https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland    Contact            Users: 98 Active, 5 Logged in - Time: 01:16

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

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > Main Poker
  First 
  < 
  1 
 2 
  3 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  7 
  > 
  Last 
  All 
traxamillion   United States. Jan 26 2015 03:33. Posts 10419

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

 Last edit: 26/01/2015 03:36

Smuft   Canada. Jan 26 2015 04:02. Posts 627

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?


traxamillion   United States. Jan 26 2015 06:46. Posts 10419

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


traxamillion   United States. Jan 26 2015 06:51. Posts 10419

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

 Last edit: 26/01/2015 15:22

Romm3l   Germany. Jan 26 2015 08:50. Posts 285


  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.


Smuft   Canada. Jan 26 2015 21:01. Posts 627

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.


HungarianGOD   . Jan 26 2015 21:14. Posts 459


  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?

 Last edit: 26/01/2015 21:14

dogmeat   Czech Republic. Jan 26 2015 21:54. Posts 6374

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

ban baal 

dogmeat   Czech Republic. Jan 26 2015 22:18. Posts 6374


  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

ban baal 

HungarianGOD   . Jan 27 2015 00:26. Posts 459


  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.

 Last edit: 27/01/2015 00:27

Smuft   Canada. Jan 27 2015 00:40. Posts 627

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.

 Last edit: 27/01/2015 01:53

TimDawg    United States. Jan 27 2015 00:54. Posts 10188

very interesting indeed smuft

online bob is actually a pretty smart person, not at all like the creepy fucker that sits in the sofa telling me he does nasty shit to me when im asleep - pinball 

HungarianGOD   . Jan 27 2015 00:56. Posts 459

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.


HungarianGOD   . Jan 27 2015 01:34. Posts 459

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


cariadon   Estonia. Jan 27 2015 04:42. Posts 4008


  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]


cariadon   Estonia. Jan 27 2015 05:12. Posts 4008


  On January 23 2015 18:25 Romm3l wrote:
Show nested quote +


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

 Last edit: 27/01/2015 05:16

traxamillion   United States. Jan 27 2015 06:00. Posts 10419

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.


traxamillion   United States. Jan 27 2015 06:25. Posts 10419

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


traxamillion   United States. Jan 27 2015 06:34. Posts 10419

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.


traxamillion   United States. Jan 27 2015 06:37. Posts 10419

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

 Last edit: 27/01/2015 06:38

 
  First 
  < 
  1 
 2 
  3 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  7 
  > 
  Last 
  All 



Poker Streams

















Copyright © 2019. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap