11:30 - you discuss how you like CR'ing trips on table 4.  I'm a little confused because the arguments that you give for raising to protect your range from his high equity overcard bluffs would also be the same arguments used for justifying that the EV of c/c'ing trips is definitely higher than to x/r -- since villain will be barreling through here at a higher than usual frequency ott to keep our bluffcatchers close to indifferent.  On one hand i feel like there's merit to playing a raising range OTF that protects our weak bluffcatchers, but it doesn't seem like we should be taking a lower EV line with trips to do it.

I agree with why you're saying this but I can see Kevin's point too (although it does seem contradictory during the explanation in the video and I don't really buy his arguments as the main reason for this play).

it seems like the net effect should be that what our bluffcatchers lose from facing barrels at a very high fqcy on this texture, our trips can make up for by getting extra value from an aggressive 3-barrel range

The way he worded things in his vid is like he's working off of the assumption that very few of his bluff-catchers will be profitable here (but whether or not that's true is another question).  If that's the case, then since so much more of his range is unprofitable bluffcatchers than trips, it wouldn't be made up for by slowplaying.  I think you also have to factor in the times that we likely have the best hand but won't be able to raise the river versus a bet (those should be pretty rare though).  

I disagree with his explanation, though, because he's kind of arguing that because most of his range is so weak on this board, he needs some kind of check-raising range to prevent Villain from cbetting ATC profitably and putting him tough spots later.  Because he needs a check-raising range, he needs it to be balanced and therefore it must include some trips.  I don't think I buy this as the reason to check-raise trips, though.  This seems like the logical conclusion of faulty assumptions, namely that our bluff-catchers are all that weak here.  Am I crazy for thinking that our range isn't that weak here?  (It is/will be pretty condensed though)

The other point Kevin made was that Villain also has the ability to make thin value-bets in position with stuff like A-hi for one street and so on. I see this as a far bigger threat than somehow being in a "tough spot" on the turn or river with our range because our range should do alright check/calling here, but we'll lose lots of value when Villain decides to take a street out of the game.  

In other words, we shouldn't really need to protect our checking range here that much since the board is so dry and ranges are so wide, but if we don't raise now with our trips we're the ones guessing out of position on later streets.  I could see some kind of value maximization argument (as in "we have a good hand out of position and not much need to protect our range so we want to start raising and remain balanced"), but the explanation in the video seemed really kind of backwards.  

I don't see at all how we get barreled relentlessly here, but I do see how we can raise.

It makes sense that if he's never penalized by a CR otf, in a spot where our range is so weak relative to his, that he can bet at a very high frequency with very small sizings and with a relatively capped* range, and there's little we can do ... that being said, the range that continues vs a CR is way narrower than the range that continues barreling turn (granted our trips aren't making as much per combo that he continues to bet if he's using smaller sizing).  But then we still have the option to CR turn if we think he's checking back the vast majority of rivers... 

-my gut is just telling me that even if villain takes the counterstrategy you mentioned, the EV of trips is still higher to x-c flop.  If that ends up being true, it seems like we have to just deal with the facing the small sizings.  Also i'm not sure how much it matters if we have to fold way too much on this texture, considering it's both a flop that occurs very rarely and will also be reciprocated when villain finds himself in this spot.

*I dont think he would benefit from playing the majority of his premium hands in this line, since those are the types of hands that want to maximize value over 3 streets using larger sizings.

@AF3

Am I crazy for thinking that our range isn't that weak here?  (It is/will be pretty condensed though)

Btn has all the overpairs and more trips ... so we're definitely crushed right off the bat.  I think how crushed we actually is subject to how linear of a 3bet range we use.  if we 3bet most of our broadway hands, we definitely have to fold more OTF in this spot.  Again though, i'm not sold that this is a huge problem, since these types of flops occur so rarely, and villain will be in the same predicament when roles are reversed.

Btn has all the overpairs and more trips ... so we're definitely crushed right off the bat.  I think how crushed we actually is subject to how linear of a 3bet range we use.  if we 3bet most of our broadway hands, we definitely have to fold more OTF in this spot.  Again though, i'm not sold that this is a huge problem, since these types of flops occur so rarely, and villain will be in the same predicament when roles are reversed.

