Playing My A-Game | LIVE 200 ZOOM 

98 is straightminated by AK

Correct answer. I can add „reverse implied odds“. @Pete: Do we chatpros now get teached so that we can evolve to real poker pros and maybe ask these questions to the fans in the future, so that they can answer, get teached… #circleoflizardlife.

AK isn’t a part of the squeeze callers range. I’m really curious y he said especially with the caller. Maybe our 98 is dominated by the callers T9 J9 Q9 K9 A9 A8? Ig being sandwiched is great either

Thanks, 'Sean who folded 99'

Yeah the good news is that I also find these the most fun to create.

Honestly, no. I might take a foray into live poker at some point but for now I quite like my life being simple and wholesome. I'm happy in my little bubble I guess.

Im aware of this blocker effect but I don’t think it constitutes as much of the picture as you might think. A few things here in response to this: 1. Our spade also reduces the outs and therefore equity of these hands when villain has them. 2. In theory a flush draw is still entitled to a lot of the pot against our hand and range - it has a lot of implied odds and we sometimes fold the best hand vs it when it doesn’t get there. Deeming these hands ‘bluffs’ is misleading as their pot entitlement in EV is still quite high when checked to in position. They are much better for villain than having air in the river where pot entitlement is close to zero. 3. In GTO (solver land) the hands with the spades have higher EV than those without spades and are therefore further from a fold. Humans tend to over emphasise the blocker effects and how good it is when villain holds a flush draw here whole ignoring the extra equity and higher implied odds on rivers of having the spade when that card pairs. The effect you describe is more applicable on the river after draws miss than it is on the turn.

​@@CarrotCornerPoker Good points, and without considering the flip side, your arguments are great. However, now taking into account the downsides, and not just the upsides - Blocking their bluffs is a greater negative than reducing their equity with some hands is a positive. I do agree with your turn call, but because of the below reasoning, not because of your suit reasoning, and because it's a more significant reason - Opponents in most pools that call flop with the correct range tend to bet too often when checked to on the turn. Can I ask - Do you call turn with other variants of AK? If yes, then the world is good. If no, then I would say there's an issue of assigning AK(with a spade as being better, when it's not)

I love this. Variance is indeed so multifaceted but we pick and choose random appearances of it to get annoyed at.

I think most regs still understand that these hands are bluff catcher and will call a lot vs Bet-Check-Bet in this spot. It's very player dependent and some people do overfold but I don't think this is a case where a capped landing range equates to overfolding as it does in some spots where there's been less filtering.

@@CarrotCornerPoker thats true, thank you. is it safe to say that sticking to theoretical factors as primary consideration might be better especially against reg?

Yeah this is certainly a very tough spot with ranges being super-wide. I'lll think about something along these lines.

Yeah pretty much

Certainly won’t be a problem.

I think regular tables are great for winrate and that table selection is essential for professional grinders. I play zoom as it’s better for content.

@@CarrotCornerPoker oh. understand. same approach here. although table selection not possible here in germany where I´m from.

Impressive result mate, cant imagine if you start studying theory and physics of poker! Based on your experience in GG, as GG rakes 3bet pots preflop, do you think its better for players including myself who get used to paly 3bet or fold strategy on all position except BB and BTN to play on other sites? Or how would you adjust your preflop ranges with this rake structure? Would love to hear your thoughts and Pete's on this. Good Luck.

@@LivingKingKai I basically 3bet or fold against every reg and only deviate against weaker players. If there is a rec on bb i flat way more since i really want him in the pot. But overall 3 bet or fold worked for me just fine. I was checking some GTO wizard free stuff and it had solved ranges for GG poker 50nl preflop. Atleast theory wise it likes to flat more. It had flatting ranges from co, bu, sb and even a limping range from sb. Thats prob something i need to adjust now, since i was doing 3 bet or fold only before. Gl to your grind aswell!

Hey congrats on your promising results so far. I'm not sure about the GG rake structure. It's certainly worse than sites which don't rake preflop, but this isn't the only factor. Soft games can compensate for higher rake within reason. If you think the time is right to invest in strengthening the mechanics of your game in preparation for the next phase of your poker career then I would recomend the Carrot Poker School. It's a complete academic journey in poker theory and will help plug any holes in your understanding as well as arm you to the teeth with an understanding of all common nodes on the game tree and how ranges behave in them. You can find it here: www.carrotcorner.com/carrot-poker-school/

Also I forgot to add I think if we feel our hand is a 2 street hand then it’s just more combo’s calling the turn than it would be the river. Would love to know where you think I’m off on thought processes here

easy fold on that turn, if you are talking about 20:00 time, too many combos that are crushed AA there, no point for hero call there, looking for better spots :)

It might help to acknowledge that we can only beat bluffs in this spot; not value bets. Then consider how easy it is to bluff this spot after this action squence. Another thing that might help is getting rid of the word 'cooler' from your poker vocabulary 🙂

break even low sample

I don't play close to enough volume these days to know. The amount of volume needed to get a verdict close to a true win-rate in high standard deviation games like 200 ZOOM is a lot greater than what I've been playing in the last few years. I'd prefer to say insufficient sample size than quote you a fairly random observed win-rate over the small recent sample I have. When I played professionally, I'd run a 5-6bb/100 win-rate at these stakes with table selection, but this was a while ago now and the games were easier then. I will say that 200 ZOOM is a game I play mostly for content. If I was grinding for a living, this would not be my main choice of game.