Cool. Good thoughts about protecting frequencies. I guess the follow up video is making adjustments to opening ranges based on aggressive 3betters to the left. To use your example of being uncomfortable calling a 3bet with KTs, an option is to fold it rather than open raising, but replace it with something like A5s that you are comfortable making a 4-bet.
Great video and discussion. It's interesting that in both ranges QJs is a fold but JTs is a call. Maybe the issue is that QJs is going to be second best too often to the strong side of the opponent's 3 bet and so gives up too many implied odds?
@@OwletRL JT will be active cards most of the time. but a hand with QJ your dominated by the hands like viraj said KQ/AQ.... In a multiway pot it gets worse... You have QJ and somehow have to go all in, opponents flip KQ and AJ.... your losing either way, Also when you hit QJ often a lot of straight draws come out and your fold equity is totally gone and you have to make your straight which is extremely hard to do.
I know i'm late to the party, but this particular video has helped tons. I've been playing scared poker, and this has really nudged me along! Been a lot more profitable, and enjoying poker again, thank you! Just like to add; I hate Ace King. AK in a tournament i'll take all day, but cash games, pff.
if the opening range from HJ is what it looks like in the GTO chart (including all the hands in red; for example K7s and JTo) are we under-defending in core and PRO? seems like its way less than around 30% of total range (it does also say 8%).
@Sean Rhoades yeah looks like 8% of all possible hands which is a higher percentage of the HJ opening range. the gto chart definitely has more hands though.
I realize these ranges assume a 100bb effective stack, but what is the assumed size of the 3 and 4 bets? I imagine the ranges would look different depending on where you’re facing a 3x or 5x raise.
Comparing to other poker ranges available on the market, this is kind of tight and there could also be raise OR fold option. 3Bet pots OOP is the hardest situation to master in my mind and this is only scratching the surface, but I do belive having a fundamental sound preflop game/strategy helps a lot. Now the question is who to trust when i comes to ranges suggested. As these situations are not as frequent, having an understanding of your own win rate on certain combinations takes forever to get. Depending on the input into solvers, the results can vary a lot, doesn’t it?
Yup, different inputs can lead to different outputs. This is why we run multiple solves with multiple inputs and then compare the various outputs to get a more comprehensive analysis.
4-betting without a very strong hand doesn't make much sense to me...at the 1-2/1-3 level at least. This is of particular concern with the unusually large opening sizes at those stakes which geometrically inflates the pot. If I 4-bet with AQ, sometimes committing 40% of my stack or more, I am only bluffing. I only want a fold. What happens when they 5-bet? Am I not now compelled to call against a hand that, unless the opponent is a maniac, even the bottom of that range leaves me with 30% equity at best and more like 10% equity at worst? Naturally it's quite exploitable to simply fold to every 4-bet from a non-maniac when not holding the near nuts, but unless you play against the same players again and again, or you see a pattern of the guy running you over, the better part of valor seems the wiser course right? Are there not better spots to commit our stack than to cross our fingers and 4-bet against a thinking non-maniac who isn't exploiting you?
Its recommbded to call 5bet shoves with Kk+ and AK. Stick toKK+if facing a nit then go to QQ+ against a lag. I hope Split ll answer so we get his take on it :)
@@majorbob7211 GTO and CORE will vary drastically here, it's a more important decision which approach you use. CORE we would 4-bet QQ+ AQs, sometimes AQo + JJ. GTO would 4-bet TT+ AQo+, AKs, ATs, A5s, KJs, KTs!
