I just ran it. I wanted the sim to be representative of lines/sizing you see commonly since one of the main goals was to figure out what we are supposed to do here after checking KK on the flop (and if we're supposed to check in the first place, but I doubt multiple sizings would influence that).

I would suspect that OOP is "supposed" to have a larger sizing that he bets at a fairly high frequency. Given how relatively inelastic IP's continuing range is when facing a cb-bet, it only makes sense to bomb it with your nut hands. As for IP, I'm not sure a bigger sizing would be used too often given OOP has traps and more nutty hands in general. I'd expect sets + some bluffs to bomb it but the overall frequency of a large bet to be quite low.

I don't know how often a 1/3rd pot option would be used here, but I didn't want to complicate the game tree too much and also don't think it would actually effect the game tree and EVs too much.

pretty sure he mentionned villain doesnt have 54s in his range thus blocking 88 is better then blocking the nut straight

To expand on what Odell said:

It turns out that A5 and T8 have roughly the same blocker values. A5 blocks AQ and A8, T8 blocks A8 and 87 and most importantly 88. We do see AJ shove the river sometimes also, so one might think that having an A blocker is more important than holding an 8, but this isn't true because of how previous streets affect the ranges IP gets to the river with. 88 always bets flop and turn, while AQ and especially AJ do not take a triple barrel line to the river with a relatively high frequency. So it turns out blocking 88 is more important than blocking AQ. If villain were to always triple barrel AQ checked to, I would suspect T8 to never be called.

Thank you Brian!

Thank you! I'm really happy this video is getting positive feedback as it's my favourite kind of video to do.

Thank you!

now its time to go get a piosovler :)

Would recommend.

I was thinking of it more in terms of implied odds and the fact that there's really only one bet left to go in after you x/r flop, which benefits bluffs that can make a value hand immediately, whereas hands that require runner runner would benefit more from deeper stacks since you can decide which turns to barrel, and if you do choose to barrel the turn you can also decide whether to not you want to bluff a missed river.

Also in a spot like this with relatively narrow ranges, blockers are going to have a large effect also - it's nice blocking 4 value combos that always bet flop checked to and never fold versus a x/r (88, 87s, A8s).

On the turn after a x/r, OOP shoves 1/3 of the time. IP is indifferent with AJ versus a shove.

Because our value hands want three streets of value, we need to balance with an appropriate number of bluffs on the river.

betting 3 streets with a balanced range allows for a higher EV than a 2 street game when we have a totally polarised range. This board is somewhat dynamic but i guess thats still the principal of why we want to play a 3 street game instead of 2. Might be interesting to see how overall EV's change if we did play a simplified 2 street game though.

MaMaMat, was this question answered above?

If you have a perfectly polarized range, spacing your bets out over more streets gives your range a higher EV. For more on this check out Janda's NLHE book or Sauce's toy gaming videos, or my "Betting, How Many Streets, Which Streets" videos.

Like Electric says, this boards is dynamic so equities can change on future streets, however it's a bit less dynamic than it looks because of preflop ranges. I would consider it a much more dynamic board if this was a BU open vs BB flat spot.

To answer my own question: our opponent has to put in more money in the pot on average, ie. our nut hands make more money while our bluffs are still break even (similar to why betting as much as possible in a polarized one street game yields the highest EV). Proof: write out EV equation ^__^.

:)

:)

Thank you, Michael.

Papi Dvoress, I like this.

Given the feedback I'll certainly be making part 2.

Thanks! Part 2 is coming soon.

Allow me to jump in on that one. I would assume our first assumption, to check/call one street or check/fold, was flawed in certain situation. In the example Daniel goes through during the video, there is a lot of merit to bet bottom pair type hands on this board.

1: As he explained in the video, you get to make villain fold hands like KJ that have good EV vs your bottom pair (in a situation where it would presumably check through, thus letting him realise his equity with 2 overs)

2: Although you block what you might think is the bottom of his range, you also block the strongest part of his range, two pairs and sets. And in this situation, you will often turn a gutshot or open ended straight draw allowing you to barrell off you bottom pair with decent equity.

Hope this helps

hello? Daniel?

Hi Jikos,

Odell got it. We gain a lot from getting villain to fold anything, our outs are clean when we are called, and most importantly the bottom pair type hands are not going to be profitable x/calls. Check calling bottom pair type hands is more is more of a strategy we would use with wider ranges going in to see the flop. We are also not really blocking hands that fold, again because of the wider ranges involved. When we have a 7 on A87 we block hands like A7s, 87s, and 77 which are hands that are the relative nuts and sum up to more combos than we block in terms of hands that fold.

Thank you!

With 44-66 you aren't blocking too many FDs so him having a value hand isn't really more likely. Having a BDFD does add some value to our hand, but the main reason that we prefer to flat pairs with BDFDs is because our outs are cleaner. When we call without a spade, half the time we hit our set the flush gets there. The flush will be a substantial part of villain's range and we always get stacked when villain has it.

Thank you! I'm currently working on part 2.

Thank you!

Thank you.

In terms of showdown value JT and T9 are the same, since OOP doesn't get to the river in this fashion with T high himself. JT does block AJ and AT, but really that is neutral since they are folded about as much as they are called. Overall I think there is a very minor difference between T9 and JT for bluffing on this river. The difference in frequency you are seeing is possibly noise or based on some minute details (for example for OOP 98 and T8 are slightly better blufftachers than AJ). I wouldn't look too closely at frequencies with very rare hands/combos.

Because for villain 88 plays this way to the river 100% of the time, and AQ takes a different line quite frequently.