Before you comment about how you couldn't possibly open to 2.5x in your low stakes live game, watch this episode: ua-cam.com/video/QOuiNuK-G6I/v-deo.html We literally made it just for you, live players, so go get that free value!
Another reason why you 3bet bigger from the BTN compared to CO is that from the button you can have a calling range (because you are less likely to be squeezed), which means that your 3b range is more polarized, and when 3bet range is polarized we generally use bigger size. Why do we use bigger 3bet size when polarized? Because you can play perfectly vs 4bets. If you are not polarized and have a lot of good hands in your 3bet range then you will have to fold a lot of good hands vs 4bet bluff so you don't want to 3bet using big size so that you lose less when someone 4bet and you fold.
Nice video, thanks guys! And the whole series is do awesome. If you look for ideas for new episodes, it would be great to see one about bet sizing on the river. This is an area that I am struggling currently. You have covered a lot of flop bet sizing and some turn bet sizing on the previous episodes, so it would be great to see something on river too!
About 4-bet size and squeeze, it is simple how to calculate the size. For example if oponent 3bet to 10, you 4bet 13-14 more to 24 so that he does not get the odds to hit a set on the flop. It is just that simple. If he 3bets to 7.5, you can 4bet to 21 with the same logic. After that on certain flop you can bet small, just to not give them odds to hit 2 outer on the turn. When opponent raise to 3bb and there is one call, you squeeze to at least 14, so 11 more to not give them odds to call with small pocket pair and stack you when you have AA. And about 3 bet sizes, if course when you are shallow, for example 50bb, if the btn min-raise from bb you 3bet to 7.5 instead of 11 because that is enough to deny them odds to call with a lot of hands. Also if you 3bet to 10, they can shove with 50bb with a lot of hands. With 100bb solvers 3bet 10-11 when oop, but with 200bb you bet less, between 7.5-10 because you are too deep to deny them equity to call in position. But when you are 300bb, solvers 3 bet only to 7.5bb, not more. So it is strange that for both shallow and deep stacks you 3bet less when OOP. So Doug Polk was right when he 3bet less when OOP when deep.
Amazing insight. Did you run the preflop sims yourself and compare EVs of the different 3-bet sizes when deep? Another question, have you seen any well known high stakes crushers size down 3-bets in 6-max? That's been the most crucial data point that's made me suspect it's a HU-specific mechanic, but I'm happy to have my suspicion proven wrong.
So, to be constructive here, as opposed to just bashing the comment or idea, think about what you're effectively doing if people do not respect it or respond sub-optimally. The great thing about GTO is that it doesn't matter how people respond to you, it will either be neutral or +EV for you (with the extreme exception of being unfortunately placed between a loose and tight player on the wrong sides, as proven in the mathematics of poker by Chen, but it was a hypothetical extreme) This means that no matter the response, you can capitalize on it, and it also allows you to open with correct ranges as opposed to being too tight. It also sets up all of the good things in your favor. For example, if, as is probably assumed by the comment, people call too wide, if your Axo hands have a higher kicker, the implied odds will be better from weak Axo callers, also, nuttish speculative hands become so valuable if not taken off equity from 3 bets, Axs and small pair set mining for example can be so extremely profitable when they make a hand,a hand with 4 players in the pot, top pair top kicker pays so well to the made set, nut flush over others, etc. Sure, less pots are won, and multiway is different than heads up, but it's a great situation. Additionally, when someone slightly raises to a size they respect, as opposed to properly 3 betting (making it 10 for example) with many callers, those types of hands can call, and polarized ranges can 4-bet (premium and premium blocking, nuttish bluffs, A5s for example) so it puts you in an awesome place. If the players don't understand, laugh, or don't respect it, that's a good thing. You're trying to win money, not look for social validation from losing players. One of my favorite things to do in SRPs (single raised pots, so no 3-bets) IP is to put a min-bet on paired boards, regs laugh, don't know how to respond, and make mistakes against it. They don't even know what modern theory is, use that to your advantage. As mentioned in the video, exploitatively, while you can get away with murder on those stakes against people who literally don't know theory (one per nine is an exaggeration, no one knows at those stakes save from high stakes players who dip down, or the 1/100 that do) personally I still prefer regular sizes. The BN vs BB extreme example, even "non-thinking" players aren't totally braindead. Raise to $15 and if they have 72o, they might find a fold, raise to $5 and they might want to show off how they made a hand. Personally, I prefer exploits that aren't as early as pre-flop bet sizes, although I do understand the point. If you're new to it, I would advise going through at least one session with proper bet sizes, even if no other improvement, and I would imagine you'll be pleasantly surprised. Good luck at the felt.
