Sweeney: The Poker's 1% Video Series

124»

Comments

  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,070 -
    driller1 wrote: »
    If you are a natural tag, would a good first approximation of this strategy be:

    1. Continue to play tight pre-flop. Add some 3 bets.
    2. Instead of folding or check folding when you mostly whiff the flop, continue with holdings like middle pair, gutshots, back door fd, etc. These are hands a standard tag might fold and not folding them will get you closer to 70%. Try to maintain the proper bluff/value bet ratios.
    3. Continue to work away from the table and as Ed and James point out, your "intuition" will improve over time.
    4. ??

    Certainly 2-4, but 1 is tough to answer since most players identify as TAGs but are actually much closer to nits =)
    driller1 wrote: »
    Another question for James. Do the principles of this book now govern your play? Another way of saying, which is more important, hand reading or frequency or ??

    Many players think they either use hand reading or use frequencies, as if they are polar opposite entities. But the fact is that frequencies and hand reading go, well...hand-in-hand. If you are "supposed to" defend against a river shove at 70% (frequency), but your opponent clearly has no bluffs in their range (hand reading)...do you call with your bluff catchers? Or, are frequencies and hand reading working in tandem to make folding bluff catchers an easy decision?

    I hope that helps =)
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • driller1driller1 Red Chipper Posts: 27 ✭✭
    It seems to me that in the example you gave, hand reading takes precedence over frequency. I know it would for me, but as you pointed out, I am a closet nit.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,070 -
    driller1 wrote: »
    It seems to me that in the example you gave, hand reading takes precedence over frequency. I know it would for me, but as you pointed out, I am a closet nit.

    Exploiting is the act of taking advantage of a kink in someone's frequencies. So yup, hand reading is a focal point for me - but it gets compared to the frequencies and as such they aren't totally separate =)
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • Eon137Eon137 Red Chipper Posts: 212 ✭✭✭
    Whether you emphasize hand reading or frequencies more depends a lot on the game/opponents you are facing. A purely frequency based play will get you into a lot of trouble if you are focused only on your own ranges. Trust me on this.

    I have found that at the low stakes games I play, the frequency model is most valuable for identifying what to exploit in my opponents. If they are folding at too high of a frequency, I can bluff them more. If they fold rarely, I need to mostly value bet. And pay attention to events that happen throughout the hand, as these are cues for when you should deviate from your own pyramid. This is where hand reading will help.
  • driller1driller1 Red Chipper Posts: 27 ✭✭
    Have you looked at the Hull video "Questioning the 1%"? GTO+ seems to indicate that for pot sized c-bets a frequency of 70% is way too high. It seems that in order for 70% to be correct the bet size should be more like 1/3 pot. Do you vary the size of your c-bets much?
  • 4 Horseman4 Horseman Red Chipper Posts: 39 ✭✭
    Question for SplitSuit. I wrote down a hand for frequency analysis where we started three handed on the flop. I c-bet and then we were heads up Ott. I know I revert back to close to 70% ott, however, should I base my turn range on my C-bet flop range which will be much lower than 70% due to the flop being multi-way? If so, I won't have as many hands to continue the analysis both ott and river.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,070 -
    driller1 wrote: »
    Have you looked at the Hull video "Questioning the 1%"? GTO+ seems to indicate that for pot sized c-bets a frequency of 70% is way too high. It seems that in order for 70% to be correct the bet size should be more like 1/3 pot. Do you vary the size of your c-bets much?

    I have. I've spoken a LOT with @Doug Hull about this kind of stuff and if you ask nicely he might just share what he learned when graphing continuance across the entire continuum of flop textures using GTO+ =)
    4 Horseman wrote: »
    Question for SplitSuit. I wrote down a hand for frequency analysis where we started three handed on the flop. I c-bet and then we were heads up Ott. I know I revert back to close to 70% ott, however, should I base my turn range on my C-bet flop range which will be much lower than 70% due to the flop being multi-way? If so, I won't have as many hands to continue the analysis both ott and river.

    Your turn range has to be a function of the range you bet the flop with. But depending on just how bad the MW spot was on the flop (so just how few bluffs you may get to the turn with), you should have lots of continuance combos on the turn & river and may likely find your barreling frequency above 70%...
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • Doug HullDoug Hull RCP Coach Posts: 1,872 -
    The more I look at this, the distribution of "proper c-betting frequencies" defies a single number description.

    If we were to look at bins like 0%-2% c-betting up to 98%-100% c-betting in 50 bins we would see a large spike at 0%, a bigger spike at 100% and an evenly distributed noise floor every where else.

    A single number as an average is very misleading in a bimodal distribution. It is like seeing that half the people go through the right door, half through the left door and proclaiming "on average everyone walks straight through the wall.

    His single number was an abstraction to allow discussion, and conceptual understanding taken in that light, it works great and serves it's purpose.
    Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
    Author Poker Plays You Can Use
    Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,832 -
    Doug Hull wrote: »

    A single number as an average is very misleading in a bimodal distribution. It is like seeing that half the people go through the right door, half through the left door and proclaiming "on average everyone walks straight through the wall.

    Actually, Doug, they go through both doors at once. Basic quantum mechanics, c'mon man.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭✭
    Doug Hull wrote: »
    The more I look at this, the distribution of "proper c-betting frequencies" defies a single number description.

    If we were to look at bins like 0%-2% c-betting up to 98%-100% c-betting in 50 bins we would see a large spike at 0%, a bigger spike at 100% and an evenly distributed noise floor every where else.

    A single number as an average is very misleading in a bimodal distribution. It is like seeing that half the people go through the right door, half through the left door and proclaiming "on average everyone walks straight through the wall.

    His single number was an abstraction to allow discussion, and conceptual understanding taken in that light, it works great and serves it's purpose.

    I agree with everything but your last sentence. I have railed against this 70% CB idea since I first read the book and I think you are making my case for me :)

Leave a Comment

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