Trying to be unexploitable is a waste of time when very few players would even notice your frequency error, and even fewer would be able to counter exploit.
It depends on the game. In deep stack cash it is important to have nut hands at every node. If you always bet (or always check) flush draws (for example) even losing 2/5 players will eventually figure that out.
Great video! Thanks for helping us see the forest instead of just the trees and yes - most opponents in our games cant even spell balance, let alone figure out how to exploit any imbalance on our part. Thank you for the video!
I think what's even more interesting is that JxTc should be actually bluffing on the river at a decent frequency and I think that is a better exploit than X/F -you have poor equity to begin with. Under GTO is around 37% (low end of your SDV range). In practice you could argue that IP's range is loaded with Ax,Kx, QQ/JJ. IP isn't betting thin enough on turns on a wet board. Though they also don't slow play sets and 2Ps but overall I would say JT doesn't even have 37% equity on river. -Having said IP doesn't protect turn x-back with 2P/sets/starights, betting 150% with JTc is excellent a will over perform GTO. its blocking flushes, sets and straights. making the nuts in IP's range even rarer. -X/R JTc could be an alternative but it think its not very good in practice, Population doesn't bet thing enough and when they do they often tend to station citing some blocker reason. On this board IP has tons of Pair +nut blocker hand in the river B range that will not fold to a xraise but should under GTO. so of the 3 options, OB bluffing is the best compared to x/r or folding.
totally agree. IP player is supposed to check half of his 2P in this turn , KT is a pure check and almost nobody plays like that, at least on mid-stakes
I’m low stakes scrub but he said correctly that check back turn shows weakness and then does not attack him when flush closes… Could we potentially force opp to fold some stronger hands like QT or KJ if we bet river? Or get value from 88 99?
You could try an overbet and get him to fold a pair. It's not the end of the world if you get called. It's even good advertisement if you can get the opponent to be suspicious and sticky later in the session (in a larger pot when you have the goods). I actually like to attack smaller pots relentlessly when fish show weakness for this reason, attack until you get caught and then change gears.
I think we might have a bit more SDV in practice, because population might not bluff with as many weak pairs when checked to. This does increase the EV of checking, along with the fact that HJ might arrive on the river with more weak pairs than they should (instead of barreling turn sometimes). But what you say makes sense as well, so at the end of the day it might just be a close decision. I actually think check jamming is okay given how fast HJ checked back turn. Surely Axcc would have thought for a while longer!
@@archh1593true. But it depends on your solver settings. You can set your turn and river accuracies to 0.00001. They solve pretty quick and it’s the river nodes where you need the highest accuracy cause frequencies shift dramatically. Though none of this matters at low/mid stakes and even at say 5K NL
@sixwaveholddown 5 minutes to learn the rules, a lifetime to still not master it. This is kind of advanced poker theory it won't make sense to new players
Fedor and bryn was beaten by 2 recreational players known as ossi and vlad at the final four in the triton $150 k buy in even some notable names such greenwood,chidwick and Dan smit was at th FT.
Great video! A question: does that apply for MTT as well, or there're other nuances? Cause in MTTs this seems even less important for the fact there're so many variables such as RP, drop equity, stack distribution
Not an expert on MTTs, but I don't see any reason why the logic wouldn't apply 🙂 Live MTTs especially are notoriously soft, definitely wouldn't make sense to be randomizing.
@@PokerGiraffe Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was asking about the concept of not needing randomize on later streets because of lack of vision from our strategy by population. Like, on MTTs this may apply even for flop and preflop maybe?
It really depends on what you think you can get away with. In a lot of softer games you don't even have to randomise preflop, because players might not even recognise your frequency mistake, or might not be exploiting it in the right way.
Good video. I'm not sure I agree with your example, however. You said a maniac who bluffs 100% (i e. overbluffs) would win money from someone playing close to gto but overfolding by 0.1%... I don't think that's accurate. He will make money in the lines where we overfold, but he is burning money in the lines where he oberbluffs and we correctly call down. The latter is way more frequent than thr former, hence we will profit massively versus this guy over any decent sample (assuming fixed strategies).