It's good that you are considering balance as a concept but I believe you are approaching it from the wrong side. You should be looking to balance your strength with bluffs. Not balance weak hands/calling ranges with strength. You don't want to define a calling range first and then wonder how much strength should you add to conceal it. We always want to put chips in the middle(4bet in this case) with AA/KK/QQ so we look to balance this 4betting range with a selection of holdings that allow us to be tricky to play against and conceal our range. When considering balance in any situation, start with the range you want to be betting fast for value, balance that range with a curated selection of other hands, be they semi-bluffs with equity, hands that contain blockers and provide removal from opponents range etc. In short, all we want to do is bet strong hands for value in poker. However, this approach alone is wildly exploitable because any time you bet people will simply fold or continue the nuts. In order to throw opponents off our scent we balance this top heavy range with some other holdings that essentially mean we are unpredictable.
@@jonathanw.6266 They run their own sims for preflop so it's all solved preflop. Then they just have the charts and use a randomiser to play the correct frequencies. Post flop its a lot hard as your further down the game tree but they also do a lot of solving for specific spots and have a database of these to refer to.
@@jonathanw.6266 You can print some solutions and tape them on the wall. Your randomizer, Like Daniel Harrington does in live tournaments, is the seconds hand on your watch. For example, if you look at your clock and it's between 1 and 15 seconds, you raise, if it's between 16 to 30, you call, if it's between 31 and 60, you fold
Enjoy GTO Gems when you get it! As for your question, there is a discount code on page #5 that will get you all of the CORE/PRO ranges within the app =)
Loving the content. Quick question, wouldn’t folding 80% of Hijack opens to a button 3 bet make that 3 bet auto profit? (assuming the sizes in the example) Or does it even out because of the blinds’ range?
"wouldn’t folding 80% of Hijack opens to a button 3 bet make that 3 bet auto profit?" Yes, but the folding percentage is much lower than 80% for the reason alphabett66 stated.
When playing against fish villains, I feel like the 4-bet range should be on the tighter side. Would y’all agree? I just feel like fish are 3-betting very strong and 4-betting is going to be 5 bet jammed A lot of the time. Thoughts?
Sony XB900N in the blue color. They aren't the absolute best sound quality headphones I own, but they are the most comfortable for wearing 12+ hours/day.
Nope, our own solves run through Monker, adjusted to match frequencies very closely for simplified, easier to remember frequencies. Did it totally independently but it wouldn't be shocking if others used a similar approach.
@@ThePokerBank Right, but in the pro range it is used as a bluff to balance our 4 bet range. I don't think we need to balance 3bet calls with bluffs, and it doesn't have value to call with vs a 3bet range, so I think we should either 4bet or fold it.
@@idonthavemonkey I'd suggest thinking about preflop continuance less in terms of "pure value and bluff" and rather in terms of "enough equity to justify an action"
Cheers! Keep in mind that the CORE/exploitative ranges are crafted with smaller/weaker player pools in mind. Such player pools typically have less 3-betting and as such, folding a bit more against a less frequent + more strong 3-betting range makes a lot of sense.
I'm confused by the purple boxes. It seems you're saying they're 4 bet as a bluff, which makes sense. But then in the middle of the video you say "Oh students complain when they 4 bet with JJs and the opponent 5 bet jams and you pretty much have to call. It sucks when you lose those...etc.". But wait WHY are you calling? If you "pretty much have to call" then it was a 4 bet for value.
Do you think you will get exploited from population at all when you are playing a more polarized range? We do have the same frequencies but we have a worse board coverage which I feel like is important 100bb deep.
This really depends on the population. Populations ability to exploit you will increase relative to the stake level. That's a bit of a general statement but the higher the stake the more care you need in constructing ranges. Historically small suited connectors were favoured as 3bets because of their ability to cover the board as you mention and play well post flop. However solvers have shown that hands like Ax/Kx suited are stronger candidates purely based on their mathematical removal from your opponents range. I understand your point that the ranges in the video are very linear top down ranges. I feel they are more suited to lower stake games and as you can tell from the video they are aimed at making it a bit easier to navigate post flop. Basically they are sorta beginner ranges, and bare in mind they are ranges purely designed facing a 3bet from the btn. Continuing this exact spot with weaker holdings is going to be very difficult, 4betting lower suited connector type hands means you are wide open to being 5bet relatively light for value. You simply can't continue 78s. And liklewise, flat calling these hands and playing OOP vs a 3bet range is going to be difficult to realise and maximise your ev. In this particular spot of being oop vs btn 3bet you need to procede with a lot of care! All the best!
