Stroggos_nz: checks
but why

Don't like flop either, people don't have a huge tendency to try and exploit your "capped" checking back range so no need to protect it unless you see them going mental vs your check backs on similar boards. Deep stacked in position from a game theory perspective you should always bet your strongest hands on any board anyway. My assumption (which could easily be totally wrong of course) is that you're like many low stakes regs and are massively imbalanced towards hands with showdown value or hands only worth 2 streets of value when you check back flop and give yourself way too few potential bluffs on later streets, making it pointless for villain to bluff catch or bluff you much. You're being exploited by him being super nitty vs your check backs, and due to constructing your range this way are probably way too imbalanced towards bluffs when you bet flop given you're likely checking back a ton of Kx, underpairs and even lots of Ax and seemingly also even nutted hands whilsy presumably always betting everything with no showdown value. Of course I could be way off about your strategy but if this is close to what it is, as is the case for many low stakes regs then your range is very poorly constructed

can't tell if your trolling or not midian but balance and game theory clearly is less important vs this type of player and if your trying to gto every move against recreational players ur missing $$$.

It doesnt even matter GTO or exploitive this is never a check. We have the nuts, we want to get the most money in, this board is never going to get better for him anyway. The only time i see myself checking is vs sicktard fish that goes overbet - shove when you check

What you re most likely thinking is " i ahve the nuts he cant really have a hand here, I'd prefer to get a street of value from a random bluff he ll often do cuz i checked this board " except you ll miss a lot more value when he has stuff like a pair/trips/PP/gutshot or w/e

i dont need either of ur shit advice for someone uve never played. Your both retardedmonkeys for pretending you know what ur talking about.

this is becoming too tilting i only wanted to post for entertainment but u dont know this player and try to advice when i dont want it, midian's advice is especially beyond retarded haha. spitfires would be good against an unknown but he doesnt know villian so still retarded.

They are just trying to help, and in a sense get better themselves. Be nicer bro.

sorry man i have anger management problems i get triggered by everything. i had a child psychologist help me suppress it when i was a kid because my parents saw me try to stab someone.

^sick relevance lol

On January 25 2017 21:12 Stroggoz wrote: sorry man i have anger management problems i get triggered by everything

how can you even play poker without going on a rampage then

imagine someone responded to your HH's like TalentedTom usually did, you'd prob explode

I'm running the sim cuz I'm curious but I believe flop check back is pretty damn close in EV with betting, saying it's bad is just wrong

On January 25 2017 22:24 Fayth wrote: I'm running the sim cuz I'm curious but I believe flop check back is pretty damn close in EV with betting, saying it's bad is just wrong

^

On January 25 2017 20:18 Stroggoz wrote: i dont need either of ur shit advice for someone uve never played. Your both retardedmonkeys for pretending you know what ur talking about. this is becoming too tilting i only wanted to post for entertainment but u dont know this player and try to advice when i dont want it, midian's advice is especially beyond retarded haha. spitfires would be good against an unknown but he doesnt know villian so still retarded.

You play how you want, I don't care, was just my 2pence which if you don't want fine, but pretty ridiculous blowup. Dunno why I bother posting here at all anymore anyway. All decent posters are gone and now there is just a bunch of boring hand histories posted mostly by cunts so far up their own arse they can't even read constructive criticism without going apeshit. "Nh" anyway, thanks for keeping the hand histories alive with such riveting hands your highness. May I suck your willy now?

On January 25 2017 22:24 Fayth wrote: I'm running the sim cuz I'm curious but I believe flop check back is pretty damn close in EV with betting, saying it's bad is just wrong

Cool, let me know. I've never ran a sim where simple post flop checks back nuts in single raised pot but be curious what you get

On January 26 2017 00:56 ToT)MidiaN( wrote: Show nested quote + On January 25 2017 20:18 Stroggoz wrote: i dont need either of ur shit advice for someone uve never played. Your both retardedmonkeys for pretending you know what ur talking about. this is becoming too tilting i only wanted to post for entertainment but u dont know this player and try to advice when i dont want it, midian's advice is especially beyond retarded haha. spitfires would be good against an unknown but he doesnt know villian so still retarded. You play how you want, I don't care, was just my 2pence which if you don't want fine, but pretty ridiculous blowup. Dunno why I bother posting here at all anymore anyway. All decent posters are gone and now there is just a bunch of boring hand histories posted mostly by cunts so far up their own arse they can't even read constructive criticism without going apeshit. "Nh" anyway, thanks for keeping the hand histories alive with such riveting hands your highness. May I suck your willy now?   On January 25 2017 22:24 Fayth wrote: I'm running the sim cuz I'm curious but I believe flop check back is pretty damn close in EV with betting, saying it's bad is just wrong Cool, let me know. I've never ran a sim where simple post flop checks back nuts in single raised pot but be curious what you get

yeah me neither especially when you have a strong range advantage, I'd assume GTO here is betting 1/4 1/3