The boys talk a bit about that at the end of the episode (around 17:46), but we also dedicated a whole episode to live games here: ua-cam.com/video/QOuiNuK-G6I/v-deo.html
I personally don't increase sizing OOP when stacks get deeper, but I increase sizing IP. Just feels a bit weird to bloat the pot so much OOP when deep -- especially because I don't have the postflop skills of top players who do that successfully.
@@mbradycf interesting (btw I’m Giraffe David in the FB groups). I agree with your point of making pots slightly bigger when IP whether RFI or 3 betting, to effectively play a bigger pot IP. I also see people/ solvers show the inverse of going slightly bigger OOP whether opening or 3 betting to offer worse odds to callers to win on the spot pre flop. But I did implement this strategy in a live session the day I watched this and it was effective to open smaller UTG to fold, call a 3 bet to trap with intentions to x/r big post or 4 bet pre (that smaller open size is nice) 👍
then you're just risking more money with a bad hand when there are many people behind who can wake up with a top 2.5% hand like QQ or AKs. It would also be a bit of a problem if you ever got to showdown. The good players would see you opened big with a weaker hand and would be able to target you going forward.
thanks for the quick and comprehensive answer :) I forgot to add that I play zoom so it feels a bit more incognito and hunting for fish on bb is a bit less obvious than on regular tables@@UpswingPoker
@@radomirpl in anonymous fast-fold games, I try to not give away too much with my sizing. Going 2.25x, for example, is a clear sign you're a thinking player. I'd prefer my opponents to be in the dark, so I open min as the small size and go 2.5x from CO/BTN.
Hello! I ask because I only play MTTs and not cash, but question regarding the quizzes at the end: aren’t larger sizes used when playing cash vs tourneys because of rake? Or does that only apply to live cash games?
the optimal open size in tourneys and cash is actually pretty similar (approx 2.25x). In tourneys, though, you're often short stacked and thus need to open smaller to be able to play more hands. With deep stacks, you'll actually often see bigger open sizes in MTT because of the ante. If you ever watch those super high roller tournaments, you'll see the best players opening to 3x or 4x at 200bb. Live cash is a totally different animal. The games tend to be so loose that "optimal" sizes go out the window. Rake is going to have a bigger impact on the specific ranges, particularly the calling ranges. E.g. you get to do less calling vs 3-bets in cash games with high rake because the chunk they take from the pot reduces your pot odds.
Rake, the amount of fish that will see "small" opens and flat with anything and create huge multiway pots, and the fact that in live games you can't use arbitrary bet sizes - generally you must bet in increments of 5 or larger.