At deeper stacks (>150BB), why does 4-betting actually increase your positional disadvantage when with shallower stacks it decreases your positional disadvantage?
I think it’d be better to say it ‘magnifies’ your positional disadvantage. Since the SPR is still low, you will still need to make around the same number of decisions OOP post flop, but each decision will be much more costly due to the bloated pot.
@@daneleblanc4636 Thanks. That makes sense. Although I wouldn't say the SPR is low when people have >150BB stacks, that's just a nitpick. Your main point is valid. Thanks again! :)
I just copy it, but it stands true: Here are 5 more reasons short stacking is an attractive option for some people. Mistakes and coolers are less punitive It’s the big pots that cause the worst sessions to happen. Therefore, if you make a bad call or lose with a monster hand, it hurts a lot less if you only have 40 big blinds or less to lose. Fewer difficult decisions Turn and river decisions for large amounts of money take a lot of skill to navigate profitably. Having a short stack means that you can often choose to either commit or not commit on the flop and not have to call several big bets over multiple streets. You are less bluffable This one ties into #2. Skilled deep-stacked opponents cannot leverage their big stack against you since they are forced to play your effective stack size. As a short stack, you never have to deal with making an incorrect fold in a huge pot on the river, since you would have been all in either on the flop or turn. Set mining is ineffective versus a short stack Set mining is when players call pre-flop with a small pair, hoping to hit a set and win a huge pot against a top pair or overpair. to be effective, set mining requires a player to win a big pot when they actually do hit a set to make up for the times they miss and fold. Since they cannot win a huge pot versus a short stack, their strategy is effectively obsolete when a player under 40 big blinds open raises. Shorties can commit a wider range of hands post-flop. When you flop a medium-strength hand, like top pair, it is often a mistake to get all-in with a full or deep stack. However, the shorter your stack is, the more valuable one pair hands become. Therefore, it is often a mistake not to try to get all-in with top pair as a short stack. Tl;dr Big stacks have more complex decisions, short stacks have easier post-flop decision
For early stages where stack depths are ~100bb effective, they can be used, yes. But I wouldn't suggest using them much beyond that, especially as stack depths drop.
That is awesome but I guess you guys haven't played 2/5c in a long time. I used to 4 bet AK and get it in but when I looked through my database I realised that I loose quite a lot because at lower stakes people are tight and only 5 bet shove (100BB) QQ+/AK so we usually are underdogs. I recently watched bankroll challenge done by Charlie Carell and it looked so easy watching him when people get it in with AJo and other nonsense. Sadly that kind of thing doesn't happen in my games ...:(
You guys are never gonna memorize card ranges with multiple colors on a single cell, each cell with some percentage of what you are supposed to do lol, come on that is ridiculous.
@@splitsuit Most often the problem is that you assume that only a very limited amount of sizes are used. Especially if you use non gto sizes the sims will be off. For example in this situation if you have like only 3x open it would explain why the solver won't be opening as many hands. This is because the gto sizes are more like 2x-2.25x used in HJ. Also if you only have a limited amount of 3bet and 4bet sizes the ranges for those and their responses can easily be quite off.
@@jelk1 yep mr jelk. low pocket pairs raise half of the time hj-utg, for 2,2x. I'd imagine if you increased the betsizing then they would be opening even less.
(Chris here, who designed the solves) Most sims tend to run at higher stakes, we solved our sim for higher rake small stakes our playerbase tends to play in which is part of what makes it unique. Our solver assumed 2.5x open raise (also appropriate from small stakes IMO) although I ran lots of different sizes and tried a few different trees. That added with some population analysis data, I believe this is the appropriate recommendation for our players that focus on 2nl to 100nl. My human analysis is that the primary benefit of this lowest pocket pairs is actually the 3-bet pots (thus the 100% call range vs. 3-bet).
