typically prefer a large cbet strategy on AK5 type boards in SRP, mostly to try and maximize value with the top of their range in a spot where the defender can't counter.
Hi GTOWizard. Great video. Can you also apply this to games like spin and go, where it's 25bb deep? If i've got a hand like K9 on 984ss. Would a solver overbet here?
You can apply these concepts to any format. In the game you described stacks are shorter; the geometric size is closer to 62%, meaning you can get stacks in with a smaller size compared to 100bb single-raised pots. That said, I imagine K9 as well as overpairs are inclined to size up on this flop.
I struggle to replicate the preference for 300% pot overbetting on 853r in the SB vs BB spot. I am using monkersolver solved preflop ranges for the spot assuming no limping from SB. All the other spots I was able to replicate the general pattern outlined. Anyone know what might be going wrong? I have the correct SPR...
Using different rake structures, ranges, betting trees, and other factors can lead to different outputs. Read more here: blog.gtowizard.com/why-doesnt-my-solution-match-gto-wizard/
24:25 regarding this section here, you mention that the OOP caller in a 4bp is sometimes donk betting. is that something that you are ever realistically doing on the AhTc9h board to the PFR? It feels like one of those situations a solver is doing sometimes, but players just never will. Wouldn't your EV be pretty close to the same if you just checked it to the PFR who has both range and nut advantages? Are you really trying to get it in with AdJd or KhTh on that board? Because if you face a raise, you're in a situation where you are pretty much calling for stacks when you could be calling their small bet had you checked. It also almost feels like you're announcing your hand face up. I have trips, two pair, or the nut flush+broadway draw - all having loads of equity. It seems like this bet would either a) let villain get away from their weaker hands/take away their bluffs or b) get all your money in the pot with the nuts.
The only time this would backfire is if the 4bettor is too passive when you check. If they're gonna c-bet often then exploitatively it's better not to donk
All these concepts can be explained in a much simpler way with easy examples. Not sure why there is a need to make up complex terminology and useless "theorically" lingo and present complex graphs to make it sound like it's harder than it is. I come from IB and corporate finance world and you make Poker seem harder to understand than tax implications in a cross boarder M&A transaction. This channel will grow infinitely faster if it makes it more accessible with how it goes about explaining these rather simple concepts .. My honest teo cents
Wrestling with that idea of geometrical betting forcing villain to defend with widest possible range. Why doesn't their range widen more if we go smaller?
You're right that betting smaller means they defend wider, but the geometric size tries to get all chips in by the river, so you'd be forced to go much larger on later streets to achieve this.
Why give this for free? Not that we’re levels deep on certain tendencies of human nature but damn just let the donk look at his 2 cards and play them. Feels like I’m splitting hairs these days online.
How do you stay balanced in this spots where you are overbetting on 853 with 99+ or on AK5hh with AJ-AQ are you also overbetting with like QJh or something like that? i wouldnt know how to construct a range @GTOWizard
Try our software to see how to construct your range in these spots! A premium membership also grants you access to a large collection of private weekly coachings that may answer your questions.
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #7 SS9 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MFDRhuT4RAg/mqdefault.jpg)
Who knew that the OMC's shipping 3x pot on the flop with overpairs were actually playing optimally
The bluffing part of that range remains to be seen tho…😂
And the Min 4 bets with aces 🤣
Exactly
@@tambo776always
I do ..
As i know getting anyone calling 13.5% stack préflop IS ev dead for them if u have aces .
Just calculate ev and ull get those lines .
This is hands down one of the most instructive poker videos I have ever watched. I really appreciate how well your experiments instructed the basic principles of how wide and how much to bet.
@GTOWizard, Please keep uploading coachings to your youtube channel, they're very valueable. Personally, i was searching good lecture about cbets for years!
This was amazing, can’t believe it is free content! Felt like sitting in on a uni lecture!
You better believe it before he reads this and decide to charge us for it..
amazing work! you will blow up for sure. really well structured and easy to follow.
It is sad that my English is weak but good enough to feel like it is valuable content
This may be the most valuable free resource on the planet. Excellent work throughout these videos, you have helped me a ton.
This is one of the best Coaching videos worth watching several times. Love you, man.
One of the most insightful lecture series I have come across. Please make a video on exploitative calling range adjustments! Thank you!
Very comprehensive! It blows my mind! Definetely like it!
This content is pure gold, however so much of this I struggle to see how I can apply in real time. Seems like I can spend hours and hours trying to understand these concepts they're soooo deep though. Watching these is great yet I feel these concepts even if I study them just go over my head and are impossible for me to apply in real time.
