Thanks Saulo! Would you mind clarifying what you mean with the pop. tendencies comment? If there's an example in this vid that would help. Maybe this is something that I could use to improve my game or content.

An example that comes to mind is the K8ss hand BB vs BTN @ 45:36. You say you don't have a read to exploitatively bluff the turn but I would estimate that less than 1% of players in the world will have a well balanced check back strategy on that texture, and in fact, 99% of players will be extremely unbalanced towards air hands and overcards, leaving their range extremely weak on the 9c, allowing you to bet basically any two cards profitably. But you just chose to check/fold your hand, which is the higher frequency gto play. Whereas on a lot river spots you chose to fold your bluffcatchers exploitatively, by thinking that people would be underbluffing, like on the AAh hand @ 30:40. Also your thought process about the TT hand @ 8:57 is of course very good in terms of equillibrium strategies, but a very small deviation from OOP response vs cbets will largely change the EVs of every different sizing option IP has. For example if you are playing vs someone who raises a lot of air vs small bets (or not enough air), suddenly a small bet becomes higher EV than a 3/4 bet with that specific hand, even though at equillibrium its very likely that a larger bet is preffered. And in general, defending vs small bet sizes challenges the OOP player much more than larger bet sizes, thus forcing more mistakes from him which in the ends leads to more EV. Its also much easier for you to become unbalanced when using a larger bet sizing because ranges become much more sensitive to deviations, forcing you to play complex mixed strategies to avoid getting exploited by an observant opponent.

I really appreciate the well thought-out response Saulo, and I agree with pretty much everything you said. While I do generally try to stick to a more theoretical style in my videos, I suppose I am being somewhat hypocritical my making adjustments in certain spots while refraining from making similar adjustments in others. Similarly, a part of it is just dependent on how confident I am that a certain mistake will be prevalent in an unknown's game (i.e. certain mistakes will obviously be more common than others).

Thanks for the tips, Juan. I'm likely under-adjusting my BB calling ranges to 3x relative to the more common 2x.

Yes, definitely.

This turn card might actually be one of the best in the deck for OOP. The merit to betting is that protection is very important and there are many worse combinations in your opponents range that will continue (e.g. overpairs/pairs, FDs). Against weak opponents, I'd probably prefer betting since I think we're especially unlikely to be behind. I think you're missing too much EV if you check this every time against opponents who are unlikely to have many strong combinations or bluff two streets with this line.