@@mbradycfmakes sense to me! Thanks. And props to the whole Upswing team. The layout/format of the free articles and the UA-cam discussions is great for my learning style
I am curious about where these specific sizes came from. I ask too because I was curious if the old numbers have been disproven, or just a different algorithm for GTO? Also, if sometimes to change the multiples based off of sizes? The OG Modern Poker Theory had 2.5, 8.5, 23, and 100BBs for RFI-5 bet, respectively (other than blinds). I don't think it was ever 3x, or 3x plus the trail plus blinds for 3-bets, i just thought that that was an oversimplification. 3x 2.5 = 7.5, 7.5 + 1.5 = 9 if one adds the blinds, which is close to 8.5, but not quite. I always just did 3.4x the bet, or 3.4x + the trail. These numbers are similar to yours, but not the same, it seems for 3 bets, you advise to add more than the trail with a caller. Is this derived from the computers or intuitively? Similarly, with a limper i use the classic 2.5x plus trail, so 3.5x, is 4x more appropriate and why? Is adding more than the trail figured out somehow? Additionally, i have seen more modern applications use the 2.1-2.25 EP/MP with 2.5x on the BTN, I have just been using 2.5. Although Acecado did a phenomenal job, is that outdated, or just a different solution? The ranges in that book were fantastic though. The second question, and although it's more relevant live, online it still exists. If someone raises it to a large RFI like 7.5x for example, is a multiple of roughly 3.4x for a 3 bet still ideal, or treat it closer to a 3 bet, and roughly 2.8x-3.2x it like a 4 bet? I'm curious if anyone has ever played with exploitatively sized RFIs for the machine to give the optimal answer to this. I do sometimes inversely size the multiples, a bit larger for smaller RFIs, and smaller for big ones, with the latter being more total BBs of course. Additionally, still curious with the 4 bets too, if 23BB is the max 4 bet, when does the strategy change to call or shove with the 4 bet? If the preceding 3 bet is what size? Alternatively how large can a non-shoved 4-bet be with a large preceding 3-bet? Lastly, keep it up. This podcast has probably done the best job vs. any other channel of breaking down the overall concepts in Modern Poker Theory to someone getting started wgile also gettinf into more details and some things that are more modern such as the smaller 3 bets OOP heads up, thank you for the continued work, i watch every episode. I will say though,nif i hqd to guess, the OOP is slightly smaller 3-bet deeper stacked than heada up 6-max also because the same concept of position still applies, even if the exact number and range interactions differ. (Also, I apologize if there are still typos, I have been rereading and editing, it was originally littered with them. I'm typing one handed post shoulder-surgery.)
@@eb3433That's not an entirely true statement. First to act, RFI amounts still apply. As a 3 or 4 bet, obviously going 8.5 BB doesn't work if the prior raise was to 4 BB, but that's why I asked in terms of multiples. They are based on optimal play, true, but optimal play is based off of full exploitation, just against itself. I'm sure that there are optimal sizes to use vs. sub-optimal opponents. My main question though was about optimal sizing. 2.5x vs 2 or 2.25 EP and 3 bet sizings with a caller.
My point is you don't need GTO analysis for preflop open raise sizes. That was always derived from simple pot odds mathematics. And I would argue the same still applies for all post flop bet action as well. @@user-gf2ui8ow3s
it's all an equilibrium -- these sizes are computer generated + verified by seeing what top players do. Overall the different sizing schemes won't have much impact on EV. As long as you're not going way too big or way too small, and you're raising with the correct range given your size, you'll be good.
@@UpswingPokerThank you for that, again neat to see the response. I know that it's GTO-ish at least, but good to know the differences, as this was certainly an episode with the devil in the details. Especially in the online environment with smaller edges, everything helps. Losing 2 versus 2.5 long term to folds vs. 3-bets, I can see how that extra 0.5BB is helpful, but the flip side is EP has the strongest RFI range in the game, and a call with the BB is the most profitable. The sizings for 3 bets and 4 bets are trickier though, but yes, the consensus seems to be "reasonable" but it's funny how often our monkey brains fail us when it comes to this game without our machine overlords. Thanks again for the comment, on my one prior too in response to the live guy and the solid raises. Looking forward to the next video.
they're roughly good for deep stacked MTT, but these sizes are for cash games with no ante. Since MTTs have antes, the sizes change. When stacks get shorter, all sizes trend down (open sizes, 3-bet sizes, 4-bet sizes all get smaller) except for when shoves get introduced.
The boys talk a bit about that at the end of the episode (around 17:46), but we also dedicated a whole episode to live games here: ua-cam.com/video/QOuiNuK-G6I/v-deo.html
Where's all the proof that any of the advice here is actually correct? You CANNOT make these choices simply on playing a lot. Poker is a HUGE variance games, with millions upon millions of possible variations. Making huge 3-bet and 4-bet sizes puts you at HUGE risk, which they don't seem to talk about at all. Its actually quite ludicrous. It means you have to narrow your range when 3-betting enormously, which defeats much of the purpose of 3-betting. Not really that impressed with the advice here at all, even if it's is correct. And in live games, raising 2 UTG is absurd. It's almost as though this guy has never played a live game in his life.
