Thanks Brian, really good question! I really like how you think about this. I think you've nailed a common flaw which is gto betsizing implies GTO, which is really very very far from the truth.

I probably should say the opposite more, "This betsizing doesn't exist often at equilibrium", because that's along the lines of what I am thinking. If it doesn't exist in GTO land, I'm probably playing some sort of recreational player and need to switch to more exploitative style. My actual comment can be intrepreted as "maybe I'm playing a pro" . It's not guaranteed but is more likely..

Thanks man, I appreciate the comment.

Agree, the very end of the video really terrific and helps a lot with self reflection

+1

Really good questions!

I should bluff around 8 combos, so I could bluff K9, but I'd need to be careful. This was an exploitative play, that got caught. Mathematically, I should raise around 15 combos on the turn and then check back 7 combos, while continuing with the 12ish combos of T9.

I don't overbet here much in practice, because it makes my river play more difficult, which is where a lot of value in the game comes. I'm never checking here, though I believe under some assumptions, a check would have been merited (over fold turn, overbet bluff river).

Thanks for the comment!
I would always play in this field, because with the limpers, I clearly have an edge, but you're right I would have taken a break after the second or third stack to reset. I know emotionally that I won't be centered and that can be expensive.
Upper bound on winrates is really high like 20bbs/100, though nobody actually gets those.
Anything positive is good with the best regs, I believe around 8bb/100.

Hi Juan! Appreciate the kinds words! I'm a big fan of yours too.

For what it's worth, I haven't found a hand in my opening range that is -EV to open from the small blind. Now, this can't possibly be true at equilibrium or on PokerStars with names associated, but it does mean that I'm very liberal opening from the small blind.

Really good question!

From my work with preflop solvers, I have a healthy skepticism of their results so tend to focus more on empirical model and model averages. Most solvers say this is slightly bad call (think -1 bbs/100). They also generally have the opinion that the out of position has optimized a 3-betting range against a complicated limp/open raise strategy, which no one is playing in these pools. From my perspective what the solver is saying is "Assuming a optimized 3-betting range against an uncommon strategy and a GTO perfect postflop play, this call is slightly bad". It's perfectly correct that folding would be solver preferred, but the GTO assumptions here don't hold, so we don't have any information about the situation. I suspect you will pio own me :).

I tend to call more here than 3-bet, because calling will perform better against players who are raising tighter than 3-betting will against the same players. From a max exploit strategy, never-folding and 3-betting aggressively is the most effective exploit, though the precise frequencies, I'm going to say our proprietary.

Good ask :)
I've played a couple hundred thousands hands at 10/20 plus and done well. I like playing smaller games, because I can work on a smaller bankroll and have less risk of ruin, (both from poker site seizures and run bad). I give up some winrate from this, but it's not as much as you'd think, because there is substantially more liquidity a midstakes. It's struck a nice balance for me and I've made plenty of money :).

You're right JJ-99 will be lower EV checks, but they will also be lower EV bets, which evens this out against the nemesis.

The actually play depends pretty heavily on player type. The equilibriums here between betting and checking are very close against the nemesis. More reasonably, I think about how wide players would be willing to float a small bet and how aggressively they raise and then compare that to how willing the player is to bet and stack off with say 22 after getting checkraised here. In my opinion recreational players are more likely to bet stack-off 22 here than they are likely to raise 22 on the flop to a bet, so I usually check-raise against that player type.

Thanks I like that approach. How wide can we go tho, would play 99 the same way ?

I general do, but it's substantially more marginal.

Hi Tyler, Yes that makes a lot of sense thanks

The other thing is playing AK in these kinds of spots, I often think oh I can't bet for value so I check/call, vs rec's that is. What's the best approach vs rec's in 3bet pot's oop when we don't hit. Should we often check flop. Or should we cbet and then check/call turn making money from their draws. It a spot that has me often confused. Sorry for the vague question, But I hope you can sign some enlightenment on it.

AK is difficult on these types of board textures, because the rec often puts us on AK, so he plays well against that particular hand. This means our pot share regardless of line is low. I tend to check here and evaluate because it is lower variance than betting, but I don't have a prefered line here, because I think they are all roughly equal EV against an unknown player.

Thanks Kerouac, I appreciate your comment :)

Great question!

A member said that he thought that the 74s was heavily exploitative play rather than GTO call. I think I'm in the minority here with my call. I tend to regard the BB 3-bet range is being less memorized and more impulsive than other situations, which tends to increase the equity of most hands, so I make more (unpopular) marginal calls.

Depends on how I structure my range, if I overbluff, then I want all the queens to fold. If I'm underbluffing, I want all the queens to call and if I'm bluffing optimally, I don't care.

I believe I've misunderstood your second point. Yes we should bet according to our hand strength, but our hand strength is closely related to his calling range. If he never calls worse, then we shouldn't be the hand-- no matter what GTO says-- because the bet will negative EV.