Quit complaining - all these decisions depend on your knowledge/aggressiveness of the 3-bettor. If you tilted him properly last hand, time for a 4-bet - lol!
Great stuff boys, highly informative. Thanks!😀
Great stuff boys, highly informative. Thanks!
Cheers EN!
pretty good talk, keep em coming
Excellent as always.
Thanks Majid!
Very good video, thanks guys!
You're very welcome John!
That meme where the guy looks back:
The guy - me
The girl beside - PRO range
The girl I'm looking at - GTO range
nhwpgg
Cool. Good thoughts about protecting frequencies. I guess the follow up video is making adjustments to opening ranges based on aggressive 3betters to the left. To use your example of being uncomfortable calling a 3bet with KTs, an option is to fold it rather than open raising, but replace it with something like A5s that you are comfortable making a 4-bet.
I'd be careful about making that sort of adjustment
Hi James I saw in one of your previous videos advising about playing very tight in SB, these ranges (GTO) are insane for SB what am I missing?
Thanks
I'm not gonna give up on you, KQo. You can do it honey
I did once, and flopped the nuts and both opponents in the handed ended up jamming on the flop I was so sick 🥲
As a delusional man with a magnificent mustache once said: Have FAITH!
James, may I ask what camera you are using here?
Great video and discussion.
It's interesting that in both ranges QJs is a fold but JTs is a call. Maybe the issue is that QJs is going to be second best too often to the strong side of the opponent's 3 bet and so gives up too many implied odds?
It is also blocked by AQ and KQ
@@virajs.8864what does this imply
@@OwletRL JT will be active cards most of the time. but a hand with QJ your dominated by the hands like viraj said KQ/AQ.... In a multiway pot it gets worse... You have QJ and somehow have to go all in, opponents flip KQ and AJ.... your losing either way, Also when you hit QJ often a lot of straight draws come out and your fold equity is totally gone and you have to make your straight which is extremely hard to do.
Thanks
I know i'm late to the party, but this particular video has helped tons. I've been playing scared poker, and this has really nudged me along! Been a lot more profitable, and enjoying poker again, thank you!
Just like to add; I hate Ace King. AK in a tournament i'll take all day, but cash games, pff.
How is it going 4 months later?
@@jelly8594 broke
Could someone explain to me what is the thing with A5s in both Core and Pro ranges? Why this and not A[9, 8, 7 and 6]s?
Good stuff
Thanks Edward!
if the opening range from HJ is what it looks like in the GTO chart (including all the hands in red; for example K7s and JTo) are we under-defending in core and PRO? seems like its way less than around 30% of total range (it does also say 8%).
@Sean Rhoades yeah looks like 8% of all possible hands which is a higher percentage of the HJ opening range. the gto chart definitely has more hands though.
If this is what you are playing then how are you navigating low boards when you mostly show up with broadway nothing?
I realize these ranges assume a 100bb effective stack, but what is the assumed size of the 3 and 4 bets? I imagine the ranges would look different depending on where you’re facing a 3x or 5x raise.
Hey Dane. They assume a 3X 3bet and a 2.8X 4bet size (given the exact positions in this spot). I hope that helps!
Are these ranges based on 100 bb stack sizes? How does it change if you're deeper?
I'd say the 4-bet ranges diminish a lot for pot control (when you're deeper stacked)
I posted a link to a 200bb gto range but it got deleted.
4-betting OOP tends to tight up as it loses the benefit of reducing the SPR.
Comparing to other poker ranges available on the market, this is kind of tight and there could also be raise OR fold option.
