Hungry Horse, You are the best poker UA-camr, you have no idea how much you have helped me improve my game, seriously you should be the number 1 poker UA-camr, The glaze is real
I feel people in low stakes get weird with sets cuz its so hard to flop a set and they get so excited when they do and they feel entitled to the pot and will therefore be more irrationally sticky if you shove river when flush comes
exactly as the other guy said - always adjust to the players you are facing - that's what hungry horse teaches us - if you think that they will call - well then don't ever bluff that spot - but always jam your top set and flushes for value
You know what this channel has taught me more than anything? It's how much more room there is for skill expression when you're really deep. I mean, I already knew this. Every poker player does. If you're siting on 6 BB in a tournament you are all in or fold no matter what preflop. When you're deep in a cash game it's totally different, of course. This channel has inspired me, though, to really focus on this aspect of poker. It's just, Marc Goone puts out so much content that shows you exactly how to leverage stack depth in every one of his videos. It's astonishing. I've been watching these videos, and it's like a learning cheat. Concepts and strategies that would take a long time and a lot of effort to really work out are just expertly handed to you in a video. I have gained so much more understanding of what is going on in deep-stack situations against non-pros. All of the things that Marc says seem obvious after he says them, but once I see what he's talking about, I can't unsee it. This channel is so underrated it's criminal.
We should also be taking great stock into what Mark is saying about the player types. These ranges and frequencies are not the same across the board. Pros and recs will get to these rivers with significantly different ranges, so one play that is profitable against a rec may not be against a pro, and vice versa
Yeah but how do you know the math is correct? You don't know the solver inputs are accurate, and you actually can be 100% sure they are not accurate. So knowing that, you still think it makes sense to risk $1500 to maybe win $19? You could probably adjust the solver inputs slightly and it wouldn't be profitable anymore. Seems to marginal to me.
I made the nut flush against flopped top set last session, I got there on the river and open jammed all in and opponent snap called (set of kings). From my experience playing poker for years 90% of players cannot fold a seemingly strong hand at low stake. Even though it is negative EV. I just over bet for value with strong hands in a long run strategy.
@@jasonsitu5287 I have always done this too. But, I usually will stop short of a 2X overbet shove. Generally I’ve found that if the hand they have is more absolutely strong (e.g. sets) they call too much and the more are absolutely weak (e.g. 2nd pair) they fold too much. BUT again, this is vs a PSB or so. I made a ton with the simple strategy of “if they have a strong hand/range, value bet huge and tight. If they have a weak hand bluff large and wide. But, I think having a lot back may change it. He’s gradually convincing me.
These guys are great to play against when you’re running hot but will run you over when you’re not, cause even if you think theryre overplaying something or not strong they won’t fold so you just have to have it against them
@ yeah. And it’s BORING. But if you get heads up against the one decent player at the table, he’ll fold everything after watching you show down nutted hands all night. lol.
I recently started playing online for the first time. I have been DESTROYED by calling overbets on the river with sets, 2 pair, overpair. The hard part as a noob is figuring out if these spots are +/- EV, it’s so hard to know what rate opponents should have straights +. But the fact I lost a bunch of buy ins to it, plus your comment make it seem like people just have it a lot in lower stakes on the river.
This is super valuable information! I have never seen anything like this kind of mathematic analysis about this topic before. It is still a big challenge for me to bluff like in these examples though. I almost always take the low variance approach...
Awesome video, loved that you brought in a real expert for the statistics to justify your points with real numbers! I watch a lot of science/engineering UA-camrs and they often consult experts, but it’s really rare to see that in the poker space-it seems often to be in a bubble either because of ignorance or ego. Please keep this kind of high quality content coming! One idea that I felt was left out in case you ever do a future video like this or maybe have access with these statistics: I think it would have been interesting to talk about the upside of being “high-variance.” You show what what worst 1% case is, but what’s 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%? If you run bad as a high variance player, the downside really isn’t that bad-this is made clear. But what is the upside? I assume the potential upside is much more significant than the downside, but it would be cool to see the numbers. As always great stuff, thank you so much for the hard work Marc, and Merry Christmas!
The main problem with a lot of this analysis is that the folding frequencies are completely made up. So when you say that one of the spots is +EV or -EV, it's only so if the assumed action frequencies are correct, which they almost certainly aren't.
Odd. I went the other way CLP and looked up Mr Goone from there. That was in the early days of the channel though. Exciting to watch this blow up over 2024, can't wait for what HH has in store for 2025!
I think the statistics are a bit muddled here and while I would not say that the interpretation or conclusions are incorrect, the most obvious takeaways are a bit different than what we are given here. tldr; 1. When the % increase in winrate is > % increase in STDev then risk of ruin will decrease is the takeaway (ie when elasticity of winrate relative to STDev >1). The emphasis should be on efficiency (which runs a bit counter to the examples given). 2. The majority of the standard deviation of poker is contributed by the game itself, not play style. 3. A lot of things contribute to standard deviation, including skill. In theory better players will have a lower standard deviation than poor players who play the same number or hands or go all in with a similar frequency, but in worse-selected situations. While the data given does support a conclusion that higher variance may be safer; it is only safer when accompanied by a high level of skill. It is also not clear that hand selection/spot selection/etc. explain the differences in standard deviation, so the spots highlighted in the early part of the video don't necessarily contribute to the stats in the 2nd half. The key takeaway is that if the increase in your win rate is greater than (and in this case significantly greater than) the increase in standard deviation, then the "risk of ruin" decreases. In the comparison of the 13+ BB/hr winner vs the 10 BB/hr winner, there was a 30% increase in win rate vs an under 9% increase in standard deviation; so the result that overall variance is less is intuitive. Likewise, in the last example where STDev increases by 50% vs a 30% increase in win rate, we see risk of ruin be greater for the higher variance style. I remain skeptical that the examples of "high variance" spots would only have such a minor effect on standard deviation. It's important to note that the estimate of standard deviation given by the stats prof and the estimates of win rate from the spots defined as marginal are two very different things. Those spots have a much more significant standard deviation that we could calculate implicitly (if anyone cares let me know and we can walk through it), but the AJ hand for example has a standard deviation around 110BBs itself (which is about the estimate of an hourly standard deviation) for 4BBs of win rate. In this case the increase in standard deviation is much more significant than the increase in winrate for even a 5BB/Hr player (80% increase in win rate, >100% increase in STDev - without any discounting; but just note that making adjustments to fit these to probability of occurrence and time will be applied equally to both factors so it's unlikely that we will get a result similar to the analysis we got in the 2nd half of the video). It's possible that these specific hands may not actually create the increase in winrate necessary to offset the increase in standard deviation necessary to lessen the risk of ruin function. Please note that this DOES NOT mean the lines shouldn't be taken or don't maximize EV. It simply means that if a player has some kind of bankroll limitation, is specifically sensitive to risk of ruin, or has some other reason for wanting to decrease variance in exchange for decreasing EV, situations like this may actually be worth avoiding. The overall observation that when winrate grows at a greater rate than STDev, then risk of ruin goes down still holds. However being able to make a more firm statement on how these specific hands/examples/types of situations impact overall variance would require a bit more delving into the methodology used for estimating standard deviation, how one would make the adjustments to fit 1 hand to an hourly rate, and what other confounding variables there are in the differences of observed standard deviation between the two observed groups. A secondary, and also extremely important observation, is that TAG/ABC poker is extremely high variance. Playing a basic conservative winning style still has variance of 100BB+/hour (as much as 20x win rate). If that's the case, then it's possible that the variance of play style contributes minimally to overall variance; which if so, would lend credence to Goone's argument. However this is worthy of more investigation from my point of view, since it's not intuitive that a player who may play as much as 50% more hands (ie VPIP 30 vs VPIP 20) would only have a 5-10% greater standard deviation. If that's the case, then what is the breaking point for this? As a thought experiment, I would expect that a player who plays 100% of hands would have a significantly greater standard deviation. So what are the statistically significant inflection points where things like VPIP or "high variance spots" etc. hit tipping points relative to standard deviation? From the perspective of Goone's title, this secondary point makes a lot of sense. In this case the standard deviation relative to win rate is significantly lower (ie 20x STDev for a 5BB winner vs less than 10X for a 13BB winner), meaning that the higher standard deviation play style is actually "safer" in a relative sense as well as over time. I think some of the methods need more investigation. It would be strengthened by a less convoluted accounting of standard deviation as well as the ability to relate standard deviation to other basic factors (such as VPIP or 3bet rate, for example that are definitely highly correlated and likely even causally related) as well as more soft assessments like "skill" (better players will theoretically have a lower standard deviation, especially if they have more non-showdown winnings and more all-in EV when called - ie when your opponent is drawing dead your standard deviation is 0). However I think the perspective that poker is high variance regardless of play style, so a slight increase in playstyle variance that yields a significantly greater winrate is actually "safer" is pretty interesting and not something that my critiques of methods can disprove.
