Range Cam Review by w34z3l

  • NL BSS
  • NL BSS
  • Shorthanded
(5 Votes) 6723


Free membership

Join now


It's time for w34z3l and his analysis of the hand he virtually played against double2. If you haven't seen the previous part yet, you can find it here.


analysis double2 hands Range Cam Ranges review weasel

Comments (11)

newest first
  • 18sm


  • GingerKid


    sure the software gives you negative EVs because double2 is using value heavy ranges both preflop and postflop and interestingly your assumption is also that he uses value heavy ranges. if he would add more bluffs preflop you would not have to overfold, if he would check some value hands on flop or reduce bet size you wouldnt have to overfold flop. you mentioned in his video that the reason why you overfold preflop and flop is because double2 has "huge range advantage and positional advantage" so it is ok to overfold because "When the positions are reversed, I should auto-profit also". well yes, you would be auto-profiting if you also choose value heavy ranges and double2 overfolds (i dont think it is auto-profit but rather losing EV with value hands).

    As i understood, you should both try to provide approximately "unexploitable" ranges, and i can understand that double2 made value heavy ranges because it is tough to create approximately "unexploitable" ranges (I mean solid range with no obvious leaks), but i don't get it why your assumption is that double2 is using value heavy ranges?

    Double2 said in his video that MP cant do anything to exploit his ranges, but you clearly did it by overfolding.

    Short reminder to make it clear what i mean: bet range (applies to 3bet range as well) from double2 would be having correct bluff-value ratio if the ev of folding a bluff catcher is approximately the same as the ev of defending a hand (EV = 0, indifference). Since you overfolded preflop and postflop it means that you expect bluff catchers to have less ev than zero, which means that your assumption is value heavy ranges. so it has nothing to do with position nor range advantage but only with not correctly constructed ranges. Even if double2 would have 100 nut combos and e.g. 5 pure bluffs, he could still reduce bet size to have correct ratio or if not possible than to check some value hands (at extreme case checking whole range).
  • GingerKid


    when you say when the positions are inverse you would be also having auto-profit spot and MP cant do anything to prevent it. so what do you mean by "auto-profit"? as i know autoprofit refers to any bluff in range has EV > 0? if you have auto-profit, why is BTN not 3betting 100% range but only few bluffs? well you can prevent auto-profit by defending more combos.
  • AApoKKer


    Four minutes of the video for bronze members is a bit harsh.
  • imgoingtomirage


    AApoKKer, make gold, it's quite easy in April/May: https://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/pokerstrategy/Level-Up-returns-today_96241/
  • faun26


    im not shame to be alone, contrairing to this world that you may hear, somethings apper to me
  • w34z3l


    Gingerkid.....I don't want to say too much here since it's probably not +EV.

    I did not assume double2 was value-heavy preflop. Naturally some textures will favour the 3better and give him a range advantage. This is especially the case when we consider that the 3better often has a polarized range relative to the condense range of the caller.

    When someone has a range advantage it is correct for them to fire more frequently, and correct for the opponent to fold more. This is also true of positional advantage which I will get to shortly. There is nothing the player with the range disadvantage can do to stop the aggressor making money (assuming the aggressor is optimal). The defender must fold with a higher frequency than the minimum defense formula suggests (after all equities are factored in).

    There is no "lets defend more so he doesn't make automatic profit". We'd then be defending a range which is too weak and would likely lose more money than if we just folded with many of these holdings.

    But, we must clarify the meaning of automatic profit, because it depends on our point of reference.

    Imagine two optimal opponents heads up playing a perfect GTO strategy. The player on the BTN will make money, while the player in the BB will lose money. (Position has a quantifiable effect on the EV of a hand, which some sources don't acknowledge, pokersnowie for example). So in some senses the BTN is making "automatic profit". The BB is fine with this. There is nothing he can do to prevent it. If he tries to defend more hands he will simply lose more money. Let's call this type 1 auto-profit.

    But in another sense, let's call this type 2 auto-profit, BTN is not making any auto-profit. This is because every hand the positions switch, and now when he is moved to the BB, his opponent generates type 1 auto-profit. So both players generate type 1 auto-profit when they have the benefit of position, but neither player generates type 2 auto-profit /which is what we are interested in/. The equilibrium /across the entire spectrum of hands played/ is preserved.

    So I am happy to give double2 type1 auto-profit, but I am in no way happy to give him type 2 auto-profit. If I give him type 2 auto-profit then I am playing sub-optimally.

