The Nemesis - Mortal Range construction - Nemesis approach in detail

  • NL BSS
  • NL BSS
(7 Votes) 7102

JOIN NOW TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO

Free membership

Join now
 

Description

In the second part of Tackleberry's new series you will learn in detail about the Nemesis approach in range construction, which will also be illustrated with an example.

Tags

game theory optimal GTO nemesis range construction Theory Video vacuum

Comments (9)

newest first
  • darkonebg

    #1

    Enjoy this video and leave your questions in the comments below!
  • Ruslan89

    #2

    Is the video uploaded right? It suddenly stops by explaination?
  • Tackleberry

    #3

    Hey Ruslan, for me it seems to work?
  • Ruslan89

    #4

    Strange, also when you put it on 1080?
  • Tackleberry

    #5

    Ah yeah, indeed ... when switching to 1080, it seems broke.
  • Tackleberry

    #6

    Here´s the thread for discussing and posting your solutions:

    http://www.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?postid=1937696

    Enjoy! :)
  • darkonebg

    #7

    Hey guys, 1080p will be fixed soon - in the meantime please use 720p.
  • iNspiRe

    #8

    Hello there, Tackleberry. Here is a question from Russian community:

    You've put villain on a range, and then gave him a model of actions for every possible card on the river for whole range. But I think opponent would play differently on various river cards, like overcards, blanks, board pairing cards and cards that complete flush-draw. I'm not sure that we can neglect that difference in opponent's river play, if we estimate the profitability of our play based on EV. What do you think?
  • Tackleberry

    #9

    Hello iNspiRe, I´m not sure I totally got the point.

    First of all, obviously it´s totally correct, if we wanted to define a 100% precise model, we had to analyze different river cards (at least accumulated in clusters).

    But, I didn´t set Villain on a "range" in the sense that I defined the combos? ... What I defined was a "dynamic" range, based on hand strengths, i.e. I defined his valuebetting range to be "top-2-pair and better". It`s obvious that on different board runouts (like a 5 or a 7), the top2 might have different relative hand strengths, but as I was mainly concerned about our (= Hero) frequencies this seems like an acceptable simplification, agree?