3Bet pots OOP is the hardest situation to master in my mind and this is only scratching the surface, but I do belive having a fundamental sound preflop game/strategy helps a lot. Now the question is who to trust when i comes to ranges suggested. As these situations are not as frequent, having an understanding of your own win rate on certain combinations takes forever to get. Depending on the input into solvers, the results can vary a lot, doesn’t it?
Yup, different inputs can lead to different outputs. This is why we run multiple solves with multiple inputs and then compare the various outputs to get a more comprehensive analysis.
4-betting without a very strong hand doesn't make much sense to me...at the 1-2/1-3 level at least. This is of particular concern with the unusually large opening sizes at those stakes which geometrically inflates the pot. If I 4-bet with AQ, sometimes committing 40% of my stack or more, I am only bluffing. I only want a fold. What happens when they 5-bet? Am I not now compelled to call against a hand that, unless the opponent is a maniac, even the bottom of that range leaves me with 30% equity at best and more like 10% equity at worst? Naturally it's quite exploitable to simply fold to every 4-bet from a non-maniac when not holding the near nuts, but unless you play against the same players again and again, or you see a pattern of the guy running you over, the better part of valor seems the wiser course right? Are there not better spots to commit our stack than to cross our fingers and 4-bet against a thinking non-maniac who isn't exploiting you?
Stack sizes get weird live as you noted, we have specific $1/$2 and $1/$3 live recommend in CORE (separate from these ranges shown).
So we 4bet/call a 5bet shove with TT+ & AK?
Its recommbded to call 5bet shoves with Kk+ and AK. Stick toKK+if facing a nit then go to QQ+ against a lag. I hope Split ll answer so we get his take on it :)
@@majorbob7211 GTO and CORE will vary drastically here, it's a more important decision which approach you use. CORE we would 4-bet QQ+ AQs, sometimes AQo + JJ. GTO would 4-bet TT+ AQo+, AKs, ATs, A5s, KJs, KTs!
Should you use a GTO 4betting range/3betcalling range against someone who only 3bets AA,KK and maybe AKs?
Found the answer in the end part of the video, thanks!
any thoughts on adding AA to the calling range to be more balanced for later streets?
AA, KK and QQ are too strong and too rare preflop to slow play them. You have other strong hands (like AQs) ahead of typical 3bet ranges to call with.
Chris and I have a podcast episode coming out next week that discusses this a bit. Keep an eye on the Red Chip Poker TH-cam channel =)
It's good that you are considering balance as a concept but I believe you are approaching it from the wrong side. You should be looking to balance your strength with bluffs. Not balance weak hands/calling ranges with strength. You don't want to define a calling range first and then wonder how much strength should you add to conceal it. We always want to put chips in the middle(4bet in this case) with AA/KK/QQ so we look to balance this 4betting range with a selection of holdings that allow us to be tricky to play against and conceal our range. When considering balance in any situation, start with the range you want to be betting fast for value, balance that range with a curated selection of other hands, be they semi-bluffs with equity, hands that contain blockers and provide removal from opponents range etc.
In short, all we want to do is bet strong hands for value in poker. However, this approach alone is wildly exploitable because any time you bet people will simply fold or continue the nuts. In order to throw opponents off our scent we balance this top heavy range with some other holdings that essentially mean we are unpredictable.
How much do good pros actually memorize the GTO ranges, vs how much do they simplify?
Simplification is more viable for us mere humans imo.
Most online players have presolved ranges with randomisers so they just use the perfect GTO solution using real time assistance.
@@redfoz1 like what would they use? They aren't running pio in real time. Is there a gto chart that's out there?
@@jonathanw.6266 They run their own sims for preflop so it's all solved preflop. Then they just have the charts and use a randomiser to play the correct frequencies. Post flop its a lot hard as your further down the game tree but they also do a lot of solving for specific spots and have a database of these to refer to.
@@jonathanw.6266 You can print some solutions and tape them on the wall.
Your randomizer, Like Daniel Harrington does in live tournaments, is the seconds hand on your watch.
