Optimal sizing on wet flops: texture based betting - Page 3

On January 27 2015 03:42 cariadon wrote: Show nested quote + 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dogmeat wrote: yeah look at vitalmyth whos abilities were questioned even back in 2009 or check some random outdated hands lol bet w/e you want vs fish and datamine some strong 2014 reg who plays similar style to urs Vital[Myth] was textbook TAG, i find it difficult for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]

do you even play poker?

On January 26 2015 23:40 Smuft wrote: 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.

0.01bb difference could be considered negligible but 0.1bb would be huge, is it really this close for other scenarios?

I have a similar question about the first node in the example you give Smuft with 2 flop betsizes and 4.12 ev. When you look at the GTO strategy for villain it says to c/c 9/12 QJo combos on the flop excluding specifically QhJs, QdJs, QcJs. All Js combos of QJo are excluded and i can't find a logical reason why. 10h8h2d Flop. I would assume it was just picking those combos at random but I would think at minimum when floating those QJo gutshot combos you would at least want the six combos with a heart in them for maximum backdoor flush potential. Why then is QhJs eliminated?

Such negligible ev difference the program overlooks it? I find that unlikely given how specific the analysis is but can't think of much else

On January 27 2015 05:00 traxamillion wrote: 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.

I don't play poker anymore. Quit to pursue other interests. What he said was definitely interesting but i don't have the time to spend further educating myself on the subject.

On January 27 2015 06:27 dogmeat wrote: Show nested quote + On January 27 2015 03:42 cariadon wrote:   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] do you even play poker?

I used Vital[Myth] as an example of a TAG player. I played against him tons back in the day. Are you saying he is a bad example for a TAG player? Whatever personal vendetta you may have is irrelevant here. Did you even play poker back in 2005-2006? This is going nowhere and derails the thread.

On January 26 2015 23:40 Smuft wrote: 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.

your method is wrong. you have looked at the value of a subgame starting from the turn under different betting regimes and found sizing doesnt matter from the turn. we are interested in solving for optimal flop sizing (which i suspect should be bigger on wet flops than dry). unfortunately I don't think commercially available solving software nowadays can solve from flops yet?

Apparently GTORB will be able to solve flops soon but not yet.

Anyone know if GTORB runs calcs fast enough to use them Ingame

On January 27 2015 04:12 cariadon wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2015 18:25 Romm3l wrote:   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

if he found your post useful that's because he doesn't know any better and can't tell the difference between signal and your noise (or was being polite since you made an effort). part of productive discussion is pointing out and eliminating the unproductive, incorrect, misleading and noise.

On January 21 2015 21:03 Baalim wrote: Sizing its about manipulating your balance, if your range contains too many value and too little bluffs then you have to make villians call indifferent giving him better odds and you do that by betting smaller and viceversa

true for river halfstreet games or allin bets. much less so for flop strategy since you can't value turn nodes and there are other strategic considerations like setting up favourable SPR situations in future streets or betting smaller to diminish the effectiveness of crai in 3b pots, for example.

On January 27 2015 14:33 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On January 27 2015 04:12 cariadon wrote:   On January 23 2015 18:25 Romm3l wrote:   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 if he found your post useful that's because he doesn't know any better and can't tell the difference between signal and your noise (or was being polite since you made an effort). part of productive discussion is pointing out and eliminating the unproductive, incorrect, misleading and noise.

hold on there buddy ! lets get to 25nl before solving poker, okay?

