The Ballad of /r/Poker [shitpost]
![The Ballad of /r/Poker [shitpost]](/api/ImgurImages?id=OeU14Eo.png)
Posted Jan 4, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC
211106
This sub is really just r/wallstreetbets but for poker.
98
At least the memes in wsb is God Tier and people don't pretend to be smart.
No sub is better about bragging about losing money and being retarded.
37
Its not retarded, its autistic. Also, its not autistic, its overvaccinated
10
Autistic not retarded... Never go full retard
0†
The "Autistic not retarded" comment is clear proof that you are retarded.
4
[deleted]
1
It's because most people play poker based on intuition. Solver/theoretical strategies are incredibly complicated.
52
Yeah agreed, it's also because the most confident and opinionated users are mostly 1/2 players who don't understand how much differently 500NLz plays to 1/2
29
And on the flip side there are the online micro shitregs that refuse to heavily adjust exploitatively and are instantly dismissive once they read the word "live".
4
It's not about how differently it plays so much as there are different strategies to exploit the player pool. The game itself doesn't change, and any player who plays 500z will be able to win with the same strategy at lower limits--but likely with a lower win rate than someone who is crushing 1/2 (since the 500z player's strategy will likely be more theoretical).
Also, FWIW the confidence can be explained by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
4
I dont understand the logic behind a less theoretical player being able to explout harder. Surely the stronger theoretical player knows of more exploits than weaker ones?
2
Yeah but a 500z player might not know 1/2 population tendencies as well as a pure 1/2 player, so the exploits may be more unclear. Like every 1/2 player knows that if somebody has an oxygen tank, wheelchair, and is reading a newspaper, they are likely to have a KK+ 3bet range.
3
I think he said theoretical when what he really means is "balanced". At high stakes you need to run a balanced strategy to avoid being exploited. At lower stakes you can allow yourself to be less balanced to exploit population tendencies more.
Theory of course will help you both with constructing a balanced strategy and constructing optimal deviations but for dumb reasons the terms balanced, theoretical and gto are sometimes used interchangeably
2
Yeah intuitively villain rarely connects with this flop beyond a FD so we should bluff/protection raise our whole continue range
Intuition aka pulling strategies out one's ass
-6†
if you'd play based on intuition you'd raise this flop 100% of the time. Solver is complicated but intuition is even more difficult to explain so people are trying to build theoretical foundation under their game time decisions which often has very little to do with actual game theory. Basically inventing theory as they go to explain their mistakes.
-8
Oh that sweet summer child. He thought we discuss strategy and give good advice here at r/poker. This sub is actually for posts about royal flushes/bad beats/pics of chip stacks/tournament results/memes.
23
Dont forget heater microstakes Ignition graphs.
10
Under 10,000 hands though, of course.
6
I'm only here for the memes. Imo anyone who comes here for actual poker advice is barking up the wrong tree big time.
3
Yeah I was for sure tempted to make this exact post
My numbers run a touch lower raise. I tend to pitch a few more hands pre and 3bet more of the linear stuff using my high rake solves.
And for the people who accused me of being a nit
10
I nodelocked button to just bet range which also increases the raise %
1
Yeah thats probably a good assumption. Personally I've just been playing a lot more checks just to explore the lines and throw off assumptions.
1
I think pre-solver poker wisdom would have agreed with the comment for the most part. It is pretty counter intuitive how much you have to raise vs small bets even on boards that are not that favorable to you.
So I mean for someone playing micros or live that will never touch a solver in their life, it's probably not terrible advice (as they will not be able to execute this strategy effectively). But it is quite arrogant to suggest this to a (presumably) 500z reg lol. Obviously that was what he was going for by posting this hand, and he got it big time.
9
Your pf range seems a bit off but yeah obv people fucking suck on this sub.
8
its just the PIO default ranges for BB defend vs BU with some minor adjustments (removed all the low frequency trap calls). I think the PIO default is vs a 3x not a 2.5x but I highly doubt that changes anything significantly
7
Main difference is all the good broadway hands are 3bets, and less shitty off-suit hands with bad realisation
2
yeah i trust the monker ranges more, interesting to see it just pure 3bets stuff like K9s/J9s/T9s instead of mixing. I don't think that change would significantly change the output though, no?
3
Agree, not much difference in the postflop sim on this board
1
Question about these ranges and application.
Maybe it doesn't matter too much to me since I play Live.
But when these ranges are a medley of complicated percentages how do you realistically apply it?
I look at charts like these and I end up just removing hands and pushing other hands into pure or 50% to make it easier for me to apply in real life. And then I end up using that for PIO as well.
