good review Tyler, but very bad video quality.
I barely can see any numbers on the screen.

I also had very fuzzy text until part way in when it suddenly cleared up.

Nice vid, Tyler!
The video quality of the first half is not too good for sure, but I could read all numbers.

@33.20 Q9s, You said some assumptions about sss players, which made me think that we probably don't wanna be unexploitable against them.. Given SPR I wouldn't really think about playing this hand the way you did. My plan would be to raise bigger, and shove turns.
You mentioned that shoving turn is probably better, but is the flop raise size std? How would you play this hand in hindsight?

Thanks!

Great video I've really loved your last couple videos, simple and effective style.

at 6 min with K3spades. You said that your hand has 60% equity vs villians range. But villain also has a folding range on the river so vs his calling range its possible you do not have 50% equity vs his range. And would that make this not a value bet?

5:00 w the K3ss. We want to check the turn quite often when the flush comes and I think our K hi flushes probably go into the checking range near 100% when it comes as the Ts. The flush completing on the turn really neutralizes ranges, which is pretty universal to these kind of spots and I think the vast majority of players fire turn too high after flop c/r and flush completes. Maybe on a lower spade we can more comfortably get stacks in with hands like K3ss since he will have an additional chunk of Ts flushes to pay off with.

Our turn value betting range probably needs to be super narrow here, like 66 and nut flushes, esp the A2-A5ss that unblock his Khi-Thi flushes.

I've noticed I've been getting relentlessly barreled off my weakish turn range after defending my BB against btn opens. I have seen some speculative turn barrels from them, so my strategy has been to tighten up in the BB, rather than adjusting my calling ranges postflop. How do you deal with relentless turn aggression from IP?

In regards to betting big in polar vs capped situations, if you have a read that the general population overfolds to overbets, do you make the obvious adjustment of making normal 3/4 sized bets with flushes in this spot and 1-1.5x pot with the bluffing region?

Hi I like your video. I play small stakes NL hodem. When I see you call with A3o and 74s, I was very surprised. Even A3o has a not bad equity against CO or BTN open range, I can't be comfortable when I see a Ace on flop. I am afraid my kicker is so bad. And often times when when miss the flop (which is quite often), i have to fold to their C bet.

I want to hear your opinion on these concerns. I really want to learn to be a tougher player, but these things puzzle me a lot... Thanks

Hi Tyler, always enjoy your videos.

20:40 - You peel Qs4s BB v BT | XC on Ad 4h 6h | XX on 9h | 8h river and you lead ~54% pot.

I understand the lead in the sense that this is one of your very worst hands here, and you need some bluffs. However, I'm curious what exactly you're representing with that sizing? We can obviously have Ah, but wouldn't that want to bet larger? Kh and Qh are possible hands for us as well which may want to bet.

Thanks.

Hey nice video :)
I have a couple questions:

First off, when overcalling compared to flatting a single RFI, would you change your defending ranges at all? We are getting a better price, but also facing two players instead of one, and our equity vs both ranges is less. Which factor (better pot odds vs stronger combined ranges) is more powerful, or do they kind of balance each other out? Does it depend on individual equity retention of each hand? For example we might fold more offsuit high card stuff but call more suited and semi connected stuff when overcalling because they retain equity vs stronger ranges. So we could be defending approximately the same frequency, but with a different range composition. Although in the BB, we may already be taking this into account since we are already at a range disadvantage and so adding even more weak suited/gapped hands past that may not be +EV. At the moment im just assuming that defending approximately the same ranges is good, but I could be dead wrong.

2nd, @ 7mins you talk about 64s being a good 3bet BB/UTG if he folds a certain amount to 3bets, but not if otherwise. So if hes defending properly, what is a good 3bet "bluff" in that spot? If you choose to flat hands such as 64s because they dont have enough equity when he calls a 3bet, im assuming that means you are also never 3betting hands weaker than that, and that your 3bet range cant be strictly polarized in that spot. Does the fact that you are in the BB and getting good pot odds not matter when 3betting? Like if you 3bet from the BB, I assume its +EV to 3bet any hand that loses you less than 1bb/hand, as it would be to flat. And that normally 3bet ranges should be polarized if we also have a flatting range, to maximize equity retained with each range afaik. So why would you not 3bet the bottom of your flatting range in that spot?

