I wasnt aware of that, I thought those were 2 different programs.

Mine stopped working a while ago, it says current version expired.

It is always hard to know where to draw the line in those situations as the weakest calling hand will be very close in value with the worst folding hand. So I just try to do things that sound logical, at least to me, and decide on a cutoff hand that am calling everything above and folding everything below. I've seen simulations in tournament preflop situations where it is correct to call a shove with 88 but fold 99 (I think it has more to do with card removal effects) so you could argue having a cutoff hand is not always fully correct. It's very possible that calling 66 is correct there, I dont really know, 77 and 66 are very similar. Yes, 66 has very slightly better equity (to the second decimal place!) against the very top of the range but fall below when you include some low cards in a 3-betting range. Then probably there is more value in overstraighting a wheel and winning a stack 100% than getting counterfeited slightly less often or beating 65s on 6xx flops.

Actually I thought about it some more and would agree that if I go down to 77 I should also call 66 in that situation. Drawing the line at 77 can hardly be correct.

What you say would also apply if you opened BTN and got 3-bet by the blinds but certainly nobody would fold midpairs in that situations so it's not enough by itself to make it a clear fold. Sure a lot of value will come from flopping sets but there are still many boards we can continue on when flop open enders or gutshots, plus sometimes we get profitable bluffspots. Against a squeeze from the SB his range should be stronger and I have to pay more preflop so maybe it's a fold, thats entirely possible, but if it is, it's a lot closer than you seem to believe.

Yeah, the audio is tremendously hard to decipher

Your numbers are way off. You are not just 4-bet or folding (well a few regs play like this but this is a terrible strategy) you also defend by calling a lot which means his bluffing hands will realize some of their equity and take away a significant portion of the pot on average. So if you are folding 65% of the times after opening, as you advocate, you are waaaaaaay overfolding and the blinds are basically printing money 3-betting you. 3-betting 72o would be a vacuum +EV play vs your strategy.

Ahh, okay thanks I think I get now.. So he would only need me to fold 65% to break even if he was check/folding the flop everytime?

In the BB yes, in the SB slightly more since he will get cold 4-bet by the BB sometimes.

I dont think its interesting at all, it's just terrible! plain and simple. There is a good reason why almost  nobody plays like this, except some shortstackers when they get deeper and 1 regular in 200 maybe.

First, obviously if you never calls 3-bets your opponents can afford to 3-bet extremely small vs you, even clicking it back if you keep refusing to call as 3-bet size becomes smaller and smaller. Then how do you want to 4-bet 35% of the time and still have enough value hands in here? It means you would either end up 4-bet folding too much or 4-bet calling shoves with like 55 and ATs, which I definitely would not recommend doing.

It doesnt have much to do with having or not a postflop edge. I just think given those odds I can profitably overcall from the BB there, 54o is not that bad of a hand and can hit some deceptively strong flops. When facing those 2x or 2.2x opens I am perfectly fine completing a very wide range from the BB.

I did not do any advanced analysis really, just kind of deductive logic. I think folding anything over 50% is probably going to end up being exploitable by aggressive 3-bet strategies and I dont think I want to defend 65% of my range either so defending roughly 55% of my opening range in that spot sounds good. At least it cant be all that terrible and I strongly believe it is a better approach than folding 55-60% there as many regs do.

I dont completely agree on the range you give (I would call more suited stuff and offsuit 1 gapers but I would still fold the worst Kxo and Qxo, which may or may not be good, nobody knows for sure) but yes I think we can defend super wide there.

How does the fact that we assume no postflop edge implies we should play "fit or fold" as you put it? that sounds like bad logic to me.

You shouldnt really be considering your oppoonents skills much when deciding whether or not to play a hand preflop, except when you are up vs very weak players.

And also there is 0.5bb less in the pot so we may want to play slightly tighter but overall we should probably defend very similar ranges anyways.

I have to disagree with you in many ways here.

I think calling JTo is mandatory here preflop unless you are opening really tight on the BTN but I already talked about this at length in the video. I am perfectly fine not having a raising a range on that board as a standard play, its just a much much better board for his range than mine. And if it is incorrect you will have to come with better arguments to convince me. To answer your points:

1. Sure he will not keep bluffing 0 equity hands all that often but I think you definitely underestimate his bluffing frequencies on blank turn and river cards. I have tons and tons of weak Ax Kx Qx and FD that are always calling 1 street, some will call 2 streets but almost none of those will call 3-streets. So it is much more attractive for him to triple barrel that board that you seem to believe. He just flops way more nutted hands than we do on that board so I expect regulars to play it quite aggressively and its important to sill have strong hands on blank turn cards.

2. Sure, if I somehow know that he has a value hand its better to raise right away but I will stack sets and 2 pairs anyways on most runouts.

3. The fact that we sometimes lose action/get outdrawn when slowplaying a big hand applies to every single spot not just that one. Are you advocating raising the nuts on flop in every situation? I dont care much about the board pairing cards though, am never folding my hand (unless river trips the board obviously) and if I lose stack to a turned or river full house I would have lost it anyways by raising the flop against is 2pairs+. If a 3rd heart comes we are still mostly getting stacks in vs his sets and 2 pairs.

4. Again I completely disagree that a regular will automatically shut down with his bluffs after I call the flop. He still has many nutted hands, and I have much less of those, so I expect him to keep betting very agressively on most turn cards. Jh and Th are the only 2 cards that are much better for my range. Sure if I start to raise nuts here I will add some bluffs thats not too hard to find decent candidates.

