Thanks man, I definitely will. 

I tried to pick a sizing here that I could use with my whole range, which from the sound of it was going to be Q8+ for value (betting 8x with no kicker is likely a mistake) and my bluffs. $84 may be on the large side for a value range this wide, but my intention was to bet my 8x hands with this same sizing as well, yes. 

Thanks, I appreciate it. 

I will have a c/r range on certain flops and won't have one on others. 678ss is one of the flop textures that I never c/r (without particular reads saying that I am missing value by not doing so) and I'm far more likely to create a c/r flop range on boards such as 663, K53, A45. The reason for that is somewhat long winded and I hope you don't hate me for copping out on answering it in a comments thread, but I'll try to explain it in more detail when it comes up in a future video.

Thanks!

1. With A4, I'm sort of reluctantly using the sizing that I think would be most profitable if I was shoving a boat here. I agree that most 5x hands are going to (in most cases correctly) call, which means that when I do have a boat this sizing should make me a ton of money. So long as I'm not shoving more often than when I have A4 as a bluff, I'm pretty happy with my range's play. 

2. I do have two ranges here, which can be tricky. I'm going to want to c/r sometimes when I have the nut flush because I think it's quite unlikely he plays the bare As this way. Because of this I can also c/r some bluffs, which I'd choose to do with the more showdownable parts of my range - hands that prefer checking in the first place. I think the lead is superior in terms of EV for any hand as weak as mine, and I think it's also going to be superior for the As because his checking frequency with weak-mid flushes will be extremely high if I check to him. 

3. I think betting Q2 on the river is a fairly sizeable mistake in theory against a good player, but given some assumptions about his turn probing range and his awareness of what the river card changes, we could exploitatively value bet against some players.

4. Thanks, me too!

Re the Q2cc hand. I still don't understand how this can be a mistake. If he's only defending vs a bet (may it be a raise or a call) with only hands that are indeed better than a TP then isn't he making a mistake in his ranges somewhere? We can effectively bluff an enormous amount by taking such line and folding to a lot of his double barrels once we x/back the flop. I've done a rough simulation on such spot and results were: he's leading the turn at about ~45% rate and doubling the river at about ~55% frequency (probably less if he wants to have a c/calling range). That leaves him checking a really huge portion of the time OTR. This is pretty significant.

I also don't think you have many better hands if any at all in your range by the river in such scenario.

Basically what I am saying is just because he doesn't have many hands that he can c/call river with doesn't mean we shouldn't be betting this hand. It might be a case that there's a huge issue of him leading turn too often and then giving up way too often OTR.

EDIT: made a mistake in my simulation. I pretty much only added as vbets OTT for him TP+. So the %ages are already wide and if we add hands like 2nd pairs as vbets by him OTT it then certainly makes his river doubling range smaller in terms of %age of his entire range and therefore our betting strategy mattering even more. I think it's likely that any TP is a very +EV vbet once checked to us and even if it is just slightly -EV we still have the benefit of him knowing that we're vbetting pretty thing and therefore allowing us to bluff quite a bit (given how often he's going to c/f).

Jonas, why do you think villain needs to have such a wide turn probing range in order to have a successful and balanced strategy here? I'd argue that he's very likely to have a frequency under 40% and be correct in doing so. I also mentioned in the video that my betting frequency when checked to here is going to be extremely low - it's rare that I get here with a hand that needs to bluff and also rare I have a hand strong enough to consider value betting vs a presumably polar range on the turn that has now checked to me. Keep in mind - he can still c/c a queen or c/r a balanced range (and is right to do so sometimes, because he'll be checking here often with air hands), I can still have traps and 4x to value bet with, and I'm very comfortable using that approach given what I think his ranges look like. 

PS I'd be curious to see what ranges you put for him probing the turn to arrive at your results - I have a feeling it's simply too many thin value bets (78 type hands?) with a near 0% checking frequency with Qx+, both of which are big assumptions.

First of all I missclicked and flagged your comment to which I replied as inappropriate :( Sorry bout that.

Anyway, back to the hand. Given such assumptions OTT: BB leads 2pairs+, all TPs except with 3 worst kickers, all 2nd pairs with T kicker or better, all gutshots/fds that have SDV of K-high or worse - makes up for 43% range. So when he gets to this river he has about 26% of the time a TP+ hand. I have a hard time imagining how he can construct ranges without being forced to c/call with pretty much all 7x hands.

