Thanks a lot man! Appreciate the kind words.

I agree with you on this being the best way to use PIO to review hh’s. I really like to give my thought process first and then compare it with the PIO output and learn from my mistakes.

Great video, even if it is not get so popular as others, one of the best IMHO.
By the way you seems like extend length quite a bit, which is great. It is like 2 Videos in one.

Thanks a lot guys!

Thanks a lot Darren.

Yeah, this was a surprise to me as well and I agree with all you said. The pot is already too big in relation to our river betsize and there are so many chops that he’s not allowed to fold a single hand of his range that gets to the river.

it's common on these boards where the run out has a made hand on the board. for example there is a 5 card straight in a 3bet pot where neither players has a ton of the straights (45678.) probably doesn't happen if you check down in a 3bp to the river, but when the pot is fairly large then you just jam as OOP and IP always calls cos you are chopping so often and you don't wanna check to IP to let him polarize and check back a bunch of chops and then bet 9x/chops at balanced frequencies. cos then your call becomes much worse as you lose 2/3 of the time, or whatever it is based on pot odds/bluffing frequencies and the other 1/3 you chop or win with whatever 9x you have.

Makes a lot of sense.

In such a scenario it seems useful to think of the OOP jam as a 'blocker' jam since we prevent IP from having a potentially more +EV scenario if we check to him instead and he'[s able to bet balanced range of nut/bluffs as Demon said and check back some give ups.

Completely agree. I’ve always interpreted this scenarios in which both players are chopping the pot very often as the only ones in which being OOP is more beneficial than being IP since there’s value on acting first and putting a large bet to fold the other player from their share of the pot.

It’s somewhat common on some (mostly rainbow) boards in which IP range connects fairly well and retains a lot of equity.

last hand too ^_^ 3% is quite low I would say. When it happens in 6max, I notice quite often that betting range losing around 1-2% of pot EV compare to ''optimal strategy''

Yeah same thing on last hand :)

When it happens in 6max, I notice quite often that betting range losing around 1-2% of pot EV compare to ''optimal strategy''

It’s very similar on HU but I believe that simplifying the game tree is the best way to go about it, specially because we won’t be able to capture all the EV of a mixed strategy (therefore the EV difference isn’t real) and also because population is more likely to play poorly against our strategy when we bet more often.

Thanks a lot man! It makes me very happy when a non heads up player finds my content useful :)

Really agree on this one...i think the way he thinks about spots and strategy interaction in general has value for players regardless of their main game

Thanks Zache <3

Thanks a lot Bingo! I’m really glad to hear that my content is helping you improve :)

You nailed it. K high still checks down for a decent amount of EV on both player’s ranges after only one bet.

Hey adoyal thanks for your comment.

Q 9 Jr board you said you either use range bet or mix overbet/check
strat... and that usually on Q high boards you can get away with range
betting with little loss in EV however on this board Q9J the EV loss
is quite large and you should use a mix overbet/check strat?

The EV loss by cbetting range for a small sizing is certainly quite high on this one but this doesn't happen in every Q high board. Using an Overbet / check strategy is completely fine in these specific very connected board types.

how does the EV differ from; Overbet/check, 66%/check and 33%/check etc
on these boards?

Between 33% / check and Overbet / check it's usually really close. I personally havent tested 66% / check but my guess is that it'll be a fine strategy in most boards as well.