I think overall you overestimate the value of staking AQ+ 100% of the times instead of just 90%+ and also definitely underestimate the amount of bluffs that he will fire on later streets.

For your last point on how difficult to play JTo is on KT4 or T43A you could ask the same question about JTs (certainly nobody is ever folding that one preflop), the fact that its offsuit doesnt change anything on those boards. Yes after calling a 3-bet and facing aggression postflop we will have tough decisions, but thats with many medium strength hands in our range and JTo is no different in that regard. Again, if you want to fold JTo,QTo,KTo,22,33,44 type stuff to a 3-bet after RFI BTN as many regulars do it just necessarily implies that you need to tighten up you BTN opening range considerably or you will end being super exploitable by aggressive blinds strategies (as many of the aforementioned regulars are).

Raphael:

1. Just to clearify, what kind of hands would he be barreling on AKQ board if you agree he shuts down on his no equity hands? is he turning hand like A5 into a bluff there? Maybe QT? (you block some of those). A lot of the time, if he has a piece on that board, he will try to check it down and get to showdown with his QT, KT types. Sure, if he manages to turn flush draw, he will barrel that. 

2. Since the board is so wet and changeable on turn/river, his two pair hands like KQ may become bluff catchers on so many run outs. 

3. There are dry boards and very wet ones. It is true that on many boards it is much better to just call with nutty hands and let your opponent hang himself. If you had a heart in your hand, calling with it would make sense more IMO. 

4. JTs is simply a lot more playable hand than JTo. Even on flops like KJ4, you may have backdoor fl draw. IN case you get a draw on the turn, you will have equity to continue with it, while JTo is a fold in general. 

Since you mentioned that calling JTo is mandatory there, have you looked in holdem manager how a calling with hand like JTo there is better than folding? We lose either way, the question is if we call JTo and similar, do we lose less in than spot vs folding it? Looking simply at our calling ranges there and deciding which hands to call, may not give the whole picture. Some hands may have less equity overall vs his range, but more playable on various board. 

1. I dont agree he always shuts down 0 equity hands, he wont barrel all that often but still blank turn and rivers are a great triple barrel spot in his shoes. When the runout bricks off its kind of the best possible board to triple barrel since he has many nut hands and we have tons of weak bluffcatchers.

2. KQ is a bluffctacher when you raise the flop already.

3. Again, the fact that I call everything on that board has not much to do with how wet/dry it is, its more a question of relative range strenghts. His range is just much stronger than ours on that board so I think it makes a lot of sense to defend by only calling. JT straight is kind of the only hand that we can raise for value there, and maybe its correct to raise it at least sometimes, I dont rule it out, but I dont do it unless I have some specific read.

4. Sure Jts is a lot better than JTo, any suited hand makes a lot more money than its offsuit counterpart overall. I just pointed out than on the boards you gave as an example it didnt make much of a difference.

Its basically impossible to conclude anything from a database analysis for a close spot like this. Getting dealt JTo on the BTN and getting 3-bet happen rarely and the variance associated with 3-bet pots is massive. I talked about this in previous video threads but you cant draw the line between call/fold in close preflop situations from a statistics analysis, the borderline hands will either be slightly +EV or slightly -EV (well, compared to -250bb/100 here obviously) and its impossible to decide from your database, there is just too much noise in the data.

You did not mention your BTN opening range at any point in your analysis but its a key information in deciding what hands to defend or not vs 3-bets. Probably if you open only 40% you can afford to fold but an average regular BTN RFI is more in the 60% range in my experience (speaking about an average over many regulars) and now if you fold it necessarily means you are folding too much.

I dont get why in all forum discussions when its close between calling/folding when facing a 3-bet people always focus and debate over the merits of the hand itself. Where it stands in your opening range is a way better deciding factor and information to keep in mind.

Yes, I prefer to have a HUD that takes minimal screenspace. When I need to check some specific stat I click on the popups.

Ive tried before to use more extensive HUDs but I really dont like it. I find in my case having so many numbers everywhere on my screen end up being counterproductive and tiring. Also I mostly play on regular tables where the lineups will be similar with a lot of the same regs playing on it so when I start a session I quickly review the stats of the regs I will be playing against and I dont have to recheck it later unless am looking for a specific stat in a close spot. Also I mostly use my HUD and popups to make general gameplans and strategic adjustments, a lot less to decide on a close spot in a specific situation. Ultimately its a personal thing, if you are conformtable playing with a massive HUD, by any means go ahead and do it.

Zoom is no different than regular tables for sample size. How do you define "sufficient sample"? some numbers just converge much faster than others. You will a have good approximation of VPIP after just a few hundred hands but will probably need several hundred thousand hands for an half reliable/half bad winrate estimation.

With that specific hand I think would just lead the turn 100% vs anybody. Its a clear value bet and its very vulnerable on that turn card so it needs protection.

Ah ye i see, i was talking about the river. If xc makes sense or loses to much value, prob does vs weaker player ? Still vbet rvr vs most regs or xc ?

It does make some sense if you expect your opponent to bluff more than he should. But the Qo is a blank for the most part so I think its best to just keep betting.

Zoom is no different than regular games in that regard and 40+ BI swings are probably quite common for most people. Obviously the higher your winrate the less brutal your swings will be.

I think you got it backwards. The "standard" should be to call and when you are up against a very tight opponent sure you can make an exploitive fold. The regular you describe, that 3-bets only 6% from the blinds and "never adjusts" is just terrible. But those are strong assumptions to make about somebody and certainly not representative of the player pool at midstakes.