Awesome video. Your examples and scenarios have made me better. And although I am not built to play your style I recognize changes that I needed to make in order to win more and have more fun. I am a recreational player but I am definitely connecting more winning sessions because of the techniques I’ve learned.
Merry Christmas. I love HHP because of the strategy and also because Marc throws the shrimp around so generously. One thing I apparently haven't understood yet. If I have almost the nuts on the turn, then I should bet small so that the opponent stays with it. On the river, however, I have too big a SPR for an all-in. On the other hand, it is said that I should choose a larger bet size so that I can get the SPR close to 1. What do I do now?
"Almost the nuts" can mean so many things depending on hand, board and actions. In general if you think you have the best hand most of the time, you want them to get as much money in the pot as possible, but what is possible will vary wildly. If several of obvious draws that you still beat come in, you can often bet huge on the river and still get called often, if river is dry then it's harder to get big bets called.
Thanks so much for this video! The standard deviations for low stakes live likely vary quite a bit from one market to another. My own experience with thousands of hours in Texas is that it is in the region of 150 big blinds/hour.
Unless you are a very skilled player, you have to take into account the variance tilt factor. Where variance impacts your play negatively. Also a rec player who is skilled may have all sorts of constraints that prevent the math from playing out especially short term bankroll constaints.
I have watched literally every video of yours. I like the points you raise. However in my situation, here in Australia, the Casino 2/5 games rake at 10% up to $20 per pot. Home games of 2/3 and 2/5 are 10% up to $15 per pot. Now I understand “high variance with higher Winrate” is better - but what about in an environment like here where rake is so high. If we play so many big pots - even though we have small EV advantage, don’t we lose a lot of it through paying a lot more rake? I would really appreciate a response on behalf of all Australian live poker players (and from anywhere else with absurd rake levels). Hope my question makes sense - cause my gut says any benefit from high variance slightly more EV play is gutted by the extra rake per 100 hands you pay.
The thing is, playing high variance while being on a downswing and having a hard time thinking straight can be much more dramatic. Avoiding hard or risky decisions may be the better option when experiencing long lasting bad luck while playing more aggressive and taking more spots is probably the way to go when lady luck isn't affecting your mental strength lately. Does it make sense ?
Im not a math guy, but you measured the maximum down swing, but what about the rate of downswings? Like medium size down swings are going to happen more often naturally, how dose that compare between the two player types? Is it a factor you ignored? Likely im missing something, but thought Id put it out there
It would be interesting to know the best case scenario when comparing high variance and low variance players. You illustrated what the worst case scenario is, and you did point out that the high variance players have a higher win rate, but I wonder if it's possible to estimate and compare the ceiling of each player type.
The concept of scared money don't make money but in numbers. It's hard to fully agree with the numbers as they inherently change with player types you are going against. I get everything is an average for context but yeah. Poker... gotta love it haha
Awesome content, I think I’ll feel safer to try to be more Aggressive and not fear the big pot swings. I have a question about rake. In your sessions and especially online. It’s just standard rake 5% with a certain cap. In my games it’s always 20-30kr+ 5% cap 100 With bomb pots taking 200 People in my games completely ignore that, and expect everyone to play loose pre, involve themself and see flops, if not you are boring. I feel like the rake structure kills that incentive so much, Even though it’s PLO, (almost No holdem games running in my areas, died out. Only plo and bomb) What would you do as a preflop adjustment? Limp and call along to please the people? Higher RFI %? Or just play what you think are optimal? In my case very tight opening range
The problem is assuming they are +EV spots in the first place and then accidentally taking too many -EV spots. I love you teaching people to play this way though. They are all gonna screw it up and make a ton of mistakes so the games will continue to be JUICY. Thanks!
I bet that a lot of people leaving bootcamp can't truly figure out whether the EV is +18, 0, or -18BB when bluffing or calling 300BB with ace high. How they change the percentage chance of someone playing each hand on each street as they construct a super detailed range in their head, just isn't that accurate. It's not that they should play scared, it's that they just don't know which 15 bizarre hands someone might still have on a given street, either in the direction of having air, or in the direction of having the nuts. It is OK to take the "low-variance winning player" line when a small amount of +EV is as likely an illusion as not. There is also the issue of balancing how you play. NEVER taking a high-variance line, is as unbalanced as ALWAYS taking it just to avoid looking like you bought "nit insurance". You become exploitable. Rather than just randomize how to choose which line in a very close decision, I do it by asking myself how sure I am of the specific opponent's tendencies, hence range. There is a big difference between knowing for sure that there is a 20% chance someone would reach a street with a specific hand, versus knowing that there is a 50% chance that there's a 20% chance of it, and a 50% chance that they have some hand that shouldn't even be in the range.
The risk from the marginal spots isn't that you will have inherently higher variance and bigger downswings. Players avoid those spots because of the risk of miscalculating the true EV in the first place. Enjoyed the video, certainly is thought provoking :)
Just minor adjustments to assumptions and things will change hugely. Very highly player dependent spots, but people tend to bluff too little which leads them to be scared of big bets / raises on the river. Very interesting to think about. Also, almost every content is focused on live play, dunno how applicable this is at online?
hi Marc, regarding your first example, i agree that most, if not all, of villains range is ahead 76dd, and therefore the only way to win the hand is by jamming. However, by jamming 76dd, we are almost certainly overbluffing if we jam all 7x one pair hands without a spade as we do not block any flush or straight combos that will not fold, and the EV of our play should almost certainly be negative as we lose too much when we get bluff-caught (and our combo does not reduce the probability villain calls). I think it is fine to give up with certain hands and you could 'save' your bankroll by checking back in the case villain has it.