You're right about Villain being more nutted, what I meant was I don't see how check-calling is all that (esp vs. small bets) when the BTN also has like 55% of other hands that aren't trips or overpairs here and doesn't our air range beat his?  (I could see an argument that I'm wrong, though, because he also has AK and so on)

  I guess I was thinking we may have more K hi's like KJo and what not, but I don't play heads up and it's probably showing in this discussion.  I agree with the point about these flops occurring so rarely, and it seems like range asymmetries matter more than people give them credit for.  Like I said, I think the conclusion Kevin drew is logical but the original premise is flawed (that we need to defend the "optimal" amount here). 

 The more I think about it, this just seems like "we got an unlucky flop, looks like it's time to fold".

 but I think the assumption in this video and the reason the play was made is because villain will bluff/vbet/check back & realize equity all with good turn frequencies vs our flop x/c, meaning that we get outplayed too often for x/c to be profitable with our entire continuing range here otf so we should build a flop x/r range.

I think this is a poor argument.  We shouldn't avoid lines because we're afraid of being "outplayed".  Optimal strategies don't get outplayed.  They may be more difficult to maneuver through, but they do not get outplayed.  The focus should be on whether or not a CR range should exist for us on this flop, and if not, we deal with the consequences of having to play a more difficult (but more +EV) strategy ott and river

I think it should clear up future discussion once all the 6max regs get used to how wide we play preflop :)

is it possible for you to have trips more than like 5% of the time OTF vs a 2x pre?  Even if you fold the flop like 60% of the time to 3/4 sizing ... and then call the next two streets around 55% of the time each ... I still have you felting like 12% of your flopping range (you could value CR rivers tho which would make ur river X-calling range slightly stronger).  Plus with removal effects that villain has when he holds a 3 .. feels like he should be able to just shovel money in... i'm not sold yet!

coincidentally i started a thread on this the other day .. we pretty much came to the conclusion(?) that "true gto" bluffing fqcys in situations where villain has a very transparent range consisting of many of the same hands (think 80% 3x or something silly for OOP in this ex) ... would require hero (IP in this case) to account for removal in order to try to push 3x closer to indifference, since it makes up so much of villains range.  Here that may not be a problem, since OOP's range is still wide enough that IP can target a relatively wide range of hands weaker than 3x for value.  

in the thread hand it's better illustrated 

http://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/blocker-riddle/

I'm just thinking ... if we can agree that you have the stronger range
at this point, then it seems like if we donk our entire value range, he
doesn't seem to have much incentive to raise turn --> barrel river
with a hand like KK, since he runs into a bunch of river CR's from 6x+.

I think this is part of the confusion (and a lot of regs will make this mistake in practice) - if I'm donking with my whole range, this situation is no different than if I had checked, except for the fact that checking behind now costs about 2bbs and making a normal sized bet is 2bb more expensive. Often people will mistakenly flat this lead with a hand like KK that would certainly bet for value when checked to, because despite my range improving on this turn it still contains plenty of weak bluffcatchers and draws that KK wants to protect against. Furthermore, the button can still have every nutted hand on this board, so he doesn't need to fear getting raised later and being exploited. 

I think a polar lead range is an option but more complicated to execute in practice. You'll see from my first video that I've implemented polar leading ranges on rivers in spots where I think my range improves, but I haven't really experimented with a large sized turn lead in my game yet. I do think one large (but exploitative) merit for using it is that my 6x hands are losing a lot of value against the population, because like I pointed out in the video I think they are raising too infrequently which is gaining me EV with all my weak hands but losing me EV with trips or better.

Furthermore, the button can still have every nutted hand on this board, so he doesn't need to fear getting raised later and being exploited. 

right, but if your range is actually stronger than his on account of how much the 6 improves you, then you have a signficantly higher distribution of 6x+ than he does, which means you should likely be CR'ing river very aggressively.  This seems like it should de-incentivize overpairs from betting river considering you have a good amount of depth left on the river CR.