Yeah I could see how with those assumptions you're going to want to value bet. I think in practice there are some adjustments to be made to that range (a bit fewer bluffs, fewer 7x hands, essentially all Qx or at least closer to 100% than you used). These things make it so that villain will likely look to c/c river with some no kicker Qx, 76, 88 and often not have any other worse hands in his range. Also, it's noteworthy that since you say only 26% of his range on the river is tp+ that he can consider checking a very high percent on this river (creating a high c/r frequency as he is the one who can represent most of the strong hands) to combat any aggression IP I might decide to have. It's possible in practice he won't do this, and I can get away with an exploitative value bet here because he will still have the few hands I mentioned that will consider calling, as well as some % of good 7x that I'm not accounting for, but I think if you are looking to calculate the theoretical EV of betting Q2 on the river here you need to account for how much we lose when we get c/r in addition to the gain from the 7x hands that will likely need to click call if they're in this spot.

Regarding the A4 hand, I love the sizing. You have to be capable of shipping bluffs and semi bluffs there if you want to get max value with the nuts. It sucks when someone makes a meh call, but it will make you money in the long run when they look you up light for stacks.

I was equally excited about getting my own subscription to RIO as I was for making these videos, there's some really great stuff on here.

Thanks Felipe, happy to be here. The avatar is very intimidating, right? :P

I agree that the capped range is a problem when choosing my bet size here (although we do have the 1 combination of quads in our range) but even when we are capped the situation could call for a shove if his value betting range is wide enough. Your comment encouraged me to do some quick math on the spot in theory and I think it's somewhat close - I'm shoving around 3x pot so he gets to fold 75% of his range and call 25%, which means (if he's bluffing appropriately on the river) he has to fold his 30% bluffs and then call 25% out of 70% value hands, or roughly 36% of his value range. If I'm right that he bets all 5x+ here as a value range (64-72 combos of trips, 19 boats, 1 quads) this is going to result in him calling his 19 boats, 1 quad combo, and 10-12 combos of trips, a range that some of my desired value bets are actually losing against. In practice I think he's far more likely to call any/all 5x hands because having 5x as a blocker makes it far more likely that I have my bluff range. This also means that I probably need to adjust how often I'm bluffing to an even lower frequency because when I do have a bluff rather than 5s full it's exceedingly likely he has 5x himself. 

That didn't exactly help defend my play and makes me think that in theory I shouldn't use this sizing given how often he has a boat here. I wanted to point out though, that it's not entirely because we are capped and he is uncapped, it's just because he has so many combos of boats here compared to other value hands that he is allowed to fold most non-boats to my sizing. 

The notable differences between these two hands are:

1. 5x is substantially better at blocking my value range

2. 23 can beat K5 if I decide this is strong enough to shove for value

If I said that about what I expect him to call with, I'm just generalizing the idea that I think vs. the player pool overall a straight will never fold to my raise but trips will sometimes fold. I didn't mean to literally imply that I think he's going to construct a range that includes most but not all 5x hands and all straights to call with. 

I'm actually not planning to use more than one size here - I think it's too thin to raise something like 5x for value when only K5 has a kicker that plays on this board. I probably can't use this sizing and include K5 either, but I'm much happier overall choosing this size with boats and simply flatting K5 than I would be by lowering my sizing in order to allow K5 to raise as well.

Thanks!

Interesting comparison because I think having an ace blocker might be bad for this bluff (or at least it's much less clear what the best bluffing hands are), I'd think we want our opponent to have all of his AJ-AK combos so that he's less likely to have one of the stronger parts of his range like 76 or 54/95. Judging from that I guess I think 65s is the strongest hand to bluff and we may need to add more at which point I'm not sure what I'd pick...maybe 99?

The idea that we want to get a cheaper price on our bluffs is an exploitative one - I would consider doing this if I felt comfortable enough that I could use an unbalanced sizing approach but keep in mind that my value range strongly prefers to shove, and my value hands are more common than my bluffs.

I agree that leading T5dd, given that I likely c/c the turn with my non spade 3x hands as well, might lead to me overbluffing. It was mostly an exploitative decision to take advantage of what I think is just a general lack of big spades in his range to take this line. For the same reason yes I'd feel pretty comfortable value betting down to the Qs here, although I don't think I'd always lead any of these hands. I agree he's going to overfold (and mostly just call flushes) so I'm happy with my choice to bluff this hand. 

1) Bluffs, AK/AQ, some % of trips hands

2) Nice catch! I will peel all my Kx hands vs people who aren't so aggro on these board textures but I imagine I had a read that he tends to follow up on his cbets here. If that's the case, I already have enough Tx peels and weak pairs where I think continuing Kx with no bdfd is probably too loose vs his strong cbet range and I'll be folding too many blank turns. It's very rare that I have a c/r range here, so mostly I'm just deciding if I can peel or not.