Hey man, thanks for the comment ... I appreciate the time and energy that you invested into analyzing this particular spot!

When I input my SB 3b range vs. button open/Defend into PIO it wants me to bet 63% of my range and check 37%. Looking at my range in "Strategy + EV" it appears as if checking 89s has a significant EV advantage (54 v 47) over betting.

This intuitively makes sense to me, as my in-game thought of "This board is better for my range so I'm going to be betting with a very high frequency" appears flawed in hindsight. I simply reduce my share of the pot way too much by betting with my more marginal hands (9x, JJ, TT, QQ).

However on the turn my intuition appears to be pretty good as PIO wants me to check 80% of my range on the Ah.

For the record, I do have a flatting range from the SB vs the button and I would not be cbetting AQ-AT on this flop.

No, I do not believe Ignition poker is rigged in any way.

Hey Depolarizing ... thanks for the comment!

@31:50: Yeah, I could bluff the 7s8s but the runout makes it tough. I don't have a lot of Kx in my range so my bet becomes more polarized and I don't have a lot of middling value hands that are very likely to bet.

@~11:26: I'm probably 3b'ing KQs+,AJs+,99+ for value versus this villain's specific stack size. I could definitely be swayed towards betting AK/AQ w a diamond small on the flop and shoving diamond turns. Against this specific villain we don't have a bluffing range here but I am really not sure we need one.

If you would like to, run PIO for this situation and set villain's range as all of his pocket pairs, suited connectors, suited aces, unsuited KQ/AJ, and QJs/JTs/KTs/ATs/KQs/KJs.

On the flop, first run a rough equity calculation with our AK/AQ vs his range. This calculation will determine our share of the pot vs. his whole range.

Secondly, in PIO, set our range as AK/AQ w a diamond and cbetting 100%. Set villain's flop strategy as continuing with any pair. Since I think villain will be shoving most of his flush draws on the flop and we will be blocking a lot of his combos anyway, I believe our FE should be pretty high on diamond turns.

What is our actual equity combined with our FE here?

How does this compare with our pot share?

@~16:40: I'm just expanding my bluffing frequency to exploit villain's tendency to over cbet this board. With villain's odd stack size and his flatting of my 3b with 22 earlier, I think I can safely assume he is recreational and believe he will be way overfolding in this specific scenario.

Since I think he is cbetting way too frequently, I will flat my medium strength hands and my value hands vs his cbet as well.

Hi, with regards to the AK hand, am I assuming he's jamming TT+ pre and never has better hands that trap with his stack size? If so, your range has a massive range advantage on T63 and you can likely bet every combo profitably.

Anyway, I gave Villain TT just to strengthen his range a bit more. Here is the game tree structure I made for these stack sizes. One sizing on the flop and a smaller sizing/all in sizing on later street I think is sufficient. Tl;dr is at the bottom.

On the flop, we definitely have a range advantage, even though we have 6 combos fewer of sets. Our RvR equity is roughly 60/40 and our AdKx/AdQx combos have about 48.5% equity vs Villain's entire Range. Also, as expected, being IP with a stronger range, we steal roughly 8% more EV in comparison with our actual pot share on this flop.

First I think it's pretty important to look at Pio's equilibrium solution. We end up betting a lot of our range, as expected, because all of our hands are pushing lots of equity vs Villain's range. If we look at the AKo combos, we are almost always betting them. Our check behind range consists mostly of trapping sets, some KQdd, and a few AK/AQ combos without the Ad.

Our Check Behind Range:

After we bet flop, we see quite a reasonable solver strategy response for Villain. Villain continues with a call with all it's underpairs, Pair+Fds, and sets to protect. Villain also check jams the majority of his top pairs for value/protection at this stack size vs many of our A high continuation bets. Also, as you predicted, most of our flush draws will also go into the jamming range. Interesting is Pio's recommendation to jam Villain's 99 combos.