Yep, interested in that as well, and pretty sure its nowhere near close. Can you screenshot the results for easier interface

converted the numbers as if it was a 5/10 game, as far as ranges go I put a call range pre of 46%
ev of betting 2/3 is 138.1,
ev of betting 1/3 is 138.16
and ev of checking is 138.13
so yeah it's all very close, solver is checking back 10% of the time fwiw, betting 1/3 52% and 2/3 38%


from an exploitative point of view against certain villains in HU I could very well see this line as the most +EV line... anyway I think betting small here should be the default but I think his line was completely fine

On January 26 2017 16:22 Fayth wrote: converted the numbers as if it was a 5/10 game, as far as ranges go I put a call range pre of 46% ev of betting 2/3 is 138.1, ev of betting 1/3 is 138.16 and ev of checking is 138.13 so yeah it's all very close, solver is checking back 10% of the time fwiw, betting 1/3 52% and 2/3 38% from an exploitative point of view against certain villains in HU I could very well see this line as the most +EV line... anyway I think betting small here should be the default but I think his line was completely fine

The funny thing is I didn't even say that a check is out right bad, clearly if you're playing vs a villain who is gonna go nutso when you check back and play very straight forward vs a bet then checking is better vs said villain. I just said I don't like a check personally and all solutions I've ever run have just had IP betting all of their nuts in a single raised pot as preflop raiser with wide ranges. Plus I think a lot of low stakes regs construct their ranges to be way too light on bluffs when they check back and way too heavy on them when they bet as they have a tendency to check back too few 0 showdown value hands and check lots of Ax, underpairs, even some nuts on these types of board textures - easily exploited by simply not bluffing against them and calling tight against their delayed cbets

Edit: Also, as I understand it (could be wrong here, but pretty sure this is how equilibria work) those EVs for each action are only valid at those freqencies. For instance if you lock in a strategy where IP always checks back AQo and keep the rest of the strategy the same then the opposition strategy will be adjusted and the EVs will change (Presumably get lower given the Nash equilibrium is the best strategy and changing it will result in lower EV)

Well in this case I don't think I can node lock anything given it's the first flop action (unless villain is using some sort of donk betting strategy)

Yeah if it's saying check 10% then that's accurate for those ranges, just saying that the EVs would decline if you changed the strategy to 100% check for instance. I'm surprised it's checking at all anyway, maybe the ranges I use tend to favour IP more or something, no clue

well maybe you didnt run sims for HU ranges? it's much wider than any positions that ends up HU on flop in 6max or FR

On January 25 2017 21:51 lebowski wrote: ^sick relevance lol Show nested quote + On January 25 2017 21:12 Stroggoz wrote: sorry man i have anger management problems i get triggered by everything how can you even play poker without going on a rampage then

thats a good question. how do you do it?

On January 26 2017 20:45 Fayth wrote: well maybe you didnt run sims for HU ranges? it's much wider than any positions that ends up HU on flop in 6max or FR

I ran a few in the past, but not many and the ranges I used were probably way off base. Every SRP I've ever ran in any 6max scenario had IP betting nuts 100% on every board I've ran, can't imagine this would differ from HU. I would've expected to see button just cbet 100% of range for 1/4 pot or 1/3rd pot on this AQQ flop and virtually every paired board for that matter

super standard to check this flop
fuck solvers EV, the other player isnt playing GTO and it's ev depends entirely on how they play
people x/r way less often than piosolver advises vs tiny bets, if you node lock with the real strategy being used, im sure check will show a higher ev than betting small

would read the rage comments again 10/10
this is what we need here

^

On January 27 2017 00:53 drone666 wrote: super standard to check this flop fuck solvers EV, the other player isnt playing GTO and it's ev depends entirely on how they play people x/r way less often than piosolver advises vs tiny bets, if you node lock with the real strategy being used, im sure check will show a higher ev than betting small

yeah but they also get to showdown with a lot of stuff they shouldn't so

didn't realize how much things change cause its HU, was sure EV wouldn't be even close

On January 27 2017 00:53 drone666 wrote: super standard to check this flop fuck solvers EV, the other player isnt playing GTO and it's ev depends entirely on how they play people x/r way less often than piosolver advises vs tiny bets, if you node lock with the real strategy being used, im sure check will show a higher ev than betting small

Libratus dominating good HU pros for 12+bb/100 shows equilibrium strats from solvers do in fact crush and are basically the nuts. Just sayin

Im cool with a flop check here though.