There's definitely a disconnect between theory and practice. I recommend our free study plan to help engrain the material. Hiring a coach can also be a great way to bridge that gap.
@@GTOWizard Appreciate the reply I've been a sub of the platform for awhile had to stop it the last two months will be back on it next month. The content is greatly appreciated.
This is another brilliant one! Thanks for sharing GTOWizard.
This video is friggin amazing. Keep it up
You need to be really careful when you use solvers in postflop simulations such as bet continuation bet sizes. The overbet theorem in only valid if villian has that range. In order to have that range he needs to 3bet the best of his range and that not always happens
Awesome value 🔥💛
great stuff man, congrats
Impressive many thanks, great video!
incredible video! thank you so much for putting this up
Amazing video! A bit too advanced for me, but I learned a lot.
One of the best poker content on the internet.
Thanks for this fantastic presentation, it really helps understand how ranges and bet sizings interact with each other.
Crazy that this is free shit! Thanks!!
First comment on TH-cam, I think this lecture is so valuable although the content seems too easy. However, most players even don't understand the logics of the easy move.
Awesome lecture!
Thank you so much my man!
love the overbet board example you used of ak5, I was just thinking of a hand where I raised in late position last night with pocket fours, flopped a set on ak4, played small ball, 10 on the turn, and villain turned the straight with qj of course. very timely. next time I will overbet
Be careful not to be results oriented. The 10 turn example sucks, but that shouldn’t have any effect on your decisions.
don't think about it like that, you would've likely gotten stacked here anyway. He only has 3 outs, you want him in!!!!!!
On the AK5 one, if I’m reading the chart correctly, you could turn your hand face up (with one of the hands it wants you to overbet). You just want them to fold, period, is what it looks like. Realizing the equity now is what it’s all about. It looks like they’re aren’t any bluffs in this overbetting size is why I’m saying this, again assuming I’ve read the chart correctly.
At 38:20 you mentioned "removing the trash range" in GTO Wizard. I'm not seeing how we can nodelock/alter ranges. Is that feature only available in beta internally?
No, our coach used an external solver for this in order to demonstrate the underlying GTO principles.
Fantastic content. I appreciate it.
I play low stakes live and one weapon I use on many games. Is the small min bet preflop it builds the pot on the turn and river it gets much value and it builds a image of a more actiony player while not using much chips .
Superb. I wonder though how the more modern use of Dynamic and Static as opposed to wet and dry fits ok with this?
thank you，coach！
good stuff!
Thank you so much, unique perspective on a beat down topic
the sb vs co 4bp spot was very interesting thank you so much.
In general I see most villains just c-bet 1/10 pot 100% of the time... if that's the case then no need to donk correct? better to check, face the small c-bet, and then develop the polar raising range.
Glad you enjoyed it. If your opponent rangebets when checked to then there's no need to donk bet.
Thanks , bro
Thanks a lot !
So what actually heralds a bet vs a check? Is there an equity threshold? Is it based on balance? Range advantage?
well done
At 40:00, why do you only look at the made hands to figure out the fold equity?
Seems to me like the fold equity is mainly useful to the non-made hands instead. Don't we need to look at our full range △equity vs villains folded hands?
I highly suggest watching "the mechanics of fold equity", this question of yours is answered there in detail and also this video is based upon that one
@@fedea82 I've seen it. I don't think it answers the question tho. I'll clearify. In my understanding fold equity is the amount of equity villain gives up by folding his foldingrange (vs our bettingrange). In order to check this equity we need to see how well his foldingrange does vs our whole bettingrange. Not just the part with made hands.
@@meiliswein FE in the way he thinks about it refers to equity of folding range vs our betting type of hand, not whole range. That's what is explained in the other video. And then he goes to show how this type of value influences sizings on the part that triggered your question on this vid, that's why he was focusing on made hands, since they are very influenced by this concept.
Maybe focus on this, hopefully it will help:
Air of course wants folds, and is almost dead vs folding range, but made hands differ in their equity vs folding range and how this value differs matters in regards to the EV of betting said type of hand, and the best sizing for it's bet.
So for example nutted hands don't want folds, since their equity vs folding range is immense, but bottom of value range benefits more from folds ocassionally since equity vs folding range is lower (hence higher fold equity).
To summarize: fold equity=equity of folding range vs hand, particularly against value portion of our range (since remember, air betting has always around same fold equity)
@Fede A I'm still unable to see the logic behind only showing the evs for the value part. (btw I also disagree about the FE referring to hand v range instead of range v range)
To further clearify:
You say our air wants folds. So that means the amount of air that can bet along with the made hands is an important factor in seeing how benificial the FE is. Right? That's why I don't get why we don't include that part when trying to analyse it.
