I agree that with this particular combo I should prolly x/c turn again, mostly because with the As in my hand he cannot have have all the NFD combos that are 2-barreling with and potentially even shoving over a x/r. Plus I can still x/r any river card while with a set I would have to just call on a flush river. 

Im not sure why you think this is a clear x/c oop but would be a clear raise ip, I dont get logic there and I would in general be a lot more prone to slowplay hands ip rather than oop.

I disagree that my "perceived checkraise range on turn here is just too strong" and I certainly will show up with quite alot of bluffs here too, be it draws or turning some weak made hands into bluffs (like A5 or 44 for example) actually later in the session there will be a similar spot where I x/c the flop with backdoor draws and x/r turn with a picked up straight draw on a 2-flush turn card and end up losing a big pot. I definitely disagree that opponents will fold everything, no regular is folding Qx+ or a flushdraw on that turn card. Yes I dont give him the opportunity to bluff the river but at the same time I make it a lot more difficult for him to go bet bet check with medium pairs or to semibluff very aggressively on the turn and I also put some money in before an A,4 or 6 rolls off and he checks back lots of 1 pair hands. I think I dont want to have a flop x/r range on that board given positions but I need one on the turn, I dont think never raising flop and turn can be a very good strategy.

I liked your pace and that you skipped over lots of small pots.  I also like that you sometimes stop to explain how you might change your strategy in some of the situations depending on opponent type or your opponent's bet sizing. I also enjoyed your more in depth discussion of the KQ versus 34 suited hand.

P.S.  I found the statistics you showed at the end of the video very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I miss 100bb when he decides to bluff the river, thats correct, but I protect my equity vs his 3 to 6 outers in a huge pot thats not negligible either. And Im not sure that am getting bluffed very often at all on blank rivers since it doesnt appear likely that i would x/c x/c x/f with much of anything on let say a 2 river, in my experience regs 2-barrels way too much there but give up quite a bit on the river so explotively it might make some sense to shove turn if im calling river anyways. I actually agree that x/c would be better against stronger opponents though and as I said shoving there was prolly influenced by me losing quite a few similar huge pots on unfortunate river cards lately.

Poker snowie on this hand says to check call turn and fold on any A or K river that he jams. 

If Im calling this turn am definitely folding an A river, K is tough, prolly still a fold. But I talked about this in the video already.

The issue I have is not about displaying the resolution, it;s just that when I do it gets slightly blurred and not as sharp as it should be. By now several people told me to purchase a display cable so I guess thats what I need to do. Thanks for the input anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison

You may also try this:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/2560x1440-or-2560x1600-via-HDMI.92840.0.html

@xav1er: the monitor is 27" not 30" so the resolution is 2560x1440 not 1600, dunno if it makes any difference.  I didnt even know there were several different HDMI possible but I will look into it.

My laptop also has a display port output though, 100% sure. Thats why a friend of mine told me to get a display to mini display cable but I think Ill have to import it as I cant find it there. What would be the difference between an HDMI 1.3 or higher and a display cable?

Thanks for the advice!

miniDP looks like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Mini_DisplayPort_on_Apple_MacBook.jpg

pretty sure that you can order these cables from amazon or ebay

Ok thanks a lot!

It was approximately 20k at 10/20 10k at 5/10 and 30k at 2/4 zoom500 and 3/6, plus 40k more at PLO. It sure is frustrating but it doesnt affect me all that much, and as you can see I already made all of it back.

I talked about this at length during the video, it's impossible to qualitatively decide where exactly is the threshold between calling and folding, you have to use maths if you want to solve it precisely. The value of TT is NOT the same as KQ though, having a K blocker is relevant and having 2 cards that could be included in a lot of his 3-barreling bluffrange is also somewhat relevant. Plus some low percentage of the time he will be shoving a hand between KQ and TT. So its 100% sure that calling this river with KQ is significantly higher EV than calling with TT.