Also, you said we would want him to fold about 67% of the time to make our hand a profitable 3bet bluff with 33% equity. That confuses me, because afaik if he folds that much we should have a breakeven 3bet if we realize 0% of our equity postflop, so with ATC that have any amount of equity we should be profitable, and if we have 33% equity we are very profitable. So even vs someone who folds a bit less than that we should still be somewhat profitable I think. (According to my math if we 3bet to $90, its 90/130 = 69% for a breakeven 3bet bluff with no cards) Then when you again take into account that we are in the BB, and just need to lose less than 1bb/hand, we dont even need to have a positive expectation in that spot for it to be a "good" 3bet, so in order to not 3bet it, it must be a better flat than 3bet, but you also said that it retains equity well and that in those situations the better option is to raise, which imo would point towards 3betting it.

Sorry that turned into a wall of text lol. Id very much like to hear your thoughts on these topics. Thanks, and have a good one

@Overcalling ranges I'd compare equity against likely ranges and see which hands faired well. I don't know this stuff very well because it makes a really small portion of the game tree and its almost always with recs in the pot, which make super loose play appropriate.

@64s Against players who defend widely, 3-bet ranges are a lot like opening up UTG. You have to pick a strong range that plays well and expects to see a flop. You'd rarely think to open up 64s UTG, so you should rarely 3-bet it.

@Breakeven Equity, We aren't comparing it to Zero EV. Calling has equity. I need to make more than - .5bbs (roughly) to make 3-betting better than calling. This threshold will be higher than the absolute threshold for profitably (69% for Uno Cards) in your example. Also as an aside I don't mind overestimating the fold % needed to start 3-betting here, because I will become terribly exploitable if I start 3-betting 30% of the time because "I have more than 30% equity and he folds 65% of the time to a 3-bet". No regular is going to keep folding at those rates.

Ok thanks for the answers. Hmm...so to clarify, usually you will have a merged range for 3betting in BB against regs who defend well enough?

Im assuming the -0.5bb is what your expectation is for flatting 64s. So arnt we already more profitable than that by 3betting with a 0bb expectation vs 69% folds? Im not sure I understand what you mean by the threshold being higher, afaik it would be lower..?

The way I see it, If we have an expectation for flatting with any hand that retains equity vs stronger ranges, that expectation would be higher by 3betting it and so we should 3bet it (unless it somehow made our ranges weaker overall). In the BB, we can flat hands that are losing as long as its less than -100bb/100, but if there was a hand that was say -101bb/100 by flatting and retained equity vs a stronger range, we could 3bet it and that would become +EV because of folds. So we could 3bet stuff like 52s/63s BB/UTG that presumably are too weak to flat, but could be making -90bb/100 when 3bet. But I rarely see anyone on RIO 3betting those kind of hands, so that strategy is likely not optimal.

In other positions, if we have a flatting range I believe the correct strategy is to polarize our 3betting range around the flatting range, 3betting "bluffing" with stuff that would be around zero EV or slightly negative when flatted, and prioritizing hands that retain equity. Is that strategy outdated/not optimal, or just does not apply to the BB?

Again, thnx for taking the time to answer. much appreciated. cheers

Hi!

What I said was that I wasn't going 3-bet 64s without an exploitative read. That doesn't mean I have no bluffs in my range when I 3-bet. It does however mean that my bluffs are better than 64s. If I told you I didn't 3-bet 72o. You wouldn't describe my range as merged, but as prudent. I think 64s is below the minimum hand strength here to 3-bet. And if you don't believe me I'd encourage a thought experiment.

If 64s was a profitable 3-bet here, then 75s, 65s, and A2s are profitable 3bets as welll. Well how big of 3-betting range would I have if 3-bet everything better:

If it was profitable to 3-bet 18% against my opponent, my opponent would be terrible. Hence I know that against strong opposition 3-betting 64s should be negative. This of course assumes that you play a strong strategy with an adequate bluffing range. Its blatantly obvious that in a range of AA and 7h2c that 7h2c will make money. 7h2c is still an unprofitable default 3-bet for every reg currently on pokerstars.

Note: I assumed 69% was 0 Zero in the Big Blind (or -1bb). If the uno cards make more money then 3-bet them. BTW I'd start with hands below my threshold for calling because they instantly make money in this situation (and our far more numerous than calling hands in this spot).

4:14 - "Most of the computer models would have us defend K4s here." What models should I be studying for preflop analysis?