@@meiliswein what drives sizing will be (among other factors) the FE of your value hands, not your air (the only roles of betting air is to make bluffcatchers indifferent or exploit nits after all). And in the case of playing balanced, the amount of air aggressing will be a consequence of sizing, it's not the other way around.
FE of our made hands is why we increase sizing vs draw heavy ranges, but decrease it vs polar ranges, or on dry boards (where folding range is mostly air). It's the equity of folding range vs our made hands what determines the bet sizing (we will have air on every spot in poker but it has insignificant equity vs folding range by definition and aggresses as a consequence of chosen bet size, or to exploit nits of course, since vs them giving up any air becomes a dominated strategy).
This is wonderfully in depth but I am struggling to apply this to the drill that it is paired with on the study plan. How do I know the difference between a wet-board and a very wet-board? How do I decide between a 75% pot bet and a 50% bet... .especially when the drill treats one as the best move possible but the other as an absolute travesty? What is the percentage that I should aim to get on the drill before I move on?
I've had to simplify the drill so I can work my way up to choosing a specific bet sizing once I get a sense of when to bet and when to check. I'd recommend to others who might find this part of the course go from 0 to 100 way faster than the pre-flop stuff did... especially when the drill expects you play out the turn and river on top of the flop!
“vulnerable nut theorem” sounds like a fancy way of saying "protection"
Really enjoyed the video!
At 10:00 your explanation why BTN would go all in with AJ on JT8 double suited made a lot of sense. One question I had was how BTN's strategy with AJo would change as the effective stack size got deeper, for example 500bb. Would BTN still be able to over bet 1-2x on the flop in this spot or would BTN need to opt for smaller sizing, say 0.75-1x in this spot with AJo
Over bets are not preferred the deeper the stacks and especially so when out of position. Here the opponent can reapply maximum pressure on draws which is what over bets are likely to destroy at 100bb effective stacks. Your intent of the over bet is also to help destroy turn card equity going to the river. In a 500bb game, that is essentially gone.
Just to reiterate a point. You can still over bet for value, just don't expect the same outcomes due to the massive stacks behind which would normally cap the opponents draw.
Is it for mtt alone ?
At 11 minutes the title of the slide says SB vs BB SRP but you’re actually discussing SB vs BTN 3bet pot.
Not a big deal just wouldn’t want anyone confused
Tombos:
You mentioned that what counts as a "middling sizing"--indeed, what size the bet counts as at all--is related to the SPR. I have an idea for a line of study that maybe you would find interesting or fruitful.
First, I'd like to make an analogy to trigonometry. One convention for measuring the size of an angle is to express it in degrees, where 360 is one full rotation, and any measure of rotations is essentially a fraction denominated by 360. But that ends up being pretty arbitrary (why 360 as opposed to some other number?). The convention of measuring angles in radians arose later in mathematics, which defined angles in a way that was more organically related to a circle. Radians essentially measure what the length of the arc in a circle of radius 1 is captured by the angle at the center of the circle. It turns out, this way of looking at circles and angles allows trigonometry to connect organically to lots of other branches of mathematics.
The turn to poker: it turns out, simply measuring bet sizes as a fraction denominated by the size of the pot screens out a lot of information that we now realize is quite relevant to sizing choice. It doesn't take into account SPR or how to efficiently polarize, and so ends up being a little arbitrary upon closer examination. Maybe we should start standardizing bet sizings across situations as being in some way related to the geometric sizing for that street. It might end up as a straightforward fraction, maybe as some kind of logarithmic relationship, I don't know. But do you think that that would help us make sense of similar situations across different SPRs that look similar but use different sizings?
Just a thoroughly theoretical thought. Would be curious what you think.
That's an interesting point, Stephen. Transforming bet sizes into a universal standard, like geometric sizing, could be useful for comparing different spots. I came up with this formula
e = log(2 SPR + 1) / log(2 Bet + 1)
Where SPR is the stack to pot ratio, Bet is the bet size as a percentage of the pot, and 'e' is the number of equal bet sizes needed to get stacks in.
I don't see the node feature on my GTO. Is there a setting i missed?
This was absolutely FANTASTIC
So in sum would you say the “vulnerable nut theorem” is more or less correct? I had just come to the conclusion last week that large bet sizing was generally caused by:
(A) Nut advantage
(B) need for “protection”
(C) degree of expected interaction of opponent’s range with the board.
