TPE Theory: Simplified C-Betting Strategies with Matthew “theginger45” Hunt (Part 1)
[Total: 11 Average: 4.4/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
Concepts In This Video: Adapting to flop textures • Check-raising the flop as PFR • Exploiting preflop call mistakes • Removing the c-bet option
lafauriea
May be I missed something, I’ve got Piosolver and try to do some calculations with your setup. Did you put a line for turn and river? or it is supposed to be a check down after flop? because if you put nothing on turn/river and if you define some bet size on turn/river, it will change drastically the % of each sizing no?
theginger45
I ran these calculations with default turn and river bet sizings of half-pot. The scale of the game tree would have been prohibitively large if I had allowed flexibility on later streets – I would never have been able to run so many different types of flops.
It’s definitely true that shifting the bet sizings on later streets would shift around the results somewhat. However, I don’t believe that the basic principles of this approach would change to a substantial degree, since the examples were not deep-stacked enough that massive variations in turn and river bet sizing were plausible.
I also believe that the nuances of how our opponents respond to these flop strategies, and the massive exploitative gains we can make by using them, are significant enough that they would outweigh any marginal changes in EV caused by different turn and river bet sizing options, since those different options would have contrasting effects – for example, allowing a larger turn bet size would increase the flop bettor’s EV on some boards, but it would decrease it on some others, and thus the effects would more or less even out across all runouts.
DuckinDaDeck
Wow, I’m really glad I checked this out Matt, thanks! This may be a stupid question. Could we simplify our strategy by approximately maintaining the frequencies recommended by a solver for our range as a whole but using our judgement to assign individual combos 100% frequencies, rather than eliminating bets, checks or check-raises from our strategy? Obviously, our approach would no longer be GTO, but would the difference in EV change significantly more than how EV changes when eliminating strategic options?
DuckinDaDeck
Now that I’ve watched more of the series I can see that my earlier question was completely missing the point. Nice work Matt, you’ve given me a ton of things to work on once SCOOP is over.