did you watch the part where the guys specifically talk about live sizes being bigger? Seems like you might have commented before watching that part. The point of this episode is to pass along the theoretically optimal preflop sizes -- the ones used by the best players in the toughest (online) games. You can verify the sizes by watching the highest stakes games on Stars or GGPoker. What you see those players use will be very similar to the sizes discussed in this episode. Your comment about huge 3-bet and 4-bet sizes is confusing. The advice in the episode was to 4-bet smaller than most people do, and the 3-bet sizes recommended were hardly huge. Mentioning millions and millions of variations is ironic, because these sizes are based on preflop solver sims. The way a solver works: it plays millions and millions of hands against itself until it finds the perfect equilibrium strategy. If you do want some live poker specific content, since that seems to be your game, here's an episode all about that ua-cam.com/video/QOuiNuK-G6I/v-deo.html
@@ctrfc if you have reliable information about what your opponents are doing, you can and should adjust your strategy to exploit them. Towards the end of this episode a few specific adjustments were discussed, and many other episodes of Level-Up talk about adjustments. But in order to exploit most effectively, it's very helpful to know the theoretically correct strategy. In other words, it's easier to adjust when you know where you're adjusting from.
Before you comment about how you couldn't possibly open to 2.5x in your low stakes live game, watch this episode: ua-cam.com/video/QOuiNuK-G6I/v-deo.html
We literally made it just for you, live players, so go get that free value!
Another reason why you 3bet bigger from the BTN compared to CO is that from the button you can have a calling range (because you are less likely to be squeezed), which means that your 3b range is more polarized, and when 3bet range is polarized we generally use bigger size. Why do we use bigger 3bet size when polarized? Because you can play perfectly vs 4bets. If you are not polarized and have a lot of good hands in your 3bet range then you will have to fold a lot of good hands vs 4bet bluff so you don't want to 3bet using big size so that you lose less when someone 4bet and you fold.
really good context to add, thank you!
Good point for mainly online or >5-10Nl live. Playing smaller then 5-10 live people very rarely 4bet bluff.
Nice video, thanks guys! And the whole series is do awesome. If you look for ideas for new episodes, it would be great to see one about bet sizing on the river. This is an area that I am struggling currently. You have covered a lot of flop bet sizing and some turn bet sizing on the previous episodes, so it would be great to see something on river too!
About 4-bet size and squeeze, it is simple how to calculate the size. For example if oponent 3bet to 10, you 4bet 13-14 more to 24 so that he does not get the odds to hit a set on the flop. It is just that simple.
If he 3bets to 7.5, you can 4bet to 21 with the same logic. After that on certain flop you can bet small, just to not give them odds to hit 2 outer on the turn. When opponent raise to 3bb and there is one call, you squeeze to at least 14, so 11 more to not give them odds to call with small pocket pair and stack you when you have AA.
And about 3 bet sizes, if course when you are shallow, for example 50bb, if the btn min-raise from bb you 3bet to 7.5 instead of 11 because that is enough to deny them odds to call with a lot of hands. Also if you 3bet to 10, they can shove with 50bb with a lot of hands. With 100bb solvers 3bet 10-11 when oop, but with 200bb you bet less, between 7.5-10 because you are too deep to deny them equity to call in position. But when you are 300bb, solvers 3 bet only to 7.5bb, not more.
So it is strange that for both shallow and deep stacks you 3bet less when OOP. So Doug Polk was right when he 3bet less when OOP when deep.
Amazing insight. Did you run the preflop sims yourself and compare EVs of the different 3-bet sizes when deep?
Another question, have you seen any well known high stakes crushers size down 3-bets in 6-max? That's been the most crucial data point that's made me suspect it's a HU-specific mechanic, but I'm happy to have my suspicion proven wrong.
Can't wait to raise to $4 utg in a 1/2nl game!
