Top quality content as always!

As always a very good video, you´re defientelly the top coach for NL at RIO.

Regarding the last hand, the risk/reward of the bluff is not equal to a regular spot due to the fact that he is always chopping when it goes c/c on river, whereas a normal bluff looses with an high proportion. Assuming you´re never folding anything worse than the board he therefore bets 200 to win 50.

Regarding the math it´s a really interesting spot and I´m not really sure how to calculate it. In normal spots we win the pot when we succed with a bluffcatch. In this spot we either chop with one portion of our range and win full pot with the other (>8s). We therefore must have some >8xs in our range in order to not make him freerolling the river bet. And I believe the a frequency is not possible to solve if we dont know the proportion of >9s in our range. I might very well be wrong though. Anyone else who has an idea of the spot?

Hi Kevin,
I really wanted to request you to do a video covering the c-bet sizings on various board textures and your reasoning behind them. Would be very very helpful, if you could do a comprehensive coverage.

Hi Kevin,
At 4:40 you mentioned that you will also double barrel some 10-9, 9 7. can you elaborate as to how your blockers are affecting your double barrling decisions with these hands? Thanks

Hey Krab, excellent video as usual. At 43:42 you encouraged the viewers to come up with the split pots theory. Here is my attempt:

Makoma is risking 200 to win 100. If he is bluffing, every time you fold he wins 100, and every time you call, he wins 50. So unless you have traps in your range, bluffing is always gonna be higher EV for him then checking( unless you call your entire range, assuming the ev of check is half pot, which can very well be lower).
Now from your perspective, every time you call with a hand which splits and he is bluffing, you win 1/2 the pot, and if he has value hand you lose 2x pot. So he needs to be bluffing 4/5th of the time to make this call profitable.
But since for every hand which splits, bluffing is always better than checking(assuming you don't have traps, as once he checks you have an option to bet), isn't this one of those weird situations where is always supposed to bluff and you are always supposed to call. I might have really botched up the maths, and these are my thoughts.
Thanks