Optimal sizing on wet flops: texture based betting - Page 2

I guess my point here is that a strategy can be balanced yet still extremely weak. You want to focus on exploiting your opponent to make money or versus better players to be unexploitable yourself. Balance is more important in the latter case but it needs to be combined with combinatorics, range estimation, and even tools like hand reading and timing tells to be worth much. I can bet 1 into 1000 on the river and still be balanced i just need to bet as a bluff extremely infrequently. Although it may be balanced this strategy obviously blows

In a 100bb SRP, the difference in EV between any reasonable sizing (30 - 100% pot) is negligible. Obviously this is assuming we're talking in GTO terms where you're betting/checking with the optimal range for that sizing and your opponent is also responding optimally.

Since that is impossible for humans and even when it is, the difference in EV is negligible, there is no point in discussing optimal bet sizing for such spots.

I think this topic has a lot more value if discussed in an exploitative context - what bet size does best vs the tendencies of the population you're currently playing against?

agree smuft. only thing is i would clarify for the new players you are talking about single raised pots. flop sizing becomes non trivial if its 3 or 4b pre.

since like smuft said its practically impossible for a human to perfectly construct a hand including betsizing with a large SPR starting all the way back at the flop, i generally just try to size my flop bet so that I can comfortably and geometrically (or whatever i am trying to do) bet 3 streets

also with gto play your opponent's strategy doesn't matter but i think you know that and assume it goes without saying that if your opponent doesn't attempt to play optimal or balanced poker them self then you are better off seeking an exploitative strategy anyways

On January 26 2015 03:02 Smuft wrote: In a 100bb SRP, the difference in EV between any reasonable sizing (30 - 100% pot) is negligible. Obviously this is assuming we're talking in GTO terms where you're betting/checking with the optimal range for that sizing and your opponent is also responding optimally. Since that is impossible for humans and even when it is, the difference in EV is negligible, there is no point in discussing optimal bet sizing for such spots. I think this topic has a lot more value if discussed in an exploitative context - what bet size does best vs the tendencies of the population you're currently playing against?

strong argument if we accept the first paragraph,

but the first paragraph seems like a strong and perhaps surprising result. Can you tell us how you came to it exactly? Remember we're talking about wet flops.

From using poker software and comparing the EV of different bet sizes, particularly GTORB turn solver. Even when you compare a strategy with multiple sizes (say 30%, 70%, and 125%) vs a strategy with a single bet size of 50%, the EV difference is negligible, which is very surprising indeed.

My opinion here is based on work that's far from exhaustive but at the very least I can say your time is wasted if you're trying to figure out GTO bet sizing in such spots. Figuring out a bet size to exploit that population as well as which hands go in which range for which sizing is much better.

On January 26 2015 20:01 Smuft wrote: From using poker software and comparing the EV of different bet sizes, particularly GTORB turn solver. Even when you compare a strategy with multiple sizes (say 30%, 70%, and 125%) vs a strategy with a single bet size of 50%, the EV difference is negligible, which is very surprising indeed.

That is interesting and surprising to hear. Would you elaborate on that a bit: how this program works, and what exactly you tested? Also was this for all flop situations or just a single raised flop?

gtorb shows ev in bb/hand, so its not negligible...

On January 26 2015 05:51 traxamillion wrote: it goes without saying that if your opponent doesn't attempt to play optimal or balanced poker them self then you are better off seeking an exploitative strategy anyways

also not true when playing someone whos capable of re-adjusting and adopting proper counter-strategy

On January 26 2015 02:33 traxamillion wrote: I guess my point here is that a strategy can be balanced yet still extremely weak.

This was EXACTLY the point of the original post.
I am able to construct close to balanced flop and turn ranges, but I have been having a lot of trouble coming up with what I feel is the correct bet sizing to use for balancing ranges given different circumstances. It seems like with the possible exception of some river spots, betsizing has become smaller at high levels of play in the last few years (just saying this from observation). For flop betting, I've been doing approximately (in pot sizes):

50% 66% 80% 100%
----------------X--------------

If preflop is just 2-bet, and the board is normal the bet would be 80% (so that's where the slider starts). For every additional bet preflop, the slider moves to the left once, and if the flop is wet, it moves to the right. So if I 4-bet pre and the flop is wet, then if I choose to bet I will c-bet 66% of the pot. For each of these different circumstances, I balance them independently and differently.