For example, if you look at your clock and it's between 1 and 15 seconds, you raise, if it's between 16 to 30, you call, if it's between 31 and 60, you fold
7:30 Ah that explains it. I was gonna say, if all highlighted hands were pure opens, that would be slightly looser than my *cutoff* opening range!
Good eye =)
I wish I knew which players studied which coaches at what levels so I knew what they were doing :D
Why is A5 an outlier? I can see that it is better than A6 because of the straight possibilities, but why not A4? Thank you.
Best wheel ace. You have more equity so better to use this than A4
highest chance to hit top pair, nut flush and straight
I just bought your new book, arriving today/tomorrow from Amazon. will it have these Core and Pro ranges? if not, how can I get them?
I mean getting the ranges and just the ranges. without subscribing to Core and Pro but still paying for the ranges.
Enjoy GTO Gems when you get it! As for your question, there is a discount code on page #5 that will get you all of the CORE/PRO ranges within the app =)
@@ThePokerBank awesome. the book has just arrived, will start reading it later. thank you.
@@thedspenguin you're very welcome - enjoy!
Loving the content. Quick question, wouldn’t folding 80% of Hijack opens to a button 3 bet make that 3 bet auto profit? (assuming the sizes in the example) Or does it even out because of the blinds’ range?
All of the shit hands are mixed opens, and folds.
Also these charts don't take rake into account. Do not open JTo UTG.
"wouldn’t folding 80% of Hijack opens to a button 3 bet make that 3 bet auto profit?"
Yes, but the folding percentage is much lower than 80% for the reason alphabett66 stated.
@@alphabett66 We did multiple solves with various rake structures =)
GTO opens fairly tight from the CO compared to what most people assume. With that tight range + this defense % you cannot be exploited!
Is that Convolk?
When playing against fish villains, I feel like the 4-bet range should be on the tighter side. Would y’all agree? I just feel like fish are 3-betting very strong and 4-betting is going to be 5 bet jammed A lot of the time. Thoughts?
There is a big difference between a passive fish and an aggressive fish when it comes to their 3bet ranges!
Why do we sometimes fold 88-66, but never 55-22?
watch the vid
Wich headphones are you using splitsuit?
Sony XB900N in the blue color. They aren't the absolute best sound quality headphones I own, but they are the most comfortable for wearing 12+ hours/day.
@@splitsuit thanks for sharing, I thought that was sony, if they are comfortable I will buy it thanks
@@patriciofalotico1940 you're very welcome. Enjoy them!
Love the info but I'm rarely at a 6-handed table
CORE also includes full ring ranges =)
WHAT POKER SITE DO THEY PLAY ON. ? IT WOULD BE GREAT FUN TOO PLAY AGAINST A STUDENT. IM JUST A 5/10 micro guy
(Chris here) currently WSOP.com but hopefully some Pokerstars is in my future soon!
Did you get these ranges from PokerMoose?
Nope, our own solves run through Monker, adjusted to match frequencies very closely for simplified, easier to remember frequencies. Did it totally independently but it wouldn't be shocking if others used a similar approach.
I have another question. Is there a cheaper Software that is similisr to MonkeySolver?
Do you guys have ranges for 5X rfi and 10X rfi?
We do not. 4x is already larger than anyone else solves for (for RFI anyway)
@@ThePokerBank Shoot, my live table is 5X open, minimum. Thanks for the response!
@@mightypensword You're very welcome. Our 4x RFI ranges will be totally usable in that environment fwiw =)
What do the colors mean
NVM now you're showing
Does the core membership include all of these ranges (core/pro/gto)?
CORE includes just the CORE ranges. PRO includes the CORE and PRO ones =)
@@splitsuit and what about the gto ranges? What assumptions were made; coldcalling allowed or 3bet only?
A5s makes sense in the pro bluff raise range, but why is it a call in the core range?