I agree that x/c is prolly better than x/r but I disagree that " Not many players will bluff turn in this spot". In my experience at those stakes in 4-bet pots many regs 2-barrel bluff waaaay too much, especially in blinds vs BTN or CO situations, but dont follow up with a river shove very often at all. So exploitively shoving turn might be a pretty good option too, or at least its not much worse than x/c. Yes he will bluff Ax 100% of the times if he has air on the river but I still cant call that card, Im too far behind his range.

Why do you think "This strategy you use will be hard to balance on this kind of boards"? please elaborate. Basically I just get rid og the x/r flop range on a low rainbow board with those positions and implement instead a  x/c x/r range when the turn card brings a FD. I still have a x/c x/c x/r range though. I dont really understand why several posters in the thread seem to think we can x/r flop with a lot of bluffs in this spot but not on the turn. It doesnt make any sense to me.

The small preflop 3-bet size is what makes me call here as stated in the video, I would def fold to 11bb and most probably to 10bb but once it gets 9bb and under I think I can call. Probably to an 8bb 3-bet or less there would not be any hand in my UTG opening range that would fold here. Also that opponent is pretty wide in most preflop situations. I actually disagree that we want our opponent to barrel a lot after 3-betting in order to defend more hands, quite the opposite imo, it's easier to defend wider to 3-bets if you know you will get lots of free cards, cheap showdowns and opportunities to steal pots.

I dont think river is close at all, I think it's a mandatory call. Sure Ill get there with some AK,99 and 33 but if I fold KQ it means I go call call fold with all KQ, KJs,KTs,QQ,JJ,TT,T9s,98s,QJdd,JTdd,AQdd...  which are a lot more combos than my calling combos, having  "a lot of AK in that spot that we would play same way and call river" wont compensate for that. Basically his river jam would become super profitable which we certainly dont want to allow on a complete brick. So I dont know how far down in my range I need to calldown but KQ has to be a call there.

(note that some hands fit in two categories so if you sum up the categories, it will exceed 70.5)

-If we defend with the turn calling range Raphael provided in the paragraph above, mid pair or better + fds, that's 59.5 combos or 84.4%, making our opponent's pure bluffs very unprofitable.

-If we aim to prevent our opponent from profiting with a 0 equity hand, we should be defending at least 46/70.5 combos or 65%. A range of 46 combos is sets, all kings in our range, QQ, 40%JJ, any turned fds.

Q: If we defend well over the minimum defense frequency, what does that say about what we think about our opponent's frequencies, his range, and his range relative to our range on this board? What other pertinent factors should we consider when deviating from the minimum defense frequency?

---

First let's consider calling with Raphael's suggested turn range.

River: Kd 9c 3s 5d, 5c

The breakdown of our 59.5 combos:

full house: 6
top pair: 27
pp below tp: 16.5
middle pair: 6
ace high: 1
no made hand: 3

-I'm going to discard the 3 of missed QJdd/QTdd/TJdd (edited to keep AQdd). It's a bit unappealing to call with the AQdd b/c our opponent is occasionally bluffing with better. And it'd be awful to call with Q-hi here as A-hi or better represents a fair chunk of our opponent's bluffing range. This leaves 56.5 combos.

-If we aim to prevent our opponent from profiting with his bluffs, we need to defend 52.1% of our bluffcatchers, 29.5 combos. That means we need to call with KJs or better.

---

To contrast Raphael's suggested turn strategy, let's instead choose to defend turn with all kings in our range, QQ, 40%JJ, any turned fds, or ~46 combos

River: Kd 9c 3s 5d, 5c

Breakdown:

full house: 6
top pair: 27
pp below tp: 6.9
middle pair: 2
ace high: 1
no made hand: 3

-Discard missed non A-hi fds, leaving 43 combos

-If we aim to prevent our opponent from profiting with his bluffs, we need to defend 52.1% of our bluffcatchers, 22.5 combos. That means we need to call with 2/3 of our KQ combos and everything better.

Alright, thanks for posting this work, I dont have all the answers and I did not verify the % you're giving but let me comment some of your points.

First, preflop, against that particular opponent I feel like I will be 4-betting AA and KK basically 100% of the time so it means I will need to calldown some weaker bluffcatchers than what you suggest on later streets. I also fold A9s and A8s to this 3-bet (or maybe 4-bet them every once in a while), I realise that it might not be very consistent to call KQo and KTs but fold A9s.

