Mattraq1 has developed a new instructional vid format, designed to "incorporate a little bit of the feel of a coaching session". In this new format, a single video session is delivered in two parts. In the first video, Matt presented an intriguing situation and challenged his viewers to analyze the hand on their own without revealing his own comments on it. The video now posted here is the second part, which contains Matt's detailed analysis of the situation. Matt spends several minutes explaining his in-the-moment thought process at the time the hand was played, and then dives in with his presentation of his break down of the hand, which includes the results of his thorough and detailed investigation into this hand done after the fact.
Viewers who did not see the first video of this session may wish to revisit that prior to watching this part, which they can find here.
Your analysis seems spot on. I think he is at least a little unbalanced in this spot cause basically we give him QT, T8 (maybe not even 100% of time casue he might lead turn sometimes, or donk flop with T8?) and on other side there are all the fds, str draws and just pure bluffs (although i don't think that sizing makes a pure bluff likely cause he probably will just shut down with them if called). So unless you think he is a type of guy who will get tricky with 2pair(and quite often) this seems like clear call.
hi mattraq,
thanks for the upload. i really enjoyed the hand analysis. let´s have more of that in the future. great job. as for the mathematical analysis of the profitability of the play, i would suggest to take a different approach.
you conclude that because you have 50.6% on the rivers that you will call, your call on the turn is also profitable, because you are getting about 2:1 OTR. that reasoning i think is flawed and can in some cases yield an outcome that contradicts your calculation. if you set up a two street play, you have to include both streets in your calculation.
i´d try it like that, please let me know if you think it´s right or if it´s complete nonsense.
in our two street game we have the following outcomes:
a) we fold the turn and end up with 1310 chips.
that we compare to the combined expected chips of:
b) we call the turn and fold the river and end up with 1070 chips (which happens 19/46 of the time)
c) we call the turn, call the river ( which happens 27/46 of the time)
i) and win the hand (50.6% of the time) and have 3000 chips
ii) and lose the hand (49.4% of the time) and have 100 chips
we solve it:
EV of our 2street play = (19/46)*1070 + (27/46)(3000*0.506 + 100*0.494)
which adds up to 1361 chips. so it is better than folding the turn (1310 chips)
yet the important thing that this equation tells us is that the profitability of our two street play is solely dependant on the size of villain´s turn raise (assuming all other parameters stay the same), i.e. the higher the raise the less profitable it becomes. if villain raises to t490 (which he really shouldn´t tbh), our two street play becomes a long term losing play, although we still are getting the right odds (actually our pot odds OTR are way better than in the real example)
at least that´s what i think. please guys, tell me what you think about it.
cheers
s.
This seems like very valuable information. I believe we are doing a similar analysis, however your method assigns a tangible number of chips that each play is worth, which i like much better. For example, with the turn c/r size. I believe i said we are only 42% vs his range, but need to be 33.5%. If villian increases his raise size with the same range, then we need to be ahead a much higher % of the time. However his river shove size will be smaller.
I will definitely look into this more and incorporate something like this into future videos from this series.
I also have picked up ICMIZER for complex hand analysis in the future, which it turns out will greatly shorten some of the work i did in this video, leaving more time to go into things such as your method in detail.
i think it´d be also interesting to find out how the equation looks like if we put in another variable:
what if villain decides to give up on his (semi) bluffs when a scare card comes on the river? would he shove the river with Ac2c when the Jh rivers? i doubt it, because the J improves our perceived range a ton and he should expect us to call, because our hand simply looks like a jack or a weak king, or maybe also a 9 and his perceived range includes enough club draws to make us want to look him up. would he give up his semibluffs, if the K, J, or 9 are paired and the flush won´t hit? i think it´s possible.
what would you say about his tendencies? could that be a possible scenario?
cheers
s.
i´d also like to start a discussion with the community concerning this calculation.
that is:
if we call the river and lose, we´ll be left with 100 chips. now that basically means, we lost our buy-in. i think it´s fair to say that we crossed a threshold where it is close to impossible so make a comeback. so how legitimate do you think it is, to put in 0 chips at that part of the equation, knowing that it´s mathematically wrong, but de facto right.
