Yes, I think even if he still has a few suited combos it's still a fold, I still dont have enough equity if we add hands as the one you mention, we need him to put some overcards in his shoving range in order for us to call.

Regarding the HUD, have been adding them over time (mind needs some time to adjust!) but I finally got to something I ended up liking (about 1.5 years ago) and since then I haven't been changing it much.

Really glad you liked the vid!

Wonderwall is a very nice song! After a few years I still enjoy to play it and sing it, definitely stands the test of time. One of my favorite songs :)

I agree :)

Usually in these spots Pio likes small sizings with our range with these kind of SPRs, about third pot. I don't think the SPR is a problem here, maybe 1.2-1.3 could lead to a little weird situations. I saw the hand again and I think our actual holding is fantastic for a check-raise bluff, and also that the preflop action is actually a fold, I have run more preflop sims since I recorded that session, and against a 3x from EP we play AJo and KQo and we fold ATo.

Thanks for response.
Yes, i agree with c-r line. Was not sure how to process turn after doing it and getting called.

@40.30 Yes, of course it is. He may be even value betting worse, so yes. No PIO needed here :)

@40.57: And again, yes. There are still some worse "value" and plenty of bluffs, I have way more equity than I need, and I can still steal the pot on the river if I strongly believe he has 8x type of hand :)

I thought it was a different hand I thought I had recorded against a reg who opens in MP I think and bets in a similar board, maybe it will come in a future video.

Well, a lot to discuss here...

First of all, fishes don't care much about sizing and minimum defence frequencies for obvious reasons lol so I think it makes a lot of sense to go to valuetown very hard and value bet with the appropiate huge sizings in many spots where they have the obvious weak showdown hand.

Second, in this particular situation we're playing against a fish. We just play our hand accordingly to what we think is the best for it, without thinking twice about anything else. Against this particular fish I would:
Shove with my good 9x+ (K9-Q9+), and have zero bluffs
Bet "normal" with my good hands, mainly the rest of 9x, prob 3/4 pot. Again, zero bluffs
Bet small with my good 8x like A8 and K8 (removal effects here are very important, we expect him to bet twice and call us worse than K8 50% of the time, so sizing is extremely important), and bet small with our bluffs.

Now, a player who is a calling station means he bluffcatches with many if not all their bluffcatchers. Against such player there are a few deviations:
First and obvious, bluff less, if not bluff at 0%
Second, sizingwise, again we try to go very big, especially when they have the obvious range full of bluffcatchers and almost 0 nuts.

I think it is very easy to play against such players. When it gets difficult is against players who bluffcatch with some frequency but not always, and are smart enough to pick spots when we're likely to have many percieved bluffs, etc., but I think against calling stations the exploitative strategy is very obvious.

Finally, I would like to remark something you say:
"What I personally tend to do against "bluffcatchers" is apply extreme pressure, instead of a more defensive approach"

You are kind of mixing two different concepts. You say you apply extreme pressure, which is correct, but I think what you mean is you bet very big against a player who has a range full of bluffcatchers and zero nuts, and that again is correct. But you're mixing "heavily capped range" with player who "don't fold bluffcatchers". These are different concepts and while you play you should have very clear the distinction:

a) A calling station means he doesn't fold, therefore we don't bluff. Very simple.

b) A "heavily capped range" means a player who has check-raised or raised with his nuts earlier in the hand. He gets to the river with 0 nuts, then it is totall correct to bet huge with our value: it is extremely valuable to identify these spots where villain has almos 0 strong hands and size up correctly.

Hope that helps :)

A final add-on that came to my mind while I was going to answer the previous question about the 55 hand in the end of the video against the fish who leads, I think it is a hands that help to clarify these two concepts very well:

1-If we have a player who has a range full of weak hands (not necessarily bluffcatchers, just a lot of weak hands), like the fish who leads 3 streets on the Q83 flop (from 40') the right strategy is: to size up huge.

2-Now, should we bluff? Well, it depends. If we think he folds, we bluff, and if he doesn't fold, we don't bluff.

So to sum it up:

Range full of bluffcatchers==> Big sizing/verbet/jam
Does he fold his bluffcatchers===Yes, we bluff; no, we don't

I hope this two different concepts are well seeing.

Now, one last thing I'd like to add. Against fishes, I usually tend to attack very heavily this strategies. I tend to make them fold their junk, I try to go for it. And in my opinion, it's EV+ to try to do that against fishes we like to underbet the pot with all their weak hands, this is just an experience wise comment. Sure, sometimes we have a fish who is trapping, or a fish who found two pair+ on the way, etc. but in general they have one pair/air and they're folding. And it is extremely important against fishes who like to lead half-potish sizings all three streets.

Against someone who doesn't fold bluffcatchers, the correct approach is overbet and no bluff.

Of course, if you bluff 0% against a player, you enter yourself in the "guessing game", and it's to you to guess if he is adjusting or not, that's why in general I would not not bluff against any opponent, just fishes of course. I would, of course, be very careful with the selection of bluffs I use against someone who is always looking for a reason to call me, and midstakes is a pool full of such players ^^

I think at the beginning of the next video you have the solution, I think I talked a bit about this particular hand and topic :)