5 Aggressive Things Solvers DO that You DON'T

[@sheets4444]

To give you and everyone else how tough it is nowadays, I used to be a top player, and now I barely can even follow the concepts even as they are being explained so concisely in the video. Every so often I threaten to learn the new solver theory but it is very daunting and requires more work than I am willing to commit. Much respect for everyone who puts in all of the work--- It is hard to do, and yet very necessary. Keep up the great work with the videos as well. #LFG

[@thesorrow88]

It's not necessary at all and makes mid level players far worse at the game. There is a huge fallacy involved in following the outputs of solvers, and that's the assumption that your opponent is also playing optimally. It's a massive con being run by trainers such as this bloke.

[@looper6394]

your redline suffers a lot if you bet/fold all the time, because some1 says u should be more aggressive. be more aggressive in the right spot with solid reads on your opponent thats the key.

[@xxChacaronXX]

I always get lost when we have wide ranges and the flop gets checked through. I don’t know how to find bluffs

[@thomasgerberon4755]

Love this kind of video about GTO / aggressive things. Hope you will do it more :)

[@xl0pate0lx]

In the third example I see PIO solver proposes to only fold 10% of BB hands to a range bet. When I try to recreate the spot in GTO-Wizard, no matter the stake of the concept its around 30% fold. How is the difference that big?

[@viertelbeherrscher]

Do you also have videos for tournaments? It's kinda hard to play so aggressive when you are at 25bb or so

[@TimeHandler]

What i don't get about this first solve is that on the turn it's almost pure betting JTo, but it's almost pure checking JTs... but the board is rainbow, so why does suited or unsuited hold any relevance? I have been trying to work it out but i have no clue at all.

[@ilmisxx2]

It is likely to do with future street playability, solver wants to have enough backdoor flushdraws to be able to call turn bets and end up with enough flushes on certain runouts it also has to do with getting raised, bet/folding backdoor straightdraw without overcards is fine but bet folding bdsd/bdfd is a disaster, hope that helps some

[@roderick8254]

Dont lose your sleep over it

[@ArsenalMMAandFitness]

JTs blocks backdoor flush draws that float flop and fold to turn barrels.

[@TimeHandler]

@@ArsenalMMAandFitness but why does one block more than the other? I really don't get it. What is being blocked by one hand that isn't being blocked by the other? I think this one might just be beyond me.

[@roderick8254]

@@ArsenalMMAandFitness JTo blocks more backdoor flish draws

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

Good stuff. It's definitely "the jig is up." I can thank Styx for burning "the jig is up" into my brain via their awesome song Renegade.

[@claudiomicheli3863]

About Turn Overbets (don't know if you answer to comments, but if not then i'd like some input from the community): Isn't your advice dependent on population tendencies? What is the evidence that the 150% sizing is going to be the max Ev one? My doubt arises from the perception that from 2NL to 25NL people tend towards overfolding to overbets (at least in Italy or France where i've played), which means that the bluff portion of the betting range would have even higher ev compared to the value one but the value one would be consequently less profitable. How would you determine whether the increased Ev from higher fold equity compensates for the Ev from value extraction when called?

[@claudiomicheli3863]

I've reflected on this and i've come to this interpretation: your point seems to be that population is going to overfold to the 150% overbet, since if on high card rainbow boards they're going to fold their middle pairs and lower down to high card sv (maybe even some of their weaker top pairs) they're easily going to fold more than 60% of their range. This is clearly going to be +ev especially considering any draw equity that the bluff might have (even single top pair draws or, as you said, double middle pair draws in case they are responding better and calling some of their middle pairs). At this point though the correct complementary exploit should be to valuebet for lower sizing (like 60%-80% pot) against non-elastic inexperienced players and to stick to the GTO line only when playing with regs, aka overbetting value for 150% and probably leaning more towards overbluffing (so since they can lose 62,5% with their bluffcatchers to break even and their range will be at least somewhat filtered after the missed flop raise even having 0,8 to 1 bluff per value hand ratio might be good compared to the ~0.6 ratio that we would be supposed to have if we were giving up on all our bluffs on the river). Do you agree?

[@MrDeSeppi]

Optimal bet sizing is derived from nut advantage. In a typical SPR scenario where we cbet flop IP and OOP calls, on a blank turn we will have a huge nut advantage because we are uncapped and OOP check-raised all his strongest hands on the flop. So if we have a super strong hand, we want to get max value, so we overbet. If we have a bluff, we want to maximize fold equity, so overbetting is also great. If you just bet small, OOP has a super easy time just calling all his toppairs, middle pairs and third pairs and he can realize his equity much much better.