Now, I’m pretty new to Poker but in house games or limit poker at casinos, i feel like it’s harder to play aggressive and make other recreational players fold. Does anyone have good suggestions to win more at house games or Limit-Hold em?
This is interesting! So I am thinking about this from a micro stakes perspective because I'm broke and can only afford that (friggin impulsive spending 😢). Thinking about a comment you made in another video about building a baseline of skills at micro stakes and that these stakes having a lot more variances with range distribution (tend to be wider ranges in my experience). I would hypothesize that the higher variance player in micro stakes might have a closer or potentially lower win rate than the lower variance player, with the thinking that many of the field are over calling with a lot of their mediocre holdings to larger sizes due to actual $ amount is less concerning to them and have a "fuck it" attitude because a say $500 (arbitrary number off the top of my head over 10,000 hr sample size) downswing doesn't hurt as much as say a $8,000 downswing in these examples. Or potentially the exact opposite and the win rate sky rockets because micro stakes players might have more limited bankroll and be less willing to take on those high variance spots that we now are taking. What would your thoughts be at these stakes, and would similar strategies still be profitable at micro stakes online?
In live; the stacks grow while the blinds stay the same. In my live 10-20-50 plo. (Roughly the same as 1-2-5$ for you) The minimum buy in is 2k, with no Max. But usually noone loads higher than 10k. (40-200bb) My experience is that on late sessions lasting through the night and in to the morning. Most of the players got very Deep stacks, from 10-40k while maybe 1-2 struggles to run it up. We are also more often Short handed, around 4-6 players this Deep and in the morning hours, rather than always full ring of 8 in the evening when the game starts. I feel this is important to your deviation talk for Live play. I don’t know how it is in your games over the ocean, but I would guess it happens the same with your games. It gets really Deep into the morning hours when people have run up stacks
I appreciate the video. Thank you! Follow-up. Say you're at a 2-5, $1,000 buy-in game. I'm on board with what you said here when you have $1,000 in your stack. Say you have $1,500 or $2,000, though. Would you still want to be as aggressive with high variance plays? Would the slim +EV be worth potentially dropping your max stack? Or might it be worth it some of the time to protect your deep stack for other high-leverage spots against other big stacks?
Hi Marc, love the content. One honest question: let's say I'm not that good yet. Is there a chance the high risk approach actually hurts mi win rate by putting me in more situations where I make Big mistakes? Bluffing with the right combo can be +5bb ev, but if I chose the wrong combo or board I can be torching 50bb... of course, long term goal is to get good, but it's work in progress.... i would love to hear your thoughts. thanks!
EV doesn’t work the way you might think. That is, even if you bluff with the 'wrong combo' on the 'wrong board,' you won’t be losing 50bb worth of EV compared to gaining +5bb.
@@blissw0w Ok. So either I am already quite ignorant and need to do some serious work on my game (that is not going to be saved by taking a conservative line) or I have decent knowledge, can go for the risky lines and the small differences are not going to kill me. correct?
@@danielmendes09 Most of the time if you feel like you kinda have to bluff the spot, just go for it. It takes a lot of things going wrong at the same time for you to actually lose significant EV. Bluffing in live poker is extremely rewarding most of the time especially at middle stakes.
I’m too stationy lol I wanted to call aces. I think it’s ez to convince yourself it’s winning/fine if u already lean towards that option. Only gotta b good 20% etc etc
You can type into youtube, try typing into google. Capped range means they can't hand the nuts. Someone is capped when the line they've taken means they can't have the nuts. Example if you bet small on the flop on a wet board and don't get raised, opponent is capped because they would raise their strong hands to protect against all the draws and to get more value than just a small bet.
only 2 minutes in but I think the first example is a mandatory bet by the river, not a low EV one. I dont think we want to bomb the river but maybe 2/3rds or pot? We're trying to get Jx to fold which is most of his range that'll call the turn overbet, but his flush draws call the turn too so I dont think we want to go tooooo big. Going to keep watching the video now and see how my logic stands up 😂
I find these videos not realistic .. 1) the solver analysis is always guessing ranges .. 2) most poker is about groups of hands and strategy.. not single super analyzed hands with guessed info 3) the 2nd example with AA makes so many false assumptions --especially on the river .. I enjoy the effort ..the conversation ..but disagree with the conclusions
I love this channel but I agree I think these lines are way too ambitious and not worth the giant risk you are taking. Not to mention the monkey tilt you’d experience after having one of these bluffs go wrong
Excellent working figuring out the math behind it all. Math does answer all questions. The problem is, do you have emotional ineptitude to handle the wide variance. If you can remove emotions from your game of poker, math will always prevail.
Sometimes I know when to make the huge bluff and I know my opponents had a set or two pairs but I just don’t think they are capable of folding a set that’s why I gave up so often lol.
haha so true, i grinding mostly real micros, this informations are really nice to know for future higher levels of blinds but in micro in my opinion u can only use aggressive style for exploring some handranges and not for crazy bluffs. I guess this type of play we can try against nutplayers
Then why not expand your value range in those spots? Jam any flush, straight and Top set for huge sizes, even on flush completing rivers. If they overcall rivers, you need to value bet thinner. That's the exploit against those player types.
@@DominationRotation i am not ultrapro, i played already a lot and beating micro well, sure with good playertype-selection u can expand ur value ranges where u create defnetly money but problem is that lot player playing crazy, so in general is for me harder to read other player in micro and with an aggressiv style and mistakes from the other you have more difficult spots or decissions to make without understanding his line, cause he even dont understand what he is doing and than in micros there also lot nutplayers and bots. So from my play and experience aggressiv bluffs in micro like AA on river is in my view defnetly minues-EV and in higher limits its +EV
@@321meinstv2his content isn’t rly for micro stakes online it’s for deep stacked cash games. But honestly I wouldn’t recommend running these bluffs because they’re very player dependent and it looks easy watching it but actually picking up on the right spots to go for it isn’t easy.
The second half of this video makes perfect sense but this is all based on upon you making correct assumptions about your opponents If your assumptions are incorrect you could really fuck yourself up taking these spots
These lines are great in theory but only against a specific player types. Live games people deviate so much from solver play like most players in my games aren’t finding folds with sets. Also, this strategy is very repetitive, good regs will figure you out I’m telling you.
Sure, if you can improve the wr by 3,31 bb/hr, most likely gonna be making much more money with less variance and less horrible worst runs than by playing safer.
Then jam any flush, straight and Top set for huge sizes, even on flush completing rivers. If they overcall rivers, you need to value bet thinner. That's the exploit against those player types.
Lol @ AA having 0% showdown vs a 30% river block. Your strategies are very interesting since you seem to be winning in live games with these exploits. But as a full time online pro your lines are basically pure punts. That being said, I wouldnt be suprised if your live WR is higher than mine so I have something to learn.
Going to be honest I thought your persona was overbearing and annoying for quite sometime when I first was introduced to you on Hustler live.. youve grown on me. I watch every video and its great content. Good luck on the tables
Also ill add that one HUGEEEEEEEE factor that is undeniable is that this is assuming that the higher variance player can maintain perfect play through the madness when the style of play tends to be much more swingy and taxing on emotional control therefor poorer play that may lead to the other sample group being more profitable with that included.