This comment says more about you tbh
Lots of 1/2 live players fall into the “any 2 cards are worth $4-$5” category
So, to be constructive here, as opposed to just bashing the comment or idea, think about what you're effectively doing if people do not respect it or respond sub-optimally. The great thing about GTO is that it doesn't matter how people respond to you, it will either be neutral or +EV for you (with the extreme exception of being unfortunately placed between a loose and tight player on the wrong sides, as proven in the mathematics of poker by Chen, but it was a hypothetical extreme)
This means that no matter the response, you can capitalize on it, and it also allows you to open with correct ranges as opposed to being too tight. It also sets up all of the good things in your favor. For example, if, as is probably assumed by the comment, people call too wide, if your Axo hands have a higher kicker, the implied odds will be better from weak Axo callers, also, nuttish speculative hands become so valuable if not taken off equity from 3 bets, Axs and small pair set mining for example can be so extremely profitable when they make a hand,a hand with 4 players in the pot, top pair top kicker pays so well to the made set, nut flush over others, etc. Sure, less pots are won, and multiway is different than heads up, but it's a great situation. Additionally, when someone slightly raises to a size they respect, as opposed to properly 3 betting (making it 10 for example) with many callers, those types of hands can call, and polarized ranges can 4-bet (premium and premium blocking, nuttish bluffs, A5s for example) so it puts you in an awesome place.
If the players don't understand, laugh, or don't respect it, that's a good thing. You're trying to win money, not look for social validation from losing players. One of my favorite things to do in SRPs (single raised pots, so no 3-bets) IP is to put a min-bet on paired boards, regs laugh, don't know how to respond, and make mistakes against it. They don't even know what modern theory is, use that to your advantage.
As mentioned in the video, exploitatively, while you can get away with murder on those stakes against people who literally don't know theory (one per nine is an exaggeration, no one knows at those stakes save from high stakes players who dip down, or the 1/100 that do) personally I still prefer regular sizes. The BN vs BB extreme example, even "non-thinking" players aren't totally braindead. Raise to $15 and if they have 72o, they might find a fold, raise to $5 and they might want to show off how they made a hand. Personally, I prefer exploits that aren't as early as pre-flop bet sizes, although I do understand the point.
If you're new to it, I would advise going through at least one session with proper bet sizes, even if no other improvement, and I would imagine you'll be pleasantly surprised. Good luck at the felt.
The boys talk a bit about that at the end of the episode (around 17:46), but we also dedicated a whole episode to live games here: ua-cam.com/video/QOuiNuK-G6I/v-deo.html
@@UpswingPokerThanks for the like by the way! Cool to see that.
Interesting to see the concept going bigger OOP to offer a worse price to IP when 3 betting but opening smaller when OOP as RFI to IP in a SRP 🤔
I personally don't increase sizing OOP when stacks get deeper, but I increase sizing IP. Just feels a bit weird to bloat the pot so much OOP when deep -- especially because I don't have the postflop skills of top players who do that successfully.
@@mbradycf interesting (btw I’m Giraffe David in the FB groups). I agree with your point of making pots slightly bigger when IP whether RFI or 3 betting, to effectively play a bigger pot IP. I also see people/ solvers show the inverse of going slightly bigger OOP whether opening or 3 betting to offer worse odds to callers to win on the spot pre flop. But I did implement this strategy in a live session the day I watched this and it was effective to open smaller UTG to fold, call a 3 bet to trap with intentions to x/r big post or 4 bet pre (that smaller open size is nice) 👍
@@wordTwoWise yes I love the small open sizing in EP for the reasons you mentioned. Feels like I can play more hands without getting punished too
it's back? it's back!
For the deep stack adjustments, do we consider this when our own stack is 200bb, or when the effective stack (ours and opponent's) is 200bb?
Always effective.
What about games with ante/tournaments?
19:47 in that case, maybe it's worth opening from utg larger sizing weaker hands to not get loose 3bet from regs and isolate fish on bb this way? ;)
then you're just risking more money with a bad hand when there are many people behind who can wake up with a top 2.5% hand like QQ or AKs.
It would also be a bit of a problem if you ever got to showdown. The good players would see you opened big with a weaker hand and would be able to target you going forward.
thanks for the quick and comprehensive answer :) I forgot to add that I play zoom so it feels a bit more incognito and hunting for fish on bb is a bit less obvious than on regular tables@@UpswingPoker
@@radomirpl in anonymous fast-fold games, I try to not give away too much with my sizing. Going 2.25x, for example, is a clear sign you're a thinking player. I'd prefer my opponents to be in the dark, so I open min as the small size and go 2.5x from CO/BTN.