[@claudiomicheli3863]

@@MrDeSeppi I get the impression that you might not have understood the question. Who faces the bet either overfolds or overcalls, so if people are overfolding to the valuebet, the valuebet sizing itself might not be the optimal one. Given that, without taking rake, raises, or the extra value of building the pot for the river into consideration, EVvaluebet = Probability(Call) * BetSizing, so in the case of a 150% betsizing compared to a 100% one if P(Call) were to drop by 33% you would be right, since the Valuebet ev would be identical but the fold equity would be higher (ev150%= p(call)/1.5 * 1.5pot = ev100%= p(call) * pot). But if for example P(Call) were to be 50% lower for 150% vs 100% betsizes then Ev(150%)=p(call)/2 * 1.5pot= p(call)*0,75%pot < Ev(100%)=p(call)*1pot, which would imply an average loss of 0,25 of the pot on the valuebet. So, in other words, the question is: what does data say about how much more people are folding to turn overbets in comparison to other typical betsizes? Because if people are severely undercalling (i.e. more than 1/3 of the times if we really want to compare to the Pot sized bet), then the value we're losing might not be offset by the increased fold equity we're getting with bluffs (for example, if people call Mdf facing 100%pot (p(call)=50%) but undercall by 50% when facing 150%pot then EVbluff150%= Pot*{[p(fold)/mdf150%]-1} = Pot*{(75%/60%) - 1} = 0,25pot. This would mean that if we're betting balanced for the 150% sizing aka 1.5value:1 bluff it would mean that 60% of the times we would lose 0,25pot on the valuebet compared to betting pot and 40% of the times we would gain 0,25pot on the bluff, which would translate in a net loss of 0,05pot on average for the betsize choice.)

[@MrDeSeppi]

@@claudiomicheli3863 it is offset because not only are your bluffs gaining tons of EV, you're also denying 10% equity to all of his onepair hands, and denying between 16% and 18% equity to his draws which will call vs a small bet but have to fold vs an overbet

[@huggins_will]

Another tough convo with Uncle Pete. Thank you for direct and honest guidance. Several take aways for me to improve upon.

[@MatthewMcEwan1]

"I'm getting excited and aggitated aghh its so much ev if only guys would do it". Made me spit up my coffee 😂

[@vader6203]

Followed by “…we need to chill and observe the EV…”

[@sheets4444]

On another note, having a quantifiable measure of how "well" you are playing is very helpful, something which legitimately did not exist until recently. Great advancements in a tough game.

[@briancalek8253]

Anyone notice - Solvers call if there are 11 or more cards that could come to improve your hand in any way at all (and they raise if even one of these possible cards could bring the nuts). Am I crazy?

[@usanve8335]

Hi Pete. Could You give me a link to the webinar please?

[@sprolltobias4443]

are you sure the scoring system of gto wiz works this way. for me it looks more like that small frequency/sizing mistakes get overly punished in many circumstances...

[@CarrotCornerPoker]

Sorry I wasn’t clear. I was referring to the function where you import your HHs rather than the trainer. I can imagine the trainer is much harder to score high on because you’re involved in every hand and have far less standard decisions.

[@sprolltobias4443]

ok, thanks for the reply, makes sense. i think you are right with your reasoning, things get especially though when you restrict yourself to postflop. But still not sure how good the scoring system is in this case (mostly for the reason above) would appreciate if you could have a look into the metrics in that scenario too and tell us if you think if they measure something important actually or are just utter trash. @@CarrotCornerPoker

[@jesperhalvarsson801]

"Chill and observe the EV" should go on some merch i feel.

[@toddmurphy390]

What does it mean when opponents call almost 90% with 4th or 5th pair online.

[@dennisje2925]

Nice video. The first hand. MOst humans over check raise the flop with 2pair plus leaving them with pair K and less (quite capped ranged). If we overbet turn and overbet river only hands that make 2 pair and better by the turn or river card will call us here. This is only a small part of their flop and turn calling range. So i bluff my ass of in these kind of situations. So GTO is a little bit of a nit here :) The fourth sample is quite interessing, I always miss that thin value... are people calling with less or is it also to fold out worse hand that otherwise would bluff us of second pair. Diffecult spot

[@stu_gahtz1740]

I think also. Its easy for me to recall what ranges and frequencies look like and “click” that i know im “supposed” to bet these spots. But in game (i play live) its a whole different story and much harder to actually implement. Implementation is always the hard part lol. And knowing where to and when not to.

[@TheMoviesWithMike]

It’s called Gap theory, there is a gap between what you know off the table, and what you know in real time. Lots of study is what it takes to close that gap

[@coney7916]

Where can I find more details on the fortress seminar?

[@thom8363]

I checked my stats when you mentionned tham. It feels weird that I have a 1.85 AF and a 33% WTS, but WWSF of 55. Kinda horizontal redline

[@stu_gahtz1740]

I think this is where a lot of us get lost. We see a video like this and not take into consideration all the nuances and macros. For example i play live so openning sizes are 4&5x so its hard to have these turn over bets cause the SPR if not already will end up really wonkey. I play 1/3 so a lot of players are not even taking into consideration SPR

[@cryptombs]

I usually watch your videos on the road during work and I wish you'd specify the flops turns and rivers. Love your content but can you please specify the boards. Thanks bruv

[@betadecay6503]

I find this is a massively missed opportunity by all poker content creators. I love to listen while at work but it's often far too difficult to follow because they just don't ever say what the board is, or they maybe mention it once and if you miss it for whatever reason then gg. I would listen pretty much all day every day if they just specified the board more often. A simple adjustment that would add a tonne of ev.