On January 27 2015 08:25 cariadon wrote: Show nested quote + On January 27 2015 06:27 dogmeat wrote:   On January 27 2015 03:42 cariadon wrote:   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] do you even play poker? I used Vital[Myth] as an example of a TAG player. I played against him tons back in the day. Are you saying he is a bad example for a TAG player? Whatever personal vendetta you may have is irrelevant here. Did you even play poker back in 2005-2006? This is going nowhere and derails the thread.

what vendetta are you talking about? i only know you as a guy whos trolling hand history section

anyway why do you have to flood this thread with your nonsense and vague, meaningless categorizations like 'tag' and baseless statements like 'tag should never bet less than xxxx'? you dont even play poker anymore, nobody cares about your 2006 wisdom, just gtfo, your post are 99% bs and i m being generous here

On January 27 2015 13:37 traxamillion wrote: Apparently GTORB will be able to solve flops soon but not yet. Anyone know if GTORB runs calcs fast enough to use them Ingame

it takes 1-3mins for turn cals, flop cals will take hours

On January 27 2015 14:50 Romm3l wrote: betting smaller to diminish the effectiveness of crai in 3b pots, for example.

assuming you are playing gto you dont care about such things

On January 27 2015 18:04 dogmeat wrote: Show nested quote + On January 27 2015 14:50 Romm3l wrote: betting smaller to diminish the effectiveness of crai in 3b pots, for example. assuming you are playing gto you dont care about such things

so you expect that a gto bot calling a 3b in position with small flop SPR (say 4) could have a standard bet size of fullpot if opponent checks when it decides to bet because 'it doesn't care'?

one does not bet small on the flop im 3b pot b/c he worries about effectiveness of c/r's but b/c theory suggests betting equal fractions of the pot on all streets is the best strategy w/ polarized range

On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote: one does not bet small on the flop im 3b pot b/c he worries about effectiveness of c/r's but b/c theory suggests betting equal fractions of the pot on all streets is the best strategy w/ polarized range

I don't understand why that has to be the case. Also I'm not sure of the concept of being polarized across 3 streets. As the board changes, your hand strength will change, even if someone was polarized on the flop, by the time they get to the river they might not be anymore. If you would explain this to me more I'd really appreciate it.

Also were you suggesting that theory suggests sizing bets such that by the time you get to the last street of betting equal fractions, you are allin on the river? That part of it would make sense to me (although I still don't grasp this being polarized through all 3 streets idea)

maybe he doesn't necessarily mean polarized as in a nuts or air range. He is talking about vbetting vs someone who is calling down with a bluffcatcher in a general sense. When you are bluffcatching it doesn't necessarily matter (it may affect your strategy but you are ahead of his bluffs and behind his vbets just the same) if your opponent is merged or polarized (kinda harder to bluffcatch vs a merged range simply because it usually has more value hands and is less easily defined but this isn't about that) because really any bet you call you are going to be behind if it is value and ahead of it is a bluff. Doesn't matter to you when holding mid pair at showdown whether ur opponent has top pair or top set you lose just the same to both.

So in this general situation where hero is barreling away at villain bluffcatching that we find ourselves in every 3rd or 4th hand it is generally optimal to use proportional betting. That ratio leads to max indifference in the player calling down. so like 3/4s pot for 3 streets or whatever stacksizes and SpR dictates.

This is a huge generalization obviously.

reminds me of the Golden Mean found all over nature that magical ratio, have any of you ever learned about that?

On January 27 2015 18:43 dogmeat wrote: one does not bet small on the flop im 3b pot b/c he worries about effectiveness of c/r's but b/c theory suggests betting equal fractions of the pot on all streets is the best strategy w/ polarized range

that's an interesting result as well and i'd love to hear where you got it from.

however your argument is circular and empty: you are saying 'x is suboptimal not for a reason y, but because z is optimal and x is not z' which simplifies to 'x is suboptimal because it is not optimal' - no shit.

remember optimal strategy is defined as the strategy that minimises the expectation of a perfectly adapting opponent. try to think why minbet, and why 4x pot shove are each suboptimal betsizes in our spot (4x spr, ip on flop, villain checks). why does overbet shoving, or betting min make life easier for our opponent and fail to minimise his expectation? once you arrive at better answers to these questions than 'it is suboptimal because it is suboptimal', think again about why fullpot might not be optimal and consider again my argument that the crai option becomes too good (he gets good odds on it, and it forces you to bluff cb/fold less often and miss profitable spots, for example).