The std dv is obviously ridiculously flawed here, I don't think an actual live std dv is available outside of if a poker room running a live stream kept statistics on one particular game format without like double and triple straddles. Std dv per session, is a lot different than per hand, and its really only going to be calculable per hand. You can't average out a 7hr sessions profit/loss as an accurate representation of your std dev. I'm no math guy, but I think any winning regs would recognize they dont see the variance that 150-300std dv would elicit. 100-150 seems to be the proper range for most std depth (200bb) games, likely closer to 150, maybe slightly higher for more higher variance players.
@@hungryhorsepokerI apologize, I should have been clearer and started less aggressively. A session is let's say 30h/hr, and 5hrs on average for your data. That's 150 hands. 150 hands will have a standard deviation much greater than 1 hand. Std deviation calculated for online poker is done per hand. Standard deviation calculated per session is a grouping of 150 hands, which will have a much greater swing than any given hand will on average. Calculated online, you have more data points with smaller swings. Calculated live, you have less data points with larger swings, naturally resulting in a larger than normal standard deviation. The math guy effectively calculated the standard deviation per session, not per hand, and the calculator uses per hand numbers, where you're using per session numbers. The only way I can see a way to overcome that is if a live stream tracked that data for individual hands in a relatively stable game. Otherwise we can't use live poker data to determine std deviation. I think your math guy would recognize his oversight if presented with this perspective.
next video should be "why you dont win when your fiance is sitting next to you". 🤣 Answer: i dont have the stones to bluff or hero and look like a fool in front of my girl.
when you show the range chart include the cards on board plz... that helps us newbs out a lot... luv ur content btw... top 1% of poker content on YT right now. On a separate note, you a doug Polk fan?? not just his poker skills but everything overall... JW 999
Stake matters a lot when doing those plays, even if the number of big blinds is the same. When I play 2/5 sometimes they work, sometimes not. When playing 5/10 and you shove the river for 150 bb you never get called if the opponent doesn't have a pseudo nut hand (speaking about the standard casual player or a weak reg).
I think you are missing the point. You are not just suppose to always shove in that situation. The reason he shoving is because he put his opponent in a specific range base on how they get to the river. If is opponent won’t fold a set in that situation then you should shove if you have a flush and you think your opponent have a set. You won’t make money if they have a set and you shove, but you will make money money when you have a flush and they have a set It is not about the stakes it is about what you think your opponent will do
The Kelly Criterion doesn't actually care too much about 'risk of ruin.' It actually assumes the player can easily "reload" if he busts. In fact, if you use the Kelly Criterion to calculate the optimal % of a bankroll to risk per poker game for a typical winning reg, you get around 7% to 15% depending on the win rate and variance we plug in. Most people would agree that's crazy, but the K.C. cares only about maximizing the total amount won. If you're wondering, is 30% per game risk even better than 7%-15%? Well actually that results in less overall winnings than the 7-15%. The proof is on the Wikipedia if you're curious.
I'M BACK...WE DID IT...OMG WE MISSED U SO MUCH...OMG BLESS U ! ! OMG U BIG LARGE BOY ! LARRY!!! HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! ITS LARRYS LUNCHTIME LENTILS ARE SOMETHING ! ! ! TUBBYTIME TUPPERWARE ! QUAINT CUTIE ! MY FAVORITE CHAPERONE ! I'M BAD AT SHIPPING ! SENEGALESE SNACKS I HAVE BECOME A SHERPA O WOW TIMOTHY HORTON ! I AM MORE PLUMP THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BOY ! EAT UR LITTLE TURKEY BITES ! ! NIBBLE ON MY TURTLES NECK ! I'M A ROFLER ! TUMULTUOUS TURKEY ! POKER HAAAAARRRRDDD ♠️ ♠️ ♠️
Thanks for having me on, Marc. Really enjoyed working on this together 🥰
thank you for making this vid happen i loved it 🥰🥰
Marc is putting in sooo much more effort than people assume. This is really awesome content
🥰🥰🥰
Hungry Horse, You are the best poker UA-camr, you have no idea how much you have helped me improve my game, seriously you should be the number 1 poker UA-camr, The glaze is real
🥰🥰🥰
I feel people in low stakes get weird with sets cuz its so hard to flop a set and they get so excited when they do and they feel entitled to the pot and will therefore be more irrationally sticky if you shove river when flush comes
Bet huge when you can beat a set then.
exactly as the other guy said - always adjust to the players you are facing - that's what hungry horse teaches us - if you think that they will call - well then don't ever bluff that spot - but always jam your top set and flushes for value
At the table you Don't have access to solver. How do you determine high variance versus bad overplay
@@craigvankirk2120you have to approximate it.
@@craigvankirk2120as red chip poker always says, studying these situations off table will make in-game decisions far easier and more accurate
J84? What is this flop? I don't understand??!!?!
omg
Look at that tart toddler there
Look….where is that sweet baby?
Only flop I know how to play is J 9 2 2 spades
That’s not a sweet baby
You know what this channel has taught me more than anything? It's how much more room there is for skill expression when you're really deep.
I mean, I already knew this. Every poker player does. If you're siting on 6 BB in a tournament you are all in or fold no matter what preflop. When you're deep in a cash game it's totally different, of course. This channel has inspired me, though, to really focus on this aspect of poker.
It's just, Marc Goone puts out so much content that shows you exactly how to leverage stack depth in every one of his videos. It's astonishing. I've been watching these videos, and it's like a learning cheat. Concepts and strategies that would take a long time and a lot of effort to really work out are just expertly handed to you in a video.
I have gained so much more understanding of what is going on in deep-stack situations against non-pros. All of the things that Marc says seem obvious after he says them, but once I see what he's talking about, I can't unsee it. This channel is so underrated it's criminal.
🥰🥰🥰🥰 ty ty ty glad you’re getting value from these
Come to the dark side. MTTs bro.
The standard deviation in live games is much higher because of the larger number of multiway pots (and the bigger bet sizes).
We should also be taking great stock into what Mark is saying about the player types. These ranges and frequencies are not the same across the board. Pros and recs will get to these rivers with significantly different ranges, so one play that is profitable against a rec may not be against a pro, and vice versa
Multi-way pots is a good call-out. No one folds to even crazy 20x BB raises at 1/3
Hot damn I’ve been saying ‘this’ for years to thinking players, but couldn’t put the math to it-this is gold! 🎉🎉
So don't be a afraid to be a maniac when it makes sense ?
Yeah but how do you know the math is correct? You don't know the solver inputs are accurate, and you actually can be 100% sure they are not accurate. So knowing that, you still think it makes sense to risk $1500 to maybe win $19? You could probably adjust the solver inputs slightly and it wouldn't be profitable anymore. Seems to marginal to me.
I made the nut flush against flopped top set last session, I got there on the river and open jammed all in and opponent snap called (set of kings). From my experience playing poker for years 90% of players cannot fold a seemingly strong hand at low stake. Even though it is negative EV. I just over bet for value with strong hands in a long run strategy.
@@jasonsitu5287 I have always done this too. But, I usually will stop short of a 2X overbet shove.
