QQ on the button

[PaintingByNumbers]

Apologies if that's how it comes across. I genuinely do listen to it but if I don't agree with it then it seems false to say yes or just not reply.

To be fair, I probably haven't explained myself well at times.

@paintingbynumbers I have no perception of villain having an extremely tight 4betting range here. Also if we're basing our decisions on pot odds, (I think that is what the equations are right?) Then why are we not doing this preflop as well? Personally I disagree with the method of calculating what we do based on the odds we are getting, yes they are part of the EV equation but so is equity and the amount something occurs. For example are we going to fold 33% of our range if the villain bets pot with a 100% of his range on the flop and them check folds 80% of his range on the turn?

To not be exploitable Post Flop you need to defend (12.37/(12.37+5.9))*(24.17/(24.17+12.75))*(49.67)/(49.67+13.22))=0.35, or 35% of your range.
The range you gave earlier had 60 combos (using half of AA), which means you would need to defend the best 21 on the River.

The equation is (it's the same one repeated for the Flop multiplied by the Turn and River) the amount we need to defend to prevent our opponent from being able to bluff more than he should be able to bluff.
The reason I started using it here was because it seemed to be the one you had used preflop but had not followed through to the River, and I felt you were being inconsistent without explaining why.

I would do it preflop as well but I don't think we need to as I think (and this is just my opinion based on my impression of the stake, as we have no read given) his Cold 4b range is a very tight range. This is an exploitative adjustment, but one I am happy to make.

The implied exploitative adjustment you give at the end is a perfectly reasonable one, but one I could not make based on the information in this thread or my experience of the stake, and one you have not previously argued for.

Also understand everyone's points about folding qq. We can fold this here and win at an easier rate as I feel like this is just trying to get into spots where we have a definite equity advantage and so can win big at showdown. This is definitely a winning style at low stakes but I'm trying to implement a game theoretical style where both lines should be 0 if villain is playing perfectly. If I fold qq here my redline will be going down too much. I know this is exactly what lil Dave is saying I'm messing up my game with haha but I genuinely believe this is the way I'll be able to make money playing this game in the long run.

I'm not advocating a fold preflop as it's easier, but because the SB is not fighting for the Pot he is just playing the top of his range.
The line you seem to be wanting to take (I know you called on the river in actual play) isn't going to improve your red line either as you won't be winning at SD and the extra you will lose makes up for those times you do win (just guessing here.)

I sympathise with you wanting to create a perfect game ahead of a meteoric rise to the nosebleeds, but the best way to make money at higher stakes is to win money at lower stakes first (whilst pushing yourself on). Use theory as a structure, but you'll get a deeper understanding of it empirically than you will simply through the book/threads/videos etc.
Play, observe, review and adjust.

[Rexas]

So many fantastic posts itt, have appreciated being able to read all this, ty stu, pbn et al

[Honeybadger]

Also if we're basing our decisions on pot odds, (I think that is what the equations are right?) Then why are we not doing this preflop as well? Personally I disagree with the method of calculating what we do based on the odds we are getting, yes they are part of the EV equation but so is equity and the amount something occurs. For example are we going to fold 33% of our range if the villain bets pot with a 100% of his range on the flop and them check folds 80% of his range on the turn?

The equation PaintingByNumbers uses is pretty much the basis of GTO play. It is nothing to do with the pot odds YOU are receiving. It is based on the pot odds VILLAIN is laying himself to win the pot. You need to defend the right % of your range in order to make villain break even with his worst bluffs.

So for example, if villain bets the pot on the flop then you need to defend 50% of your range (since he is laying himself 1/1 to win the pot), plus a bit more on top of that to account for the fact that most of his air has some equity (gutshots, backdoors, overcards etc). So you might defend 60% of your range here for example. On the river, you do not need to add any extra defending combos since air now has 0% equity, thus you'd defend exactly 50% of your range vs a river pot sized bet. There are exceptions to this. For example when a turn or river card hits that is much better for villain's range than for your range - in this case, you have simply been 'unlucky' and thus are allowed to defend a little less than the equation states.

The equation to use is Bet/(Bet+Pot). So for example, if villain bets £100 into a £150 pot on the river then he needs this bet to work with his air...

