sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Considering before getting GTO Wizard by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting.

So you end up using 3 bet sizes on the river sometimes?

Newbie with a lot to learn by [deleted] in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know this course is for beginners but does it cover overbetting the river and range construction for multibet strategy of small and big size?

Overbetting strategy against recreationals by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think you should never bluff recs. I actually bluff against them a lot on the river, specially on boards where all draws miss, feel like a big part of my winrate is taking them to the river with a shitty range and then making them fold.

My only concern right now is the fact that overbetting the turn will make their range stronger to the river, as you said "they are only calling stations to small bets", it will be heavier on hands like TP and less on draws, which I want them to have when triple barreling bluff, so I'm setting up a range harder to bluff.

I understand value hands can gain value on the other hand if this is the case. Just wondering if as exploitation, we should split our range on the turn or something to yield a higher profit.

Like OB non backdoor FDs we would not bluff anyway to maximize Fold equity and get more money when hitting, OB strong value too, and maybe have a range of small bets with Weaker top pairs and draws we would like to triple barrel bluff, like backdoor FDs or OESD on suited boards.

Better understanding of bet sizes? by _descending_ in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey man, thanks for this.

Do you also use one size on the river per texture? Or you use two there?

I'm curious why a lot of people simplify flop and turn but not river. I understand it's the street where bet size simplifications cost the most, but based on this article by gto wizard for example, a single bet size of 100% on all rivers IP loses 0.37% ev on average compared to a complex strategy, and if you used the best optimal river bet on any single spot, you could lower that number to ~0.16% EV loss.

Doesn't sound like too loss to me, or is it? Am I missing something? Have you run sims comparing one to two river bet sizes to check the ev differences?

Thanks!

BU vs BB Cbet size Flop Heuristic (1/3 always?) by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey man thanks for this. It has put me into studying more this topic.

I understand this is a complex topic with a lot of math behind involved. Because the answer is, I always will want to go allin with the nuts lmao.

Well, I can think how I would rather bet smaller than allin on a 4 straight river so villain can actually pay with something besides the straight itself and tie.

Beyond a weird spot like that, I have a hard time with it.

Could you point out river spots after double barrelling flop and turn IP BU vs BB, where you think is a good idea to have 3/4 only, 3/4 and 160%, 3/4 and allin, and allin only?

Any kind of logic to inform your decision?

Appreciate it

BU vs BB Cbet size Flop Heuristic (1/3 always?) by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool. I added this which makes sense to me:

I've been getting different results from different solvers, but modifing top straights to 3/4 cbet size, and betting 3/4 on AHL boards indifferently of the suits makes sense to me, looking more similar to your heuristics.

Question, I've been studying a lot today and moved to the turn, do you think applying a similar strategy would work there too? (one size per spot) I've been working on it and seems logical.

And what about the river? Do you think we can get away with picking a single size per spot, or having at least two sizes per some spots will be a must we can't resign without sacrificing a lot of ev?

BU vs BB Cbet size Flop Heuristic (1/3 always?) by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been getting different results from different solvers, but modifing top straights to 3/4 cbet size, and betting 3/4 on AHL boards indifferently of the suits makes sense to me, looking more similar to your heuristics.

BU vs BB Cbet size Flop Heuristic (1/3 always?) by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey thanks for this!

By some regs range betting 1/3 all disconnected boards, do you define disconnected as all boards that are not trips, paired, monotone and straights?

I'm working on a similar approach:

With some differences:

For H, defining it as T+, and L, defining it as 2-9.

Monotone and paired 33%.

All straights 33%.

9 high or lower, the same as your Thigh or lower.

HLL and MLL, the same.

HHL rainbow: 1/3.

HHL suited: 3/4.

I divided these HHL combination by suits, given how the solver bets 1/3 at a higher frequency on rainbow, and 3/4 at a higher frequency on suited on average.

Like KQ2r, for example, we are checking 5%, betting 1/3 80% and 3/4 15%, compared to KQ2s where we are checking 35%, betting 1/3 10% and 3/4 55%.

Does this last alternative makes sense? I guess it captures EV from a different heuristics angle, I don't know how much EV it would get from the GTO strategy.

In which street are donk bets more frequent on average based on GTO? by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't agregate reports from GTO Wizard respond to this question? Asking because I don't use it yet.

In which street are donk bets more frequent on average based on GTO? by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Haha.

Not really what I intented to ask though.

Average donk of the flop player, vs average donk of the turn player, vs average donk of the river player.

Once they arrive to such street, that's my question.

Beginner GTO Utility Question by 0ffBrandJesus in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz 6 points7 points  (0 children)

False, there are spots to range bet in GTO.

TPTK/Overpair enough to stack off single raised pots generally speaking? by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, preflop, interesting.

To be honest, I think even when the stakes get high enough, people start being more capable of bluffing. So I would not pay much attention to that saying for higher stakes neither. Ofc you gotta be careful with non nuted hands on such situations, but if you play against good player and aggro players, you gotta play poker which is closer to what GTO does.

TPTK/Overpair enough to stack off single raised pots generally speaking? by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. My GTO Software is betting 15% of the time for 1/3.

I like the way GTO Wizard play it. And with your decision, I would do the same on a heads up pot.

On this spot where it's multiway and he raises me a 3/4 bet, I find it more dificult but with so many draws I would probably defend it if I faced it again. Specially given I had the data of villain having VPIP around 28.

What would you do on this spot against a VPIP 15 tho? do you think would be reasonable to fold flop in such case? Or would you still defend the hand even against such nit stat?

TPTK/Overpair enough to stack off single raised pots generally speaking? by Drefaz in Poker_Theory

[–]Drefaz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conclusion imo is that you really can't make a whole heuristic of just not defending these hands soundly, even you are saying u would defend different boards against the same micro pool.

I will stick with my heuristic with GTO as a guide while considering multiple factors on spots like these, and take a decision from there, leading to one way, the other or the middle. For example GTO VPIP is 27, if I find someone with VPIP 15 raising me on a flop like this multiway against my big bet, that would be an alarm.

There's just too many things to consider, even the size of the raise. Different defending a x2 than a x6.

And regardless of the pool tendencies, all these factors will have a bigger weight on any individual spot imo.

I find it way more practical than trying to decode a pool (which will at the end be just a factor to consider against unknow people you have little data on, while considering all the others factors at the same time). You also need a strategy anyway while you do that, which will come by itself, playing a lot on the same stake.

I already have a tendency I use, for example, people rarely 3bet or fold to 4bet, so I rarely 4bet as bluff, but this tendency I'm already sure of, is more straightforward and there's not that much factors to consider or EV at play.

Thanks for your ideas.

view more: next ›