Then on the flop, it is possible I do not defend enough and I need to call more AJs and 88 type stuff but defending less than the "minimum defense frequency" is probably not that big of an issue there, as the board is quite favorable to him. He took a risk by 3-betting preflop with very little fold equity so it's OK to let him profitably bet ATC on certain boards. Then again, I really dont know what the optimal calling frequency should be in that spot.

On the turn, I think it is definitely correct to defend quite a bit over the 'minimum defense frequency" when my strategy is to either call or fold but never raise (that may very well be wrong and I need a raising range). Thats because his bluffs will very rarely have 0% equity, many times he will be betting with a FD or a gutshot or stuff like AJ that can still make a pair to beat my 9x/TT type of hands.

On the river, I'm almost certain that your math is slightly wrong and you cannot "discard" A hi and Q hi combos (am never calling with them but it doesnt matter). Thats where you can see more precisely how many combos you should defend, apparently about 52% of my overall range that got there (admittedly I didnt check your numbers), and NOT of my overall bluffcatchers range. When you discard the A hi and Q hi hands you actually allow him to profitably bluffshove ATC there. I think you are confused with theoretical situations/toy games where a polarized range (nuts;air) is facing a pure bluffcatchers range.

I assume you are talking about the "theory of games and economic behavior" by Von Neumann and Morgenstern, right? I have not read/studied this work but I remember reading something very similar in the Chen and Ankenman volume a while ago, I will re-check this when I have some time. At first glance it sounds strange though that we let him profit with hist worst bluffing hands since it looks like he could unilaterally increase his EV by bluffing more hands.

Alright I think I got it. One of the problem I see with applying this to this hand is that opponent's range is not linearly distributed from 0 to 1, he almost never have the portion between let say 0.4 and 0.8 (very rough estimate) as I dont expect very many people to go bet bet on flop and turn with 9x or JJ for example. And more importantly I missed the "If Player A checks, they immediately go to showdown" part of your previous post and that makes all the difference since here I still have the ability to both value shove and bluffshove when you check the river.  So it makes a big difference with the toy game since there when you check back a lot of hands not strong enough to value bet you still get some share of the pot because the opponent's range is anything between 0 and 1. But here when you check something that cannot beat at least 98 you will lose the pot 100% because being in position I will bluff any combo weaker than that or check back and win the showdown.

I think the inability for the defender to bet when the agressor checks is also the reason why in the toy game bluffing the very worst hands is still slightly +EV too. Checking back something as weak as let say 0.08 would still be very slightly +EV since oop would sometimes hold something between 0 and 0.08.

So overall it means you cannot discard any hands in my range that gets to the river before trying to implement the right calling frequency.

4-betting, at least once in a while, is an option too but you have to be careful with your frequencies. Given that your 4-bet for value range should be very narrow in the first place if you start 4-betting all AJo,KQo, some other random stuff and a few Axs here and there you will quickly end up 4-bet bluffing way too much.

I prefer to zoom back and see it as a straight line going up!

J9cc, you are right I should bluff this combo at some point in the hand.

K9ss, yes in theory we should be able to specify our flop strategy with each holding but in practice I expect very people at midstakes to have a strong mapped out strategy there, and I am no exception. Lately I have been mostly c-betting smallish with full range in that situation BTN vs BB, which is almost certainly incorrect but works surprisingly well in practice. Other times I will be checking back some A hi, K hi along with weaker holdings that will possibly try to bluff later and the occasional slowplay. This is most probably a better strategy but just betting everything and not worrying about it is much easier to implement when your opponents let you get away with it. As for specific hands that you are giving, I feel like 44 has to be a mandatory bet. I agree K hi and weak A hi are a lot more questionable. 

T9o, I have no idea how much $ Im losing overcalling there, and its a very infrequent spot with a limp a SB completion and a BB check. I think having a backdoor FD is probably significant enough to switch from folding to overcalling, but even so I feel like overcalling T9hh would be marginal and slightly +EV at best. That is just my gut feeling though, I have never tried to model and quantify this situation.