Definitely would like to see more about "bad thought processes" vs. "good though processes". The "better hands fallacy" was an eye opener. I like the role play too -- helps me realize how i may be thinking about spots in the wrong way.
hey pete, great content as always. about the pocket 44, although the villain fold, i think it would be much more helpfull to also talk about what we are doing on the river if we get called, cause even if we are playing the turn perfectly, if we dont know how to bluff properly on the river then the bluff on the turn would be a disaster.
I agree, a deep dive into that hand type specifically (22-55) across different river types would be cool to get Pete's thoughts on for a video. Yeah sure we can pull up a sim but I'd prefer hearing from the sensei himself as to what factors in the real world in his experience would sway the river decision towards a big bet or a check back, especially since the EVs in solver-land appear close most of the time between the two options.
its obviously river and to a lesser extent villain dependent. if a high diamond comes and villain isnt a station, i think its a clear follow thru@@ScottHedley
6:45 with bluffing 44 I don't think the suit effects are solver noise at all. It's better to have the 4d in our hand because then our set outs are cleaner. I won't pretend to understand the 54hh one though.
These are all spots where I'm in the process of working smart aggression into my game (I think it's working although I've absolutely blundered off some stacks along the way). I can definitely relate with Jim and his fallacy-thinking of wishing for better bluffs. Thank you Pete for another (free!) insightful and humourous piece of high level content! Also a recommendation for Carrot Corner: I would appreciate your dev(s) adding more playback speed options for the videos [0.75x, 0.9x, 1.1x, 1.25x]. The jumps between 0.5x->1x->1.5x are too significant imo. My learning preference is watching your paid content on 1.1x speed and pausing at meaningful junctions. Cheers
Fantastic video. Very insightful in what I should be thinking in game that I don’t. Thanks and good to see what your mind is like in what people are really like. 😂
I saw a vid you posted a while back with bots playing each other at 6max table.. I was wondering if you could have 2 bots play a significant sample of HU hands but with the positions fixed. Or do you already have an idea what kind of difference in WR between the IP and the OOP bots we would see?
While I agree the last hand is by no means a bad bluff I'm still really curious why the solver thinks having the 54hh is bad here. I know blockers usually don't account for huge EV swings but it's still annoying to see stuff like this in a solver and not be able to figure out why it's doing what it's doing. In my solver/ranges it actually has 54s as a pure bet, and generally has our range betting much more frequently (71%) overall.
I would think that the 54hh is actually a better bluff candidate than the other suited 54 hands, since we unblock the diamond, heart, and club draw floats that have to fold to a turn barrel.
We can probably overbet all our bluffs on the jack turn, because, really, is villain going to adjust to us bluffing slightly too frequently by jamming his entire range over our turn over bets?
@@jlbcredit2397 If you overbet bluff the turn exploitatively and get called, you're just giving up, so him shoving over your overbet is better because it will deny the equity of your bluff, and most of those bluffs are gutters of some kind.
In that case the correct exploit for them would be to call every bluff catcher on turn and then fold river. Even if we’re overbluffing turn using every low equity bluff possible, opponent jamming their entire range over it would just be donating money to us because the equity denial aspect still wouldn’t be big enough to offset the amount they lose to our value range at this depth.
@@ScottHedley there’s a difference between being fun and being cringy and annoying. Those characters weren’t fun. They were very annoying. He didn’t have to go that over-the-top. A more moderate, but still fake character woulda been just fine without going that outrageous.
Definitely would like to see more about "bad thought processes" vs. "good though processes". The "better hands fallacy" was an eye opener. I like the role play too -- helps me realize how i may be thinking about spots in the wrong way.
Fascinating and inspiring again, Pete. Cheers. And humour's always good.
hey pete, great content as always.
about the pocket 44, although the villain fold, i think it would be much more helpfull to also talk about what we are doing on the river if we get called, cause even if we are playing the turn perfectly, if we dont know how to bluff properly on the river then the bluff on the turn would be a disaster.