His bluff is +EV by definition, because we are overfolding. Yes he will get called down sometimes, but not often enough to make his bluffs -EV. If his bluffs were -EV, then by definition we would be overcalling not overfolding.
@@PokerGiraffe I disagree. His bluffs are not -ev because we are overcalling, they are -ev because he is overbluffing... Yes, he will make more money than he should in the lines where we overfold, but most of the time we are defending correctly, meaning we are making way more money than we should by running into bluffs and winning much more frequently than gto. This far outweighs the times his overbluffing makes money from our 0.1% overfolding. In other words, his deviation from gto is far greater than ours.
Let's say villain bets $100 into a pot of $100: If we call 50%, EV of villain's bluffs are 0.5(100) + 0.5(-100) = 0 If we call more than 50%, villain's bluffs are -EV If we call less than 50%, villain's bluffs are +EV EV of bluffs has nothing to do with bluffing frequency itself - instead, they depend solely on the defender's calling frequency. This is why if you nodelock the defender to overfold slightly, solver adjusts by bluffing 100% of air (see 9:24). Which obviously wouldn't be the case if bluffing was -EV.
Giraffe, You claim that using RNG can hurt the win rate at lower stakes, and give an example of a "close to GTO" player losing vs a completely imbalanced player. While the second part is provable, I wonder about the RNG part, especially on the flop and turn. Also, you lay out a simple "3-bet or fold" preflop strategy for low stakes, which is completly imbalanced and the only exploit is for villians to start 4-betting light. All of this makes me think, how much is like "in depth" knowledge of GTO is relevant for lower stakes? What's your opinion on this? Like, am i wasting time by studying GTO in depth? (eg learn the bet sizing and global frequencies, local frequencies for different hand classes on different textures, how GTO responds to check-raise etc)? :(
Studying GTO is important, but you always have to bear in mind that you're doing it in order to exploit better. Just like in the EP vs BB example, where we saw that solver is turning lots of pocket pairs into bluffs - the point is not to bluff with these pairs ourselves, but rather to recognise that many players are not finding these bluffs, and think about how to exploit them.
U need 2 know frequinces to understand h much value/bluffs should be in the spot and exploit it by deviating from gto if u see ur opp put too much value/bluffs on the street And if u know that ur opp is maniac or smth and bluffs 100% air,that means u never fold and this is pure gto
This video is significant cause it explained why it's difficult and unnecessary to emulate GTO,if you get one handclass wrong,and it messes everything up;But the main question is why did this 11-minute video take you three months?
You have to be balanced when playing a computer that's seen you play thousands of hands. Oh, but you're not doing that? You're playing drunks at your local casino who want to see a flop? Then don't.
You still didnt give a good argument why randomizing is killing your ev. You and Uri Peleg have only said that if villain is maniac with 100%vpip you shouldnt randomize, if someone cant adjust vs such a player should just stop playing poker
Trying to be unexploitable is a waste of time when very few players would even notice your frequency error, and even fewer would be able to counter exploit.
It depends on the game. In deep stack cash it is important to have nut hands at every node. If you always bet (or always check) flush draws (for example) even losing 2/5 players will eventually figure that out.
I agree, unless you're at a high level you should play a solid style that works for you and exploit others as well as adjust yourself based on reads
@@joebarra5273no they won’t lol
Fascinating video!
Great video! Thanks for helping us see the forest instead of just the trees and yes - most opponents in our games cant even spell balance, let alone figure out how to exploit any imbalance on our part. Thank you for the video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I think what's even more interesting is that JxTc should be actually bluffing on the river at a decent frequency and I think that is a better exploit than X/F
-you have poor equity to begin with. Under GTO is around 37% (low end of your SDV range). In practice you could argue that IP's range is loaded with Ax,Kx, QQ/JJ. IP isn't betting thin enough on turns on a wet board. Though they also don't slow play sets and 2Ps but overall I would say JT doesn't even have 37% equity on river.
