Thanks for the shoutout! Fwiw I think we bet big on AKx boards because our marginal hands don't benefit from equity denial. So our AJ+ region is free to bet their natural size (an overbet). Whereas on boards like A82, hands like 8x are more inclined to bet for protection. This makes us want to size down even when we have a very strong hand, so that our small bet range is not overly weak.
This makes a lot of sense. I feel in the video they kind of dismissed what you brought up by saying AQ, AJ, and AT, are still really strong hands, but those hands are also in the BB's range so there really isn't a nut advantage anymore. They use the same logic for why AJx and ATx boards aren't overbet. With the same principles, the AKx boards shouldn't be overbet, but they are, which means the reason must be something other than what people say about nut advantage.
You guys have the best content! My only request: Increase the sound volume on your videos. I have to turn up my volume to hear you, and then, if I forget to turn it down, the next thing I hear blasts me out of the room.
If possible I would like to see something about playing A high board oop or even better playing oop in general. I know in 6 max is not so frequent because generally only the button flat call (in any case you still play oop as pfr sometimes). In live cash game playing oop is really frequent, even at relative "high" stakes like 5/10 or 10/20. It would be nice to kearn something about this topic (another interesting one is multiway pots). Thanks.
About BTN vs BB, this overbet sizing on a AKX type board is something I'm going to try. Except if I have top set AA because I block his calling range, but with KK, AQ, AJ AT and some KQ, KJ,QJ,....
I thought solver likes to bet big on disconnected boards because whether your opponent has 99 or 66 they're going to call most cbets on a T72r flop as they perceive it to be unlikely to hit your range too.
I have always been uncertain to use smaller bet sizes when it comes to micro stakes poker. The reason is that the amounts that people are playing with and the skill level of the opponents in some cases make it imo irrelevant if the bet is 33% or 50%. My thought process is that you might as well bet 50% pot because for example in nl20 the difference of the two bets on the flop is going to be so small maybe 10 cents that to the opponent the size difference won't matter. Also a small bet 33% or less is going to be such a small bet that the opponent isn't going to fold anything against that bet. In higher stakes games for example if the pot is 100usd to me it makes a difference if the opponent bets 33 usd or something like 60 usd. I don't know if this makes sense.
in microstakes people fold in Axx for ONE big blind a lot if they had bananas (wich in microstakes will happen a lot cause people call pre flop with 96off)
Your thought process contradicts itself, u say there's no difference between 33% and 50% but u say they won't fold anything to a 33% bet which proves there is a massive difference. The idea of people folding more to a bigger $ value at higher stakes only applies to fish, skilled players are thinking purely in terms of BBs, the $ figure is irrelevant. The amount of BBs is interchangeable between stakes so strategy remains the same as you go up in stakes but you will face stronger opponents
Thank you for this video! At 17:08 you say we don't overbet AJx/ATx boards from MP but we do make these overbets from BTN because we have less nut advantage from MP. I would think that we have more nut advantage on an MP open (higher percentage of A's in range) than a BTN open since our MP open range is tighter. How am I wrong?
On some boards it won't be much. But it's a blunder on others. For example, imagine an Ace-high flop where the solver bets big at a middling frequency. Simplifying to bet small with range is going to be a lot worse -- you're going to bet hands that shouldn't bet, you're not going to get as much value with your strong hands, and you're not forcing as many folds with your bluffs.
Copy-pasting from Mel's comment: "Think about it. The least common would be duece high. (Only 222) Because EVERY card is overcard to the duece. See? And NO card is an overcard to the Ace." And the numbers from another comment: "From a TwoPlusTwo post on this topic: Ace high: ~21.7% King high: ~18.4% Queen high: ~15.2% Jack high: ~12.4% Ten high: ~9.9% Nine high: ~7.6% Eight high or less is the remainder."
You can think about it in terms of combos. There are more combos of 3 cards with an Ace as the highest card then with say a King. An easier way to think about it is that there are the same number of flops with an Ace in them as there are with a King or any other particular card. All of the flops with an Ace in them are Ace high but not all of the flops with a King in them are King High, and so on.
GTO bets too wide in some spots vs pool response, take the A83r flop gto bets 1/3rd with T6s no BD flush and will overbet it on rainbow 2. Some people have begun playing back at 1/3rd cbets which are made with all kinds of air
From a TwoPlusTwo post on this topic: Ace high: ~21.7% King high: ~18.4% Queen high: ~15.2% Jack high: ~12.4% Ten high: ~9.9% Nine high: ~7.6% Eight high or less is the remainder.
Think about it. The least common would be duece high. (Only 222) Because EVERY card is overcard to the duece. See? And NO card is an overcard to the Ace.
s@@UpswingPoker I'd be really curious to see what this distribution looks like when it becomes a conditional one, i.e, what is Pr(flop is X high | Hero hand is KJs), Pr(flop is X high | Hero hand is TT), and on and on for all the [I think, did htis quick in my head 193) possible starting hand types. And by the time I finished typing that I realized that the distribution of "X high" doesn't even require all 193 (if 193 is the correct number, that is) anyway. And by the time i finished typing thtat I realized that 193 isn't correct either. I should really just take the full 60 seconds to figure it out and double check it.
