I guess, but it's close.

ok I rewatched and caught why....

for funzz

96s/Q9/T9 all improved to a boat on the river, and all of these combos should play like this fairly often. So I'd be wary of generalizing from the Q759J board Tyler used to this one.

I agree that after we've seen him showdown QJo it's time to make some significant exploits, and raising K9 is definitely one of them!

I'm not sure if we've done a toy game vid on this, but generally the correct strategy when using multiple betsizing in a strategy is to play the nuts to all the different sizings with some frequency (as well as other strong hands). For example if we think villain is playing the range KJ-QT like this for value and adding bluffs, we should respond by shoving with AK+ and probably nearly all of our hands which don't beat QT. Of course that would be a max exploit and would be extremely greedy and there are many less extreme options as well.

Technically max exploit would also involve wanting to get calls with value and folds with bluffs, so not quite as simple as shove/call. But yeh..

i have the same question. and also why do u say at minute 28 that the opponent can have 44 and a5s? Is it correct do defend that agains ur 3bet size?

I think the suited/connected/paired hands often play better vs big OOP 3bets.

It's something I'm trying out right now. I think it makes the 4betting game tougher for the IP player and hopefully makes position worth a bit less due to decreased SPR in 3bp.

I don't think I'm value betting much Qx, so the Q blocker isn't very important. So he can call with stuff with good blocker effects. (T+ST blocker)-FD blocker seems Ok to call sometimes.

at least 40bbs for set mining to be profitable.

how u calc dis?

I'm not sure, but I think all the pairs are winning @ 100bb.

I've always just used the "if it's 10% or less of my stack I call" theory when I have 100bb or less. Learned it from Tyler. Being anywhere over 100bb makes all PP's a profitable flat.

I block AK/KQ which are likely bluffcatchers, and I don't block diamonds or 65s kind of stuff.

lol nah.... he just uses it to dance around the screen and sing to it .... ;D

funzz

I think it's too aggro to lead flop very often. I think it's more like a 25-45% type of play.

I'm comparing calling K9s to raising. One of the things that can go right if we call is he has to defend a river checking range sometimes.

One of the things that can go right if we call is he has to defend a
river checking range sometimes.

Isn't the same argument true for when we raise turn- he has to defend some of his turn bets?

Yes lol, but what are you arguing?

I'm not really sure, tbh. I felt like your answer didn't really distinguish why call was better than raise. To me your reply was basically saying "I'm calling turn instead of raising because I'll be able to put a big bet in on the river when he checks, which he'll have to call some % of the time." I feel like there's another assumption there that's not explicitly written. Maybe something like A) his bet turn check river range will be x/r'ing at a very low, near-zero frequency, but his continuing range vs a turn raise will be 3betting a good chunk of the time and will be balanced enough that K9s just loses the pot regardless of what it does. So we should aim to avoid that instance. Or B) Because of our K blocker there aren't too many better hands we can get value from after raise turn+value bet river.

Maybe it's one or both or neither of those, but it felt like some other assumption is needed to show that call > raise.

Jd, you're certainly right that my answer was pretty terrible. On the other hand, I think pretty much all qualitative answers to poker questions are fairly useless these days when we have such sick analytical software available. If I could, I'd do a bunch of sims for every comment I get on my videos, but that would end up taking 12+ hours per video and I can't reasonably make the time. So my go-to move lately is pithy little answers for most questions and occasionally I'll try harder if someone takes the time to formulate a good quantitative argument for me.

Basically, if people post numbers ITT they'll get much better answers from me in response!

On the other hand, you responded to my crappy answer with such thoughtfulness and good humor that I felt guilty, so I ran a fairly rough CREV sim for the spot. The result (and I think I made the assumptions for raising favorable) is that calling is +9bb while raising is +5bb, which seems like a big enough gap that I didn't need to look further at the sim. Mikey will upload the file to dropbox shortly for other people to dissect/discuss.

The summary of the sim (imo) is that we need to put sb on a capped range to make raising turn the play, and that's so far off what I think GTO is that it's a read I'd be reluctant to make in practice without strong reason to do so.

I think pretty much all qualitative answers to poker questions are
fairly useless these days when we have such sick analytical software
available

Pretty sick statement. Without going into too much detail, how do you approach analysis for other games that don't have the same tools as NLHE? Do a lot of the CREV or PIO heuristic takeaways translate well into other games?

I'm mostly talking about NLHE. I think a good way to gauge the strength of the development of software for poker is the kind/number of assumptions we have to make to get a strategy output. Pio is definitely the nuts by this metric, we only have to guess about preflop and restrict the game tree to a manageable number of betsizes in order to get GTO strategy outputs.

Games like PLO or limit variants are certainly much farther behind either due to less interest from the community, or more complex game trees. That being said, for PLO I'll use Omaha Ranger (or PokerJuice is good too I hear), and for mixed games I'll use Odds Oracle.

I agree, seems like we might be able to bet significantly bigger here, like 1.5-3x pot.

I'd X a K/Q. I'd usually barrel a J, I'd often barrel spades.

now am gonna sit there and wait for PG's new vid: the death of unexpected valulz

soulread

Nope.