-Having said IP doesn't protect turn x-back with 2P/sets/starights, betting 150% with JTc is excellent a will over perform GTO. its blocking flushes, sets and straights. making the nuts in IP's range even rarer.
-X/R JTc could be an alternative but it think its not very good in practice, Population doesn't bet thing enough and when they do they often tend to station citing some blocker reason. On this board IP has tons of Pair +nut blocker hand in the river B range that will not fold to a xraise but should under GTO.
so of the 3 options, OB bluffing is the best compared to x/r or folding.
totally agree. IP player is supposed to check half of his 2P in this turn , KT is a pure check and almost nobody plays like that, at least on mid-stakes
I’m low stakes scrub but he said correctly that check back turn shows weakness and then does not attack him when flush closes…
Could we potentially force opp to fold some stronger hands like QT or KJ if we bet river?
Or get value from 88 99?
You could try an overbet and get him to fold a pair. It's not the end of the world if you get called. It's even good advertisement if you can get the opponent to be suspicious and sticky later in the session (in a larger pot when you have the goods). I actually like to attack smaller pots relentlessly when fish show weakness for this reason, attack until you get caught and then change gears.
I think we might have a bit more SDV in practice, because population might not bluff with as many weak pairs when checked to. This does increase the EV of checking, along with the fact that HJ might arrive on the river with more weak pairs than they should (instead of barreling turn sometimes).
But what you say makes sense as well, so at the end of the day it might just be a close decision.
I actually think check jamming is okay given how fast HJ checked back turn. Surely Axcc would have thought for a while longer!
Love your videos, you make it easy to understand.
Is the EV always the same for both possibilities if a solver suggests randomizing between 2 actions?
Within 0.1 ev at a nash equilibrium but in a real game the decision could be a 30 bb decision with exploitative facts
well said :)
@@archh1593 thank you!
@@archh1593true. But it depends on your solver settings. You can set your turn and river accuracies to 0.00001. They solve pretty quick and it’s the river nodes where you need the highest accuracy cause frequencies shift dramatically.
Though none of this matters at low/mid stakes and even at say 5K NL
Great video! Did you get Uri's bit from one of his courses? Where can I find it?
It's on his youtube channel! Search for "understanding poker solvers"
I’m just learning how to play poker and it’s infinitely more difficult than I thought. Like what even is this video
😂
you're probably studying a few levels deeper than you should then haha
@ I realized that hahaha. I get it now though I just had to sit down at a table and actually play. So much to learn though still
@sixwaveholddown 5 minutes to learn the rules, a lifetime to still not master it. This is kind of advanced poker theory it won't make sense to new players
Fedor and bryn was beaten by 2 recreational players known as ossi and vlad at the final four in the triton $150 k buy in even some notable names such greenwood,chidwick and Dan smit was at th FT.
i wish you wouldn’t release this so late my time, now i’ve to wait a day to watch this! can’t wait, Poker Giraffe!!
great to hear and clean explanations
Great video! A question: does that apply for MTT as well, or there're other nuances? Cause in MTTs this seems even less important for the fact there're so many variables such as RP, drop equity, stack distribution
Not an expert on MTTs, but I don't see any reason why the logic wouldn't apply 🙂
Live MTTs especially are notoriously soft, definitely wouldn't make sense to be randomizing.
@@PokerGiraffe Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was asking about the concept of not needing randomize on later streets because of lack of vision from our strategy by population. Like, on MTTs this may apply even for flop and preflop maybe?
It really depends on what you think you can get away with. In a lot of softer games you don't even have to randomise preflop, because players might not even recognise your frequency mistake, or might not be exploiting it in the right way.
you're the best! 💙
Thanks zinhao!
We can use MDA to help us make a maxEV decision with our hand that doesn't rely on RNG
In futuro potresti approfondire anche gli exploit preflop,grazie
Awesome. How about a play and explain video exploiting everyone on low stakes?
What a nice video! Thanks
Thanks for watching!