I agree, a deep dive into that hand type specifically (22-55) across different river types would be cool to get Pete's thoughts on for a video. Yeah sure we can pull up a sim but I'd prefer hearing from the sensei himself as to what factors in the real world in his experience would sway the river decision towards a big bet or a check back, especially since the EVs in solver-land appear close most of the time between the two options.
its obviously river and to a lesser extent villain dependent. if a high diamond comes and villain isnt a station, i think its a clear follow thru@@ScottHedley
6:45 with bluffing 44 I don't think the suit effects are solver noise at all. It's better to have the 4d in our hand because then our set outs are cleaner.
I won't pretend to understand the 54hh one though.
These are all spots where I'm in the process of working smart aggression into my game (I think it's working although I've absolutely blundered off some stacks along the way). I can definitely relate with Jim and his fallacy-thinking of wishing for better bluffs. Thank you Pete for another (free!) insightful and humourous piece of high level content!
Also a recommendation for Carrot Corner: I would appreciate your dev(s) adding more playback speed options for the videos [0.75x, 0.9x, 1.1x, 1.25x]. The jumps between 0.5x->1x->1.5x are too significant imo. My learning preference is watching your paid content on 1.1x speed and pausing at meaningful junctions. Cheers
I think I would have gotten all 3 of these spots wrong in play. Thanks for the video.
This is comedy gold
+good content
how many times did you just start fucking laughing with these voices hahahhahah
Fantastic video. Very insightful in what I should be thinking in game that I don’t. Thanks and good to see what your mind is like in what people are really like. 😂
I love the impressions voices you do of people ( know it alls ) that write in your chat 😂. Very funny
Fun 😅
Thanks!
I saw a vid you posted a while back with bots playing each other at 6max table.. I was wondering if you could have 2 bots play a significant sample of HU hands but with the positions fixed. Or do you already have an idea what kind of difference in WR between the IP and the OOP bots we would see?
Amazing video.
Those voices made me laugh a lot . Good Job bro lol
While I agree the last hand is by no means a bad bluff I'm still really curious why the solver thinks having the 54hh is bad here. I know blockers usually don't account for huge EV swings but it's still annoying to see stuff like this in a solver and not be able to figure out why it's doing what it's doing. In my solver/ranges it actually has 54s as a pure bet, and generally has our range betting much more frequently (71%) overall.
I would think that the 54hh is actually a better bluff candidate than the other suited 54 hands, since we unblock the diamond, heart, and club draw floats that have to fold to a turn barrel.
Aye Pete, Haste ye back on content with world favourability in it m8
😂 A+ video
Wasn't a huge fan of the characters, but as always the actual content was good and insightful. 👍
The 44 I don’t like not betting pot+ there.
that was ur takeaway from the video? lmao
We can probably overbet all our bluffs on the jack turn, because, really, is villain going to adjust to us bluffing slightly too frequently by jamming his entire range over our turn over bets?
You’re right that nobody does that but that’s because they’re not supposed to.
The correct adjustment is to call down wider and let you bluff rivers.
@@jlbcredit2397 If you overbet bluff the turn exploitatively and get called, you're just giving up, so him shoving over your overbet is better because it will deny the equity of your bluff, and most of those bluffs are gutters of some kind.
In that case the correct exploit for them would be to call every bluff catcher on turn and then fold river.
Even if we’re overbluffing turn using every low equity bluff possible, opponent jamming their entire range over it would just be donating money to us because the equity denial aspect still wouldn’t be big enough to offset the amount they lose to our value range at this depth.
That is great
Can you start a whatsApp group for your beard?
A+
Nice video again. A little bit of too much clown fiesta. But if the audience and youself love it, continue doing it :)
Errrr yea bruv innit
My god - your US guy sounds like he smoked 100 packs of cigarettes haha
Please do not do this again. And if you do, make the characters believable. This was just too cringy to make it through the video.
ur no fun
@@ScottHedley there’s a difference between being fun and being cringy and annoying.
Those characters weren’t fun. They were very annoying. He didn’t have to go that over-the-top.
A more moderate, but still fake character woulda been just fine without going that outrageous.
@@Th3Freekmisplaced fixation?
Video must have hit a nerve 😂
The London guy was relatively believable but the Scottish and American characters sounded ridiculous 😄
The accents make this video unwatchable. The Scottish one especially. 😁
Spotted the brit^