so the equation would look like this:
EV of our 2street play = (19/46)*1070 + (27/46)(3000*0.506 + 0*0.494)
the outcome would be 1333 chips. still profitable though.
i am not desperately looking to find a fold here or to say that the analysis is wrong, i like the call on the river.
this thought experiment is rather something like a "maths vs. physics" thing (i.e. the numbers are correct, but the result is not realized in nature) where i would like to know the opinions of members of the community.
i personally think that in such a case we can set the value to zero.
cheers
s.
I like the way you analyze this hand, but when analyzing this hand you should really check which rivercards you want to fold to.
You give way to much weight to flushdraws, that's just a small part of his range.
That's why you can call any river except Tx, 8x and Qx.
Any other river gives us at least 41% so we really have to call all other rivers.
And yeah we should consider both turn call and river call in our calculation like the post above.
Also a small note, in the beginning you compare the 15% range to his 20% x/r but that's not right.
He has a 33% flatting range and on this board he will x/r 15% range so he is actually x/r 45% (15/33) of the times on this board.
Thanks for the vid and keep them coming!
@Dipl: 100 chips just has value, no need to put it to zero, when we are calling any river except Tx,8x and Qx we win even 146 chips on average with this play (when the ranges are right etc).
Call - call still wins? What hand did he show you, again? lol
Seriously though, if this is a call, it's a very marginal one? In my view, your analysis seems a bit near-sighted. Your calculations go into extreme detail and you seem to be somewhat overanalysing the very limited data. The variance on 100 hands of hud statistics is insane and they can only form a very approximate guide. Using them for a full range-equity calculation seems like bad science. I would much prefer to be guided by old-fashioned reads from the previous game (you must have some?). What showdown information do we have? What sort of hands has your opponent c/r in the past? If you can't answer these basic questions, I prefer folding and waiting for a better spot.
FYI, I play $3.50 SNG. Any advice is much appreciated.
Hey guys -
First off I would like to show some recognition for adam25185, thebanaap(youtube), and sentient ape for actually making an effort to participate in this in the way in which is was intended.
The comments section in part 2 of this series is currently filled with a mix of constructive criticism, praise for the series, as well as a few new posters (who didnt participate in part1) chiming in their opinions on how to play the hand (after results have been revealed).
Again I would like to personally recognize Adam and sentient for having the courage to put their opinions out there and participate in the process. (only two husng.com members did with over 700 views)
To everybody posting here after the reveal, it is easy to post your opinions to reaffirm they are correct, or maybe you didn’t post here because you in fact thought you were now incorrect and didnt want to post them. But what did you gain out of this? If you do not put yourself out there before the fact, how are you supposed to get better?
It seems people overall want to see more from this series and like the format, but unless there is a larger response in part 1 videos, I will no longer do it. To me, it feels like a busted idea. A large part of this series was supposed to be based around the discussion after the reveal(that was recorded prior to part 1 discussion) and how people may have changed opinions or found alternatives on their own to the way I analyzed. (which people are now trying to do after the fact)
This method is similar to a lot of coaching methods and I thought it would be invaluable to the HUSNG community.
Now on to replying to adam and ape :)
PS - To those asking im pretty sure this was a $100 Turbo against a slightly losing player that i wouldnt consider a "fish". (intentional so reads would be a little more straight forward)
Hey adam,
In regards to you analysis in the first video, sentient was spot on about how exploitable it is to auto fold the top of your check back range to a single check-raise ott against an EXTREMLY frequent 3bettor.
In your first reply you ask:
In this situation, it is actually much more exploitable to fold essentially the top of our range every time he check raises this turn. With your line, you would be bet/folding your entire range on the turn (besides a turned 2p/trips).
“stacking off” as used in this sentence implies shoving. Shoving the turn is not really exploitable, since he is capable of raise/calling with worse and c/r so frequently. However, based on the analysis we did in part 2, it is still -ev to do so.