Hello! I ask because I only play MTTs and not cash, but question regarding the quizzes at the end: aren’t larger sizes used when playing cash vs tourneys because of rake? Or does that only apply to live cash games?
Don't play tourneys but I think it is more because cash is usually deeper stacked
the optimal open size in tourneys and cash is actually pretty similar (approx 2.25x). In tourneys, though, you're often short stacked and thus need to open smaller to be able to play more hands.
With deep stacks, you'll actually often see bigger open sizes in MTT because of the ante. If you ever watch those super high roller tournaments, you'll see the best players opening to 3x or 4x at 200bb.
Live cash is a totally different animal. The games tend to be so loose that "optimal" sizes go out the window.
Rake is going to have a bigger impact on the specific ranges, particularly the calling ranges. E.g. you get to do less calling vs 3-bets in cash games with high rake because the chunk they take from the pot reduces your pot odds.
Rake, the amount of fish that will see "small" opens and flat with anything and create huge multiway pots, and the fact that in live games you can't use arbitrary bet sizes - generally you must bet in increments of 5 or larger.
@@mbradycfmakes sense to me! Thanks. And props to the whole Upswing team. The layout/format of the free articles and the UA-cam discussions is great for my learning style
I am curious about where these specific sizes came from. I ask too because I was curious if the old numbers have been disproven, or just a different algorithm for GTO? Also, if sometimes to change the multiples based off of sizes?
The OG Modern Poker Theory had 2.5, 8.5, 23, and 100BBs for RFI-5 bet, respectively (other than blinds). I don't think it was ever 3x, or 3x plus the trail plus blinds for 3-bets, i just thought that that was an oversimplification. 3x 2.5 = 7.5, 7.5 + 1.5 = 9 if one adds the blinds, which is close to 8.5, but not quite. I always just did 3.4x the bet, or 3.4x + the trail. These numbers are similar to yours, but not the same, it seems for 3 bets, you advise to add more than the trail with a caller. Is this derived from the computers or intuitively? Similarly, with a limper i use the classic 2.5x plus trail, so 3.5x, is 4x more appropriate and why? Is adding more than the trail figured out somehow? Additionally, i have seen more modern applications use the 2.1-2.25 EP/MP with 2.5x on the BTN, I have just been using 2.5. Although Acecado did a phenomenal job, is that outdated, or just a different solution? The ranges in that book were fantastic though.
The second question, and although it's more relevant live, online it still exists. If someone raises it to a large RFI like 7.5x for example, is a multiple of roughly 3.4x for a 3 bet still ideal, or treat it closer to a 3 bet, and roughly 2.8x-3.2x it like a 4 bet? I'm curious if anyone has ever played with exploitatively sized RFIs for the machine to give the optimal answer to this. I do sometimes inversely size the multiples, a bit larger for smaller RFIs, and smaller for big ones, with the latter being more total BBs of course.
Additionally, still curious with the 4 bets too, if 23BB is the max 4 bet, when does the strategy change to call or shove with the 4 bet? If the preceding 3 bet is what size? Alternatively how large can a non-shoved 4-bet be with a large preceding 3-bet?
Lastly, keep it up. This podcast has probably done the best job vs. any other channel of breaking down the overall concepts in Modern Poker Theory to someone getting started wgile also gettinf into more details and some things that are more modern such as the smaller 3 bets OOP heads up, thank you for the continued work, i watch every episode. I will say though,nif i hqd to guess, the OOP is slightly smaller 3-bet deeper stacked than heada up 6-max also because the same concept of position still applies, even if the exact number and range interactions differ.
(Also, I apologize if there are still typos, I have been rereading and editing, it was originally littered with them. I'm typing one handed post shoulder-surgery.)
You do realize that these numbers only work when everyone else is also doing the same thing.... right?
@@eb3433That's not an entirely true statement. First to act, RFI amounts still apply. As a 3 or 4 bet, obviously going 8.5 BB doesn't work if the prior raise was to 4 BB, but that's why I asked in terms of multiples. They are based on optimal play, true, but optimal play is based off of full exploitation, just against itself. I'm sure that there are optimal sizes to use vs. sub-optimal opponents.
My main question though was about optimal sizing. 2.5x vs 2 or 2.25 EP and 3 bet sizings with a caller.
