BETTING: GAINING AN EDGE + Fausto

2»

Comments

  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Ok, well final thought for me here: we have to make some assumptions about ranges to say what you are saying, Austin. It's possible that you are right, but the composition of what the PFR bets and now bet calls as opposed to some other line indicates that Fausto as an exploiter understands his opponent as more capped than you suggest.

    You may have heard Moldyfish on the Thinkingpoker.net podcast reference a very important point that added up to a big play from him in the discussed hand that flabbergasted Brokos - even good players tend not to protect their range very well when the board turns dicey.

    The solver argument just isn't very clear. It will not bet much on a board like this, yet the PFR has - think about what that range does on the turn. You can assume pretty freely that villain here is cbetting far more than GTO would like, but if you want to be conservative, Fausto's line is pretty liberal against it. That protection mentioned suddenly matters. As Ken and Christian both referenced, the blockers matter or don't matter, depending on all these assumptions or perhaps just how "correct" you want to be. Fausto's game, if you are following the videos, is OOL compared to current "standards" - but he clearly embraces that.

    Mostly agree to this. What does "OOL" stand for; out of loop?

    Next discussion in terms of solvers and I remember seeing some stuff on this where hands like AA and KK would be calls as well as TT and 99, but QQ and JJ would be folds. I think this came up in @Christian Soto Gangsta hand as well.

    I like to play an extremely mixed strategy. Not sure how well I would do online, but in live games there is definitely a balance of GTO and exploits that make a player the best player in the room. It is neither one or the other that make him the best, but a mix of both. I never really studied GTO, so I can't say for 100% some of the lines I take are GTO, but I have a feeling some are because I mimic Art and Dan on LATB quite frequently, then embrace those lines with player tendencies for low stakes.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    Austin wrote: »
    @Christian Soto are you saying online guys can't exploit live etc...

    That is exactly what I am saying! I'm lil tipsy so this may come off strong!

    Bro let me tell you... these former online kids who quit online because their edge was too small, but know all the fckin solver moves, just chuckle at all the "bad" plays they think they see at 5/10 uncapped live.

    But then they run these 1000BB bluffs because blockers, capped ranges, and nonsense they want to tell themselves works in theory. Meanwhile, the leverage point in the hand is long gone, and everyone on the table knows his opponent is calling. And of course he eventually calls but this online kid tells his friend how it was solver approved and now it's all good because solver says.

    Now those 1000BBs take FOREVER to make back in live poker.

    Or they make these disaster calls because of Minimum Defense Frequency or blockers or whatever they want to tell themselves, meanwhile everyone is under bluffing but he just doesn't really have a pulse as to what extent on X board because he doesn't come from this world.

    I have so many HH's of my opponents doing this stuff.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    is OOL compared to current "standards" - but he clearly embraces that.

    OOL ?
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Or for example in this Fausto HH. Why can't Fausto just raise Flop if this dude is Over Cbetting, which he probably is because no way he has a balanced checking and betting range construction here.

    Like fck these guys bro... We have hella equity and this dude probably not combating correctly now or on a lot run outs.

    I don't care if it's GTO or not... I just know these guys make mistakes all over the place and I'm here to capitalize on all of them.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    kenaces wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    is OOL compared to current "standards" - but he clearly embraces that.

    OOL ?

    Out of line
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    Soto v Forums is back! Videos incoming
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have so many HH's of my opponents doing this stuff.

    Post them!
  • RCP Coach - Fausto ValdezRCP Coach - Fausto Valdez RCP Coach Posts: 859 ✭✭✭✭
    Or for example in this Fausto HH. Why can't Fausto just raise Flop if this dude is Over Cbetting, which he probably is because no way he has a balanced checking and betting range construction here.

    Like fck these guys bro... We have hella equity and this dude probably not combating correctly now or on a lot run outs.

    I don't care if it's GTO or not... I just know these guys make mistakes all over the place and I'm here to capitalize on all of them.