That seems like a reasonable heuristic! The vulnerable nut theorum isn't always correct (there are very few hard rules in poker), but it's a common overbet indicator.
So, after reviewing this video and hitting the table with it in my mind, proceeded to bet much larger than I normally do, won some flips, got a runner-runner (or two) and picked my spots
aaaaand binked a local tourney
thanks so much for your help; stoked to review your other videos
as a follow-up, I know gto by definition is a 'balanced' strategy but could you please clarify how the strategy outlined in regards to betting larger when you are vulnerable doesn't make you place a bit face-up though? or do we balance it with nut blockers and draws?
I think you are mostly there. When I think about this, I think about how to apply the most pressure while still remaining somewhat deceptive to perceptive opponents.
The key to any winning formula is to not do the exact same thing in every situation unless your opponents are just oblivious. A soft home game is example you can play straightforward. Also, if you are playing in such a way that it not easy to tell what you are doing then it is fine to play somewhat straightforward.
For normal games where opponents are perceptive, it is important to think about what range they put you in just as much as you put your range on an opponent. That should guide your decision on how to best play the hand.
That being said, you will need some over bet bluffs to protect the top of your over bet range. It is probably best formulated by utilizing blockers and semi-bluffs as cover but can also be viable with the occasional complete air in favorable circumstances (weak opponent, very wet board vs pre-flop raiser, etc)
Also, don't preclude the fact that if a small or middle bet can induce a raise, then you can also make the most out of your equity advantage when over bets are preferred. Those small or middle bets can then provide cover for later action and protect your top and bottom ranges. Just don't forget to balance these out as well or it will scream monster.
when will post flop study be available for mtt membership?
When we overbet in situations where we are ahead of most of villains range but don't have tons of equity like with 9s on an 8-high board, what are we balancing this with, or are we fine with turning our hand face up since we just want to realize our equity without a struggle?
Hello, what do u mean at 12.15 when u say "the geometric betsize maximize villain calling range"?
To clarify, betting geometrically will maximize villain's calling range, if you plan to get all the chips in by the river. This is the optimal betting strategy in polarized vs bluff-catcher toy games. instagram.com/p/CXlr-79P5tJ/
Thanks for sharing. Many slides could use far less text and more Plots, Diagrams, Tables, Symbols, Flop examples representing different textures etc.
I find it hard to follow, if everything is just text and speech. And i assume thats not only me.
Thank you for your feedback!
Isn't 'Vulnerable Nut Theorem' the same as "Urgency"!?
What would be an example of 'Villain has many hands with reasonable equity against the top of your range'? like Villain has flush draw and I have top pair?
Draw-heavy boards, for example two connected cards with a flush draw provides many hands in villain's range the chance to outdraw your top pair+ holdings.
Hello.
I bought a sub for MTTs because I think this is the best app hands down in the market. I would like to know if you will do weekly coachings for MTTs as well not only cash games. These free ones are very valuable to tournaments as well but will there be any premium MTT coachings too?
Hello, thank you! Yes, we are currently looking for an MTT coach. Starting next week, we will likely let MTT users access cash premium coachings until we find a new coach just for MTTs.
Is this tombos21 doing the coaching? His theoretical knowledge has exploded and he's pumping out tons of great material. Genuinely nice guy, too.
Yes that's Tombos21, glad you enjoyed it!
Me on my alt account....,good job!
Didn't get almost nothing from this.. just the wanting to understand. Will study
Looks like a great concept, but there are a couple of things missing. One, ability to adjust how many sizes for the cbet we want. In theory having 3 sizes for every street is great, but in practice it's just not. Unless you are playing nl10k, it's also not necessary. Yes, some EV will be lost, but it doesn't matter. Some EV is lost with 3 sizes as well (comparing to let's say balanced 5 sizes). Besides that, I'm not sure what are the capabilities to adjust certain things like disabling limp on SB (it's silly that solver suggest it in the first place), or preflop ranges, or what sizing we want to choose. The purpose of the soft is lost a bit it feels. It's great to see we should 4bet JTo 15.7% of times pre, but in practice, we would like to round the frequency. So yea, the idea is good, but the execution is meh. It doesn't really solve the purpose that it should. We are not robots.
How do you know how to respond against different bet sizes if you only solve one size?
I hear what you're saying about the complexity, which is why we're working on adding simplified solutions that use one size per node. That way you can choose your style!
Why do you reverse the positions? Wouldnt that mean that BTN is openfolding like JJ+ there and other premiums? Whats the knowledge gain for such a scenario?