I'll have to check out the part 1 of this .. i really like the live-play HU format b/c it really puts us under the gun at a way higher frequency with more interesting range analysis than 6max tends to offer

IMO this turn lead is "fresh and weird" enough to spook some people into incorrectly just calling with the near top of their range. the sizing says its non-polar, but the action itself and the low board pairing card that the action comes on, make it look polar.  I really like this as a blocking/value bet and it would be very annoying to play against.

You're right about Villain being more nutted, what I meant was I don't see how check-calling is all that bad (esp vs. small bets) when the BTN also has like 55% of other hands that aren't trips or overpairs here and doesn't our air range beat his?  (I could see an argument that I'm wrong, though, because he also has AK and so on)

on account of the avg value hand in villain's value range having such a high amount of equity, AND the average bluff in his range having such a high amount of equity (since all broadway overcards pretty much draw to nutty TP's), he's able to bet the flop and turn at a very high fqcy while remaining balanced.  This basically means that it's more difficult to argue that we have +EV calls with overcards than it would be on other textures where IP's range isn't so strong.  

IP can leverage even harder if he uses large betsizing, which is why i'm having a problem wrapping my head around why he would be incentivized to use smaller bet sizing just to force us to defend more overcards.  I feel like IP's goal should be to put OOP to near indifference at as high of a fqcy as possible OTF, and with a polarized range that's done using large bet sizing..

In retrospect I'm not crazy about villain using that sizing for his range on K77 but it's certainly better to use on that board than on 744 imo.

equities on the 744 board are 57/43 in favor of the 3 bettor, and 3 bettor also has all the TT-AA, plus a stronger distribution of overcards which will allow him to barrel at a very aggressive frequency.  I don't think we can say IP's range is anywhere close to on par with that..

That's an interesting result, could I ask what the split was on the AK2 board, and also what type of 3bet range you're assuming we use?

I had to use my 6max ranges b/c i don't play HU :(.  but these are the BB and BTN ranges that drew 57/43 on 744.  They also draw 57-43 on AK2, though BTN is able to do a better job of defending on these boards.  BB literally just has all the nutted hands on 744 and BTN doesn't have anything close to nuts at any signficant fqcy, relative to BB's nutted distribution.  
BB 3bet (18.7%): AA-99,AKo-ATo,KQo-KJo,QJo,AKs-A9s,A5s-A2s,KQs-K9s,K4s-K2s,QJs-Q9s,Q3s-Q2s,JTs,J8s,T8s-T7s,97s,86s,76s-75s,65s-64s,54s
super duper linear, almost definitely too linear.  adjust it how you want, i don't think it should change the distributions much as long as you keep all overpairs intact.  you might even end up looking stronger if you 3bet more polarized and have more 4x in your range.  
BTN call 3bet (22.6%): 99-66,AQo-A9o,KQo-K9o,QJo-QTo,JTo,AQs-A2s,KQs-K6s,QJs-Q7s,JTs-J7s,T9s-T7s,98s-97s,87s-86s,76s-75s,65s-64s,54s
At the moment, my understanding is that the stronger our range is relative to villains, the more betting we should be doing and the less X/c'ing XR'ing we should be doing. "Stronger" seems to be a combination of the relative equities of the ranges, and the degree of playability for the strong parts of BB's range -- where i would define "high playability" as having a large distribution of hands that can barrel for 3 streets of value.  Interested to hear if you have a different definition of playability b/c i've not heard it defined clearly by anyone credible.  
Since BB crushes on 744 .. it seems like he should just be doing a ton of flop betting, and barreling through at a high frequency for ~equal fractions of the pot on each street.  Same sort of thing on AK2, except BB seems to have less "playability" here, since a lower distribution of his value hands OTF can effectively barrel 3streets, and a lower distribution of his bluffing hands turn into premium value ott/otr (on 744 if we hold KQ and turn or river is a K/Q, we can jam for value) 
it seems like this is the type of texture where our range is so strong that we might just want to merge everything and only have a betting range, never a x/c'ing or X/R'ing range.  And this could be fine b/c villain has no sustainable exploitative strategy, since if he starts betting too aggressively IP, we just counter hard by shifting most of our premiums to a flop X/C X/R line ... so there's sort of a silent equilibrium where we're exploitable to a bet OTF after we check, but it's going to be really easy to recognize if he is trying to exploit us considering we know that he should be betting this flop at a very low fqcy in theory.  