    This is amazing lol
    COACHING NOW AVAILABLE HERE
    MY COACHING REVIEWS HERE
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Ok, well final thought for me here: we have to make some assumptions about ranges to say what you are saying, Austin. It's possible that you are right, but the composition of what the PFR bets and now bet calls as opposed to some other line indicates that Fausto as an exploiter understands his opponent as more capped than you suggest.

    You may have heard Moldyfish on the Thinkingpoker.net podcast reference a very important point that added up to a big play from him in the discussed hand that flabbergasted Brokos - even good players tend not to protect their range very well when the board turns dicey.

    The solver argument just isn't very clear. It will not bet much on a board like this, yet the PFR has - think about what that range does on the turn. You can assume pretty freely that villain here is cbetting far more than GTO would like, but if you want to be conservative, Fausto's line is pretty liberal against it. That protection mentioned suddenly matters. As Ken and Christian both referenced, the blockers matter or don't matter, depending on all these assumptions or perhaps just how "correct" you want to be. Fausto's game, if you are following the videos, is OOL compared to current "standards" - but he clearly embraces that.

    Mostly agree to this. What does "OOL" stand for; out of loop?

    Next discussion in terms of solvers and I remember seeing some stuff on this where hands like AA and KK would be calls as well as TT and 99, but QQ and JJ would be folds. I think this came up in @Christian Soto Gangsta hand as well.

    I like to play an extremely mixed strategy. Not sure how well I would do online, but in live games there is definitely a balance of GTO and exploits that make a player the best player in the room. It is neither one or the other that make him the best, but a mix of both. I never really studied GTO, so I can't say for 100% some of the lines I take are GTO, but I have a feeling some are because I mimic Art and Dan on LATB quite frequently, then embrace those lines with player tendencies for low stakes.

    You mimic the two fkin nits!

    I like Andy's game
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I do think a solver approved approach is most +EV, but calling ranges have to be correct. If commitment threshold is passed and villain is sticky, then you can't use PIO and have to adjust to a merged value range and remove your bluffs. This is just common sense.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018




    GTFOH

    Andy is hood. Straight gangsta... not GTO. And is probably the biggest winner in LA.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Ok, well final thought for me here: we have to make some assumptions about ranges to say what you are saying, Austin. It's possible that you are right, but the composition of what the PFR bets and now bet calls as opposed to some other line indicates that Fausto as an exploiter understands his opponent as more capped than you suggest.

    You may have heard Moldyfish on the Thinkingpoker.net podcast reference a very important point that added up to a big play from him in the discussed hand that flabbergasted Brokos - even good players tend not to protect their range very well when the board turns dicey.

    The solver argument just isn't very clear. It will not bet much on a board like this, yet the PFR has - think about what that range does on the turn. You can assume pretty freely that villain here is cbetting far more than GTO would like, but if you want to be conservative, Fausto's line is pretty liberal against it. That protection mentioned suddenly matters. As Ken and Christian both referenced, the blockers matter or don't matter, depending on all these assumptions or perhaps just how "correct" you want to be. Fausto's game, if you are following the videos, is OOL compared to current "standards" - but he clearly embraces that.

    Mostly agree to this. What does "OOL" stand for; out of loop?

    Next discussion in terms of solvers and I remember seeing some stuff on this where hands like AA and KK would be calls as well as TT and 99, but QQ and JJ would be folds. I think this came up in @Christian Soto Gangsta hand as well.

    I like to play an extremely mixed strategy. Not sure how well I would do online, but in live games there is definitely a balance of GTO and exploits that make a player the best player in the room. It is neither one or the other that make him the best, but a mix of both. I never really studied GTO, so I can't say for 100% some of the lines I take are GTO, but I have a feeling some are because I mimic Art and Dan on LATB quite frequently, then embrace those lines with player tendencies for low stakes.

    You mimic the two fkin nits!

    I like Andy's game

    LOL mimicking nits in my 100bb games works VERY WELL! When I get to 200,300, or 500bb+ games in the future ill start expanding towards some if Garretts or Soto Gangsta lines.