The CORE ranges are simplified and built on a different model (exploitative vs GTO)
@@ThePokerBank Right, but in the pro range it is used as a bluff to balance our 4 bet range. I don't think we need to balance 3bet calls with bluffs, and it doesn't have value to call with vs a 3bet range, so I think we should either 4bet or fold it.
@@idonthavemonkey I'd suggest thinking about preflop continuance less in terms of "pure value and bluff" and rather in terms of "enough equity to justify an action"
@@ThePokerBank Right, and A5s only has about 35% equity vs a 3bet range. It doesn't have enough equity to justify calling.
good video,but the core range isn't too small in percentage of range of open,we folded more of 50%.....inn't too weak??
Cheers! Keep in mind that the CORE/exploitative ranges are crafted with smaller/weaker player pools in mind. Such player pools typically have less 3-betting and as such, folding a bit more against a less frequent + more strong 3-betting range makes a lot of sense.
I'm confused by the purple boxes. It seems you're saying they're 4 bet as a bluff, which makes sense. But then in the middle of the video you say "Oh students complain when they 4 bet with JJs and the opponent 5 bet jams and you pretty much have to call. It sucks when you lose those...etc.". But wait WHY are you calling? If you "pretty much have to call" then it was a 4 bet for value.
Do you think you will get exploited from population at all when you are playing a more polarized range? We do have the same frequencies but we have a worse board coverage which I feel like is important 100bb deep.
This really depends on the population. Populations ability to exploit you will increase relative to the stake level. That's a bit of a general statement but the higher the stake the more care you need in constructing ranges. Historically small suited connectors were favoured as 3bets because of their ability to cover the board as you mention and play well post flop. However solvers have shown that hands like Ax/Kx suited are stronger candidates purely based on their mathematical removal from your opponents range. I understand your point that the ranges in the video are very linear top down ranges. I feel they are more suited to lower stake games and as you can tell from the video they are aimed at making it a bit easier to navigate post flop. Basically they are sorta beginner ranges, and bare in mind they are ranges purely designed facing a 3bet from the btn. Continuing this exact spot with weaker holdings is going to be very difficult, 4betting lower suited connector type hands means you are wide open to being 5bet relatively light for value. You simply can't continue 78s. And liklewise, flat calling these hands and playing OOP vs a 3bet range is going to be difficult to realise and maximise your ev. In this particular spot of being oop vs btn 3bet you need to procede with a lot of care! All the best!
At deeper stacks (>150BB), why does 4-betting actually increase your positional disadvantage when with shallower stacks it decreases your positional disadvantage?
I am wondering too, I imagine it's because the solver says :) My best guess is that there is a decreased fold equity?
I think it’d be better to say it ‘magnifies’ your positional disadvantage. Since the SPR is still low, you will still need to make around the same number of decisions OOP post flop, but each decision will be much more costly due to the bloated pot.
@@daneleblanc4636 Thanks. That makes sense. Although I wouldn't say the SPR is low when people have >150BB stacks, that's just a nitpick. Your main point is valid. Thanks again! :)
I just copy it, but it stands true:
Here are 5 more reasons short stacking is an attractive option for some people.
Mistakes and coolers are less punitive
It’s the big pots that cause the worst sessions to happen. Therefore, if you make a bad call or lose with a monster hand, it hurts a lot less if you only have 40 big blinds or less to lose.
Fewer difficult decisions
Turn and river decisions for large amounts of money take a lot of skill to navigate profitably. Having a short stack means that you can often choose to either commit or not commit on the flop and not have to call several big bets over multiple streets.
You are less bluffable
This one ties into #2. Skilled deep-stacked opponents cannot leverage their big stack against you since they are forced to play your effective stack size.
As a short stack, you never have to deal with making an incorrect fold in a huge pot on the river, since you would have been all in either on the flop or turn.
