was about to post the same : as soon as you said 75% pot size bet needs to work 42 %, I knew it was 30 % instead, because I have this simplified table memorized :

GTO simplified (OTR)

nitpicking ofc :-)

Good video with clear and useful explanations; so thanks for that :-)

Hm, I'm not sure what that's about but your explanation makes a lot of sense. Definitely not intentional, I'll try to remember to look into it next time I'm at my desktop.

yeah as far as I can tell you're right, the second stat must include sb iso'ing limpers. Nice catch.

Calling 3 bets with medium strength hands is definitely not the most fun part of poker but it's something you have to do or else you just get run over. One thing I'd suggest is to add hands slowly to give yourself a chance to adapt to playing more hands. I've dumped a bunch of money after deciding to defend way wider but just not being comfortable with playing so many extra hands.

For raising cbets, I don't think I can say 13% is too high, as in I think you can definitely build a good strategy that raises cbets 13%. 10% raise cbet probably can be 100% value but definitely doesn't have to be. But if you're raising cbets 13% and folding to them 55% then something is wrong there (either you're raising too wide, or much likely you're folding too much)

I'm not really sure to be honest. Mine is around 1.1 but I make some pretty terrible river calls sometimes. So if I saw a number between 1.1 and 1.25 I wouldn't think too much of it. Outside of that I think it's worth looking into, though I didn't have time in this video to find hands where I think Henry missed a good river call.

As someone who folds too much to river bets as well, how would you go about finding more river spots to call?

Filter for something like called turn folded river and look through some hands. Pick some that you think are close and figure out what range you get to the river with and how often you need to call for your opponent to be roughly indifferent to bluffing. Then make sure you're not folding way too much.

Here it is
though I'd suggest you make your own. I've tried using other people's huds and never liked it. I just started with some basic stats and slowly added things I thought would be useful, cutting those I didn't.

I have no idea what perfect is. I have a rough idea of a range of what I think is reasonable and if numbers are outside of that then I think it's worth looking into.
e.g. When I first looked at Henry's cbet numbers I thought they looked reasonable in that you can construct a good strategy that leads to those numbers. But you can have nice looking numbers but still have pretty big leaks - Henry wasn't defending his checks nearly enough as the pfr given his chosen cbet strategy.

I think aiming to get your hud stats to look like x is pretty counterproductive as you can play a dreadful strategy that gives you "nice" hud stats. For the most extreme example, you could open 16% utg: 85o-82o,75o-72o,62o+,52o+,42o+,32o.

Well you're probably right that it's not a great example as if you cbet every single Ax bdfd you're going to have too many bluffs. But if you don't cbet any you certainly have too few bluffs. I'm also a bit confused by the second part of this sentence:

I think it's extremely likely you are either "overbluffing" flop if you do this or your checking-range is to weak/overfolding vs stab flop when checked. (emphasis mine)

If I check A7bdfd it's not to check/call so I don't see why cbetting this combo would make my checking range weaker. Quick check in flopzilla gives me 47 combos of TP+, another 36 of MP+, 40 combos of gutshots and a whole bunch of bdfd's. I would be cbetting a big chunk of that TP+, a small chunk of MP+, most of my gs (x/c some AQ, AJ) and so need some additional bluffs. Axs seems the next logical place to go for bluffing hands.

Yeah I didn't say we shouldn't cbet any of them.

"If I check A7bdfd it's not to check/call so I don't see why cbetting this combo would make my checking range weaker"

Because we have to control our frequencies, if we want to add bluffing hands into our cbetting range we have to add hands for value as well so our cbetting range isn't too weak. Which leads to our checking range getting weaker I suppose.

Because we have to control our frequencies, if we want to add bluffing hands into our cbetting range we have to add hands for value as well so our cbetting range isn't too weak. Which leads to our checking range getting weaker I suppose.

This argument seems like a bit of a stretch. If you have two set ranges and you just have to place A7s is one, whichever one A7s goes into is now weaker.

Not sure if that's necessairly true since when removing bluffs we have to remove value hands as well to keep enough bluffs in our range. So to some extent It's true, but not entirely imo if we want to try being balanced. Just out of curiosity, what top pairs do you cbet in this spot in general? I find myself switching this a lot, and haven't rly made up my mind what I prefer as a standard play.

One other thing to consider is that the higher cbet strat we play the less important it is we defend our checks. So if you're playing a really high cbet strat then overfolding once you give up is just not a problem. If you want to play a lower cbet strat (which I generally do) then defending your checks becomes much more important.

I go back and forth a lot on cbetting decisions. I pretty much always cbet AK, almost always KQ, sometimes KJ and almost never K9s. I don't have actual ways of controlling frequencies, just how I feel at the time.

okay, Yeah I don't cbet much at all oop these days. Especially not in spots like this when you're facing a somehow tight range and quite strong as well. People are just playing way too well if you start cbetting too much in this spot oop imo.

I did this the very low tech way of just filtering for hands where he faced a cbet and then looked through a bunch.

Yep, you check/fold turn a lot. You're getting a decent price and sometimes you hit a big hand, sometimes you turn equity, sometimes he doesn't bet turn.

This is something I don't really know, and depends a lot on the games you're playing in. I'm under the impression that something like losing 30-45bb/100 in the bb and 15-25bb/100 in the sb is reasonable, but I could easily be off on either side. Last year I lost 21.5/42.5 in the sb/bb but I think my play from the blinds could use a lot of work.