hi QY, Q5的setting，IP 的river bet no allin，是OOP不能raise嗎? Hi QY, the setting of Q5, when IP makes a river bet that is not all-in, is it that OOP cannot raise?
I faced a very similar situation in yesterday’s session holding JJ utg with MP reg squeezing to 7bb and BTN fish cold call. Immediately thought about this video, re-watched it, and still don’t know to do 🥲
@@PokerGiraffe like if I have 2 spades doesnt it reduce the chances that the opponent is bluffing his missed spades so augment the chance that the opponent is in value? thats why i dont understand the river call with 2 missed spades
Wow, never heard complicated poker concepts explained so well before. So many will try to show what a tree is by pointing to a forest , this man will take you for a climb. 👏
Whats obvious that you guys never seem to figure out is your opponents adjust just like you do. So if you keep bluffing over and over again they will start calling. And if your not bluffing enough they wont call the river. Your not playing whales anymore. Its 2024 not 2003. You guys keep thinking you can exploit players that are going to readjust just like your doing. The assumptions your opponents dont make adjustments is why your losing. Your trying to exploit and throwing your money away. The reason people try to exploit is becasue it makes them feel smart and like they are pro poker players. This is why you guy are losing is not being balanced enough. Trying to exploit doesn't work long term because that player is going to adjust. Even fish that play really bad will get better over time and learn to adjust to what you are doing. Bluff all your air against a player overfolding? Well they are going to adjust its not rocket science by calling more and trapping more. And now you are getting exploited by them for not staying balanced. And then you go on tilt for trying to exploit and losing 20 buyins in a short session. Have fun with that.
I used to before a winner before I started using solvers lol just by playing intuitively overly tightly in small stakes games. In my bid to become a "better player" I've become a rakeback grinder :p
Thank you for the breakdown and the thoughts! Very interesting. Have a question about this thought at 2:44 "SB is supposed to bet at low frequency (27%) on low paired board. If SB double barells often enough, it will soon become obvious that he is over C-betting. all he needs to do is showdown w Jx8c and GTO player will know what he is doing" Is this realistic? In what time frame / volume of hands are we thinking this is likely to happen? Over a few thousand hands, BvB spots, that actually go post flop, w low paired boards and get double barelled and to showdown with a combos @SB that "makes it clear" that SB is over-Cbetting? To me, it seems like something you'd have to be looking for it to see it, and even then it could be noise. Such spots are definitely not as clear/reliable information as are the preflop all ins 100bb deep, for e.g.
On Q4 you assume the Villain has to make us indifferent between checking and bluffing with the 72, but I disagree! Imagine we can bet 50 combos for value for a pit size bet, thus we can bluff 25 combos to be balanced… Then we bluff all our 16 combos of 72 (assuming we have all of them in our range), but we still need to bluff 9 extra combos. Shouldn’t our opponent make us indifferent with those combos instead ? Furthermore, in almost every situations the 72 combos will still remain a small part of our entire range. One also have to keep in mind the 72 value is higher the smaller the pot is (assuming the money stolen from each player is a constant, eg 5bb). Thus even in very narrow ranges spots like 4bet pots, 72 will be quite rare and may not affect strategies. Tbh, I never solved any spot with the 72 rule (is any solver able to do it ??) but it would be very interesting!
These are great points, it definitely depends on how much 72 we have in that specific spot. If it's a small amount then 72 could very well be autoprofit at equilibrium.
A better toy game to understand 2. Is to let OOP have either nut flush or air, and IP have bluffcatchers like 80% of nut flush blocker (ace high) and a one pair hand. Going allin in this situation is dominated by the fact that IP folds less than MDF by simply pure calling his nut flush blocker combo and pure folding his second pair combo. I already ran that toy game wich let me know the answer for this one 😊
thats the problem with these GTO Solver nerds who pretend to play but are never in the field real deal. They do all the math and correct plays in their own minds and think that the objective math of the play will save them but the reality of poker is that its very fluid and very subjective, and thats never more obvious then when actually playing the game. Unlike these two fools who ive NEVER heard of and therefore dont ever play. Especially in regards to their take on bet sizings i can tell they dont actually play the game, because if they did they would know your bet sizes are going to depend heavily on who your opponent is at the time IRL not fkn in fairy solver computer land. i.e: his bet sizeing take on AK flops....ok so your only going to use half pot or bigger because "theres no hands that really want to bet small" (laughable take like he doesnt play poker) ok so if you have AA KK AK AQ which will be in ur range sometimes your gonna scare away your opponent EVERYTIME with a huge bet? how the fk do you make money in poker? ur a losing player with that one take alone because it means you dont extract value at least where i do (idk about any1 else) but i use small sizings more frequently then these two idiots will admit to being useful. on a AK board im gonna bet like i want my opponent in the hand til the river which means inducing with small sizes even when bluffing. With their "solver approved" strategy your betting off bottom pairs that would otherwise continue drawing dead and even small flush draws from tight opponents all of which you want still in the hand. "only use big sizings and less frequently = be the most readable player on the table and easy to exploit. because that line that consistently is almost always just the nuts..so once again i ask how the fk do YOU TWO make profit from poker? cuz i would bet yall dont even play.