    For now im too low on the food chain against sticky players, having lots of bluffs doesn't make sense. Will just play in formation and use combinatorics to help make my reads. Whatever prints money im going to do.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Ok, well final thought for me here: we have to make some assumptions about ranges to say what you are saying, Austin. It's possible that you are right, but the composition of what the PFR bets and now bet calls as opposed to some other line indicates that Fausto as an exploiter understands his opponent as more capped than you suggest.

    You may have heard Moldyfish on the Thinkingpoker.net podcast reference a very important point that added up to a big play from him in the discussed hand that flabbergasted Brokos - even good players tend not to protect their range very well when the board turns dicey.

    The solver argument just isn't very clear. It will not bet much on a board like this, yet the PFR has - think about what that range does on the turn. You can assume pretty freely that villain here is cbetting far more than GTO would like, but if you want to be conservative, Fausto's line is pretty liberal against it. That protection mentioned suddenly matters. As Ken and Christian both referenced, the blockers matter or don't matter, depending on all these assumptions or perhaps just how "correct" you want to be. Fausto's game, if you are following the videos, is OOL compared to current "standards" - but he clearly embraces that.

    Mostly agree to this. What does "OOL" stand for; out of loop?

    Next discussion in terms of solvers and I remember seeing some stuff on this where hands like AA and KK would be calls as well as TT and 99, but QQ and JJ would be folds. I think this came up in @Christian Soto Gangsta hand as well.

    I like to play an extremely mixed strategy. Not sure how well I would do online, but in live games there is definitely a balance of GTO and exploits that make a player the best player in the room. It is neither one or the other that make him the best, but a mix of both. I never really studied GTO, so I can't say for 100% some of the lines I take are GTO, but I have a feeling some are because I mimic Art and Dan on LATB quite frequently, then embrace those lines with player tendencies for low stakes.

    You mimic the two fkin nits!

    I like Andy's game

    LOL mimicking nits in my 100bb games works VERY WELL! When I get to 200,300, or 500bb+ games in the future ill start expanding towards some if Garretts or Soto Gangsta lines.

    For now im too low on the food chain against sticky players, having lots of bluffs doesn't make sense. Will just play in formation and use combinatorics to help make my reads. Whatever prints money im going to do.

    Yeah I feel you. But honestly Andy's game is strong AF. That's the guy you should be watching, not the value heavy profiles.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    Austin wrote: »
    I do think a solver approved approach is most +EV, but calling ranges have to be correct. If commitment threshold is passed and villain is sticky, then you can't use PIO and have to adjust to a merged value range and remove your bluffs. This is just common sense.

    “Common sense is not so common”
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Ok, well final thought for me here: we have to make some assumptions about ranges to say what you are saying, Austin. It's possible that you are right, but the composition of what the PFR bets and now bet calls as opposed to some other line indicates that Fausto as an exploiter understands his opponent as more capped than you suggest.

    You may have heard Moldyfish on the Thinkingpoker.net podcast reference a very important point that added up to a big play from him in the discussed hand that flabbergasted Brokos - even good players tend not to protect their range very well when the board turns dicey.

    The solver argument just isn't very clear. It will not bet much on a board like this, yet the PFR has - think about what that range does on the turn. You can assume pretty freely that villain here is cbetting far more than GTO would like, but if you want to be conservative, Fausto's line is pretty liberal against it. That protection mentioned suddenly matters. As Ken and Christian both referenced, the blockers matter or don't matter, depending on all these assumptions or perhaps just how "correct" you want to be. Fausto's game, if you are following the videos, is OOL compared to current "standards" - but he clearly embraces that.

    Mostly agree to this. What does "OOL" stand for; out of loop?

    Next discussion in terms of solvers and I remember seeing some stuff on this where hands like AA and KK would be calls as well as TT and 99, but QQ and JJ would be folds. I think this came up in @Christian Soto Gangsta hand as well.