1
You simplify it as much as possible by basically doing what you described. When I run sims i usually round solutions to nearest 50%, no human being can feasibly do something at 20% frequency unless they are a cyborg like Linus
3
It's important to know why solvers use mixed strategies with some hands and not with others. A hand like AA should never be calling over 3betting because you miss too much value - EV of raising > EV of calling. A lot of hands in poker are indifferent to raising or calling - EV of raising = EV of calling.
So if your opponent is playing well it doesnt really matter which you do. When your opponent is making big adjustments from a GTO strat then one option is a lot better than they other. With no data you should go off pop tendencies and if you dont know them they you just want to ideally remember the correct freq or just estimate and randomise from there.
2
Am I the only one that's gonna point out the EV difference is super small? Only ~+0.04, might as well be zero given the possible variable ranges. Also only one raise size given, unless the user has already checked others to find it almost always prefers this sizing.
6
ev difference is exactly 0 between options that are mixed at equilibrium (so when you see something mixed 90-10, neither line is actually 'better')
you can calculate the total exploitability of a solution by summing the ev loss of all the times that it takes the lower ev play (by definition, if both players always choose the highest ev option then they are in a nash equilibrium)
adding multiple raise sizes won't change much here (i don't have much to add to that point, just from my experience)
7
This exactly.
The math takeaway here is that "total exploitability" against a fixed opponent strategy is linear with deviation from the optimal strategy. (If 90-10 is optimal, 70-30 is twice as bad as 80-20.)
1
basically what's going on is that it is mixing raise and call with almost all the Ax hands. with such a range, a particular combo is not going to have a big difference in EV.
But if we were to remove raising (or restrict to small polarized range) from our strategy altogether (as the comment would seem to imply), it would likely be a large difference in overall EV.
5
Would it though if we got rid of raises? I know if villians range was stronger like HJ or LJ vs BB, not raising this flop ever would only have like ~3% EV loss. I could see it being different against a BU open though. Highly encouraging to be proven wrong, this is only from I've seen from other people's work and I know these solutions are very sensitive.
2
Removing raises would lose a shitton of eV for OOP youre allowing a high 100% cbet board to realise its entire equity to the turn and freerolling it’s fold equity. Pio in general responds to high frequency cbets, with high frequency checkraises, which is intuitive enough. Also “only” a minus 3% eV is a fucking ton of eV. Imagine if you lost 3% every time you played a pot, you’d be getting destroyed. I remember watching a sauce video where he was calculating if you lost I think was it 2/3% eV (I forget the exact % but it was something close to this) in a 3bet pot it was equivalent to -100bb/100.
4
not sure, you could be right as well. don't have access to PIO right now. intuitively, it seems like raising should be much more important vs btn, but who knows.
my point was more methodological, checking the raise vs call ev in this spot basically tells us nothing. have to nodelock and check difference in overall ev.
2
True true, I agree. I only have pokersnowie and decided to run it through. Says preflop 85% call 15% raise. On the flop, it mostly calls (94% call 6% raise) and likes a slightly smaller sizing. Facing 3bet it only calls. Mostly checks turn (leads for 1/4 pot 32% of time though) and facing bet it again calls and raises .29pot (80% call). Checks river and then likes folding to shove much more (says Calling is -38) but obviously take snowie with a grain of salt.
2
Maybe this is why I prefer live because hand history and tells would play a role in how I'd play out this hand
5
Flop raise is so standard it hurts
4
Whats pio doing OTR?
3
Calling a little under half of all our Ax depending on the suits slightly, based on the assumption villain will have a variety of very low frequency BSFD XXss triple barrels
2
As well as a bunch of garb offsuit spazzes that block the best Ax in heroes calling range like QJo, JTo etc. Which when you think about it, is a pretty baller play.
1
I still remember the day I saw that these flops are raised this often, esp given oop's eq adv. it took me 1 hour of just thinking to properly understand why.
Also holy shit how are the games still so soft if goddamn solver sims get posted on reddit of all places.
2
it's crazy how in 2020 how many people still play their hand and not their range
2
On the other hand you're doing an exploit where villains are never defending the same as PIO would. On a board like this and low flop cbet sizings BTN tends to bet a lot. In those cases OOP should 3-bet a bunch! (As you can see in PIO).
But are you really doing that? And is BTN really calling with enough of the garbage and backdoors that PIO is suggesting they do? I doubt it. And I'm not sure which line would be more EV in the case of improper bluff raising on our end and improper defense of BTN.
Hell, it could even be BTN isn't cbetting a large range. Just figured he had an Ace and wanted to bet small.
Solvers are great and all. But mainly got to ask WHY is it doing it. And not just blindly copying.
2
Yeah nodelocking is really important
1
Yeah because raising there is pretty unintuitive and also relatively hard to pilot on later streets. It’s the same as, say, having K8 on 358 BBvsBUor something like that. It’s a pretty mandatory raise but a lot of people don’t even consider that and just call cause it’s easier.