The idea is to isolate one variable to understand how it affects your strategy. Not model a specific scenario
Hi , i understand the vulnerability of 99 on 853 but not im not understanding on AK5 with AJ, with this combo are we not interested in the call of hands like bdfd and stuff to take more value in future streets ?
The strategic incentives on AK5 are very different from 853, however the same overbet indicator exists on both (AJo is way ahead now, not so much later).
Solvers typically prefer a large cbet strategy on AK5 type boards in SRP, mostly to try and maximize value with the top of their range in a spot where the defender can't counter.
Hi GTOWizard. Great video.
Can you also apply this to games like spin and go, where it's 25bb deep?
If i've got a hand like K9 on 984ss. Would a solver overbet here?
You can apply these concepts to any format. In the game you described stacks are shorter; the geometric size is closer to 62%, meaning you can get stacks in with a smaller size compared to 100bb single-raised pots. That said, I imagine K9 as well as overpairs are inclined to size up on this flop.
@@tombos211 Thank you, Tombos!
I struggle to replicate the preference for 300% pot overbetting on 853r in the SB vs BB spot. I am using monkersolver solved preflop ranges for the spot assuming no limping from SB. All the other spots I was able to replicate the general pattern outlined. Anyone know what might be going wrong? I have the correct SPR...
Furthermore, my sims seem to prefer the 75% sizing, whereas this size is almost never used in your sim.
Using different rake structures, ranges, betting trees, and other factors can lead to different outputs. Read more here: blog.gtowizard.com/why-doesnt-my-solution-match-gto-wizard/
Slideshow is available here: docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NyqpbGrVDTQuhKIQ_5YGIXXE6WIr-fj6QqtlPz9iGWA/
Presentation is not public with this link, asking for us to request for access.
@@Icronics Thanks, its fixed now!
24:25 regarding this section here, you mention that the OOP caller in a 4bp is sometimes donk betting. is that something that you are ever realistically doing on the AhTc9h board to the PFR? It feels like one of those situations a solver is doing sometimes, but players just never will. Wouldn't your EV be pretty close to the same if you just checked it to the PFR who has both range and nut advantages? Are you really trying to get it in with AdJd or KhTh on that board? Because if you face a raise, you're in a situation where you are pretty much calling for stacks when you could be calling their small bet had you checked. It also almost feels like you're announcing your hand face up. I have trips, two pair, or the nut flush+broadway draw - all having loads of equity. It seems like this bet would either a) let villain get away from their weaker hands/take away their bluffs or b) get all your money in the pot with the nuts.
The only time this would backfire is if the 4bettor is too passive when you check. If they're gonna c-bet often then exploitatively it's better not to donk
thanks bro@@GTOWizard
Is this also useful for Omaha?
The underlying theory still applies, but at the moment GTO Wizard only offers NL Hold'Em. PLO is in our long-term roadmap.
Is all this nessecary?
All these concepts can be explained in a much simpler way with easy examples. Not sure why there is a need to make up complex terminology and useless "theorically" lingo and present complex graphs to make it sound like it's harder than it is. I come from IB and corporate finance world and you make Poker seem harder to understand than tax implications in a cross boarder M&A transaction. This channel will grow infinitely faster if it makes it more accessible with how it goes about explaining these rather simple concepts .. My honest teo cents
As Richard Feynman said, If you can’t explain a topic to a five year old, you don’t fully understand the topic.
Ha, you just dont get the complexity simple as that. Poker is very complex
Wrestling with that idea of geometrical betting forcing villain to defend with widest possible range. Why doesn't their range widen more if we go smaller?
You're right that betting smaller means they defend wider, but the geometric size tries to get all chips in by the river, so you'd be forced to go much larger on later streets to achieve this.
G all of the above
Not a clue what you were talking about
the experiment of removing something seems meaningless
too many unknown terminology..... Cant understand. Fold equity??? Draw Equity??
Poker is full of jargon. Feel free to reach out to our discord server or check out our glossary to learn more!
Why give this for free? Not that we’re levels deep on certain tendencies of human nature but damn just let the donk look at his 2 cards and play them. Feels like I’m splitting hairs these days online.
You lose more money in the end playing like this against good players of today. This isn't the early 2000's anymore.
How do you stay balanced in this spots where you are overbetting on 853 with 99+ or on AK5hh with AJ-AQ are you also overbetting with like QJh or something like that? i wouldnt know how to construct a range @GTOWizard
Try our software to see how to construct your range in these spots! A premium membership also grants you access to a large collection of private weekly coachings that may answer your questions.
I can see why the name isn’t the Vulnerable Nuts Theorem