Generally I’ve found that if the hand they have is more absolutely strong (e.g. sets) they call too much and the more are absolutely weak (e.g. 2nd pair) they fold too much.
BUT again, this is vs a PSB or so.
I made a ton with the simple strategy of “if they have a strong hand/range, value bet huge and tight. If they have a weak hand bluff large and wide.
But, I think having a lot back may change it. He’s gradually convincing me.
These guys are great to play against when you’re running hot but will run you over when you’re not, cause even if you think theryre overplaying something or not strong they won’t fold so you just have to have it against them
@ yeah. And it’s BORING.
But if you get heads up against the one decent player at the table, he’ll fold everything after watching you show down nutted hands all night. lol.
I recently started playing online for the first time.
I have been DESTROYED by calling overbets on the river with sets, 2 pair, overpair.
The hard part as a noob is figuring out if these spots are +/- EV, it’s so hard to know what rate opponents should have straights +.
But the fact I lost a bunch of buy ins to it, plus your comment make it seem like people just have it a lot in lower stakes on the river.
This is super valuable information! I have never seen anything like this kind of mathematic analysis about this topic before. It is still a big challenge for me to bluff like in these examples though. I almost always take the low variance approach...
Awesome video, loved that you brought in a real expert for the statistics to justify your points with real numbers! I watch a lot of science/engineering UA-camrs and they often consult experts, but it’s really rare to see that in the poker space-it seems often to be in a bubble either because of ignorance or ego. Please keep this kind of high quality content coming!
One idea that I felt was left out in case you ever do a future video like this or maybe have access with these statistics: I think it would have been interesting to talk about the upside of being “high-variance.” You show what what worst 1% case is, but what’s 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%?
If you run bad as a high variance player, the downside really isn’t that bad-this is made clear. But what is the upside? I assume the potential upside is much more significant than the downside, but it would be cool to see the numbers.
As always great stuff, thank you so much for the hard work Marc, and Merry Christmas!
really good idea wish i would have added it, ty ty!
I think based on knowing that the solver inputs are not 100% correct means it would be silly to make these big risks like $1500 to win $19.
The main problem with a lot of this analysis is that the folding frequencies are completely made up. So when you say that one of the spots is +EV or -EV, it's only so if the assumed action frequencies are correct, which they almost certainly aren't.
After stumbling on your channel a few months ago, I'm now binge watching your coaching content on CLP
Odd. I went the other way CLP and looked up Mr Goone from there. That was in the early days of the channel though. Exciting to watch this blow up over 2024, can't wait for what HH has in store for 2025!
I think the statistics are a bit muddled here and while I would not say that the interpretation or conclusions are incorrect, the most obvious takeaways are a bit different than what we are given here.
tldr; 1. When the % increase in winrate is > % increase in STDev then risk of ruin will decrease is the takeaway (ie when elasticity of winrate relative to STDev >1). The emphasis should be on efficiency (which runs a bit counter to the examples given).
2. The majority of the standard deviation of poker is contributed by the game itself, not play style.
3. A lot of things contribute to standard deviation, including skill. In theory better players will have a lower standard deviation than poor players who play the same number or hands or go all in with a similar frequency, but in worse-selected situations. While the data given does support a conclusion that higher variance may be safer; it is only safer when accompanied by a high level of skill. It is also not clear that hand selection/spot selection/etc. explain the differences in standard deviation, so the spots highlighted in the early part of the video don't necessarily contribute to the stats in the 2nd half.
The key takeaway is that if the increase in your win rate is greater than (and in this case significantly greater than) the increase in standard deviation, then the "risk of ruin" decreases. In the comparison of the 13+ BB/hr winner vs the 10 BB/hr winner, there was a 30% increase in win rate vs an under 9% increase in standard deviation; so the result that overall variance is less is intuitive. Likewise, in the last example where STDev increases by 50% vs a 30% increase in win rate, we see risk of ruin be greater for the higher variance style. I remain skeptical that the examples of "high variance" spots would only have such a minor effect on standard deviation.
It's important to note that the estimate of standard deviation given by the stats prof and the estimates of win rate from the spots defined as marginal are two very different things. Those spots have a much more significant standard deviation that we could calculate implicitly (if anyone cares let me know and we can walk through it), but the AJ hand for example has a standard deviation around 110BBs itself (which is about the estimate of an hourly standard deviation) for 4BBs of win rate. In this case the increase in standard deviation is much more significant than the increase in winrate for even a 5BB/Hr player (80% increase in win rate, >100% increase in STDev - without any discounting; but just note that making adjustments to fit these to probability of occurrence and time will be applied equally to both factors so it's unlikely that we will get a result similar to the analysis we got in the 2nd half of the video). It's possible that these specific hands may not actually create the increase in winrate necessary to offset the increase in standard deviation necessary to lessen the risk of ruin function. Please note that this DOES NOT mean the lines shouldn't be taken or don't maximize EV. It simply means that if a player has some kind of bankroll limitation, is specifically sensitive to risk of ruin, or has some other reason for wanting to decrease variance in exchange for decreasing EV, situations like this may actually be worth avoiding. The overall observation that when winrate grows at a greater rate than STDev, then risk of ruin goes down still holds. However being able to make a more firm statement on how these specific hands/examples/types of situations impact overall variance would require a bit more delving into the methodology used for estimating standard deviation, how one would make the adjustments to fit 1 hand to an hourly rate, and what other confounding variables there are in the differences of observed standard deviation between the two observed groups.
A secondary, and also extremely important observation, is that TAG/ABC poker is extremely high variance. Playing a basic conservative winning style still has variance of 100BB+/hour (as much as 20x win rate). If that's the case, then it's possible that the variance of play style contributes minimally to overall variance; which if so, would lend credence to Goone's argument. However this is worthy of more investigation from my point of view, since it's not intuitive that a player who may play as much as 50% more hands (ie VPIP 30 vs VPIP 20) would only have a 5-10% greater standard deviation. If that's the case, then what is the breaking point for this? As a thought experiment, I would expect that a player who plays 100% of hands would have a significantly greater standard deviation. So what are the statistically significant inflection points where things like VPIP or "high variance spots" etc. hit tipping points relative to standard deviation?
From the perspective of Goone's title, this secondary point makes a lot of sense. In this case the standard deviation relative to win rate is significantly lower (ie 20x STDev for a 5BB winner vs less than 10X for a 13BB winner), meaning that the higher standard deviation play style is actually "safer" in a relative sense as well as over time.
I think some of the methods need more investigation. It would be strengthened by a less convoluted accounting of standard deviation as well as the ability to relate standard deviation to other basic factors (such as VPIP or 3bet rate, for example that are definitely highly correlated and likely even causally related) as well as more soft assessments like "skill" (better players will theoretically have a lower standard deviation, especially if they have more non-showdown winnings and more all-in EV when called - ie when your opponent is drawing dead your standard deviation is 0). However I think the perspective that poker is high variance regardless of play style, so a slight increase in playstyle variance that yields a significantly greater winrate is actually "safer" is pretty interesting and not something that my critiques of methods can disprove.
Another great segment. Merry Christmas from Harrah's Cherokee
Merry Christmas to the entire Hungry Horse team!!
Great vlog as always!