I'm certainly not claiming that's close to optimal. I have a feeling people here would think it is absurd to bet pot on the flop in any circumstance (and maybe that really is bad, I dono). I would like to make something a bit more complex in the future, like have different degrees of wetness instead of it just being binary, and having something like

50% 61% 73% 86% 100%
----------------X--------------------

I've been trying to rationalize this mathematically, but it's just way too complicated for me to wrap my head around yet. Game-theory wise I can't even make a convincing argument that one should bet larger on wet flops than dry ones. Perhaps I should try out betting MORE on dry flops instead of wet, but that seems to go against what feels correct and what everybody thinks is good.

I created some turn ranges to input into GTORB turn solver to illustrate.

Scenario:

BTN opens min, BB calls
(BTN opens 55%, BB cold calls 51%)

Flop: Th8h2d

BTN bets 50% pot, BB calls
(I have BTN betting 65% of his flop range, with a reasonably balanced check back range, and for simplicity BB only defends by calling)

Turn: Js

1 bet size of 50% pot: (EV of 4.11)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...4d2ecbaef47e3e2fc542c27d186/root_v=30

1 bet size of 100% pot: (EV of 4.11)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...691e951e288b2a5ce3da3521bd5/root_v=30

So the EV of betting 50% pot or 100% pot are identical.

What happens if we use a strategy with 2 bet sizes?

2 bet sizes of 50% pot and 125% pot: (EV of 4.12)
http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_sce...5b595fb4a72c34858435b4267f0/root_v=30

So you gained 0.01bb/hand if you somehow manage to be able to perfectly execute a 2 sizing strategy

-

Keep in mind that this is on the turn where sizing should matter a bit more than the flop (going with the assumption that in general the more play there is left (stack depth, range width), the less bet sizing will effect EV). This seems to be true because when you play with river sizing, they effect the EV more than turn sizing, and when you play with sizing in 3 and 4 bet pots, they effect the EV more than SRPs.

very interesting indeed smuft

By the way, to address people who are saying "don't worry about it, just play exploitative to own noobs; you are probably playing very low level anyway' I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I'm not interested in that for a number of reasons.

First, it's just not the game I'm interested in learning. I love games and love poker, and I would like to learn it as high of a level as possible if I'm going to really play it. I am convinced this sort of study and thinking is what will make me the most skilled in the long run. Secondly, I actually think studying yourself and learning about doing everything you can to be unexploitable yourself is the best way to learn how to exploit something in someone else's play. If you really work at being less exploitable in some spot and finally figure out a solution, you will now be aware of an opponent that has not figured this out, and if you so choose, can then adjust your play to try to exploit them. Thirdly, I play lots of live poker and don't have money on any online poker site right now, so bad players are pretty much the only people I get to regularly play against. Nothing can be learned by trying to exploit bad players. However if you are absolutely insistent and never adjust your play based on who you are playing against or how they are playing, playing against bad players who are bad in completely different ways can actually be helpful in finding problems with how one plays. If you play the exact same way against someone who raises and 3-bets 100% preflop as you do against someone who folds 75% hands and only raises with 25% preflop, then you might discover very quickly that you are playing in a way that is exploitable. In some ways (granted not most), it might actually better to play against someone who is bad, because they do such dramatic things that no good player would do in their right mind because it's so easy to exploit, but those dramatic things can really test the system you are using. I would never find a good player who continues to raise every time they are given the option preflop, yet that is exactly way you should test your pre-flop range to see if you are folding too often.

Wow smuft, I need to check that thing out more. Thanks for showing us that. Amazing result that they EV is actually identical...

On January 22 2015 19:55 dogmeat wrote: yeah look at vitalmyth whos abilities were questioned even back in 2009 or check some random outdated hands lol bet w/e you want vs fish and datamine some strong 2014 reg who plays similar style to urs

Vital[Myth] was textbook TAG, i find it difficult for anyone who played him to disagree. Did he play too tight? Sure. Did he have leaks in his game? Sure. Did he play TAG and win money playing 100nl and 200nl when games were soft? Yes. I'm not talking about 2009 but rather the ~2006 Vital[Myth]