On January 27 2017 18:42 traxamillion wrote: Show nested quote + On January 27 2017 00:53 drone666 wrote: super standard to check this flop fuck solvers EV, the other player isnt playing GTO and it's ev depends entirely on how they play people x/r way less often than piosolver advises vs tiny bets, if you node lock with the real strategy being used, im sure check will show a higher ev than betting small Libratus dominating good HU pros for 12+bb/100 shows equilibrium strats from solvers do in fact crush and are basically the nuts. Just sayin

libratus strategy wont be better than exploitative in a spot where you know how the field will play and you can adjust
libratus would crush a fish as hard as the best exploitative regs ? the answer is no.

the developers have implied libratus plays a much more exploititive game than we initially were lead to believe

never read such an intelligent GTO debate over a 50nl hand before

Biggest pitfall of GTO is that none of us actually know it anyway. I think Stroggoz just took my post way out of context and assumed I'm advocating attempting to play a GTO based style in every spot every hand, which is definitely not the case. I just said solvers that I've seen always bet here, my preference is to always bet here, but of course if your opponent is going nuts vs a check back then that is the best exploitative play and you should do that. I just don't like a check as a standard though as I think you lose too much value if you're wrong and the opponent isn't going nuts vs your check back. I personally believe more players will play worse when you bet here than when you check, particularly when you have a super aggressive cbetting strategy on this board and a face up checking back range, others disagree, which is fine.

On January 28 2017 02:00 traxamillion wrote: the developers have implied libratus plays a much more exploititive game than we initially were lead to believe

I believe it uses minimally exploitative solutions, where it figures out what the opponents are doing on said street and calculates a balanced but exploitative strategy against the opponent's strategy, so even though it is recalculating and making exploits it remains "balanced" in it's solutions. That is, if I understand it correctly from the bits and pieces I've picked up from watching some streams

tratamilions you are clicking buttons, first you use the argument that libratus is crushing the humans to help the "GTO is always better" argument but now you said that libratus plays exploitative

what's your point in bringing libratus to the conversation then?

Seems to me he s somewhat right as the bot seems to mainly play GTO until the point he finds an exploit to abuse villains as exploit > GTO.
It doesn't necessarily have to pick one of those two. It could be both. Quite sure thats the idea behind the bot to begin with.

Nothing wrong with check. Their is enough opponents who fold to much on the flop and bet to much vs a check on the turn.

^ agree. can't say either check or bet is perfect but is really debatable

On January 28 2017 13:10 ToT)MidiaN( wrote: Biggest pitfall of GTO is that none of us actually know it anyway.

damn the smartest post in this entire thread. you sir are a scholar and a gentleman.

I miss the days where LP would have legitimate good advice and discussion in some of the posts in the hands section

playing gto is unbeatable but it doesn't always make the most money for every hand so i'm not sure what the point of these solver discussions is. Imagine if u put piosolver discussion in the thread on jinshan0809 (legendary whale with -400bb/100 that evilsky folded aces to.), it would be completely irrelevant.

On January 31 2017 07:18 TimDawg wrote: I miss the days where LP would have legitimate good advice and discussion in some of the posts in the hands section

maybe you clowns shouldve relocated like you were supposed to.

On January 29 2017 09:50 drone666 wrote: tratamilions you are clicking buttons, first you use the argument that libratus is crushing the humans to help the "GTO is always better" argument but now you said that libratus plays exploitative what's your point in bringing libratus to the conversation then?

Because i came.into.further information genius

Someone tell me how 200bb opemjamming 278 is good

On February 01 2017 15:55 traxamillion wrote: Someone tell me how 200bb opemjamming 278 is good

Shows how far behind the times you really are.

On February 01 2017 07:04 handbanana21 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 31 2017 07:18 TimDawg wrote: I miss the days where LP would have legitimate good advice and discussion in some of the posts in the hands section maybe you clowns shouldve relocated like you were supposed to.

ahhh if I could only go back in time....