Regarding your proposed format of video - that wouldn't really work out well. First of all I rarely play longer than 2k hands sessions and in most cases the spots are pretty standart and not interesting at all. This would end up pretty much a waste of time imo.

This video wasn't fully a topic video. It was just basically some hands that felt under a few criterias - me opening pre-flop and flatting a 3bet when I'm in position. Me winning or losing those hands had nothing to do with me selecting those hands to review. Pretty much a coincidence.

Re A9s. Yes, I don't like bluffing river much there. I think it's a poor bluffing spot BUT that doesn't mean I should be bluffing at 0% frequency. I said in the video that A9dd is one of the few bluffs I could have (possibly like <5 combos or so) when my value range is idk 3 times wider than that? So in theory him c/calling with Qx hands might very well be a losing play. And I also didn't narrow it down to KQ only, I said AK is definetely a portion of his range (but due to us having Ax hand it reduces to combos of AK while leaving the same amount of KQ combos therefore making this a poor bluffing spot). I also think AA is a likely hand for him as well - missed that in the vid.

Re KQo. Well, second Queen coming to the board reduces our possible Qx hand combos by a lot. That's all I was trying to say.

Re K6s that's a pure mistake and sorry about that.

Hope I answered all of your questions.

Re KQo. Well, second Queen coming to the board reduces our possible Qx hand combos by a lot. That's all I was trying to say.

This should have no bearing on your value betting range.  When your value betting is Qx+ then the Queen would actually be good for your value betting range.  There might be some kind of Bayesian effect where it shifts your value betting range towards slowplayed Aces or something, but I really don't see how you can say this is a "bad" card for your value betting range. 

For your statement about the Queen being bad to be true, you're essentially saying that you're value betting less than top pair on this flop.  That means you're either value betting a hand like 89s, in which case I would argue that you're value betting a bit too thin (but I could see betting once or something), or you're not 4betting your TT.  By the same token, if you're value betting less than Qx+ here, wouldn't it be because you don't think he enough Qx after checking to continue?  If that's the case, then applying your argument to his range should produce the same result.  You could argue that it would produce the same result even moreso for his range since the whole reason to bet hands lower than Qx are that his range doesn't contain enough Queens in them. 

In addition, you don't actually mention the hands in your value betting range.  If you are v-betting a hand like TT, then that's saying that versus somebody with a 25% 3bet or whatever it was you're really letting him see a flop against TT without 4betting?

These questions are kind of rhetorical in the sense that I'm just making the point that a lot of your statements seem to either:

1) Contradict previous statements you make in the video

2) Be just plain false (like the K6hh hand),

3) Be incredibly incomplete.  You just kind of say things about ranges without actually checking out everything that's going on in the hand. 

When our possible value ranges shrinks from 60 to 40 combos (because those 20 combos that we lost are impossible when this Queen falls on the board) while we still have all the same bluffs - I dont see how this card can be good for our value range. Number of combos is out of thin air fwiw, just to point out the idea. I still dont understand what you're trying to say here lol. Feels like we're arguing about a different thing.

Maybe this should sort things out - it's good for our value range strength wise but it's awful frequency wise. Like our value range improved but it also got more narrow therefore allowing us to bluff less frequently.

We need him to be folding over ~33% of the time OTR to make our bluffs +EV. Im not 100% sure he folds that often. A few changes there and there might turn this from very profitable to very -EV bluffing scenario.

Regardless, when we're bluffing it doesn't really matter what hands he's bluff-catching with so Im not sure what you were trying to say about him not having any flushes?

First of all Im not going to bet turn with all my bluffs. Just because Im betting most of my FDs doesnt mean Im betting all of them (Im pretty sure I mentioned in the vid that i want to x/back some FDs). Pretty much same applies to other sort of bluffs.

Also Id prefer to consider the EV of entire gameplan rather than the EV of one hand (in other words I dont like playing in a vacuum) so if you want to be betting all of your straights OTT - fine, go ahead. But when you x/back (which will roughly happen 40-50% of the time Id imagine?) and you're facing a bet - you're screwed every single time. In a spot when it can be assumed that villain CAN check with his entire range, Id expect villains to take advantage of this fact quite often and lead out rivers at a fairly high frequency both for value and as a bluff. So yeah, we sort of get a bit more value from his air hands, sure it's probably in a vacuum better to bet all straights but when playing a 3-handed/HU game Id rather not be as exploitable here (when talking in general about 4 to a straight boards).