# My yearly rant against the 1% frequency, and GTO approaches.

Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
There has been a new surge of interest here on working with Eds book the 1%, but its based largely on logical errors.

First I would like to say , that I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed working out some ranges based on the ratios. I enjoyed Trying to use CREV to make picking hands easier (you can compare the same range to itself, on different boards and have it rank the hands) . I enjoyed the math behind why these frequencies come close to being unbeatable. I enjoyed Doug's videos where he worked out some of these ranges using tables, and flopzilla.

I have also enjoyed doing a MIT lecture on Einsteins Theory of special relativity . I liked doing the math that proves it. It was fun to prove that if I move 1/2 the speed of light and turn on a flashlight, and observer standing still would still see the light go at the speed of light. Fun stuff if your a bit of a nerd like me.

But here's the thing...being able to prove that my beam of light does not go past the speed of light, does not effect my life in any way. (OK maybe I can impress some woman at a bar with it) but because I will never travel anywhere near the speed of light it does not effect me. And because I am not playing any players who play any where near the correct frequencies, playing the 1% style will not be useful and almost always a mistake. (when it is optimal it will simply be just a lucky coincidence)

So why if this approach is "unbeatable" at poker it is not a good approach to study or learn. Well lets think of a HU match.

In this match you raise or call the optimal amount preflop (lets say thats 70% of my hands preflop)...I then will bet 70% on the flop turn and river.... Great I know have an unbeatable (sort of ) approach...

Now lets say my opponent only plays AA that it. So off I go and I beat him. Why do I beat him.....Well he folds his blinds way to much. I make lots of money preflop. But when he calls me, I now loose money on the flop turn and river playing my 70%. Sure the money I make preflop (if my frequencies are correct) will offset the money I loose on the latter street.

But here the thing I actually made a mistake on every single street. Preflop I should be raising 100% to take advantage of his over folding....and post flop I should be only value betting hands that beat AA...a much smaller % of my range.

Basically in almost any small stakes game, (and often in higher stake games) if you followed the 1% you will be making a mistakes on every single street.

Now Slitsuit on his webinar on "Brilliant Bluffing" ask the question do you think you bluff enough (or barrel enough something like that. and most players including myself said no. He then took the mistaken logical assumption to suggest that bluffing at the 1% frequencies would fix that.

The reason we don't bluff enough has nothing to do with the frequencies. In fact it has very little to do with are hand. It has to do with how often are opponent calls. Its dependent on his range and how he plays different parts of his range and that it. Value betting depends a bit on are hand, and our opponents hand and range., but "BRILLIANT BLUFFING" has nothing to do with are range.

The funny thing is that Ed Miller himself has written article after article where he argues against using this method at low stakes poker. In an article at Cardplayer magazine, called the "Tipping Point" he shows by math that Bluffing frequencies should be nearer 100% or 0% on each street. If they call too much bluffing moves towards 0% if they call too little its 100%. This means that most of you following the 1% frequencies...will either be over or under bluffing on all streets and often by a large margin.

I will give you, that if you currently under bluff. Bluffing towards the 1% will improve your results. But if you learn to range your opponents, and learn to work out the frequency, between the hands they will fold to the hands they will call on different boards. Sure this may be a bit harder...but its also a lot more fun.

I would also suggest that even if you do not know how a player in your game is playing....Just developing a plan based on your general population reads (even based on Ed millers general population reads based on playing in a different part of the world) you will play at a much more profitable level then if you follow the 1%

One more point...if you perfect the 1% so that you can hold you own in those high stake games....you will run into another problem. The 1% if not GTO. Its kind of a quick way to get something that may not be to far off GTO. But here's the thing many of those high stake players are studying GTO...They are running simulations on different spots to get as close to the GTO as possible. So now your 1% frequencies go down in flames (ok maybe not in flames more like in drips) but you still loose.

Tagged:
«1

• Red Chipper Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭✭
Eazzy wrote: »
One more point...if you perfect the 1% so that you can hold you own in those high stake games....you will run into another problem. The 1% if not GTO. Its kind of a quick way to get something that may not be to far off GTO. But here's the thing many of those high stake players are studying GTO...They are running simulations on different spots to get as close to the GTO as possible. So now your 1% frequencies go down in flames (ok maybe not in flames more like in drips) but you still loose.

+1

One thing I will add is that a deeper understanding of solver strategy has helped my improve my default strategies, and realize more and better ways to apply exploit strategies.
• Red Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
Agreed.

