Range advantage is way bigger in 6max in BB vs IP player situations. That's why it's more efficient to use it in that context. Could be used in hu but not that profitably.
I remembered I once played hu (5-10) against a regular who used like 90% 1/4th cbet though. I haven't studied it myself but it might make sense to reduce sizing in a spot where range advantage is not that huge as in 6max to challenge minimum defense frequencies (I'm speaking as more of an unbalanced approach though, theoretically if we are going to cbet as high as 90% we'd need bigger sizings (though it's true that by betting merged we will also have more value hands to compensate, I don't think it's at a high enough frequency to fully compensate it), but as I said maybe this 1/4th exploit some population tendencies that don't defend the minimum required vs that sizing.)

Yeah mostly agreeing with below, I think the reason that's so efficient in 6max is similar to why I'm able to use it more often in 3bp situations OOP. The guy calling is getting great odds and often ends up postflop with a substantially weaker range, but in HU when I'm opening 80-90% of hands that linear range advantage doesn't really exist in a bunch of spots. I'd probably just end up severely overbluffing and be hoping that villain won't adjust properly.

Good catch, I think you're right about this hand and perhaps I was distracted from the 200bb stack depth.

With effective stacks at 12k, I think off the top of my head a small overbet around 5-5.5k starts to challenge the assumption that call > fold

I agree to some extent, and I do expect that I developed a wider x/r strategy as this match went on. I've seen how wildly aggressive pio suggests us to play when we never face raises, and it does make sense. That said, I do think that we accomplish a very big % of the necessary counter strategy with solid defense, so often times I'll ease my way into the x/r game plan as I learn more about what his range is and how I think it's best to counter it.

A lot of these hands are either low frequency 3bets or are going to cbet the flop. Generally speaking, we will have to bluff some zero equity hands in some situations. It does effect how often you're allowed to bluff - we have to treat the ratio very similarly to river play - but there's nothing inherently wrong with the bluff.

12min - I think hands like A6 or AQ/KQ actually make the most sense here to raise turn some frequency...his sizing is not super strong but really good overpairs and nut straights might be in this range to balance the weaker value/protection bets. Those combos should do the best job of removing them while not being obviously strong turn calls.

35min - I think this sizing is best for my whole range, and AK can fit in as a protection bet on flop that protects my range on some of the strongest cards for him (A/K)

thanks! ur point about using a6/aq/kq makes sense. but are we contiuning to barrel AK on turn in other hand? surprised u don't just check ace high, it beats a lot and folds out a lot of worse hands and none better (large bet!). it never picks up equity and i doubt on most turns we wanna develop check/call range.

I think we should barrel on some turns that are particularly good for my range, maybe like J-K and sometimes on an ace? Good blockers on the J/Q to strong combos and not much reason to develop a x/c range like you suggested. On cards like 5-T though it seems logical to have some x/c combos and I'd probably end up checking since our blockers are less relevant on those cards. It's really just AK that I plan to use this way, I do think we force some weaker calls on flop from AT-AQ or Ax bdfd for example.

This is a really nice single size range, if I've decided Ax doesn't want to ever bet. I do think a separate analysis of whether or not I want to bet hands like A2-A5 is worthwhile, but it's totally possible that his frequency of having Ax is high enough that we want to only use the range you're suggesting.

We have to be careful to acknowledge what the rest of our range is trying to accomplish here. As we continue to scale up our sizing in a chop situation, Ben will eventually be finding enough 7x combos that he doesn't need to call anything else to reach MDF. If that happens, our bluffs and our 7x chops are losing loads of EV. It's important to make sure we find a size that leaves incentive for him to call non-chops, and exploitatively I think it's quite important that our bluffs aren't required to get 7x to fold any % of the time to become profitable.

I like checking mostly when I have a 2 card nut flush here, especially something like Ad8d, since I remove his calling range and don't block the bluffs or stronger flushes that can still bet IP.

or we also bluff some stuffs like Ah, and Kh blocker OTT?

Yeah looking back at how I approached this, I don't think the plan was really to include any true bluffs. It seems kinda obvious to me now that I was trying to size such that betting {7x,97} would force Ben to call his 7x combos and lose a lot when I have 97. I'd have to pick another size with some 7x hands in order to make this work for a bluff range.