It's going to change things a bit to input the wider ranges here for button calling a 3bet (think around 40%), this gives him at least a few 4x hands (J4s-K4s,A4o) that we aren't considering. As you pointed out, the 3bet range is definitely too linear, hands like Q9s or K2s are rarely 3betting while hands like offsuit gappers are underrepresented in this range. 

Intuitively i want to think that widening the call 3bet range wouldn't help increase the distribution of 4x that you hit (proportionally) ... here were my findings:

at 21% call 3bet i have BTN at 3% trips+

at 40% call 3bet i have BTN at 3.7% trips+ (I didn't give us A4o).  

so it seems like it only helps a little bit?

html5 1.25X, problem solved

If you're watching videos for entertainment value, then I agree, but if you're watching for educational purposes then I strongly disagree.  From my experiences both as a coach and a student, live sweats tend to be a rather inefficient form of learning.  I'm watching this video because Kevin knows 100x more about HU cash games than I do and I want to understand his thought processes, especially in standard spots that occur frequently and will highly impact my winrate.  I'd rather watch 10 minutes of footage covered in depth than 45 minutes of live play.  In the latter case this thread is going to be 100 pages long with questions anyway. 

I wouldn't mind seeing a more action-packed video but I think those should be the exception rather than the rule.  This format is great.  I'd also love to see HH review/theory videos.

are you just doing that exploitatively hoping that he'll bet turn at too high of a fqcy .. or improve to worse?  

Seems like ranges are polarized enough on Axx (and you have enough naked Kx now) that we should just utilize 3 streets at a high fqcy?

isn't this just the nature of having a very polarized range?  intuitively it just seems wrong to not to bomb money in with a range of ~nuts/air, which seems to be what you have here .. unless you think your K high will showdown a signficant amount and win ..

But all that would really suggest is that villain can defend < alpha (since your K- high bluffs have some showdown EV) ... and we should reach an equilibrium where he defends enough to keep K high indifferent to bluffing from the flop. (i think) 

And this still seems like a better strategy than checking flop , since betting at a higher frequency allows us to take free showdowns away from more hands in his flop range.  i don't know it just feels like we're making a mistake with this range if our strategy isn't to get stacks in 

To solve this issue what other hands would you select in your 4bet range? Suited connecters, Qxs?

Regarding the J3 CR, check out the earlier discussion in the thread for more details, i brought up a similar question.  

As far as "pre-river GTO defending fqcys" vs aggression, I think the point you made is a good one that most players don't realize.  There is no set amount that we have to defend vs aggression on any particular flop.  The true optimal defending fqcy will be in constant flux depending on flop texture and how it corresponds to the relative distributions of the 2 players' ranges.  

On a flop like 533... i'm pretty confident that we have to just fold way too much in BB, and BTN will be able to print a lot of money with any hand in his range.  This isn't necessarily a problem though, since it will be reciprocated when roles are reversed.  

Agreed.

What is that auto note-taking/HUD software?

That's pretty close for my basic value range, ignoring c/r hands and board texture.

sorry kevin that should have read - turn probe and river probe/ or river bet. Not sure if its called a river probe when already probed turn? So Your basic value range for turn probe and then bet river is top pair + and strong 2pair ? thanks for your response :)

Yeah, I assume you meant river follow through, I think river probe is only the spot where the turn checks through. I might have a few thinner hands on some boards that don't follow through the river, but that's a good generalization of what I think is best. 

thanks dude. fiy i think your videos are better than sulskys in a lot of aspects. Ie he obviously holds back a lot of reasoning.  maybe we will play next year :P but for the most part im trapped at the low stakes :\