In defense of 1% he does state that you can and should "break the rules" but only if your opponent does first. He doesn't deny that exploitative lines are better vs imperfect opponents.

The approximation to a GTO strategy is a baseline. It's a starting point. The rules are meant to be broken when you have the opportunity to take advantage of your opponents' blunders.
• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
Brendan R wrote: »
Agreed.

In defense of 1% he does state that you can and should "break the rules" but only if your opponent does first. He doesn't deny that exploitative lines are better vs imperfect opponents.

The approximation to a GTO strategy is a baseline. It's a starting point. The rules are meant to be broken when you have the opportunity to take advantage of your opponents' blunders.

Yes, but He (well I ) do state that an exploitative strategy based on general population reads, is going to be so far ahead of using the 1% as your base line strategy. Adjusting from this General population exploit strategy, will then further improve your results.

To start at a non-exploitable strategy, assume your opponents will be exploiting you, AT low stake poker that just not true, except if you are using an extremely exploitable strategies . Its kind of like investing in a bullet proof car just in case some one shoots at us. For most of us this is never going to happen and that bullet proof car is a waste of money.
• Red Chipper Posts: 399 ✭✭
edited February 5
isn't it meant for top/upper % of players ,,,,,,not meant for 1/2 where calling and showing down are prevalent? I took one good thing from that book(and one is plenty) the visual of the pyrmid and the preflop base too wide hence they have to unload their inventory somewhere some how. mostly on T, ....... like a down flop, blast turn,
it wasnt that bad, every player has to put their own thought in and obviously not bluff a calling stations. maybe it should be the....
just being devils advocate ....it did make at least one "take away " point , and thats good
@Eazzy , for you I suspect a multitude of differnt books with your own personal adjustments is best. you , like specficaly you CAN do that, but for the masses , if they abandoned what they are currently doing, and went with this book to a T, they would do better. and i would do worse against the folders who now "holdem" 70% of the time.
• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
star681 wrote: »
isn't it meant for top/upper % of players ,,,,,,not meant for 1/2 where calling and showing down are prevalent? I took one good thing from that book(and one is plenty) the visual of the pyrmid and the preflop base too wide hence they have to unload their inventory somewhere some how. mostly on T, ....... like a down flop, blast turn,
/quote]
I agree. Its funny I use the pyramid all the time, both visualizing for my strategies and explaining poker, to those who will listen.
• Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭✭✭
Feel better?
• Red Chipper Posts: 25 ✭✭
After reading this I opened up my call range and started continuation betting a lot more. I guess, I was playing like a nit and started to open up a little bit more. I am doing a lot better in cash game and a lot better in tournaments. I understand the concept of carrying 70 percent of my range after the flop. But, still don't under stand if I contuation bet 70 percent on the turn and I'm suppose to be 1/1 value to bluff ratio.
• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
kevinhaggy wrote: »
After reading this I opened up my call range and started continuation betting a lot more. I guess, I was playing like a nit and started to open up a little bit more. I am doing a lot better in cash game and a lot better in tournaments. I understand the concept of carrying 70 percent of my range after the flop. But, still don't under stand if I contuation bet 70 percent on the turn and I'm suppose to be 1/1 value to bluff ratio.

Well I'm glad you are increasing your raising and calling ranges. But given I'm ranting against using frequency ideas to accomplish this, this may not be the best place to look for an answer to your question. However, from the 1% its 2 bluffs to 1 value, on the flop, 1 bluff to 1 value on the turn, and 2 value to 1 bluff on the river.

Now if you take Ed millers et al, book
Small Stakes No Limit holdem

after going through a smilar (though less percise) discription of GTO aproximatins, and what it would look like, he then sugest that to take advantage (exploiting) you should be Cbetting the flop 100% of the time HU, and about 70% 3 way. In fact he labels his Cbetting approach as JUST DO IT.

I prefer to take a hand ranging approach (thier range) and cbetting if I think they missed the flop 50% or more... and cbet more if I'm planning on double barrelling a lot of turn cards against the range I expect them to clall me with.
• Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
edited February 13
Eazzy wrote: »
There has been a new surge of interest here on working with Eds book the 1%, but its based largely on logical errors.
Ed’s book is based on logical errors or the new surge is?
The rest of your post seems to indicate you mean there are things wrong with Ed’s book, at least that it is an irrelevant and inapplicable book.

