Correct, I meant 25k chips. The bounty is half the buy-in HOWEVER when we KO a player we only get half of the bounty (the other half of the bounty goes to our head/on our own bounty)

.5 x .5 = .25 --> .25 x 100k = 25k

Yeah sorry I fudged this, you're correct!

You cannot just say "well, range X breaks even vs Y shoving range in a cEV calculation so therefore we can just call all of the hands making -2bb or more at cEV". It is not this simple. What a bounty is basically doing is manipulating the pot odds required to call off a jam/giving you a bit more in the way of implieds odds when playing hands vs stacks you cover.

i.e. let's say we're in the BB facing 10bb BTN jam and the blinds + antes = 2.5bb total. We must call 9bb to win 21.5bb (blinds/antes + jam + our call) at cEV --> we need 41.9% equity to call

However, if, for example, there is a bounty on the line worth 1bb we now need to call 9bb to win 22.5bb -> we need 40.0% equity call

Urgh, I actually just formatted my PC and lost this sim in the process, sorry! My guess would be it mixes between check-call and check-fold, though

Isn't this more dependent on our opponent's tendencies here and not the GTO solution? For instance if we feel that our opponent peels this flop too wide and can't defend the turn often enough shouldn't we simply barrel the turn anyway? We don't even know villain will defend all his six x here to a second barrel.

If you know your opponent's tendencies and have done the node-locking work in Pio then you should feel free to deviate to maximize the EV you recoup from the pot, for sure @Scientifik. However I think a lot of people think that the MES response vs certain tendencies is more intuitive than it is.

For example, Sauce did a video a while back where he compared hero's response vs various cbet strategies on a flop that was supposed to be checked at a very high frequency by villain. Most people just intuit that if someone is cbetting too much in a spot like this their response should be to raise more + fold less. Versus one of these overcbetting strategies hero's response was actually to continue vs a cbet w/ ~the exact same strategy they would've had villain implemented the correct cbetting strategy. Where we deviated from equilibrium was versus villain's checking range (we probed 100% of the time villain checked to us).

In an example like the one in the video it likely is not as simple as "if our opponent peels flop too wide and can't defend enough vs turn barrels" --> we should barrel turn w/ AJo and immediately profit. If our opponent floats too wide on the flop a hand like AJ is going to have even more equity OTT vs villain's range that arrives there and our most profitable line might actually just be to pure x/call as a result (since betting likely won't fold out many better and/or high equity holdings).

Remember that in poker we're always trying to gauge the EV of all of our options and to pick the one w/ the highest EV. It's important to avoid the trap of "I have an immediately profitable bet/barrel -> therefore I bet".

Good questions, thank you!

Hey Risva10, sorry I'm just seeing this now! Glad you enjoyed the series, though!

I'm gunna run a Pio sim and post the results in a second reply re: the x/r range on this flop for BB

Yes, I do think it's a big leak if you're not implementing turn and river leading strategies. You're sacrificing a lot of EV in your strategy by not having them.

I personally have an RNG that helps with making sure my frequencies are ~ where I want them. I try to figure what I think my strategy looks like w/ the different hands in my range and then let the number that pops up between 1-99 dictate what I'm doing that specific time (and then I'll adjust from there if I think I have specific reads on this particular villain's assumed strategy).

Additionally re: postflop donking...while I currently think incorporating donking on turns/rivers is very important/non negotiable, I'm not as sold on flop leading. These strategies are often very non-intuitive/highly mixed and I often find myself 'getting lost' w/ what my range looks like on future streets. I don't see a ton of people using them so it's probably fine if you run sims to just remove this option for BB (will make your sims run much quicker).

Here are the results of the (pretty complete in terms of bet-sizing options) sim I ran

UTG CBet Strategy

BB response vs small CBet (which I assume most people do to approx. range even though there should be some larger sizings mixed in)

As you can see, 86o does indeed get x/r'd at a fairly robust weight versus the small sizing. The majority of our 'bluffs' are taken from this connected-ish/down-the-middle subset comprised of some combination of gutters and pair + backdoor(s), which makes sense, especially on a rainbow texture like this one

This video was a while back but I just rewatched that hand...versus two "normal" ranges river x/r feels super attractive b/c such a small % of their ranges are comprised of flushes and I think most people are going to heavy overfold vs x/r when you think about how their betting ranges are going to be constructed as a result of the A/K/9ddd all being out there and how deficient flushes they'll be as a result...not saying you should take the spot every time, I just think it's attractive

The term fish is quite vague/ambiguous. There are so many different types, right? Super nits, super weak passive, tight passive, etc. It's very important we distinguish between types, I think this is something many overlook.
I can't remember exactly which type this BTN was, but I feel like I recall them being weaker...but more 30/5 weak than 80/5....that's gunna result in a big difference in their total # of flushes

I see. I mistook your meaning here when you said that in the video to mean that you thought we had more flushes in our range but you actually meant that people would tend to bet too many weaker than flush hands then not defend to a check raise properly. This makes a lot more sense now thx man. From what I gathered listening to her I put fish on being a weak passive type that feels out of his element and has a hard time finding the fold button. Assuming I'm accurate in that assumption I probably would pass on that line in this spot. I do think that you are definitely correct in the optimal line being check fold here and also giving some credence to about a 20% pot sized blocking bet.