Questions about 70% Model, Pyramids... and 50% Model?

babalouisebabalouise Red Chipper Posts: 28 ✭✭
I'm trying to connect the dots between various pieces of information. In preparation for the upcoming webinar, it was suggested that we watch Sweeney's video about the 70% model ( I loved the video and during study sessions, have started thinking about which 70% of hands in my range I would continue with (bet, raise, or call - anything but fold) at each street. I keep picturing the wonderful betting pyramid from the video and want mine to look smooth like that. I have 3 questions:
(1) If you continue with 70% of hands on flop, 70% on turn, and 70% on river, this means that you will see all the way through: .70^3 = 34% of the hands that you thought you were good enough to see the flop with. If you are only up against one villain and she knows that you are only seeing 34% of your flopped hands all the way through, can she not exploit that, by bet-bet-bet, knowing you will finally fold almost 1/3 of the time? This is especially so on the marginal hands where you were planning to check-call on the flop.
(2) Hull put out a video ( in which he states that Ed Miller's 1% book was written before GTO solvers were prevalent. Now, with the help of GTO solvers, he feels like the cbetting (on the flop) should be closer to 50%. Is this consistent with the above (70%) advice? That is, perhaps Hull means that we should BET (or raise?) 50% of the time, but if we add in the hands in our range where we plan to check-call, then this brings it back up to the originally recommended 70% (for any non-fold continuation)?
(3) If Hull means that we should only continue (bet, raise, or call) with 50% of hands on the flop, then if we are to do the pyramid from Sweeney's video, does it mean that we should adjust our continuation (bet, raise, or call) all the way down to the river? So, now we'll only see .5^3 = 12.5% of hands all the way through?

Thanks for any input.


  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 657 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2019
    With regards to question 1: Employing the 70% model as a baseline strategy our frequencies are intact, meaning we cannot be exploited (at least, that's what it's attempting to do). It's like playing an even distribution of 1/3 rock, 1/3 paper and 1/3 scissors. In this context the question "can't we be exploited like this" is obviously nonsensical.

    The moment we see villain break the rules (e.g. bluffing more), we can deviate from the 70% model and call lighter, raise more, etc. We are the ones doing the exploiting, not villain.

    This is my understanding of it anyway, take it with a grain of salt.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 5,479 -
    edited February 2019
    Great questions.

    1. The thing here is that even if our opponent knows we are only getting to the river with 34% of our hands, a bet-bet-bet line doesn't actually help. In detail one has to think about bet sizing, but note that on every street she is putting money in the pot. Because our range strengthens on every street that we call, we will often have her beat on the river. In fact if she is playing with smooth pyramids, and we defend correctly, we basically reach an impasse in which nobody wins. This is the idea behind GTO, on which Miller's 1% book is roughly based. (The 70% model itself isn't GTO, but it borrows heavily from it, particularly in the area of being unexploitable.)

    2. I'll let @Doug Hull leap in here, but what his video is pointing out is that, now we have more information from solvers, the detailed frequencies in the 70% model are probably too high in practice. In fact one can argue this was somewhat factored in to the fine print of Ed's original book, since he pointed out that "bad events" meant we should deviate from a strict 70%. In practice what we've found from solvers is that being OOP on certain specific boards we shouldn't c-bet at all, so in aggregate this is part of what is pulling down the 70% to a lower number.

    3. It's completely dependent on our range, our opponent's range, if we are OOP or IP, and the board texture. On some boards we're never putting another chip in the pot. On others and with specific hands we might bet each street at 100% frequency. So those lovely smooth pyramids are, IMO, a sort of first approximation and a useful way of understanding how overly broad bases inevitably lead to us being exploitable (i.e., don't play half your hands), but in detail we're not looking at the Valley of the Kings, it's more like the Vegas skyline.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • ericmwhiteericmwhite Red Chipper Posts: 34 ✭✭
    edited February 2019
    You can decrease your overall continuance frequency by adding in more aggression. Meaning that if you increase the size of your betting and raising range, you can continue with less than 70% of your range on each street. (My source for this was Poker's One Percent by Ed Miller).

    Secondly, I think we should decrease our continuing frequencies in response to a bad event (playing OOP, board textures that favor our opponent, etc) slightly more than we increase our frequencies in response to a good event.

    It seems bet sizing plays a role too. When Ed introduced the 70% number, most of the examples he gave were using a bet sizing of half pot. In Doug's recent example, he was using full pot sized bets.

    So we're continuing about 50% of the time when we:
    1. Increase the size of our aggression ranges
    2. Adjust our frequencies more to bad events than good ones
    3. Play with larger bet sizing

    Edit: Pretty much what @TheGameKat said :-)

Leave a Comment

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