As far as @SplitSuit goes, if I wasn’t bluffing nearly enough, then applying the 1% theory to bluffing would help. In most games players aren’t bluffing enough, so in most games, 1%’s bluffing strategy is correct. Calling, however, in most games using 1% strategy is often not optimal.

It wasn’t just in card play magazine where Ed has said not to use his book at low stakes; He has said in multiple videos that rarely would you play that way—and that even at higher stakes, you would want to find edges and switch to exploitative play once you do find them.

As far as the Einstein/inapplicability comment, if you don’t understand how understanding the theory of how poker is supposed to work in broad strokes, so you can know to punish someone when someone breaks the rules of poker, or as a guidelines when you don’t have any idea what they are doing yet...How do I respond?

There is very little that is more fundamental and more applicable to NLHE than 1%’s understanding of how the game works.

• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
edited February 17
@MidnightFox
Ed’s book is based on logical errors or the new surge is?

I am referring to the new surge.
As far as @SplitSuit goes, if I wasn’t bluffing nearly enough, then applying the 1% theory to bluffing would help. In most games players aren’t bluffing enough, so in most games, 1%’s bluffing strategy is correct. Calling, however, in most games using 1% strategy is often not optimal.

This is the logical error I'm referring to. Its Specious Logic for the most part. I could just as easily say I'm not bluffing enough, If I'm thinking of not betting, I will flip a coin if its heads I will bluff. That would also get my bluffing up, and probably improve my results, but not for the right reason. (And yes I do realize that increasing bluffing with hands that have better equity or blockers is better then flipping a coin, but those concepts from the 1%, are also concepts from a REM type of approach.)

But its not the reason your not bluffing enough. The reason your not bluffing enough is that your opponents are folding too much. Figure where they are folding too much, and bluff is the logical reason. The only reason to go to a frequency approach like the 1%, is to stop your opponents from exploiting you, if they are able to hand read against you, and exploit your bets and checks then going to the 1% makes sense, otherwise no.

It wasn’t just in card play magazine where Ed has said not to use his book at low stakes; He has said in multiple videos that rarely would you play that way—and that even at higher stakes, you would want to find edges and switch to exploitative play once you do find them.

Well your are agreeing with my point. Even Ed says don't use the 1% at low stakes and often at other stakes.
As far as the Einstein/inapplicability comment, if you don’t understand how understanding the theory of how poker is supposed to work in broad strokes, so you can know to punish someone when someone breaks the rules of poker, or as a guidelines when you don’t have any idea what they are doing yet...How do I respond?

There is very little that is more fundamental and more applicable to NLHE than 1%’s understanding of how the game works.

No, IMO here is where you have made a major logical error. The 1% does not show how poker works. It tells you how defensive un-exploitable poker works. Confusing these two things is why I believe studying the 1% is a mistake. Understanding it may be fun...and in future games may be useful so its nice to know its out there, but it will not help your game, and if it does it will be coincidental.

Most engineers do not need to understand specific or general relativity to do their job,
until they start working on projects that involve objects moving fast enough (special relativity), or far enough away from the earth surfaces (general relativity), they need not concern them selfs with these concepts, Newtonian physics is all they need and considering Einsteins theory's would be a mistake.

And in the same way poker players playing low stakes poker need not concern themselves with 1% and considering it in their decision making is a mistake.

• Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
Knowing what a strategy looks like that can't be exploited is a mistake?

When your oppontent deviates from an unexploitable strategy, it creates the opportunity to expoloit him. In video, Ed has said that Poker's 1% is actually a tool for exploitative attack, not GTO defense.

Your analogy is false. The study of any player's pyramid(low stakes or otherwise), compared to an optimal pyramid, to look for weakness, is directly applicable to our trade.

It's much more like a musician learning music theory: it can make any musician a better musican, no matter his genre, as it applies to all types of music, though there is an additional learning curve with the study.

Or it's like someone who handles currency learning what bills look like in detail: When they know the true standard, they can detect any deviation in the bill/conterfeit money (like exploitable frequency detection in poker).

Or it's like a break-dancer, learning all the foundational repertoire, which grants full freedom of movement, to make intelligent deviation from the standard moves, once the foundation standards are mastered.
• Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
Eazzy wrote: »
But its not the reason your not bluffing enough. The reason your not bluffing enough is that your opponents are folding too much. Figure where they are folding too much, and bluff is the logical reason. The only reason to go to a frequency approach like the 1%, is to stop your opponents from exploiting you, if they are able to hand read against you, and exploit your bets and checks then going to the 1% makes sense, otherwise no.
Folding to your value bets is a form of exploitation. That’s why the unexploitable strategy is so aggressive; Because if your opponent refuses to pay-off your strong hands he is exploiting you.

1% does not just protect you from being exploited by aggressive players, it protects you from being exploited by weak players.

At higher stakes the reason 1% could at times be followed as actual play guidelines is not because they are aggressive, and 1% is about defense against aggression, but that those players play closer to correct and could be doing many things and you are not sure where you can exploit them yet, so you play unexploitably until you figure it out. Players at lower stakes play more predictably and thus you don’t need to wait before deviating from an unexploitable strategy.
• Red Chipper Posts: 294 ✭✭✭
I don’t follow the frequency provided by 1%. But after reading it I felt like the frequencies actually come pretty close to my TAG style of play.

I open 7% UTG to 45% on the button, average 18% of the hands over all. I have a very tight cold calling range balanced with 3 betting range. With these opening ranges I very often find myself flopping draws or double over cards, or in position enough of the time to warrant a close to 70% continuance percentages. This applies to heads up pots, in multiway pots I tend to play more straight forward and don’t continue close to 70%.

I guess the 70% model only applies if you have a tight opening range, if LAG is your play style then there will be so much junk in your range that you have to play exploitatively, where the 70% model will be less relavent.
• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
edited February 17
@MidnightFox
When your oppontent deviates from an unexploitable strategy, it creates the opportunity to expoloit him. In video, Ed has said that Poker's 1% is actually a tool for exploitative attack, not GTO defense.

I can not argue with the videos as I have not seen any of them. I can say that what you are seeing in these videos seems opposite to every thing else Ed has written. In his article

What Should You Study?
by Ed Miller | Published: Jun 07, 2017

He makes no reference to the 1% or GTO in any way...even when discussing higher stakes games. for example

I will admit in his books he tends to start by discussing what poker solved would look like. Surprise its looks a lot like the 1% (even before he wrote the 1%). But he then has always told you why you should not play this way and goes on to discuss developing exploitative poker . With no more reference, to this poker solved, or using it to get to this exploitative poker.....IMO though instresting, he could have left that part out and made his point just as well.

Using the 1% is just not a good way to get to exploitive poker.. yes if you insist one could use it to get there...but unless your opponents start somewhere near the 1% frequencies, it going to be an uphill battle....where thinking about things like their range and how they play it will be IMO much much better.

Your analogy is false. The study of any player's pyramid(low stakes or otherwise), compared to an optimal pyramid, to look for weakness, is directly applicable to our trade.

It's much more like a musician learning music theory: it can make any musician a better musican, no matter his genre, as it applies to all types of music, though there is an additional learning curve with the study.

I will agree that studying anything can be helpful. I myself like to play gin against my computer. I really think it helps my poker game. Gives me a feel for luck. Gives me a feel for logic...improves my brain (ok you might argue against that but you don't know what my brain was like before I started gin). The years I spent playing bridge and chess has helped me as well.

But the most effective way to learn to play the piano is to learn to play the piano. Yes learning to play other instruments will help you become a good pianist. But your time studying the piano, will improve your piano playing more then your times studying other interments. And learning to exploit players by thinking about how they play there range, is more effective way to learn to exploit players then thinking abut how they would play if they played GTO.

Yes I will give you that studying the 1% for a low stakes player is not a complete waist of time. Like @star681 I also liked
I took one good thing from that book(and one is plenty) the visual of the pyrmid and the preflop base too wide hence they have to unload their inventory somewhere some how. mostly on T, .......

And believed it helped my game.

But to use the 1% as a basis of play, or even a basis of developing exploitable play is not an effective way to study poker IMO. Read it enjoy it, take a few things that might help your current game...great.

But to think this is how I'm going to get good at "Brilliant bluffing" is just a mistake. The theoretical exploitable correct ration of bluffs to value, is just not the answer.

• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
edited February 18
Yanming Z wrote: »
I don’t follow the frequency provided by 1%. But after reading it I felt like the frequencies actually come pretty close to my TAG style of play.

I open 7% UTG to 45% on the button, average 18% of the hands over all. I have a very tight cold calling range balanced with 3 betting range. With these opening ranges I very often find myself flopping draws or double over cards, or in position enough of the time to warrant a close to 70% continuance percentages. This applies to heads up pots, in multiway pots I tend to play more straight forward and don’t continue close to 70%.

I guess the 70% model only applies if you have a tight opening range, if LAG is your play style then there will be so much junk in your range that you have to play exploitatively, where the 70% model will be less relavent.

the lag style is an exploitative style. and thus yes if your a good lag, your doing it because you can exploit your opponents after the flop. As Ive argued here the 1% style is not exploitve thus does not apply to lags. From an article I just read

Ed Miller: How To Play LAG In Cash Game Poker
Here's What To Do To Win Playing LAG Style

by Ed Miller | Published: Feb 01, 2018

https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/22452-ed-miller-how-to-play-lag-in-cash-game-poker

Lags (the good ones) make money by exploiting post flop mistakes of their opponents ...basically they exploit the fact that players tend to fold too much to many small and medium size bets, and pay off too many big bets (because they know your aggressive). The fact that they play a lot of hands preflop is not a big factor (but it allows them to do this more often)

You can exploit these same mistakes (and hopefully do ) playing tag preflop, in which case, as Ive argued over and over, the 1% would not apply to you either. Once you see your opponents making these mistakes, you can add more hands in pre flop, and congratulations your a lag...

The problem with lag is that tag is harder to see what he's doing and thus much harder to adjust to by most live players.....but the lag risks, having Regs or other players, make adjustments . I can spot what most lags are doing, and often can take advantage of their play. Its much harder against tags...

• Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
edited February 18
LAGs exploit TAGs, Calling Stations exploit LAGs, and TAGs exploit Calling Stations.

Rock(LAG) Paper(Calling Station) Scissors(TAG)

Knowing the unexploitable strategy well is what hones your ability to know at what point you switch strategy on which streets/boards/opponents/gameflow.
If you are not tuned to proper baseline frequencies which are found in the unexploitable strategy, then you are guessing when it is time to switch more than you should have to.

In that case you’re not calibrated correctly to what is “betting this River too much” and thus time to switch to a calling station.

Because as Ed says “Even when your opponent strays from the perfect strategy the tiniest bit, you should do the opposite counter-measure 100% of the time”

I don’t think you know this. If you did there would be no room for you to make any argument. You just don’t see how this is the very matrix of NLH and proper exploitative play.
• Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭✭✭
Eazzy, this is now two weeks of shouting at the clouds from your burrow. Only four more to go and then Spring arrives - pace yourself!
• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
edited February 18
Eazzy, this is now two weeks of shouting at the clouds from your burrow. Only four more to go and then Spring arrives - pace yourself!

I think my problem is I have not been using CAPS/ BOLD TYPE/ AND ITALICS
• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
LAGs exploit TAGs, Calling Stations exploit LAGs, and TAGs exploit Calling Stations.

Rock(LAG) Paper(Calling Station) Scissors(TAG)

Knowing the unexploitable strategy well is what hones your ability to know at what point you switch strategy on which streets/boards/opponents/gameflow.
If you are not tuned to proper baseline frequencies which are found in the unexploitable strategy, then you are guessing when it is time to switch more than you should have to.

In that case you’re not calibrated correctly to what is “betting this River too much” and thus time to switch to a calling station.

Because as Ed says “Even when your opponent strays from the perfect strategy the tiniest bit, you should do the opposite counter-measure 100% of the time”

I don’t think you know this. If you did there would be no room for you to make any argument. You just don’t see how this is the very matrix of NLH and proper exploitative play.

Well I agree. I actually stated that exact Ed quote in my original argument. The problem, the 1% it is not great for doing this.

FIRST POINT..... In the book the 1% and virtually every video, every example I've seen referencing the book no where do they show you how to use the frequencies to adjust your game or how to use it to figure out how your opponents are playing.

The book Ed shows you how to take your range, home, look at different boards and come up with you "great" base line strategy.

Doug halls videos, shows you how to use flopzilla along with word tables. to work out this perfect range.

Other then Splits Brilliant Bluffing I have not seen his videos, so maybe he does use it to come up with an exploitable way, but in Brilliant bluffing other then some hints that if you saw players calling too much or folding too much you should leave the base line "brilliant bluffing" based on doing the same 1% book type analysis of your range

OF course maybe you were able to extrapolate from the book or the videos, a way to apply this to what you see at the poker table, to figure out when and how to exploite . I would love to see your model, not the theoretical but the practical way you apply it at the table to figure out how they are playing.

Second: Point....as no one plays anywhere near GTO....starting with models of players that are not GTO...is much easier to adjust from.

I tend to take a REM approach. I model players. I think how does a reg, tag, lag and often how does frank the hat, or Carlos play. I think how do this player play preflop, how does he play different parts of his range on the flop turn and river. from this I try to come up with the best exploits. I

I categorize players, and when I see that they don't fit the model I thought the individual player played . I adjust.

IMO this is much better way to understand the game. I did not invent it. Its pretty much what everything before the 1% was based on. Ok I may perfected it.

So lets see how the two models compare.
you watch a hand played where one player raises and another player calles...

the flop is
832 two tone......

Raiser bets...and the caller calls

turns a King backdoor flush

raiser bets, callers calls

river is a 3.....

Raiser bets...caller calls...raser show QTs backdoor draw.....caller show 87s....

Well not sure but I could probably think of preflop ranges where the raiser, and the caller played the 1%f frequencies....correctly. Prblem is neither of them could care less about that, its not part of their subjective logic.

Form my point of view riaser likes to bluff. Will double barrell on threat cards. I will be calling him down light.

Caller is a calling station. Does not worry about threat cards...I will be value betting 2nd pair, for 3 barrels...I will be rarely bluffing.

In one hand I made major adjustments to my "base range" on two players and can remain flexible for future data. I don't see this capability using the 1%.

Thus concentrating primarily on a REM TYPE MODELING APPROACH
SEEMS TO BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE TO CONCENTRATE ONES POKER STUDY
.

@persuadeo the caps shouting was for you.... and yes it made me feel better.

• Red Chipper Posts: 315 ✭✭✭
Eazzy wrote: »

I tend to take a REM approach. I model players. I think how does a reg, tag, lag and often how does frank the hat, or Carlos play. I think how do this player play preflop, how does he play different parts of his range on the flop turn and river. from this I try to come up with the best exploits. I

I categorize players, and when I see that they don't fit the model I thought the individual player played . I adjust.

IMO this is much better way to understand the game. I did not invent it. Its pretty much what everything before the 1% was based on. Ok I may perfected it.

So lets see how the two models compare.
you watch a hand played where one player raises and another player calles...

the flop is
832 two tone......

Raiser bets...and the caller calls

turns a King backdoor flush

raiser bets, callers calls

river is a 3.....

Raiser bets...caller calls...raser show QTs backdoor draw.....caller show 87s....

Well not sure but I could probably think of preflop ranges where the raiser, and the caller played the 1%f frequencies....correctly. Prblem is neither of them could care less about that, its not part of their subjective logic.

Form my point of view riaser likes to bluff. Will double barrell on threat cards. I will be calling him down light.

Caller is a calling station. Does not worry about threat cards...I will be value betting 2nd pair, for 3 barrels...I will be rarely bluffing.

In one hand I made major adjustments to my "base range" on two players and can remain flexible for future data. I don't see this capability using the 1%.

This is the nuts right here. With 95% of 1/2 games and 80% of 1/3 games you're playing against players who have never studied poker ever. They don't know about GTO or frequencies or anything, therefore there is no point trying to apply anything in these games based on that line of thinking. As usual, I agree with Eazzy's approach. Its also why I've been experimenting with some limping strategies as a way to maximally exploit while at the same time avoiding tough spots in low SPR pots against these types of players

• Red Chipper Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭✭
They notice if you are raising way too much, or not enough. They don't count river show-downs % of value vs bluff, but they do remember generally what you are showing up with.
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭✭
Eazzy wrote: »
Thus concentrating primarily on a REM TYPE MODELING APPROACH
SEEMS TO BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE TO CONCENTRATE ONES POKER STUDY
.

What does REM mean?

• Red Chipper Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭✭
They put a man on the moon. That's where we are trying to put your hourly. Rocket ship that graph.
• Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
Your thinking on this is a tangled mess, Eazzy.

Your opponent doesn’t need to be thinking about an optimal strategy for you to analyze how he’s playing, using frequencies.

Ed has a video, GTO vs Exploitative. Watch it if you haven’t seen it. He talks about players that call too much preflop and what that does postflop, with regard to frequencies.

The 1% study is a comprehensive study of the pyramids of hands your opponents play and how it changes on each street, and how their deviations from perfect play create places to attack. It is completely compatible with REM, because when you compare Ranges, then calculate the Equity, then Maximize, you find it confirms frequency-based analysis. But the frequency-based pyramid analysis provides full models of your opponents’ strategy. Those models are learned, and then each hand doesn’t need reinvent the wheel with an equity calculation from scratch. At the table one can picture one of models that has been learned away from the table, and tweak it as neccesary.

The book Poker’s 1% shows you how to come up with a rough approximation(and yeah, GTO proper, is a complicated study with simplifying assumptions to come up with perfect solutions) of perfect play, and what those ranges look like on each street.

Now use the same intuition you’re using to make these reads you’re speaking of on these players, and write-out the hands they continue with, and notice what percentage they are of the previous hands. Now you have a frequency. Now compare the frequencies and how the hands go from street to the next on different boards.

Notice that in your “REM” analysis you didn’t calculate Equity—though you could guess—but you did say that he likes to bluff, which means he’ll be doing it often, which is a frequency issue, and that’s what poker’s 1% is based on. So it is deeply intuitive, and an explication of how poker players already think at their best.

This method may not be for you, but for you to play it off against REM like these are opposing methods, that 1% isn’t capable of what REM is capable of, and that it is an irrelevant study that people can’t apply...is false.

This thread of yours has made no sense from beginning to end. And with that I’ll leave you in the darkness of your misunderstanding; And the rest of you who take this view.
• RCP Coach Posts: 3,919 -
Just leaving a comment here to acknowledge that I see this thread and will digest & respond once CORE launches and I'm able to catch my breath =)
My latest poker course brings the popular book 'Poker's 1%' to life- The One Percent
• Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭✭✭
SplitSuit wrote: »
Just leaving a comment here to acknowledge that I see this thread and will digest & respond once CORE launches and I'm able to catch my breath =)

Sweet! Sometimes, every now and then, the clouds shout back!
• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
kenaces wrote: »
Eazzy wrote: »
Thus concentrating primarily on a REM TYPE MODELING APPROACH
SEEMS TO BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE TO CONCENTRATE ONES POKER STUDY
.

What does REM mean?

The term comes from the process the Ed Miller et al, laid out in his book, Professional No Limit Hold 'em, Volume 1.

On P.96 its introduced as.
Rang, Equity, Maximize, or "REM" is a three step process that you use to make every no-limit decision, Master it and you will be an expert no limit player

Range here refers to your opponents range. What it looks like, what it looks like if you bet, call or check...Really range is the basis of hand reading...and IMO your ability to understand how you opponent plays different parts of his range...Monster hands, bluff catchers, draws ect.

E or Equity...You now determine what your equity would be against his range...things like fold equity, show down equity...all that good stulf against the range you put him on.

Maximize...Here you will chose the action or series of action based on his range and your equity that will make you the most money in the long run.

This is things like a cbet is profitable, but a delayed cbet is more profitable. Checking back the turn will get you paid off on the river by more hands, but might give a free card which is more profitable.

The problem for most players, is its hard to reduce it down to a set of rules a simple system, unlike the 1% kind of approach which only looks at your hand a known quantity and ED has reduced down to basically a simple system. I know this because I ignored it as the center of my analysis, because things like SPR and Commitment, I could get absolute rules that worked (for a while).

But IMO...its well worth the effort, and a much better way to learn to beat low stake poker...and quite honestly to understand exploitation at any stakes.
• Red Chipper Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
@MidnightFox

I thinks I see one of the problems I'm having with your logic, and probably your having with my logic.
t is completely compatible with REM, because when you compare Ranges, then calculate the Equity, then Maximize, you find it confirms frequency-based analysis. But the frequency-based pyramid analysis provides full models of your opponents’ strategy.

The problem I have with this is when I model players I'm not modeling for systemic mistakes to a players overall play. I'm looking for spots where players play in a way I can exploit.

Players don't always barrel too much or too little or Bluff or call too much or too little. They do it in specific spots.

From my example where one player barrelled a threat card on the turn and river. I'm not going to start calling this guy down on every hand because he bluffed too much. My way is to start with my assumptions....

1)Most players bluff once when a threat card comes
2) Most players will either check the turn or the river when a threat card comes like a King when they have a one pair type hand.

Thus the fact that this guy double barreled a King on the turn and the river tells me, I can call him down light....he should not have one pair hands he can have a bluff thus hard to hit big hands, calling becomes profitable and bluffing him on the river may also become profitable.

His bluffing frequency on the river my easily be way below GTO frequencies, but in this case I have an exploit.

Another very common one is that many players will bluff a missed flush draw if you check to them on the river. These same players..often bluff way to little, but in this situation many players bluff way to much. Overall frequency is a disaster to call, but if you add to the fact that they don't bet one pair hands here it becomes a profitable situation.

Vast majority of my exploits are based on these type of reads (how I model players),

Even when I move to exploit a player who makes extreme mistakes...He's a lag tard, or a calling station...not seen hands to the river, but by the "frequencies", I still find that thinking how these players play, gives me a better way of determining exploits.

I mean laggy players don't go bet bet bet every time the same way. They have bet tells they have types of boards they stop on.....For example by default, many lags will raise the flop on a paired board with a bluff, but have it when they raise the turn on paired boards.

I will admit that most of my arguments against using the 1%, is based on the assumptions that its primarily based on looking at your hand, the board and deciding how to play. That's what the book the 1% did, that's what most videos I've seen (not seen that many) try to do and that's what vertically every post I've seen about the 1% seems to do when they mention frequencies based on the 1%. If you have managed to model it in a way that you can use it to come up with better (or faster) decisions based on your opponents ranges I would love to see it.
• Red Chipper Posts: 18 ✭✭
edited June 5
SplitSuit wrote: »
Just leaving a comment here to acknowledge that I see this thread and will digest & respond once CORE launches and I'm able to catch my breath =)

Split, it been almost 4 months now and wondering when you will give your genius opinion on this mater?
• Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭✭✭
@Eazzy -
now that's it's Summer... it's time to reconsider your rant:

first: EM's Poker's 1% is NOT GTO. never has been. never will. so, let's not talk about these two in the same convo... they're different beasts.

next: if you're going to watch MIT videos... consider watching the "game theory" ones.
Matt H's class on decision-making is a very good study! it will help your game more than Einstein's.

now to the meat of the subject:
Poker's 1% is all about developing a "frequency-based approach" to your game.
if you've ever watched any Doug Polk You Tube Hand Histories... he does this too.
why?
because it's winning poker.

when you open, your range should be as such that you should be able to continue with 65-70% of it on most flops. Why do I say "most flop?" Because as Red Filler says... there will be "bad events" where you can't continue. Monotone boards or flops lik 789 two-tone are horrible for our raising range... so many times we will need to give these up.
there are exceptions to the "rule"... but that doesn't make the rule sub-optimal.

frequency-based style of poker is especially effective against players that play fit-or-fold. While against calling stations, it can be spew. But guess what... against calling stations, our opening range should be tighter... to which continuing with approx 70% is STILL correct.

where does the 70% number come from?
Actually - EM didn't invent it... he sort of stole it from Janda's "Applications of NLHE"... which, if you haven't read, you should. It's a theoretically model that couched in math. It proves mathematically what your rant is saying is wrong.
Sorry homes... math wins, here.
There's a minimum defense frequency and dozen of other implications that need to be considered before you throw the baby out with the bath water.

player pool
I don't know where you play - but where I do.... (cover your ears @persuadeo) our ⅓ games are often the ONLY game available. So, if a visiting 2/5 or 5/10 or even a "professional" 1/2 player comes to our poker room... he/she is going to HAVE to play this... otherwise they have to play 4/8 Limit!
So, to say there is NO bluffing EVA in your game is wrong, wrong, incorrect!

Since you don't take a frequency-based approach, you're probably folding lots of winning hands like AQ on an 8-high board! Because you don't bluff-catch with "unmade" hands, you're losing chips. (BTW - it's losing with 1 "o" ... not loosing with 2 "o"s ... but I digress)

back to your HU, only plays AA model.
I've got a better one for you:
3 card poker.... you and your opponent get dealt a Q, K or A.
how often do you bet?
if you only bet when you have an A, then V can always fold.
this is the problem with your rant about only betting nutted hands. Your opponents can easily fold knowing that you have no bluffs in your range.

Me? I make more money/profit by bluffing because:
a.) I often win the pot uncontested
b.) when I get caught, players find more "courage" and call me down lighter when I have the nuts.

okay... I think I've addressed most of your post.

mebbe.... you're 100% right for your home game, or whereever it is that you play.
but from my travels... I find taking a frequency-based approach to be the most profitable... even in lower limit games.
you've got Red Filler, Doug Polk AND Matt Janda who are telling you this is a winning strategy. Shouldn't you give it more careful thought?
My use of Red Filler is my protest of the author who founded this website but refuses to engage with his customers since finding Daily Fantasy more interesting.

The difference should not be in your frequency - but how you adjust your ranges to keep the smooth pyramid.... and how you perform on certain run outs.
The sooner you lose the notion that there's only one way to play poker will be the day that you can start to move up in stakes and continue to crush.

now my rant is over.
the floor is yours....
«1