Set mining is ineffective versus a short stack
Set mining is when players call pre-flop with a small pair, hoping to hit a set and win a huge pot against a top pair or overpair. to be effective, set mining requires a player to win a big pot when they actually do hit a set to make up for the times they miss and fold. Since they cannot win a huge pot versus a short stack, their strategy is effectively obsolete when a player under 40 big blinds open raises.
Shorties can commit a wider range of hands post-flop.
When you flop a medium-strength hand, like top pair, it is often a mistake to get all-in with a full or deep stack. However, the shorter your stack is, the more valuable one pair hands become. Therefore, it is often a mistake not to try to get all-in with top pair as a short stack.
Tl;dr
Big stacks have more complex decisions, short stacks have easier post-flop decision
@@herf4010 Haha, right. I meant the SPR was still high *facepalm*.
Are these relevant for tournaments?
For early stages where stack depths are ~100bb effective, they can be used, yes. But I wouldn't suggest using them much beyond that, especially as stack depths drop.
Thank you James. It would appear the ranges aren’t a million miles away from a tight opening range utg
@@raydaniel8898 you're very welcome Ray!
Why is A5 in there?
It's a nice 4bet option given that blocker =)
That is awesome but I guess you guys haven't played 2/5c in a long time. I used to 4 bet AK and get it in but when I looked through my database I realised that I loose quite a lot because at lower stakes people are tight and only 5 bet shove (100BB) QQ+/AK so we usually are underdogs. I recently watched bankroll challenge done by Charlie Carell and it looked so easy watching him when people get it in with AJo and other nonsense. Sadly that kind of thing doesn't happen in my games ...:(
I’d certainly 4bet AK some of the time but never call a 5bet in the 05/10 games I play and fold KK to many that RFI 100bb.
That's a great example of understanding when to deviate from the solver. However, you need to be "damn sure" before those making bigger folds =)
Low stakes, everytime i have KK< they turn over AA! I swear i get set-up lol.
Rfi?
"Raise first in" I think
Why am I so early?
To get the worm.
Because you're a god
Because you're awesome?
I´m viewer 20k LOL
Nice!
I dont believe that there is not a single hand to fold vs 3bet its fkn weird
When did that get said?
If you are so smart, can you make any profit on GG poker rush&cash?!!! I mean any!!! Go on mr Smart!
You guys are never gonna memorize card ranges with multiple colors on a single cell, each cell with some percentage of what you are supposed to do lol, come on that is ridiculous.
Correct. This is where simplifications come into play =)
Not opening all of 44+ from hijack really sounds like a shit quality sim
What does a solver assume?
@@splitsuit Most often the problem is that you assume that only a very limited amount of sizes are used. Especially if you use non gto sizes the sims will be off. For example in this situation if you have like only 3x open it would explain why the solver won't be opening as many hands. This is because the gto sizes are more like 2x-2.25x used in HJ. Also if you only have a limited amount of 3bet and 4bet sizes the ranges for those and their responses can easily be quite off.
@@jelk1 yep mr jelk. low pocket pairs raise half of the time hj-utg, for 2,2x. I'd imagine if you increased the betsizing then they would be opening even less.
@@BSNBRYCE lj you mix 22-44 and hj 22-33. 33 being mostly open. Not having enough sizes forces the solver to do weird/wrong things often.
(Chris here, who designed the solves) Most sims tend to run at higher stakes, we solved our sim for higher rake small stakes our playerbase tends to play in which is part of what makes it unique. Our solver assumed 2.5x open raise (also appropriate from small stakes IMO) although I ran lots of different sizes and tried a few different trees.
That added with some population analysis data, I believe this is the appropriate recommendation for our players that focus on 2nl to 100nl.
My human analysis is that the primary benefit of this lowest pocket pairs is actually the 3-bet pots (thus the 100% call range vs. 3-bet).
Quit complaining - all these decisions depend on your knowledge/aggressiveness of the 3-bettor. If you tilted him properly last hand, time for a 4-bet - lol!