@@prenomnom6203 well im a professional poker player who actually plays millions of hands a year and i guarantee i been playing longer then these two combined. been in the game 20+ years and i havent seen these two on any sites, any live trnys, anything at all to be honest. their not online or live while im here everyday grinding vs the best in the world...... sooooo im not trolling but im sure your dumb for even questioning it
this is what happens when you get people who are ESL make english videos. the questions are asked all wrong and backwards, the first question was asked from the BTN perspective at first (i think) but then it changes to BB perspective which in turn changes the answer. Your not using proper english and its messing up the questions and answers. just FYI. "what happens if we remove 2p+ from BTNs range?" ur asking that from the BB perspective but you actually meant it from the BTN aggressor perspective am i right? the question posed to one or the other will have different results obviously. and the question it self is just posed so awkwardly. In reality if your opponent can remove 2 pair plus from ur range, guess what? ur in big fkn trouble. but in this question your asking it like ur opponent is doing u a favor by letting u know he knows 2 pair plus is not in ur hand range? like huh? what fkn poker are yall playing over there? no wonder ive never heard of either of you two and i been playing poker for 20+ years. The execution of questions on this so called quiz is atrocious.
0:15 You have to should be being balanced in every spot 2:00 Focus on your blockers cards very much and nothing else 5:00 Don't never let anybody or anyone keep or hold a draw at any cost never, especially if it's 3 of the same, cards have to be paid for and they cost money and should not be cheap or not expensive so you make money
No one who actually understands how GTO works will play GTO. When Doug was playing HU with Negreanu, he had a whole team analysing Negreanu's leaks so that he could exploit them for the max. I'm not familiar with Jarretman, but chances are he's not playing as balanced as you think.
@@PokerGiraffe I see this issue the same way as you do, but allow me to respectfully bring up some counterpoints: 1) Doug Polk has said in numerous interviews that his team looked for leaks in Negreanu's game, but even then his strategy was to mimic GTO (even tho with some simplifications of frequencies and sizes) as much as possible. Additionally, he has dozens of videos (including recent ones) advocating that we should play as close to theory as possible and that this style is a long-term winner against everyone. He really seems to believe in this. 2) Jarretman is publicly known for playing as close to GTO as he can without adapting to anyone. In fact, in the only interview he has ever given on RU-vid, he openly talks about how this is his strategy. 3) Both Doug and Jarretman do not play like a GTO BOT, obviously. They are unbalanced because it wouldn't be humanly possible to be perfectly balanced. Therefore, I understand that they might be exploiting various players even unintentionally. However, my provocation is about how there is a clash of ideas, considering that some strong professional players seem to advocate mimicking theory, while others say it wouldn't be possible to win that way.
I definitely think it's possible to win - in fact I was playing like this for a long time and still winning. It's just that when I look back now, it's clear that I could have won much more by thinking more about my opponents' mistakes, and how to exploit them.
@@PokerGiraffe People always warn that if you go out of your way to exploit you can be exploited yourself, but that only matters when you are playing against elite players. Most players below highest stakes just play how they play and aren't even paying enough attention or educated in poker enough to even realize what you are doing.
I feel like in these kind of vids it should also be mentionned that some river nodes are overbluffed, not always the underbluffed ones, it gives the false impression that people in general are not bluffing enough on the river when in reality there are many many spots where people bluff way too much
THX for making such a good and interesting content, I feel confused about my level recently, but take back some confidence when I found I could figure out all the question and the logic behind.
I call GTO fools gold. Cash game play is about feel and opponents previous play. Meaning if you don’t “feel” what to do at all you shouldn’t be playing poker for money. Opponents… a very aggressive guy you can hammer the pot, check raise and play looser. So solve this pal, lol. Joking
@@PokerGiraffe lol Almost liked it until you used a solver to “unsolve” a hand. Oh and if you’re playing online then a solver is the least of your worries because online poker is totally foolish. Yes I’m against online poker! BUT I do appreciate your video making dedication.
My problems are always away from the table. I actually win more than i lose but I don't play regularly like other people. I will play for a few days 2-3 2-5 and make 4000$ then not play anymore as a example. I usually spend the money on vice things then the Money is gone in a month and i repeat the process later.
My thought is that typically in these spots in which highly competent professionals disagree it's usually very close in theory and probably won't be a major EV swing either way; or, at the very least, the EV swing will be so highly sensitive to what ranges (and possible reactions to both 4b and call) we assign both MP and BU that one really can't say definitively without having a better read on those ranges. My gut instinct was to 4b, but it's not a hill I'd be willing to die on.
Your videos are excellent. It would be interesting to know what stakes you play. And I would like to know your story, where do you come from, how did you get to where you are in poker as a player and as a coach and as a human. This might be a cool idea for a video if you like to share.