👍👍👍👍❤❤❤❤
merry christmas big boi 🥰
@@hungryhorsepoker 👍👍👍👍
OMG, Daniel Jones was fantastic. You really offered something unique here, Marc. Thanks. You should have him back sometime.
Great content, Merry Christmas and TY for your FREE content ❤
🥰🥰🥰
Awesome video. Your examples and scenarios have made me better. And although I am not built to play your style I recognize changes that I needed to make in order to win more and have more fun. I am a recreational player but I am definitely connecting more winning sessions because of the techniques I’ve learned.
Merry Christmas. I love HHP because of the strategy and also because Marc throws the shrimp around so generously. One thing I apparently haven't understood yet. If I have almost the nuts on the turn, then I should bet small so that the opponent stays with it. On the river, however, I have too big a SPR for an all-in. On the other hand, it is said that I should choose a larger bet size so that I can get the SPR close to 1. What do I do now?
"Almost the nuts" can mean so many things depending on hand, board and actions. In general if you think you have the best hand most of the time, you want them to get as much money in the pot as possible, but what is possible will vary wildly. If several of obvious draws that you still beat come in, you can often bet huge on the river and still get called often, if river is dry then it's harder to get big bets called.
Best video that I haven’t seen yet! Let’s goooo ❤
🥰🥰🥰
Thanks so much for this video! The standard deviations for low stakes live likely vary quite a bit from one market to another. My own experience with thousands of hours in Texas is that it is in the region of 150 big blinds/hour.
Unless you are a very skilled player, you have to take into account the variance tilt factor. Where variance impacts your play negatively. Also a rec player who is skilled may have all sorts of constraints that prevent the math from playing out especially short term bankroll constaints.
I have watched literally every video of yours. I like the points you raise.
However in my situation, here in Australia, the Casino 2/5 games rake at 10% up to $20 per pot. Home games of 2/3 and 2/5 are 10% up to $15 per pot.
Now I understand “high variance with higher Winrate” is better - but what about in an environment like here where rake is so high. If we play so many big pots - even though we have small EV advantage, don’t we lose a lot of it through paying a lot more rake?
I would really appreciate a response on behalf of all Australian live poker players (and from anywhere else with absurd rake levels). Hope my question makes sense - cause my gut says any benefit from high variance slightly more EV play is gutted by the extra rake per 100 hands you pay.
The thing is, playing high variance while being on a downswing and having a hard time thinking straight can be much more dramatic.
Avoiding hard or risky decisions may be the better option when experiencing long lasting bad luck while playing more aggressive and taking more spots is probably the way to go when lady luck isn't affecting your mental strength lately.
Does it make sense ?
what a nerd! love the content. Hopefully I'll be able to join your bootcamp in the future.
🥰🥰
Im not a math guy, but you measured the maximum down swing, but what about the rate of downswings? Like medium size down swings are going to happen more often naturally, how dose that compare between the two player types? Is it a factor you ignored? Likely im missing something, but thought Id put it out there
It would be interesting to know the best case scenario when comparing high variance and low variance players. You illustrated what the worst case scenario is, and you did point out that the high variance players have a higher win rate, but I wonder if it's possible to estimate and compare the ceiling of each player type.
The concept of scared money don't make money but in numbers. It's hard to fully agree with the numbers as they inherently change with player types you are going against. I get everything is an average for context but yeah. Poker... gotta love it haha
Dr. Daniel Jones’s has that witness protection program camera and mic setup. Nice 👍
😂
Awesome content, I think I’ll feel safer to try to be more Aggressive and not fear the big pot swings.
I have a question about rake. In your sessions and especially online. It’s just standard rake 5% with a certain cap.
In my games it’s always 20-30kr+ 5% cap 100
With bomb pots taking 200
People in my games completely ignore that, and expect everyone to play loose pre, involve themself and see flops, if not you are boring.
I feel like the rake structure kills that incentive so much, Even though it’s PLO, (almost No holdem games running in my areas, died out. Only plo and bomb)
What would you do as a preflop adjustment? Limp and call along to please the people?
Higher RFI %? Or just play what you think are optimal? In my case very tight opening range
The problem is assuming they are +EV spots in the first place and then accidentally taking too many -EV spots. I love you teaching people to play this way though. They are all gonna screw it up and make a ton of mistakes so the games will continue to be JUICY. Thanks!
I bet that a lot of people leaving bootcamp can't truly figure out whether the EV is +18, 0, or -18BB when bluffing or calling 300BB with ace high. How they change the percentage chance of someone playing each hand on each street as they construct a super detailed range in their head, just isn't that accurate.
It's not that they should play scared, it's that they just don't know which 15 bizarre hands someone might still have on a given street, either in the direction of having air, or in the direction of having the nuts. It is OK to take the "low-variance winning player" line when a small amount of +EV is as likely an illusion as not.
There is also the issue of balancing how you play. NEVER taking a high-variance line, is as unbalanced as ALWAYS taking it just to avoid looking like you bought "nit insurance". You become exploitable. Rather than just randomize how to choose which line in a very close decision, I do it by asking myself how sure I am of the specific opponent's tendencies, hence range. There is a big difference between knowing for sure that there is a 20% chance someone would reach a street with a specific hand, versus knowing that there is a 50% chance that there's a 20% chance of it, and a 50% chance that they have some hand that shouldn't even be in the range.
Standard deviation of 200bbs / hour??? 🤔🤷 that’s way too big guys
Fantastic video!!
The risk from the marginal spots isn't that you will have inherently higher variance and bigger downswings.
Players avoid those spots because of the risk of miscalculating the true EV in the first place.
Enjoyed the video, certainly is thought provoking :)
Nah players avoid these spots because a big portion of the population is scared money
@@scottyrabbitI hear there’s a fine line between genius and punting but yea ppl definitely r scared money
@@scottyrabbit Your comment is not mutually exclusive to mine. Both can be true.
@carrotcorner
Just minor adjustments to assumptions and things will change hugely. Very highly player dependent spots, but people tend to bluff too little which leads them to be scared of big bets / raises on the river. Very interesting to think about. Also, almost every content is focused on live play, dunno how applicable this is at online?
What is the solver software you are useing?
hi Marc, regarding your first example, i agree that most, if not all, of villains range is ahead 76dd, and therefore the only way to win the hand is by jamming. However, by jamming 76dd, we are almost certainly overbluffing if we jam all 7x one pair hands without a spade as we do not block any flush or straight combos that will not fold, and the EV of our play should almost certainly be negative as we lose too much when we get bluff-caught (and our combo does not reduce the probability villain calls). I think it is fine to give up with certain hands and you could 'save' your bankroll by checking back in the case villain has it.
Edit: 7x one pair hands with no flush/straight blockers.
Nah a pot size bet is +EV. He didn’t say we should jam
”Raise off their strong STUFF and call with their weak STUFF”. You should go back to the old saying 😂
ok fine
Now, I’m pretty new to Poker but in house games or limit poker at casinos, i feel like it’s harder to play aggressive and make other recreational players fold. Does anyone have good suggestions to win more at house games or Limit-Hold em?
Second comment here! Merry christmas Marc! Keep up the good work!
merry christmas!
This is interesting!
So I am thinking about this from a micro stakes perspective because I'm broke and can only afford that (friggin impulsive spending 😢).