On January 23 2015 18:25 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On January 22 2015 17:16 cariadon wrote: I will have a go at this. I am sincere in what i say next and believe it to be the best way to answer your vaguely worded question. As a mental exercise pick say 3 types of players e.g. TAG regular marginally winning rakeback pro, LAG regular winning at a decent rate, losing player pretty much drawing dead over a long run. What do they do differently and how does it influence their winrate over say 250 000 hands. If i were to sum up what i have read over the years, seen on poker tables of different stakes and self analysis well over a million hands it is this: Losing player - may or may not know rules, clicking buttons with no gameplan and clueless about poker theory. TAG - ABC of poker, neccessary foundation needed in order to be consistent and progress forward. TAG raises preflop, c-bets flop a high % of the time and plays straightforward for hand value not overcomplicating things. (good) LAG - besides taking money from losing players is able to take money from TAG players because he understands poker concepts thoroughly and throws TAG players off by varying betsizes and frequency of betting. A good LAG is very observant and takes advantage of situations that arise less often but are more profitable (think bigger pots, deeps stacks with wider ranges for value and bluffing). He takes into consideration players positions and table dynamics. TAGs shouldn't cbet under two thirds of the pot on flop at low limits and i'd advise betting bigger on wet flops both to protect good hands and to build a pot with equity. TAG plays most pots in position and isn't afraid of being outplayed, knowing when to fold the equity hands because other options (call, raise) are not mathematically justified. LAG is observant and may start c-betting smaller and larger to accomplish different things depending on his opponents and their tendencies. Visualising how a TAG & LAG player use the tools of position, agression and betsizing similar in some spots and different in others will be instrumental in leapfrogging you from playmoney to delicious ryebreadom. The next step is up to you. Vital[Myth] and Daut have always stood out as strong players with deep understanding for poker concepts. Most greenstar posters are strong accomplished players, either winning TAG or LAG. Go over the archives, see how they play high pocket pairs, low pocket pairs, suited connectors. Breaking poker down in this manner is far more efficient than to start inventing the wheel. The short answer is play TAG, an even better answer is play LAG. The absolute answer might be to play GTO against fish. lol his question in op is actually quite sophisticated (at least the first part of it, about predetermined sizing based on public information), while this reply is unsophisticated noise awkward

He found my post useful so you can go fuck yourself. It would wrong of me to blame you for your abrasive inquisitive manner of conduct because i am at times no better.

I applaud the way TheHungarianGOD approaches learning the game. I agree that having a sound understanding of strategy and underlying math is of utmost importance. Despite my salt i wish him the best.

Whenever the opportunity arises wiseguys start talking out of their asses. Similar to a dog chasing its tail they talk vigorously about the "unknown unknowns". A lot of fancy words that may or may not have been assembled into sentences using "random sentence generator" or even witchcraft. This is not directed at Smuft as i didn't bother to dwell on what he wrote.

The opposite of that is Baalims post, in which there is compactly packaged information that is universally true. It first went unnoticed to me but then i re-read it and thought to myself "what a good reply".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk

uhh smuft dropped legit info, wwu disregard it Caradion.

How long has GTORB been out? Is that the software WCGrider and some other pros use that ppl bitch about being unfair? can you run calcs on the site fast enough to use it for ingame decisions?

Looks like very powerful stuff.

smuft i have never seen this program before (bovada player last few years havent bothered with HEM/PT or any software since HUDs don't even work) and i have a question about it. I am trying to figure it out seems like a great learning tool.

the question i have is about the very 1st link the 50% pot cbet hand. When I click over the the first node (1st 100% circle linking to one other 100% circle with a line labeled villain checks 100%) it gives some information. Part of that is the box "GTO Strategy" which I am assuming displays the proper turn strategy for the OOP player with each potential hand in his range. You can hover the mouse over each additional hand and further info is given like frequency, action, combos. When hovering over 89s it says 3/4 combos, when hovering over 89o it says 9/12 combos. When hovering over 97s it says 4/4 combos and when hovering over 98o it says 12/12 combos. This is on a 1082hh board. There is no reason to play 3/4 of the better 89 combos pre while playing 100% of the 97 combos so I am assuming those combo numbers are derived from the flop. This is further confirmed when you see that 89 makes middle pair on the flop and 97 makes an open ended straight draw.

My question is do you input those flop combos yourself or is the program calculating that for you. Can i assume from that page that GTORB is telling me on that flop oop with 89 i should be c/calling 75% and c/folding 25% while c/calling 100% of the time with 97? or are those ur assumptions

this program seems incredibly dangerous for poker; just read about it and a flop solver is coming next. Subscriptions should be like 500/month at least not 500/yr glad i play plo i guess.

flop builder example from the site owners blog; I love and hate this

http://gtorangebuilder.com/#share_b=A...m=0_as=0_bs0=0.3_p0=3c2c,AcAd_p1=KdKh