Good video. I'm not sure I agree with your example, however. You said a maniac who bluffs 100% (i e. overbluffs) would win money from someone playing close to gto but overfolding by 0.1%...
I don't think that's accurate. He will make money in the lines where we overfold, but he is burning money in the lines where he oberbluffs and we correctly call down. The latter is way more frequent than thr former, hence we will profit massively versus this guy over any decent sample (assuming fixed strategies).
Overfolding by 0.1% meaning folding 50.1% instead of 50% haha. So we still fold more often than we call.
@@PokerGiraffe Right, but the point remains
His bluff is +EV by definition, because we are overfolding. Yes he will get called down sometimes, but not often enough to make his bluffs -EV. If his bluffs were -EV, then by definition we would be overcalling not overfolding.
@@PokerGiraffe I disagree. His bluffs are not -ev because we are overcalling, they are -ev because he is overbluffing...
Yes, he will make more money than he should in the lines where we overfold, but most of the time we are defending correctly, meaning we are making way more money than we should by running into bluffs and winning much more frequently than gto.
This far outweighs the times his overbluffing makes money from our 0.1% overfolding. In other words, his deviation from gto is far greater than ours.
Let's say villain bets $100 into a pot of $100:
If we call 50%, EV of villain's bluffs are
0.5(100) + 0.5(-100) = 0
If we call more than 50%, villain's bluffs are -EV
If we call less than 50%, villain's bluffs are +EV
EV of bluffs has nothing to do with bluffing frequency itself - instead, they depend solely on the defender's calling frequency. This is why if you nodelock the defender to overfold slightly, solver adjusts by bluffing 100% of air (see 9:24). Which obviously wouldn't be the case if bluffing was -EV.
9:00 no made hand should be called bluff allowance
Nice video thanks!
What is the random number application in the video0:21?
Jurojin
@@perkele48 very thanks!
Shotout to uri peleg❤
The GOAT haha
Giraffe, You claim that using RNG can hurt the win rate at lower stakes, and give an example of a "close to GTO" player losing vs a completely imbalanced player. While the second part is provable, I wonder about the RNG part, especially on the flop and turn.
Also, you lay out a simple "3-bet or fold" preflop strategy for low stakes, which is completly imbalanced and the only exploit is for villians to start 4-betting light.
All of this makes me think, how much is like "in depth" knowledge of GTO is relevant for lower stakes? What's your opinion on this? Like, am i wasting time by studying GTO in depth? (eg learn the bet sizing and global frequencies, local frequencies for different hand classes on different textures, how GTO responds to check-raise etc)? :(
Studying GTO is important, but you always have to bear in mind that you're doing it in order to exploit better.
Just like in the EP vs BB example, where we saw that solver is turning lots of pocket pairs into bluffs - the point is not to bluff with these pairs ourselves, but rather to recognise that many players are not finding these bluffs, and think about how to exploit them.
U need 2 know frequinces to understand h much value/bluffs should be in the spot and exploit it by deviating from gto if u see ur opp put too much value/bluffs on the street
And if u know that ur opp is maniac or smth and bluffs 100% air,that means u never fold and this is pure gto
good job man update more❤
This video is significant cause it explained why it's difficult and unnecessary to emulate GTO,if you get one handclass wrong,and it messes everything up;But the main question is why did this 11-minute video take you three months?
😂
Amazing video aswell
Nice video, but if you tell us not to play GTO then show us how to exploit the recreational.
You have to be balanced when playing a computer that's seen you play thousands of hands. Oh, but you're not doing that? You're playing drunks at your local casino who want to see a flop? Then don't.
Complimenti
In a sense, GTO learn you to exploit better
You still didnt give a good argument why randomizing is killing your ev. You and Uri Peleg have only said that if villain is maniac with 100%vpip you shouldnt randomize, if someone cant adjust vs such a player should just stop playing poker
Hey! Great video, thanks for all the help! Is there a way to contact you directly? Please let me know :D
hey, feel free to leave a message on my website.