Trueteller Extracting Max Value | Quads v King High for $380,000 

you all prolly dont give a shit but does anyone know a method to log back into an instagram account?? I was stupid lost the account password. I love any help you can offer me.

@Theo Sergio instablaster =)

That's possible if rake exists

@@II-no5oi why?

It's because a shove only gets called by Ax so shoving and calling have the same EV

To trap off course

@@PhilippZuk There's only 4 As in the deck?

Tonyg v mikita?

@@FindingEquilibrium please! :D

It's an interesting hand for sure, but the problem is that it starts out multiway so a piosolver analysis will not be accurate.

@@FindingEquilibrium Can we not take it as heads-up from whichever is the most applicable spot? I know people are just very curious about what PIO's calling range is on the River so maybe an analysis of a large River raise spot would satiate the hunger?

Davide Ganz i can think of two possible reasons: 1. Trueteller is more likely to value bet an ace with a higher kicker on the flop and turn so therefore when we do call a queen the 2 blocker is probably totally irrelevant whereas a T or J gives us a tiny extra percentage blocking AJ or AT etc. 2. we simply can’t call all the Qx as we’d be overcalling that way. To balance that range we need to fold some amount of Qx and since there’s not much of a difference anyway we just take a linear approach in balancing and call the „better“ ones and fold the „worse“ ones. Basically just to keep control of the amount of combos

When the decision is close sometimes you will see solver behavior that is almost inexplicable. Sometimes it is a function of some meta-blocking strategy the solver is using but it could also be because the solution is not solved all the way down the equilibrium. My personal view is that if the EV of two actions is pretty close, I try not to go too far down a rabbit hole to figure out what the solver is doing because the reality is, it may not be correct, and also, we don't know our opponent's exact ranges or strategies. Instead I try to focus my time on decisions that result in larger EV differences.

Might be low kicker ones doesn't block the oponent strong aces combs, like QA,10A,JA,AK..

Bluffs should always mirror the value (in terms of sizing, not necessarily number of combos).

Unfortunately I am limited by my developers' schedules. I would have liked to have released this months ago!

@@FindingEquilibrium So when are you releasing it? and for what price?

Likely an error with the solver since it doesn't solve all the way to the equilibrium.

To slowroll opponent, putting him on tilt and inducing poor play afterwards.

think its because in the video hes evaluating the ip response to the pot sizing which is obv different to the actual valuebet sizing which shpuld be used in the solution which is the 2x pot which will contain the polarized region of the ax and bluffs. would have to remove 2x sizing so the pot sizing contains that actual value/bluff region or nodelock it to simulate it but think if done so kd should be a card to have for the reasons you said above.

Because many inferior combos are calling? If a 150% bet is not max value what do you call it?

@@FindingEquilibrium In the real word (where not everyone is playing GTO and calling correctly) this bet folds out a high percentage of all hands on this board with a 150% pot bet, but would keep in a larger percentage with a much wider range with a smaller bet. I would think the +EV play would be to bet smaller or check. With a smaller bet hoping your opponent will call with a wider range. On a check hoping your opponent takes a shot at a bluff, or improves on the river such that he might call another bet. In other words, in the real world, I personally like a check or a small bet here. With A10 the solver overwhelmingly preferred a large bet over a check. I just don't find people are calling such bets as wide as the solver suggests they should.

If your opponents are over folding relative to gto then you will make more money off your bluffs if you are balanced.

Solver agrees with you. He was calling way too wide.

Could be....

Probably not until next year unfortunately.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5BurLO1nDg4.html

It is definitely an interesting hand but it starts out multiway so a piosolver analysis will be flawed.

Finding Equilibrium Thank you for your answer. Understood. I personally think Tony G called because of two main reasons (the second one is slightly related to GTO): 1. He just has a huge experience in such live cash spots (notice how concentrated Tony G was when scanned Mikita on river while young Belorussian made a decision) and 2. Mikita had not enough appropriate value hands to make such a move on river. Tony G has enough skills to understand it.

He's going through puberty!

That's not what I assume at all. I assume most people dont know what the gto strategy is in most spots.

The analysis was to mostly fold on the turn and river.....