These videso are very informative. One of the heroes the poker community absolutely needs. Thanks for your overal contribution carrot!

Excellent video. As other commentors have said, the trap of just checking whether what we're doing is solver approved is very real. However a lot of people advocate for very frequently what I'd refer to as "hard exploits" i.e. situations where solver tells us that a certain play is 100% preferred because it's the highest EVBB option, but we choose a different option due to reads/pool assumptions. I am very wary of these hard exploits. A recent example came up: Hero is MP vs a SB 3b, we are 140 BB deep. Flop is Tc 6h 3s, Villain cbets 1/3, we call with ATs Turn is 2s and villain x/r's us then jams the 5d river for normal sizings. In theory we're supposed to call it off with the AsTs and it's not even close - it's about an 8 BB punt to fold. When I discussed the hand, it was suggested by a lot of strong winning players that in practice this is a 100% fold. I am not sure how comfortable I am with that conclusion. The argument goes that given the sizing villain chose on the flop, he must be a rec, and recs do not x/r bluff turn and shove river in a 3b pot without the nuts. That's all well and good, but my counter-argument is that when we hold a AsTs we reduce villains value combinations to essentially one combination of TT (as As4s is out of the picture.). Do supposed recs know to balance their checking ranges OOP on this turn? If rec managed to even just one bluff, he could actually be overbluffing (espescially given that the river shove ends up being only about half pot). Making an 8 BB fold is a huge deviation, and I don't believe we could realistically do something like that without a serious amount of player data (1000's of hands) that we just don't have on this player. He could be doing anything! It's so easy to just say "villain is a fish, therefore we fold everything because he never bluffs" or "villain is a fish therefore we cbet our range because he cant defend the correct frequency" even when the solver is literally telling you to cbet only 20% of your range or something. When I deviate, I try to start by only taking hands that are theoretical mixes and playing them purely one way (that's if I know the spot - obviously I make blunders too!) . Hard deviations can be good against certain players, but I think we need a lot of serious data before we can make calls like that, not just woolly logic like "Pool does x too much" or "Pool underbluffs this spot". Pool is comprised of many unknown players. You literally have no idea what they're doing.

Great streams and Great KZread's Pete! Fantastic work

amazing content per usual

good stuff

Excellent vid mate. I have a question. Do you still keep in contact with colossos from the old grinder school days? Is he still grinding?

I've certainly been guilty of doing "hand reviews" by just checking if my play was Pio approved. In reality that's just the path of least resistance and is pretty lazy, but it feeeels like you're accomplishing something so we carry on

sooo focusing on range ev´s, range/nut advantage, betting a lot when having clear advantage, lots of checking when not, was gto poking its way into sea of regular basic education?

What’s the song at 10:30?

@dibees

2 жыл бұрын

they're all random non copyright music from epidemic sound

A much bigger mystery is why you're called carrot when you're not a ginger .

@pokerandphilosophy8328

2 жыл бұрын

He's Scot, so you can't know for sure until you've peeked under the féileadh-mór.