100/(100+150) = 100/250 = 0.4

... 40% of the time in order to break even with his bluffs.

So you'd defend 60% of your range vs his river bet in order to be playing GTO.

On the other hand, if villain bets £100 into £150 on the flop then you need to defend somewhat more than 60% of your range since villain's air almost always has some equity. The exact amount of 'extra' combos you need to defend is a judgement call, rather than something that can be calculated precisely. It also depends on how much you are defending by raising rather than just calling. If you do not have a raising range on a particular flop then you need to defend substantially more than 60% since villain is guaranteed to see the turn with his entire betting range and thus gets to realise equity. If you are defending with a lot of raises on a particular flop then you don't need to add as much on to the 60% since by raising you are forcing his air to fold and thus it cannot realise its equity.

[KingPush]

Is that equation better than an EV equation? I feel like we may have different interpretations of GTO. You seem to have Janda's understanding of it where everything is based on the odds of the pots and how this affects your range. My understanding of GTO comes from the posts that were on Deucescracked about a year ago mainly from Improva and Blah234 however they both left and stopped coaching on the website and also stopped posting so there is very limited information about it that is available. http://www.deucescracked.com/search?klass=forums&time_ago=365&search=improva

[verndog158]

Is that equation better than an EV equation? I feel like we may have different interpretations of GTO. You seem to have Janda's understanding of it where everything is based on the odds of the pots and how this affects your range. My understanding of GTO comes from the posts that were on Deucescracked about a year ago mainly from Improva and Blah234 however they both left and stopped coaching on the website and also stopped posting so there is very limited information about it that is available. http://www.deucescracked.com/search?klass=forums&time_ago=365&search=improva

Maybe you do have different interpretations, however instead of arguing with these guys, listen to them. Both have taken hours of time to explain that stuff to you, stuff which is way more and beyond what they need to be doing here. Just quite frustrating to read your replies as questioning their methods and interpretations after what they wrote. They both win loads, LISTEN!

Apologies for hijacking the thread Honeybadger and PBN!

[Honeybadger]

Is that equation better than an EV equation? I feel like we may have different interpretations of GTO. You seem to have Janda's understanding of it where everything is based on the odds of the pots and how this affects your range. My understanding of GTO comes from the posts that were on Deucescracked about a year ago mainly from Improva and Blah234 however they both left and stopped coaching on the website and also stopped posting so there is very limited information about it that is available. http://www.deucescracked.com/search?klass=forums&time_ago=365&search=improva

I clicked that link but seemed too much to wade through, maybe I will look later. Incidentally, I have had coaching from both Improva and Janda.

I think you are getting yourself all confused about stuff tbh. It's not like there is a 'Janda version' of GTO and an 'Improva version' of GTO.

Not sure what you mean by 'is that equation better than an EV equation?'. What sort of EV equation are you talking about? If you are talking about an EV equation that is based on assumptions made about villain's range, and what he will do with this range, and how you should act to make most money given these assumptions (for example, you said something earlier about villain betting 100% of his range on the flop then c/f 80% on the turn), then that is not really GTO - that is exploitative play.

[verndog158]

Sorry for the rant, wasnt quite meant to come across as bad as it did. I follow your diary, where you talk about coaches at £100 an hour etc etc, think the advice you get here for example is worth double that any coach could tell you, especially as it isnt costing you loads too.
Wish i got that kind of reply on my HHs! Fwiw, i think QQ is a fold in this spot!

[PaintingByNumbers]

Is that equation better than an EV equation? I feel like we may have different interpretations of GTO. You seem to have Janda's understanding of it where everything is based on the odds of the pots and how this affects your range. My understanding of GTO comes from the posts that were on Deucescracked about a year ago mainly from Improva and Blah234 however they both left and stopped coaching on the website and also stopped posting so there is very limited information about it that is available. http://www.deucescracked.com/search?klass=forums&time_ago=365&search=improva

Can't say that I find Improva's stuff (only had a q look) easy to understand, maybe you can explain it to me?

But anyway, I'm reasonably confident the differences are in the margins and/or partly attacking a strawman.

I wasn't trying to tell you how to play the hand, I was just trying to alert you to what I felt was a contradiction in your thinking/method. I don't think anyone is advocating a line which they think has a lower EV than a different line.