Also, a cool decision point in the branch where we continuation bet, Villain jams is what do with our AK/AQo combos. In this case, I think it's quite an instructive point that it is correct to fold all of our AdKx/AdQx combinations, but to call all of our AxKd/AxQd combinations. This is because our Villain's bluffs primarily consist of Adx, and we unblock this combos with AxKd/AxQd.

However, back to the main point of my original comment a week ago:

While I completely agree that a single bet with AK doesn't serve much function, I think AKo, with the Ad serves as a much better double/triple barrel.

I think considering the multistreet EV of AK is quite important. In the case where the turn is a Qc, in the check bet call branch, AK becomes an easy jam on the turn, where Villain will have to fold all of his underpairs and continue only with the pair+fds, sets, and some weaker Fds that decided call flop. On diamond turns, AdKx becomes an easy jam as well. However, piosolver reminds us that this is a spot where we can easily overbluff, so it decides to only bluff a 1-2 combos of AdKx.

Tying into this, I think taking AK high to showdown is quite a large mistake, considering a large amount of AKo's value stems from pushing Villain off of his underpair's equity. To highlight this, I nodelocked what I assume to be your strategy of only taking AKo to showdown and compared it to the original equilibrium strategy. However, even in the nodelocked flop strategy, on turn, Pio also recommends starting to bluff AdKx and jamming all diamond rivers, as well as some brick rivers like the Qs in the actual hand.

Here is the nodelocked flop strategy of 100% check of AKo/AQo. As you can see, your IP EV has dropped to a little under $66 which means you have lost roughly 9% in comparison to equilibrium strategy.

Here is the recommended turn strategy after flop goes check check:

On blank rivers:

And finally on diamond rivers, we always bluff jam AdKx:

Anyway, i think this is just a spot where it's very easy to get "accidentally" exploited by a Villain when we don't play these low SPR/tighter range scenarios accurately. When we get to showdown, we let our opponent realize 100% of his equity with a majority of his range and we consequently relinquish quite a significant amount of our own expected potshare.

In fact, in the only flop nodelocked scenario, we are only slightly under realizing our range's equity. Our RvR equity is 60.14-39.86, whereas we are only realizing 59%.

65/109 = ~59.63%

I'd suspect if you nodelocked the complete showdown strategy, you would be accidentally exploiting yourself by under realizing even more with your range. Even if we assume Villain is a weaker player, we actually lose EV/money by structuring our range in a pure "value" fashion without enough bluffs. Anyway, sorry for the book lol. But thought it's an important concept.

Also, if you disagree with me, please say something. These are just my own "takeaways" from lots of piosolver analysis, so my reasoning might be flawed as I haven't really checked with anyone. Cheers.

Ignition on Mac still has bugs ... I don't play in PC so I don't really have anything to compare it to. I will say that it has crashed a couple of times recently and I will continually get disconnected while I am still at my tables but I cannot reload.

The OOP players range is way wider than I originally thought from your comment so I can rerun it and compare. However, I see a few things wrong with your setup.

1. Your turn sizingonly has 1 size. That means, in the flop xx branch, on theturn, the only sizing you can use if 150%pot. this cannot be accurate. Secondly, you have no river sizings. I assume a small section of both player's ranges will want to probe river when it gets checked down. Also, I can't really tell from your picture, but OOP does not have any turn or river sizings.

Actually with the new range you gave, we can bet even more of our range. I assume this is because now OOP does not have TT and also has way more hands that are weaker.

Sigh ... I am unsure where our inputs are differing, as I am still getting results than you.

Once I added the turn sizings, though, the EV differential got much closer for AK/AQ (53.3 v 51.9).

The combos with Ad are all higher EV than checking (57.8 ch vs. 59.4 bet 27) whereas betting the combos of Kd is lower than checking (57 check vs. 55.4 bet 27).

Overall strategy is bet 54 29.15%, bet 27 50.2%, and check is 20.65%.

I''m not sure, my tree structure is in my book post. do you see anything wrong with it? also can you post your full tree?