Thanks, Thallo! Glad to here that my rambling was welcome.

If I have to generalize about sizings, I think that I spent a long time betting 2/3-3/4 pot just out of habit. I actually believe that I still bet smaller than would be optimal in a lot of situations, but I'm getting closer. I believe I'm finding the theoretical reasons to stray from my default sizings more and more often.

I've said this in the past, but I think you should be careful when changing sizings from what you're used to, because it changes the stack:pot ratios that you'll see, along with how opponents will play against you. They will continue with different ranges than you're used to, so your intuition will be off.

I'm a player who relies heavily on intuition and experience (at least in terms of players now - I used to consider myself more analytical than most but the game has changed), so it's especially relevant for me. For players with a more technical approach, it likely wouldn't be much of a problem.

Just looked over the ranges you assigned, and I disagree with some of your assumptions:

a) SB will and should have a raising range on the turn, not sure what you meant by "he needs them on the river"

b) BB's turn betting range might be a bit wider than the one you assigned him

Of course you can say these go hand in hand -- if BB bets only 30% on the turn, SB doesn't need a raising range (although I still think he does need one), etc. But after SB checked back the flop, I think BB can get away with betting a bit more often.

On the river his calldown is either good or bad depending on his perceived turn raising range. If he flats all or most strong hands ott like you said, BB has less merits for value betting thin and bluffing a lot. And he will have enough strong hands to vbet on this river. His actual hand is very likely still a bluff because of its low SDV, but I suspect he might be underbluffing in overall. In that case the calldown with 93 seems a bit thin.

If SB raises the top of his range (and some bluff) ott, SB now has an easy thin vbet (most of which still beat 93) otr and, because of that, he might once again be underbluffing.

Either way, the turn ranges you assigned him seem to have worked in BB's favour.

Another thing worth mentioning is the river card. Intuitively BB seems to have more Ax preflop and slightly more on this river too, given the action. It's a small difference but still can add up when ranges are narrowed down.

-- midori

Hey midori, thanks for your comments. You make some fair points, let me give you my thoughts.

Either way, the turn ranges you assigned him seem to have worked in BB's favour.

Yes, I did set up the ranges conservatively, but loosely based on how Phil likes to play in videos. I may or may not have got it right, and we may never know. Fwiw, the ranges I set up do not necessarily represent what I think best play would be in this situation, neither do I think it's anywhere close to what equilibria might look like, though the actual hands might actually be played like this. (since Phil referred to "GTO play" in the video)

SB will and should have a raising range on the turn, not sure what you meant by "he needs them on the river"

I suspect Phil might be a bit careful with betting middling hands against someone as good as Jungleman. And Phil has a lot of middling hands on the turn. I assumed that Jungleman might be aware of this, and would tighten his turn raising range as a result. In my games, I would certainly bet this turn much more frequently myself, but I don't play for $10k stacks against Jungleman either.

Here's what I mean with "needs them on the river":

The picture may be a bit hard to see, but even with the current ranges, Jungleman is in pretty bad shape on most rivers. If he introduced a raising range on the turn, his river range when calling would be quite a bit weaker, and he would (should) just get destroyed on rivers. It's possible that he's already in such bad shape that giving him a raising range on the turn can't actually hurt him any more on the river. I did not calculate that situation, but that was my thinking.

Would you like to set up some alternative flop/turn ranges for comparison? Maybe even pre-flop, if you think that makes a difference.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but how would you guys rate PJ overall compared to other analytical tools for PLO?

I personally rate it highly, and use it for all the PLO Fundamentals courses. If you're asking for a comparison though, then please name the other tools that you're thinking of.

Thank you very much for the well thought out questions, Jonna, and thank you for the well thought out response, Midori!

I am a bit surprised to see that this hand is as high up as it is in his range, even on this brick river.

I think it's important to note that his hand contains zero blockers to my value range unless I add sets.

He also doesn't block my bluffs too much. The 3 very slightly does and the 4h does as well.

So, I don't think the blockers are great for a call, but it's likely the case that he's just too high up in his range, even after taking blockers into account, to want to fold this hand.

The main thing I will take away from this is that I was overestimating the strength of his range in comparison to mine. The fact that he will have hands like T8/T9/96/95 (and I basically won't) has a pretty large effect on brick rivers. His range becomes so much weaker than mine when no draws come in.

With this large a range advantage and the more polarized range, I can capture a huge % of the pot.

FWIW, I am unlikely to bet hopeless hands on the turn unless they contain a couple of blockers, but that shouldn't matter too much in terms of him deciding which hands he should call the river with (if we assume I have the right bluffing frequency).

Traveling now so I'll reply slow in general, but I'll post some thoughts in a few hours. Although Phil covered pretty much all of it and I have only so much to add.