Thinking about a comment you made in another video about building a baseline of skills at micro stakes and that these stakes having a lot more variances with range distribution (tend to be wider ranges in my experience). I would hypothesize that the higher variance player in micro stakes might have a closer or potentially lower win rate than the lower variance player, with the thinking that many of the field are over calling with a lot of their mediocre holdings to larger sizes due to actual $ amount is less concerning to them and have a "fuck it" attitude because a say $500 (arbitrary number off the top of my head over 10,000 hr sample size) downswing doesn't hurt as much as say a $8,000 downswing in these examples.
Or potentially the exact opposite and the win rate sky rockets because micro stakes players might have more limited bankroll and be less willing to take on those high variance spots that we now are taking.
What would your thoughts be at these stakes, and would similar strategies still be profitable at micro stakes online?
Wow. Thanks. I am improving. Very helpful. Please tell us what the best hand in poker is.
In live; the stacks grow while the blinds stay the same. In my live 10-20-50 plo. (Roughly the same as 1-2-5$ for you)
The minimum buy in is 2k, with no Max. But usually noone loads higher than 10k. (40-200bb)
My experience is that on late sessions lasting through the night and in to the morning. Most of the players got very Deep stacks, from 10-40k while maybe 1-2 struggles to run it up. We are also more often Short handed, around 4-6 players this Deep and in the morning hours, rather than always full ring of 8 in the evening when the game starts.
I feel this is important to your deviation talk for Live play. I don’t know how it is in your games over the ocean, but I would guess it happens the same with your games.
It gets really Deep into the morning hours when people have run up stacks
What is the best hand in poker OG?
That's all provided the quality of your play doesn't change no matter what
Why didn’t you calculate big upswing winnings ?
That would really put it into perspective.
Thanks for the show !
I appreciate the video. Thank you! Follow-up. Say you're at a 2-5, $1,000 buy-in game. I'm on board with what you said here when you have $1,000 in your stack. Say you have $1,500 or $2,000, though. Would you still want to be as aggressive with high variance plays? Would the slim +EV be worth potentially dropping your max stack? Or might it be worth it some of the time to protect your deep stack for other high-leverage spots against other big stacks?
Now I understand why pros make these high risk plays that seem unnecessary when it blows up in your face
Can you tell me if a live bankroll of $800 for 12 is doable
Hi Marc, love the content. One honest question: let's say I'm not that good yet. Is there a chance the high risk approach actually hurts mi win rate by putting me in more situations where I make Big mistakes? Bluffing with the right combo can be +5bb ev, but if I chose the wrong combo or board I can be torching 50bb... of course, long term goal is to get good, but it's work in progress.... i would love to hear your thoughts. thanks!
If you’re playing 1-2 still do not try these plays
@Ladyfish._King I am at nl25 online at the moment.
EV doesn’t work the way you might think. That is, even if you bluff with the 'wrong combo' on the 'wrong board,' you won’t be losing 50bb worth of EV compared to gaining +5bb.
@@blissw0w Ok. So either I am already quite ignorant and need to do some serious work on my game (that is not going to be saved by taking a conservative line) or I have decent knowledge, can go for the risky lines and the small differences are not going to kill me. correct?
@@danielmendes09 Most of the time if you feel like you kinda have to bluff the spot, just go for it. It takes a lot of things going wrong at the same time for you to actually lose significant EV. Bluffing in live poker is extremely rewarding most of the time especially at middle stakes.
I’m too stationy lol I wanted to call aces. I think it’s ez to convince yourself it’s winning/fine if u already lean towards that option. Only gotta b good 20% etc etc
The part with the math professor was super nerdy and interesting, I love it
What does it mean the opponent is capped? When are you and when are you not capped?
You can type into youtube, try typing into google. Capped range means they can't hand the nuts. Someone is capped when the line they've taken means they can't have the nuts. Example if you bet small on the flop on a wet board and don't get raised, opponent is capped because they would raise their strong hands to protect against all the draws and to get more value than just a small bet.
I never try to make them fold sets. It’s like trying to make them fold aa after flop 😂
Can we get J92 merchandise. Thanks. Merry Xmas!
hmmm yes i think this is a good idea!
Because online isn't truly random and is more snappy in the long run.
do not try this at home kids. Most people will not be able to tell the difference between a 1% ev vs a -1% ev.
only 2 minutes in but I think the first example is a mandatory bet by the river, not a low EV one. I dont think we want to bomb the river but maybe 2/3rds or pot? We're trying to get Jx to fold which is most of his range that'll call the turn overbet, but his flush draws call the turn too so I dont think we want to go tooooo big. Going to keep watching the video now and see how my logic stands up 😂
if aces is the second best hand in poker i guess the best hand is J9...
Marc another excellent video. Merry xmas bro
🥰🥰🥰
4:46 I assume the best hand in poker is then J4o?
I find these videos not realistic .. 1) the solver analysis is always guessing ranges .. 2) most poker is about groups of hands and strategy.. not single super analyzed hands with guessed info 3) the 2nd example with AA makes so many false assumptions --especially on the river .. I enjoy the effort ..the conversation ..but disagree with the conclusions
I love this channel but I agree I think these lines are way too ambitious and not worth the giant risk you are taking. Not to mention the monkey tilt you’d experience after having one of these bluffs go wrong
Marc, no one really folds sets in live poker play brother. Not unless there's 4 to a flush. That bet you're making with AA is a negative EV move.
Excellent working figuring out the math behind it all. Math does answer all questions. The problem is, do you have emotional ineptitude to handle the wide variance. If you can remove emotions from your game of poker, math will always prevail.
The Villian in the first hand seems like a gas station person 😮
Every spot if your right is plus ev.
Hold up what happened to the J92 boards!?
don’t worry they’ll be back
Sometimes I know when to make the huge bluff and I know my opponents had a set or two pairs but I just don’t think they are capable of folding a set that’s why I gave up so often lol.
haha so true, i grinding mostly real micros, this informations are really nice to know for future higher levels of blinds but in micro in my opinion u can only use aggressive style for exploring some handranges and not for crazy bluffs. I guess this type of play we can try against nutplayers
Then why not expand your value range in those spots? Jam any flush, straight and Top set for huge sizes, even on flush completing rivers.
If they overcall rivers, you need to value bet thinner. That's the exploit against those player types.
@@DominationRotation i am not ultrapro, i played already a lot and beating micro well, sure with good playertype-selection u can expand ur value ranges where u create defnetly money but problem is that lot player playing crazy, so in general is for me harder to read other player in micro and with an aggressiv style and mistakes from the other you have more difficult spots or decissions to make without understanding his line, cause he even dont understand what he is doing and than in micros there also lot nutplayers and bots. So from my play and experience aggressiv bluffs in micro like AA on river is in my view defnetly minues-EV and in higher limits its +EV
@@321meinstv2his content isn’t rly for micro stakes online it’s for deep stacked cash games. But honestly I wouldn’t recommend running these bluffs because they’re very player dependent and it looks easy watching it but actually picking up on the right spots to go for it isn’t easy.
The second half of this video makes perfect sense but this is all based on upon you making correct assumptions about your opponents
If your assumptions are incorrect you could really fuck yourself up taking these spots
These lines are great in theory but only against a specific player types. Live games people deviate so much from solver play like most players in my games aren’t finding folds with sets. Also, this strategy is very repetitive, good regs will figure you out I’m telling you.