My point is you don't need GTO analysis for preflop open raise sizes. That was always derived from simple pot odds mathematics. And I would argue the same still applies for all post flop bet action as well. @@user-gf2ui8ow3s
it's all an equilibrium -- these sizes are computer generated + verified by seeing what top players do.
Overall the different sizing schemes won't have much impact on EV. As long as you're not going way too big or way too small, and you're raising with the correct range given your size, you'll be good.
@@UpswingPokerThank you for that, again neat to see the response. I know that it's GTO-ish at least, but good to know the differences, as this was certainly an episode with the devil in the details. Especially in the online environment with smaller edges, everything helps. Losing 2 versus 2.5 long term to folds vs. 3-bets, I can see how that extra 0.5BB is helpful, but the flip side is EP has the strongest RFI range in the game, and a call with the BB is the most profitable.
The sizings for 3 bets and 4 bets are trickier though, but yes, the consensus seems to be "reasonable" but it's funny how often our monkey brains fail us when it comes to this game without our machine overlords.
Thanks again for the comment, on my one prior too in response to the live guy and the solid raises. Looking forward to the next video.
So, preflop 3! is like x'raising. The smaller the RFI, the more often and to a larger size our 3! should be.
you got it!
This size are good for mtt?
yes at the beginning play mtt like cash game
they're roughly good for deep stacked MTT, but these sizes are for cash games with no ante. Since MTTs have antes, the sizes change.
When stacks get shorter, all sizes trend down (open sizes, 3-bet sizes, 4-bet sizes all get smaller) except for when shoves get introduced.
Opening 2.5x at 1/3 you get laughed off the table
Yeah in live games I am opening 4-5x. Fish will STILL call this with trash, so why not extract the max?
If you are concerned about other players laughing at you then , respectfully, you have all of you priorities wrong
The boys talk a bit about that at the end of the episode (around 17:46), but we also dedicated a whole episode to live games here: ua-cam.com/video/QOuiNuK-G6I/v-deo.html
Exactly. Lol. There are literally no rules in real life poker. @@snex000
I open 10x at 1/2 and still doing fine (25bb/hr)
Where's all the proof that any of the advice here is actually correct?
You CANNOT make these choices simply on playing a lot. Poker is a HUGE variance games, with millions upon millions of possible variations.
Making huge 3-bet and 4-bet sizes puts you at HUGE risk, which they don't seem to talk about at all. Its actually quite ludicrous. It means you have to narrow your range when 3-betting enormously, which defeats much of the purpose of 3-betting.
Not really that impressed with the advice here at all, even if it's is correct.
And in live games, raising 2 UTG is absurd. It's almost as though this guy has never played a live game in his life.
Agree - surely you should always be looking to exploit different player types which means you can't just follow 'standard' theory.
did you watch the part where the guys specifically talk about live sizes being bigger? Seems like you might have commented before watching that part.
The point of this episode is to pass along the theoretically optimal preflop sizes -- the ones used by the best players in the toughest (online) games. You can verify the sizes by watching the highest stakes games on Stars or GGPoker. What you see those players use will be very similar to the sizes discussed in this episode.
Your comment about huge 3-bet and 4-bet sizes is confusing. The advice in the episode was to 4-bet smaller than most people do, and the 3-bet sizes recommended were hardly huge.
Mentioning millions and millions of variations is ironic, because these sizes are based on preflop solver sims. The way a solver works: it plays millions and millions of hands against itself until it finds the perfect equilibrium strategy.
If you do want some live poker specific content, since that seems to be your game, here's an episode all about that ua-cam.com/video/QOuiNuK-G6I/v-deo.html
@@ctrfc if you have reliable information about what your opponents are doing, you can and should adjust your strategy to exploit them. Towards the end of this episode a few specific adjustments were discussed, and many other episodes of Level-Up talk about adjustments.
But in order to exploit most effectively, it's very helpful to know the theoretically correct strategy. In other words, it's easier to adjust when you know where you're adjusting from.
@@ctrfc IF you deviate from a standard raising response you do open yourself up to be exploited as well.
@@UpswingPoker Thanks for the feedback. I will take it onboard :)