    I like to play an extremely mixed strategy. Not sure how well I would do online, but in live games there is definitely a balance of GTO and exploits that make a player the best player in the room. It is neither one or the other that make him the best, but a mix of both. I never really studied GTO, so I can't say for 100% some of the lines I take are GTO, but I have a feeling some are because I mimic Art and Dan on LATB quite frequently, then embrace those lines with player tendencies for low stakes.

    You mimic the two fkin nits!

    I like Andy's game

    LOL mimicking nits in my 100bb games works VERY WELL! When I get to 200,300, or 500bb+ games in the future ill start expanding towards some if Garretts or Soto Gangsta lines.

    For now im too low on the food chain against sticky players, having lots of bluffs doesn't make sense. Will just play in formation and use combinatorics to help make my reads. Whatever prints money im going to do.

    Yeah I feel you. But honestly Andy's game is strong AF. That's the guy you should be watching, not the value heavy profiles.

    I watch Andy as well. He has improved a lot. There was a period where he took some time off and now came back as one of the strongest. Thats why him and Garrett always have biggest stacks.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭✭
    I have so many HH's of my opponents doing this stuff.

    Where do you play?
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Played East Coast for while Borgata/Parx/Sands

    Now play Wynn 5/10 Aria 5/10+
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    @Faustovaldez123: Is part of your hesitancy to raise on the flop the concern about the possibility of being re-raised and/or forced to get it all in on the river even without a made hand?
  • RCP Coach - Fausto ValdezRCP Coach - Fausto Valdez RCP Coach Posts: 859 ✭✭✭✭
    @Faustovaldez123: Is part of your hesitancy to raise on the flop the concern about the possibility of being re-raised and/or forced to get it all in on the river even without a made hand?

    No, in this exact instance i was demonstrating a different way of playing the hand
    COACHING NOW AVAILABLE HERE
    MY COACHING REVIEWS HERE
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    @Faustovaldez123: Is part of your hesitancy to raise on the flop the concern about the possibility of being re-raised and/or forced to get it all in on the river even without a made hand?

    No, in this exact instance i was demonstrating a different way of playing the hand

    Gotcha. Thanks.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Faustovaldez123: Is part of your hesitancy to raise on the flop the concern about the possibility of being re-raised and/or forced to get it all in on the river even without a made hand?

    No, in this exact instance i was demonstrating a different way of playing the hand

    Also Axs has SDV. Common to check it behind and bet your worse FD.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018




    GTFOH

    Andy is hood. Straight gangsta... not GTO. And is probably the biggest winner in LA.

    I haven't watch very much LATB so I will just take your word for it BUT these two hands are terrible.

    Would you really teach your students to open and then 4B 23s from EP, or 3b weak TP in 3W pot from the BTN?

    Both hands seem like good examples of how to play bad and get lucky(gin flop for 23s/opponent nit folds a set)
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jeez, snap folded that 666, too. Interesting.

    I suppose these hands pretty dramatically show, even if they are just outliers, very different approaches to the game. Art has been very successful too, on latb, and i recall He Who Must Apparently Not Be Named, Pbf prodigy, lavishing praise on him.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I understand Art's fold. At 500bb deep Andy doesn't usually 3 bet his draws, so what would Andy 3bet with? tp+fd not possible, bottom pair + fd not possible as Art holds 6d. It looks to be set over set.

    Not sure why Andy 3 bet the flop though with that particular hand. I guess it was merged? He unblocks fd? Not sure.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Jeez, snap folded that 666, too. Interesting.

    I suppose these hands pretty dramatically show, even if they are just outliers, very different approaches to the game. Art has been very successful too, on latb, and i recall He Who Must Apparently Not Be Named, Pbf prodigy, lavishing praise on him.

    LOL

    Now that "he that must not be named" has been banned can I get my name back? I really do like pre-black-friday-prodigy.

    Yeah the snap folding the beast was quite a surprise.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file