Sure, if you can improve the wr by 3,31 bb/hr, most likely gonna be making much more money with less variance and less horrible worst runs than by playing safer.
I dont get it? 44k downsing sounds bad. 25k downsing sounds bad fam
Marc Goone simulating J84 2 spades is blasphemy. This video must be deepfake
omg
what about all the RAKE ??
1:10 that's not a belly buster. It would be a belly buster if it was a 10 instead of a jack, making two ways to a straight by 9 or 5.
Thats a double belly buster not a belly buster
That would be a *double* belly buster. A belly buster is just a gut shot. But nice try there Ace
my opponents never fold sets here
Then jam any flush, straight and Top set for huge sizes, even on flush completing rivers.
If they overcall rivers, you need to value bet thinner. That's the exploit against those player types.
That play really depends on the player pool of the game you are in.
Also, if you play like marc they are very unlikely to fold.
Lol @ AA having 0% showdown vs a 30% river block. Your strategies are very interesting since you seem to be winning in live games with these exploits. But as a full time online pro your lines are basically pure punts. That being said, I wouldnt be suprised if your live WR is higher than mine so I have something to learn.
J92 is Goone!
Going to be honest I thought your persona was overbearing and annoying for quite sometime when I first was introduced to you on Hustler live.. youve grown on me. I watch every video and its great content. Good luck on the tables
Also ill add that one HUGEEEEEEEE factor that is undeniable is that this is assuming that the higher variance player can maintain perfect play through the madness when the style of play tends to be much more swingy and taxing on emotional control therefor poorer play that may lead to the other sample group being more profitable with that included.
33 hands per hour looks like too much. Usually its 20 hands per hour.
The std dv is obviously ridiculously flawed here, I don't think an actual live std dv is available outside of if a poker room running a live stream kept statistics on one particular game format without like double and triple straddles.
Std dv per session, is a lot different than per hand, and its really only going to be calculable per hand. You can't average out a 7hr sessions profit/loss as an accurate representation of your std dev.
I'm no math guy, but I think any winning regs would recognize they dont see the variance that 150-300std dv would elicit. 100-150 seems to be the proper range for most std depth (200bb) games, likely closer to 150, maybe slightly higher for more higher variance players.
thanks non math guy for your input. this is why we had a math guy on.
@@hungryhorsepokerI apologize, I should have been clearer and started less aggressively.
A session is let's say 30h/hr, and 5hrs on average for your data. That's 150 hands. 150 hands will have a standard deviation much greater than 1 hand. Std deviation calculated for online poker is done per hand. Standard deviation calculated per session is a grouping of 150 hands, which will have a much greater swing than any given hand will on average.
Calculated online, you have more data points with smaller swings. Calculated live, you have less data points with larger swings, naturally resulting in a larger than normal standard deviation.
The math guy effectively calculated the standard deviation per session, not per hand, and the calculator uses per hand numbers, where you're using per session numbers.
The only way I can see a way to overcome that is if a live stream tracked that data for individual hands in a relatively stable game. Otherwise we can't use live poker data to determine std deviation. I think your math guy would recognize his oversight if presented with this perspective.
Jesus christ...a 25k downswing at 2/5 with a 13bb/hr win rate...
I am too dumb to know the best ev spots and i bet their are tons of other people like me who dont know the best ev spots either
Tight is Not Right 😢
depends on the bankroll and your skill otherwise you will get bite
Tight is right for most people
33 hands per hour? that's stupid high and distorts a lot of the other calculations.
Uhh, guys? Im lost. My porker knowledge doesn’t go farther than J92 on the flop.
the tips are cool, but the ai imagery kinda makes me feel a little gross
i want to be bootcamp
If the check raise on the 842 flop is so heavily weighted to thick value, wouldn't the plus EV move be to fold? Really enjoying the videos!
No, folding would be 0 ev
@@fryoungtrad borrowing the Crush Live Poker concept of "folding for value"
next video should be "why you dont win when your fiance is sitting next to you". 🤣
Answer: i dont have the stones to bluff or hero and look like a fool in front of my girl.
This video got too complicated I don't understand🥴
lets watch him do this when he does not know the outcome and is not familiar with the players lol
lol all bite
when you show the range chart include the cards on board plz... that helps us newbs out a lot... luv ur content btw... top 1% of poker content on YT right now. On a separate note, you a doug Polk fan?? not just his poker skills but everything overall... JW
999
Stake matters a lot when doing those plays, even if the number of big blinds is the same. When I play 2/5 sometimes they work, sometimes not. When playing 5/10 and you shove the river for 150 bb you never get called if the opponent doesn't have a pseudo nut hand (speaking about the standard casual player or a weak reg).
I think you are missing the point. You are not just suppose to always shove in that situation.
The reason he shoving is because he put his opponent in a specific range base on how they get to the river.
If is opponent won’t fold a set in that situation then you should shove if you have a flush and you think your opponent have a set.
You won’t make money if they have a set and you shove, but you will make money money when you have a flush and they have a set
It is not about the stakes it is about what you think your opponent will do
Mr Horse I need my fix Mr Dealer pls where is my JACK NINE DEUCE
Omg this J84 feels like a war crime, I’m summoning you to the courts in The Hague
Apply the Kelly Criterion to these positions. That will truly tell you if it is better to exploit your narrow advantages or preserve your bankroll.
The Kelly Criterion doesn't actually care too much about 'risk of ruin.' It actually assumes the player can easily "reload" if he busts. In fact, if you use the Kelly Criterion to calculate the optimal % of a bankroll to risk per poker game for a typical winning reg, you get around 7% to 15% depending on the win rate and variance we plug in. Most people would agree that's crazy, but the K.C. cares only about maximizing the total amount won. If you're wondering, is 30% per game risk even better than 7%-15%? Well actually that results in less overall winnings than the 7-15%. The proof is on the Wikipedia if you're curious.
So to summarize, the Kelly Criterion is largely irrelevant to poker and will likely blow your bankroll if you use it for risk management.
I'M BACK...WE DID IT...OMG WE MISSED U SO MUCH...OMG BLESS U ! ! OMG U BIG LARGE BOY ! LARRY!!! HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! ITS LARRYS LUNCHTIME LENTILS ARE SOMETHING ! ! ! TUBBYTIME TUPPERWARE ! QUAINT CUTIE ! MY FAVORITE CHAPERONE ! I'M BAD AT SHIPPING ! SENEGALESE SNACKS I HAVE BECOME A SHERPA O WOW TIMOTHY HORTON ! I AM MORE PLUMP THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BOY ! EAT UR LITTLE TURKEY BITES ! ! NIBBLE ON MY TURTLES NECK ! I'M A ROFLER ! TUMULTUOUS TURKEY ! POKER HAAAAARRRRDDD ♠️ ♠️ ♠️
Lex O? Is that you? Sounds like your brand of gibberish
quibbles!
@@pokeristherootofallevil5553 Who is this Lex 'O' character you speak of 🤔 ? This is miggs BABY ! ! ! 15" POKER HAAAAARRRRDDD 🙌
Mark, what’s the 1st best hand? Lol