    There are countless spots in poker where it is correct to give type 1 auto-profit, but never type 2 auto-profit. Now, we could say, as you mention, if we are giving type 1 auto-profit, shouldn't our opponent just fire his entire range? In some specific cases with a huge positional and huge range advantage yes, note that this is what double2 actually did.

    However....our opponent can't necessarily always fire his entire range, at least not from a theory point of view. Obviously he can do it exploitatively, but the idea behind playing GTO is that we play every single hand in the highest EV manner. If he fires absolutely every hand, it won't necessarily be the highest EV for his range (or every individual holding, this is one and the same thing). This is because given we are assuming we ourselves are optimal, we can obviously adjust our strategy based on our opponent's overly aggressive range, damaging the EV of his overall strategy. So while sometimes our opponent may be able to fire his overall range if we offer type 1 auto-profit, and certainly might be able to do so exploitatively, if he over-extends himself, he may actually end up giving us type 2 auto-profit, which is presumably a bigger mistake.

    Some of the things you are mentioning don't make sense, at least not intuitively. Think for example about the idea of having a preflop bluffcatcher. Imo, there is no such thing. The equities are not well defined enough to try and apply a bluff-catcher theory to preflop scenarios. Bluffcatcher theory is for the river.
  • GingerKid


    Hi Adam, thank you for your detailed answer, I understood your points. I think that you didn't understand what I meant, probably I didn't explain it well. My point was not that we should defend 1-a in every spot to prevent opponent bluff every single hand even if we loose more money by defending 1-a. My point was that aggressor who has range advantage, makes defender "overfold" is making mistake by constructing value heavy range and that way is losing EV with value hands. So I was not talking at all about defender making mistake by overfolding. I am just saying, if defender is correctly "overfolding", it just means that aggressor is making mistake and losing EV by having value heavy range. That applies for any spot, no matter if aggressor has range advantage, position or whatever. Simply aggressor is in all those spots either not bluffing enough, or (if having too strong range) not checking enough value hands (or having too large bet size). In your whole comment, you didn't say anything about this, which was my main point.

    Regarding "bluff catchers" which I meant preflop, sure all hands have some equity, but I meant on hands which are having EV close to zero, meaning that they are not clear folds nor defend.
  • GingerKid


    "The equilibrium /across the entire spectrum of hands played/ is preserved.". Sure, agree about all of that you wrote, but still don't agree that BTN in your video should fire whole range and make MP overfold, even if positions switch and you as BTN bet whole range and double2 overfolds in the same manner, nobody makes money, but it is still not "GTO". If opponents are making identical mistakes when switching positions, nobody is making money, but it has nothing to do with the idea of GTO. So you can't justify incorrect ranges by saying when positions switch, and opponent plays in the identical manner, nobody makes money. On the other hand, I agree that BTN is making money vs BB and that BB will also make money when position switch, but GTO is not about making money in certain spot (or preventing opponent making money), but about playing "unexploitable" in every single spot (meaning that our opponent average EV for any position vs us is having always EV=0 no matter what strategy he is playing). So the EV and unexploitable strategy shouldn't be observed only for BTN vs BB spot, but as average BTN vs BB and BB vs BTN and should be EV=0. So now back to our MP vs BTN example from your video, if you reverse positions, and Adam doesn't cbet his whole range on flop, but checkes some value hands (making correct bluff-value ratio), and that way MP (double2) doesn't overfold, in that case Adam would have higher average EV over both spots MP vs BTN and BTN vs MP, so Adam found one strategy which increased his average EV, meaning that double2 is not playing from BTN unexploitable.
  • GingerKid


    "Gingerkid.....I don't want to say too much here since it's probably not +EV. "
    I hope that you didn't get my comment too personally, since it is saying that your approach and double2 is wrong. I think that the point of pokerstrategy is to discuss poker and not only write "nice video". If I wrote something in my comment in arrogant way, or insulting, I am sorry for that, it was not my intention, also my english is not native so it happens.
  • Turuntor


    Maybe it's a bit stupid to comment this old video, but I happened to read the comments only now.

    GingerKid seems to think that when there's overfolding, someone has made a mistake by choosing a too value-heavy betting range. However, numerical simulations of post flop play show that in many situations, the disadvantaged party ends up "overfolding" if both players play optimally. This is a property of optimal play, no exploits involved.

    This only generally, I'm not qualified to comment this hand in particular whether it was played as well as possible.