[@cryptombs]

@@betadecay6503 factsss. I hope he reads the comments

[@mathgrrrrl]

I really needed this right now! 🤩

[@yukoncpa1]

What brand of sweater are you wearing here? It looks nice.

[@ivanwong8281]

very nice. Wonder if solver is also more aggressive than humans in river narrow range/low spr situations

[@rando9574]

definately. More agressive in almost any spot... perhaps except cbetting.

[@soundseen]

Great Gift today! Thx Pete

[@goteahue9260]

Can someone explain why is jack ten off an overbet spot plz?

[@alexandermanouselis8489]

7:34 Is that Rick from Big Mouth ?😂

[@radomirpl]

Love the content as always Pete, but can you next time said something about sizing in these spots? How our x/r freqency shoud change compare to 33% or 75% cbets, or how much we should bet when blockbeting.

[@Bg-it8tg]

nah

[@elpistolero82]

If you want those answers then pay for private coaching from Pete Clarke.

[@radomirpl]

@@elpistolero82 thanks, I wouldn't have thought of that, champ! xD

[@edwardjoyner7632]

Very orange introduction, really enjoyed it Pete.

[@Oque.Nos.Somoss]

Great... just great content. Amazing!

[@robertosansone8992]

Did you ever speaked about tilt control? ❤ Would you mind help some baboons like me struggling dealing with tilt? 😂😂😂

[@superjenspeter]

i have a WWSF at 39,31% over 7474 hands. I win 25.55 BB/100. Welcome to PLO10 regular tables. Very different than zoom.

[@CarrotCornerPoker]

Yep this is a different game with a totally different range of acceptable stats.

[@FizzyToni]

7,5k hands? That's nowhere close to anything statistically meaningful

[@superjenspeter]

@@FizzyToni In my opinion you are right and you are also a little bit wrong. I am actually not very proud of my comment, it was off and very emotional driven. And i apologise for that. I DO enjoy Peter and the carrot corners content, but some times i just find some statements tooo hard. I beleive no limit zoom games and regular tables are a bit different. I would beleive you could have a higher winrate, but a lower W$Sf at regular tables. Now i play PLO, which makes my comment ridiculous. But the PLO5 and PLO10 regular tables on Party poker, you shal be happy if get 3 way to the flop. 4 and 5 way is very very commen. And it doesnt matter a hole lot if you 3 bet preflop. 3-4 even 5 ways is quite normal in those games in 3 bet pots. And thats why i think you are a little bit wrong. But i do have bigger sample of 62K hands. Here my W$SF is 40% and my winrate is 12,5BB/100. And i know, that is also not a big sample, but i think it is a pretty acurate picture. The population in these games(not filtered for position) limps 35%. Thank you Peter for handling my terrible comment as a gentleman. And thank you for your comment Fizzy.

[@tessademsky1156]

Excited and agitated lmaoooo

[@AwakenInsights]

J5s is that hu blind vs blind.

[@TheVigilantEye77]

Aggression if you have equity

[@Mathemagical55]

The flop and turn cards are just way too small to read.

[@CarrotCornerPoker]

Okay I’ll see if we can include bigger graphics next time.

[@joshwakirk1468]

I do find it a bit odd that a person winning so much playing the game would quit and try to compete with GTOW (and that's not reaching, you mention them by name as being wrong multiple times). It's all about making a living, so you're seeing more potential earnings in coaching, obviously GTOW would hamper that, so shitting on them helps. Unless you're actually Baby Billy, you have a motive to say bad things about GTOW. Also, you have students getting 98% on GTOW???? and they are losing?? what drills are they running? RFI only? I'd bet significant money that ANY student you coach below $100 NL will NOT get above 90% on GTOW and ANY Full Hand drill on GTOW over 100 hands. No shot they are getting the correct bet size 98% of the time with 6 bet sizes lol. Getting a "correct" is in the 80%'s already Same EV, sometimes even better EV, but GTOW uses a different size??? Imagine 10 "inaccuracies" over 100 hands, 0.01 EV loss/hand. And you're calling people Jamie Gold for it hahahahahahahhahaahah.

[@douglasjamesmartin]

rake not beatable

[@melstone8590]

Omg can't win its the rakes fault game over

[@douglasjamesmartin]

@@melstone8590 rake is larger than the winrate one decent player might have on another, you are either in a terrible player pool or delusional

[@johnphillips669]

@@melstone8590 the fact that the rake is as high as a crushers winrate says it all about what a scam casinos are. Governments and casinos literally collude to make it illegal for me to gamble outside of them. They are criminal organizations and the rake is criminally high.

[@melstone8590]

Thanks

[@derekluna7700]

​@@douglasjamesmartin it is beatable after 200NL i would say. but lots of sites dont have a lot of volume for those stakes.

[@Chino-bk9fd]

nick is most def a whale 🐳