Hand Analysis - Before it Airs (1 Viewer)

[CrazyEddie]

Sorry, I thought we were inputting villains range since we know our cards (77). Can we just see what our hands does against this range you put in and how it should play flop/turn/river?

Can't make conclusions about our optimal strategy for a given situation without making assumptions about the opponent's strategy, which includes making assumptions about the opponent's model of our own strategy. So we need to specify the range that we think our opponent is putting us on.

Using just our hand plus the opponent's range, you can calculate our equity, but not determine an optimal strategy.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Can't make conclusions about our optimal strategy for a given situation without making assumptions about the opponent's strategy, which includes making assumptions about the opponent's model of our own strategy. So we need to specify the range that we think our opponent is putting us on.

Using just our hand plus the opponent's range, you can calculate our equity, but not determine an optimal strategy.

 

[Senzrock]

Can't make conclusions about our optimal strategy for a given situation without making assumptions about the opponent's strategy, which includes making assumptions about the opponent's model of our own strategy. So we need to specify the range that we think our opponent is putting us on.

Using just our hand plus the opponent's range, you can calculate our equity, but not determine an optimal strategy.

This is what I get for not using solvers myself. So we need to input our own range also, ok interesting. I would have thought that a solver like PIO could give us an actual strategy for what to do with our exact holdings, not just a broader range? Some solvers do this no?

 

[CrazyEddie]

This is what I get for not using solvers myself. So we need to input our own range also, ok interesting. I would have thought that a solver like PIO could give us an actual strategy for what to do with our exact holdings, not just a broader range? Some solvers do this no?

By default a solver assumes that both you and your opponent are using the optimal strategy. That means that you don't need to specify what your range is, nor what your opponent's range is, because your ranges are whatever the optimal strategy's ranges are. Given your holding and the assumption that you're using the optimal ranges, a solver will tell you what the optimal strategy for that holding is.

But maybe you're not using the optimal strategy, and maybe your opponent isn't either. If that's the case, then the solver doesn't know what ranges you're using, so you have to tell it. Once you tell it your ranges (your range, and what you think your opponent's range is) then it can tell you the optimal strategy to use from that point forward. It won't be Game Theory Optimal in the general sense, but it will be optimal given the specific circumstance of you and your opponent having already deviated from Game Theory Optimal.

 

[Senzrock]

By default a solver assumes that both you and your opponent are using the optimal strategy. That means that you don't need to specify what your range is, nor what your opponent's range is, because your ranges are whatever the optimal strategy's ranges are. Given your holding and the assumption that you're using the optimal ranges, a solver will tell you what the optimal strategy for that holding is.

But maybe you're not using the optimal strategy, and maybe your opponent isn't either. If that's the case, then the solver doesn't know what ranges you're using, so you have to tell it. Once you tell it your ranges (your range, and what you think your opponent's range is) then it can tell you the optimal strategy to use from that point forward. It won't be Game Theory Optimal in the general sense, but it will be optimal given the specific circumstance of you and your opponent having already deviated from Game Theory Optimal.

I may be getting lost in the semantics of it all but I assume that (1) no one, including ourselves and our opponent here are actually using optimal strategies. I think that actually goes without saying but I will say it anyway. Villain is not playing a balanced strategy, and neither are we.

In this scenario, are we not able to plug in just our holdings into the solver vs a range and see how we “should” proceed? I was under the impression that this was part of the functionality. I guess that is different than plugging in a wide range of hands and just zooming in to look at how 77 performs specifically within the boarder range?

 

[Senzrock]

So I guess if we need to put in hero’s range let’s say:

98s+, ATo+ 55+

 

[CrazyEddie]

In this scenario, are we not able to plug in just our holdings into the solver vs a range and see how we “should” proceed?

I haven't used solvers either, so perhaps I'm not the best to answer your practical question. But as a matter of theory - the right way to play against an opponent depends on how he plays.

Say you're holding QJs, you open, and villain 3-bets. If he only 3-bets with AA, KK, and AK then your optimal strategy is to fold (I'm simplifying here). If instead he 3-bets with any pairs and any broadway then your optimal strategy is to call. So your optimal strategy depends on his range, which is to say, on his strategy. So the answer to the question "are we not able to plug in just our holdings into the solver vs a range and see how we “should” proceed" is NO, unless you know what his strategy is and can provide it to the solver.

Now, you can just plug in a single hand and have the solver tell you how you should play, but that only works because the solver assigns a default strategy to the villain and assumes that the villain is using that strategy, and therefore the solver can tell you what your optimal play is given your holding and given villain's assumed default strategy.

... and what is that default strategy that the solver assumes the villain is using? Why, it's GTO.

So if your opponent is playing GTO, then the solver will tell you your best play. But if your opponent is NOT playing GTO, then in order to tell you your best play, you'll need to tell the solver what strategy your opponent IS using, and you can do that by specifying the villain's range.

BUT WAIT! That's not enough either, because your opponent's strategy doesn't merely consist of his range, but also of how he will react to your plays, and that in turn depends on what he perceives your strategy is. So to accurately predict how your opponent will play, the solver also needs to know your range, or, more precisely, what your opponent thinks your range is. Which is why @boltonguy wanted to try to construct ranges for Krish and Kenney; GTO solvers are accurate if the players are playing GTO, but less so if they aren't, unless you take the extra steps to specify what their actual strategy is. The players here are so far from GTO that asking what PIO recommends "by default" in this spot isn't especially helpful; it would recommend something that would be much less profitable in this actual situation with these two actual players than it could be.

 

[Senzrock]

I haven't used solvers either, so perhaps I'm not the best to answer your practical question. But as a matter of theory - the right way to play against an opponent depends on how he plays.

