Hi there. Tough question, but your absolutely right to question the theory behind my decision making.

So i'll offer two explanatory points:
- Firstly the equity advantage is a big deal. We have all the nut combos here and an overall equity advantage. Therefore, we are entitled to value bet more widely, push our equity advantage with our weakest value hands and protect more widely. As you can see here we actually called by worse and are able to show down against an ace high.
- Secondly we can see a solver is betting at 97 per cent. Often, even when a solver wants to bet 85%, we can just simplify our strategy and pick one flop bet size which we use a 100%. So in terms of 'real life', by which I assume you mean the practical day-to-day grind, we have a strategy which is both theoretically sound at practical to implement.

I actually think this kind of solve is very useful to the majority of grinders. We can become sort of overwhelmed by the amount of factors we are weighing in a given hand. We can feel the burden of trying to model our strategies around the insights of GTO software. Here the solve shows that a very simple strategy will be incredibly effective.

Definitely a sizing mistake on my part, but I still go bigger than you suggest. Majority of Qx and Jx get bet on the turn, so a lot of hands I arrive at the river with are pure air (including draws I checked twice to check-raise like KT) and 78, K9 aand the like so we do have a lot of bluffs when the board runs out like this.

Hmm... I'm not certain but 33% doesn't seem correct. If we had a JT here we would certainly want a sizing that protects and makes two clean overs indifferent. Same if we had JJ. This is a board which is pretty dynamic. The nuts is going to change on most turns and rivers, seems unlikely that going smaller than we did is optimal.

Appreciate the questions and the high level of engagement.

Glad you enjoyed it. Definitely think it's one of the best vids I've done.

Majority of player pool are definitely been playing OOP spots incorrectly. I guess we just have to hope not too many people watch my videos!!

Good question. Stack-sizes are so dynamic and this spot comes up comparatively rarely, so I have to confess I'm not sure what our range should be. There are a spots in MTT's (particularly vs cold-four bets) where a GTO solution may well be to just continue ONLY by flatting. That's likely not the case here though. If we continue with AQ, AJs, ATs (some %), JJ, QQ (some %) and AA that is definitely a pretty defined range, but it's a range that - excuse my language - is hard to fuck with!!

If this spot came up a lot you'd have to throw in some 98s and T9s for board coverage. If you watch, say, a Tyler Forrester video he's definitely proceeding in this spot by calling way more than we are in MTT's currently and I think it may be the direction we should move in.

Let me know your thoughts...

It makes me very happy to think other players are getting a lot from my vids. Thanks for taking the time to post.

Hey there,

1. I take HRM to mean Hold'em Resources calculator. Using this program is an absolute must. The first thing you need to be getting right if your grinding low and mid-stakes MTTs is push/fold spots. Mark every spot that is close, run the numbers and play around with ranges. What happens when players are raising strong hands from 15bb and shoving the rest? This work is mandatory.

2. I have to confess I've never utilised CREV. I think that doing at least some work 'yourself', like with calculator and equilab is very useful. It really helps you visualise ranges and equity distribution in-game. You can't learn PIO ranges by rote, you need to attempt to understand why it's doing what it's doing, so doing your own off the table work is highly valuable.

Hypothetically it should be the same size. Maybe go a little larger with both value and bluff. He's gonna call the raise with say A4ss and if we've raise T8cc we still got plenty of turns we can jam as a semi-bluff, or rivers where we can make a winning pair. Don't think we need to go a massive sizing.

Thanks. Glad you're enjoying it.

You can see in the analysis I do of the three-bet pot with 99 that I do give A2-A5 off-suit, and suited, a weighting; reflecting the fact that they are 'candidate hands' in this spot. It's really a question of the type of games that you're playing in. To make an obvious point, the less you're getting flatted the less important playability is and the more our range can revolve around blockers.

Without divulging my range in this spot in its entirety, I think that we hit Ax boards very strongly with our value range and that if our 'bluffs' are Ax as well we lack board coverage and the strongest portion of our range centres too heavily around A high boards.

I suggest you just play around with equilab and balance out combos you want to be raising for value with some bluff combos until you find a range that suits you.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you want me to go in to it further.