Just proves the point that very few people actually put in the solver work. If you’re playing anything above micros I wouldn’t take the r/poker advice really seriously anyway
2
Rather than taking it as an absolute truth, just take his point into consideration. Like in this case could checking the flop work. None of us is crushing high stakes here, so inaccuracies in analysis are bound to happen.
Also after 10 upvotes, I feel most people are just following the herd mentality.
1†
[deleted]
1
Any reads on the opponent?
1
it's anonymous zoom so no
2
It’s a Pokerstars HH, not anonymous.
1
I’m fairly sure this is an ignition hand converted to PS format either with the ignition card catcher or hand converter
3
Oh fair enough, didn’t know this.
1
He flopped it.
1
So what else do we raise then on this board? nut flush draws?
1
Flush draws, hands like J7ss or JTss with multiple backdoors, and then some random hands
2
Random hands like good hands like jacks or more 67ss?
1
I think the random hands included small pocket pairs at a low frequency, presumably because it runs out of “good bluffs”, idk for sure I’m just speculating
1
I'm convinced there are a subset of people who deliberately downvote good advice and upvote bad advice on this sub
That's some next level poker ecosystem management right there
In all seriousness though, the spot on the river is sick. Im calling, but Im very very sad about it. I aint no bitch.
Edit: Ran the spot. Its a 23% "call" at equilibrium, with like 77% fold. But honestly, look at what garb IP needs to be 3bet bluffing with on the flop and then barrelling off with, its the suited Broadway + 8 or below that is not of clubs. Q6hh? lol, literally never, theres no games in the world where this isnt folded flop. You're just gonna have to look into his soul and decide. Honestly looking at the outputs here its probably a snapfold unless V is some sort of VIP whale. I only solved down to 2% exploitablity just to get a rough idea. Here are the outputs.
https://imgur.com/a/Q1zAlpD
Definitely a lot of room for error in my sim, so let me know if you see any issues, but here's how I think the river plays out in an equilibrium. I've played around with a few different variables, depending on if you nodelock villain to cbet range for 33%, and depending on how you tweak the preflop ranges, villain's main value bet will be 88 on the river, with AK/AQ/AJ as well at frequencies that vary. The main bluffs are basically just a sprinkling of the BDSD/BDFS hands at very very low frequency (JTss/T7ss/97ss/etc). What's crazy is that in the original post, OP said that villain had T6ss which is basically one of the hands the solver sometimes bluffs with
BU open range
BB defend range
Sim set up
Hero river calling range
TL;DR - if your opponent is a computer, then flip a coin and click a button. If your opponent is not a computer and you have a reason to believe he is underbluffing or overbluffing, then just overfold or overcall accordingly. You have a pure bluffcatcher, and PIO doesn't think the specific suits matter too too much
The main difference for me river wise in practice is that I'm just not playing flop 4bets in case villain is just a tilted whale. Which there are definitely quite a few at 500.
How much do you pay for piosolver?
well i posted my sim right after your edit but it's good to see the output is more or less the same
Yeah I mean basically same principle. It’s very close.
One thing about zoom poker is that since every hand you play is with a new person you have no data on balanced strategies/ranges become less relevant as an exploitative strategy will likely make more money.
I feel that is maybe counterintuitive, but the reason you balance your range is to have a mixed percentage of bluff/value combinations so the villan can't know that a check raise on the flop is always the nuts for instance.
In zone poker, the button in this scenario has you totally smashed or absolute air like 90% of the time. Probably more the former than the latter.
Maybe I'm just too nitty but I feel that when I get reraised on the flop here im probably going to think about folding turn some of the time. It's rational to assume villan is probably firing all three streets, and I just don't want to call down with a second best hand in this spot.
But check raising the flop and folding turn is pretty stupid, so it kinda begs the question: what is the point?
I think a decision for an all in or fold mentality on the flop makes some sense as well. Just my 2c
There’s like 200 people who play 500nlz so do you need to be unexpoitable
I would do it again
I unironically do this. How is it different than some donk asking me if calling the 3X pot shove with his flush draw was fine?
I genuinely believe that it's bad for the game to give bad advice. I don't even really like refusing to give real advice.
Obviously anyone who forces advice (good or otherwise) onto someone who didn't ask for it is at best an idiot, but newcomers aren't going to pick up the game if everyone starts acting like it's some super sekrit "nuh-uh, you have to learn for yourself" bullshit.
It directly affects the income of professional players. So while a rube would obviously believe that, I'm sure you see why you're wrong from our perspective.
What's good for everyone is good for you "professional" players. No new players are picking it up means the average skill and understanding of poker goes up, means your edge drops.
Being a douchebag is -EV, to put it bluntly.