Say you're holding QJs, you open, and villain 3-bets. If he only 3-bets with AA, KK, and AK then your optimal strategy is to fold (I'm simplifying here). If instead he 3-bets with any pairs and any broadway then your optimal strategy is to call. So your optimal strategy depends on his range, which is to say, on his strategy. So the answer to the question "are we not able to plug in just our holdings into the solver vs a range and see how we “should” proceed" is NO, unless you know what his strategy is and can provide it to the solver.

Now, you can just plug in a single hand and have the solver tell you how you should play, but that only works because the solver assigns a default strategy to the villain and assumes that the villain is using that strategy, and therefore the solver can tell you what your optimal play is given your holding and given villain's assumed default strategy.

... and what is that default strategy that the solver assumes the villain is using? Why, it's GTO.

So if your opponent is playing GTO, then the solver will tell you your best play. But if your opponent is NOT playing GTO, then in order to tell you your best play, you'll need to tell the solver what strategy your opponent IS using, and you can do that by specifying the villain's range.

BUT WAIT! That's not enough either, because your opponent's strategy doesn't merely consist of his range, but also of how he will react to your plays, and that in turn depends on what he perceives your strategy is. So to accurately predict how your opponent will play, the solver also needs to know your range, or, more precisely, what your opponent thinks your range is. Which is why @boltonguy wanted to try to construct ranges for Krish and Kenney; GTO solvers are accurate if the players are playing GTO, but less so if they aren't, unless you take the extra steps to specify what their actual strategy is. The players here are so far from GTO that asking what PIO recommends "by default" in this spot isn't especially helpful; it would recommend something that would be much less profitable in this actual situation with these two actual players than it could be.

That makes sense (the first part here is totally understood, it’s just the solver specific inputs I am unclear about). So let’s give hero the following range: 98s+, ATo+ 55+ for calling villains 3bet (with his range what I quoted earlier). Can we run those numbers then @boltonguy ?

 

[MilouPilou1]

 

[Highli99]

I wish you tubers would avoid click bait headlines. There is no need to call Krish a bad player. He’s a recreational player, just like the rest of us. It’s easy to criticize the play when you see hole cards, but Comon. Yes he got lucky, but that play works pretty damn well a lot of the time. I hate miserable entitled pros.

A better headline would be “recreational player bets into monster and rivers a cooler, stacking professional and alleged cult leader / online stakes / frog venom advocate”

 

[jr8719]

I wish you tubers would avoid click bait headlines. There is no need to call Krish a bad player. He’s a recreational player, just like the rest of us. It’s easy to criticize the play when you see hole cards, but Comon. Yes he got lucky, but that play works pretty damn well a lot of the time. I hate miserable entitled pros.

A better headline would be “recreational player bets into monster and rivers a cooler, stacking professional and alleged cult leader / online stakes / frog venom advocate”

Frog venom advocate got me!

 

[Rieguy]

Anyone else notice the YouTube poster's name is...... Johnny5

 

[horseshoez]

It’s like watching Baker Mayfield chuck a Hail Mary while blindfolded, completes it, and then in the post-game conference says, “we completed that play with complete and accurate precision, just what the play called for.”

 

[horseshoez]

Actually never mind Baker Mayfield. Johnny Manziel.

 

[boltonguy]

So would you like this for Krish's range:

View attachment 909457

@Senzrock

Ok so if I recall Krish is IP?

And how is this for Brynn's range. I think he was the straddle and 3! Krish's open?

 

[Senzrock]

@Senzrock

Ok so if I recall Krish is IP?

And how is this for Brynn's range. I think he was the straddle and 3! Krish's open?

View attachment 913912

Krish is in the straddle (oop) and Brynn is on the BTN

 

[boltonguy]

Krish is in the straddle (oop) and Brynn is on the BTN

What are stack sizes?

 

[Senzrock]

What are stack sizes?

Brynn range: 65s+ 88+ KQo+
Hero range: 98s+, ATo+ 55-JJ (we 4bet QQ+)

Let me look up stack sizes

 

[Senzrock]

Hero stack: $500k at 500/1k blinds with the 2k straddle on (Hero is UTG)
Villain (BTN): $465k

 

[boltonguy]

Ok so here is Brynn's range:

Here is Krish's range:

Effective stack, pot & rake

 

[boltonguy]

I rounded the bets to % so they arent exact.

FLOP: Brynn bets 100% of the time. I think he has 56s? He splits his sizing evenly across all sizes more or less.

 

[Senzrock]

Ok so here is Brynn's range:

View attachment 913917

Here is Krish's range:

View attachment 913918

Effective stack, pot & rake

View attachment 913919

Brynn's range should be a bit wider since he did 3bet the 96s, I figured this would be included in 65s+ but maybe I wasn't explicit enough.

 

[boltonguy]

I think Krish had 77? Which is a pure call.

 

[boltonguy]

Brynn's range should be a bit wider since he did 3bet the 96s, I figured this would be included in 65s+ but maybe I wasn't explicit enough.

Please confirm starting hands for each player with suits please.
I thought Brynn had 56 and Krish had 77 but I watched that hand a while ago

 

[boltonguy]

Also this is what equilab thinks 56s+ is:

 

[Senzrock]

Please confirm starting hands for each player with suits please.
I thought Brynn had 56 and Krish had 77 but I watched that hand a while ago

Brynn: 96cc
Krish: 77hd

 

[boltonguy]

What do you think about this for Brynn

 

[Senzrock]

What do you think about this for Brynn

View attachment 913941

Would just a few more aces - A2s, AT & AJo

 

[boltonguy]

The solver has Brynn favoring the 125% flop sizing overall and with his specific hand.

 

[boltonguy]

As played, Krish's hand is a pure call: