70% continuation and bluff to value ratio on wet flop?
fatking l
Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
in Hand Reading
How do we deal with 70% on a wet flop.
Lets say we open from MP, get a caller from BB and the Flop comes
Ok, if we open with an 18% range from MP like:
we will start with 211 hands.
Unless we have a read, we should be betting all our made hands TP+ for value here. The only hands I can see slowplaying here are TP and straights with the nut FD, which are exactly 3.
These are 62 hands. Consequently we should be bluffing with 124.
If we do this, then we are continuing with a frequency 88%.
That is way more than 70%.
still correct?
Lets say we open from MP, get a caller from BB and the Flop comes
Ok, if we open with an 18% range from MP like:
we will start with 211 hands.
Unless we have a read, we should be betting all our made hands TP+ for value here. The only hands I can see slowplaying here are TP and straights with the nut FD, which are exactly 3.
These are 62 hands. Consequently we should be bluffing with 124.
If we do this, then we are continuing with a frequency 88%.
That is way more than 70%.
still correct?
Tagged:
Leave a Comment
Comments
I could start taking out hands with blockers maybe? like As, Ks, Qs
Snowie and PIO are CB ~20-30% for full pot(varies depending on assumptions for BB's range)
And that doesn't mean we have to use the full pot sizing either
Ed Miller's 1%
.... the 70% are roughly originating from equity needed to call a PSB
True but today is my day off, and this is my favorite book to rail against!
Hey I thought my job here was to rant against Ed's 1%.
For some reason people around here love this book and spend lots of time building strategies base on this arbitrary 70% number that anyone who has spent 10 minutes with a solve know is WAY of the mark especially for pot sized bets.
I have posted on this before and it just blows my mind why some think it is good idea to spend so much time building models that are going to be full of mistakes. I feel like this hand is good example of why not to use this book/method.
Like I said above both Snowie and PIO are CB ~20-30% for full pot(varies depending on assumptions for BB's range). So why in the world would you want to build a PSB 70% CB strategy that is SO FAR from optimal play?
This is the danger of railing against things you haven't read. But to be fair, most of the people who seemed have read it make a good argument for burning down the public education system.
So let's just call it even.
I did read the book when it first came out(years ago). I will admit I may be mis-remembering but most of what I am railing against is these forum post where people think seem to think that 70% is some secrete number they have to chase.
I do not advocate burning down schools :)
As Miller pointed out once, he'd write a whole book full of thought and work, but what did players generally do? They raced through the book to find the preflop ranges, which are always thought to be a panacea.
Anyway, that should say something, and I'm not saying anything more, because, first, I already have and shouldn't have to, and second, that is on Ed Miller, who has been vexingly silent on this, even when earnest, hardworking players like @The Mule have poured in months of work studying and explicating the book's ideas.
I have a few questions for the community.
If you're following this series and regard yourself as more than competent with this material, do you feel the series is resolving or compounding common misunderstandings?
If the latter, how would you suggest we avoid these common misunderstandings? Would an article help? What should it cover?
My main concern here is that if the same misunderstandings periodically trigger multiple threads in which all we're doing is repeating ourselves, that is a failure on the part of RCP and I want to find a way of resolving it.
tyia ~ Kat
I didn't know there was a new training thing on the 1% - though the new thing was you Core product?
I clearly have no opinion on any 1% poker course as I haven't seen any of it. I hope it is better refined than just the use 70% everywhere kind of posts I keep seeing.
As far as repeating ourselves - I am guilty. In my defense I am too old in poker years :)
Splitsuit has a multi-part series based on Ed's book that has been coming out in the PRO video section. I assumed it had sparked the latest here.
On p85 I can say I think he is flatting BTN too wide but that was a very common range/practice when the book was written.
In this example BTN CC v HJ on Td7s2c As Miller say the BTN needs to defend 70% on flop and turn, and proceeds to show what this looks
like. So he is chasing that arbitrary 70% defense number in spot where PIO folds 42% on flop and 39% on the turn. Of course Mr Miller didn't have a solver at the time of this books writting.
https://gyazo.com/8a4a6e938c27ea014743412390699c75
https://gyazo.com/c15510244039bc79c83fcf262e7f2a18
That is really the crux of it. If he hand-waved and said just this, people would (rightly) want to know the details. He could go full Janda and write a (brilliant) book that almost no one understands. He could oversimplify it.
He simplified it.
Once you start to see where the cracks are in this 70% model, you are ready to estimate the true frequencies on your own.
Morpheus : She would say, she knows enough.
Neo : And she's _never_ wrong?
Morpheus : Try not to think of it in terms of right and wrong...
They get out the elevator, and start to walk down the corrider.
Morpheus : She is a guide, Neo. She can help you to find the path.
Author Poker Plays You Can Use
Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
I guess this is all what can be said in general term.
Putting into practice in real time requires off-table work to create the knowledge base we tap into by intuition/memory.
That being said, how is there a sufficiently good answer to OP, without going to PIO or other advanced tools every time?
Nice of you to join the fray.
I mostly agree. Except your comments on Janda's book(I assume his first book?) - " almost no one understands". While it was quite dense, it was not really hard to understand if one put in the effort. Unfortunatley it also suffers from some of the same problems as Poker's 1% in that it was written pre-solvers.
If not then perhaps you need to adjust your preflop range tighter or looser. 1% is a strategy book not a tactics book