This is a viable statement. However, strong hands don’t come that often. Also using this strategy would require having a near 100% check back range on the flop with an even tighter opening range. Without running the math, im not sure if this can be profitable. Depending how he played against limps, limping possibly may be an effective strategy vs him if you are looking to reduce some variance
Also i would like to warn you of the thinking "ill give up a small edge because ill find a better spot later" you seem to have. Giving up small +ev spots now may work for u at $3.50s because villians are making massive mistakes in other spots so your small mistakes are masked. However you will find yourself peaking stakes rather low if you rely on this too long. As you move up villians wont be making those same huge mistakes, and the slightly +ev spots you give up will turn you into a loser.
Hmmm lesson 1, results oriented thinking ;)
I agree, when it comes to sample size, more is always better, however you are slightly contradicting yourself here. Rather than go by a 100 hand sample (which in HUSNG terms, is a LOT of information to get basics on) You are choosing to take a possibly 1 or 2 hand sample size of a unique showdown situation.
In this case things such as play styles at different stack depths arent taken into account, however i have picked up a copy of HUSNG's own CoffeeHUD to get a more relevant sample for future videos. (when playing live i hadnt been utilizing my hud a ton, only when doing post game review)
Hi Mattraq.
Wow. Thanks for the personalised response. That's the sort of information I'd usually have to pay $50/hour for! Your points are well taken - you clearly have a good deal of experience under your belt.
One question: if you were to take every +EV opportunity, rather than "folding and waiting for a better spot", do you not reduce your edge? I can appreciate you will need to take smaller edges against better players at higher stakes. However, against weak opponents, is it not possible to get a higher ROI by waiting? You could say your $/hour would be better by simply taking any edge available (simply play more games), but then all the extra rake will be expensive?
yes your ROI increases, but as you stated your hourly decreases.(more on this in a minute) Against passive fish im actually a fan of passing up slightly +ev spots to ensure you get the max ROi vs them.
Hourly decrease may be negated however if action is slow. If im only getting 4-5 games/hr at my stakes it may be better to maximize ROI vs each player rather than sit around idlely waiting. When pushing small +EV spots frequently, rake even becomes a factor as well.
However i still argue vs this particular villian, taking a lower variance route was not an option, as he seemed to be intentionally maximizing his own variance.
And glad you found my post that valuable. consider it a reward for participating in my new series :)
Ive still got one more long one to go with Ape, however action got really good for a bit so i didnt have a chance yet ;)
"Passing up +EV spots only makes sense short term. Long term you should take any edge, because an edge is an edge and will increase your overall EV. Your overall EV will DECREASA your overall variance!!!"
G.G.
seems reasonable as an answer however only in case that we will play infinity number of game in hour live :D if we plan for example only play few hundreds/thousands games and then move to next level and after X period of times end playing poker once made X amount of money then take the line which will increase our egde in short term is maybe better.. it can (or not ) increase our hourly winrate in the way that Mattraq has already explained. I said "can" and not "will" because is not guaranteed by 100%. Why? Very simple. Because "The Variance" is a bitch. And it's never guaranteed that because you choose take low variance spot 63/37 instated of close spots like 52/48 you will run actually fine .
I liked these videos very much! I know that you wanted us to post after the first part and not just now...but this is my very first post (despite having been watching videos for several months). The reason I wanted to post now is that I liked the math part very much but I noticed the same mistake in the calculations/inacuraccy in the explanation that I have now seen that dipl pointed out.
In fact, doing the same calculations as he did, you can see that if your equity on the river were <47.5% then call-call loses money (just replace 0.506 by "x" in his calculations). Thus, according to your argument is a rather close call-call.
On the poker part of it, you don't include hands like T8c in his c/r range. Or QTc. By not using his real 3-betting range, you're excluding some of these good middling hands that hit this board strongly and including hands like T6s that he might 3-bet with, so I think the calculations with the real data would decrease your equity on the river.
I didn't post in part 1 due to laziness i guess. In future i will make effort to show my support ....by posting. Please don't stop with this unique format:)