Hi Ben,

Thanks for your videos. The ATo hand was the most interesting hand to me. Given that the hand is a pretty clear call in theory, I thought it would have been a little more useful to try to nodelock IP's river strategy a bit and see if there are some bluffs in the range that we don't think he would be always be finding (missed offsuit gutters with a heart, for example), and see what it takes for ATo to become a punt in practice.

Based on my database research I do not think the pool is bluffing enough in this spot. Wide 3bet range in BB vs SB definitely helps, as well as our removal, but SPR hurts a lot. I would be kinda shocked if we had more than 33% equity to call here, even vs. a strong reg like karl.

Seems to me like a good spot to make an exploitative fold, especially since it would be basically impossible for our opponent to counter exploit us. But then you would probably get trolled by commenters, so IDK :D

I would like to point out I do not title or write the video descriptions. The theme of this week's video is me punting all over the place. "Stay tuned to find out how!"

Although my thanks to the RIO staff for their clever titles and undue confidence in my abilities :) Not to mention how well edited my videos have been recently; my foot has been post editorially removed from my mouth on numerous occasions and sometimes they even make the videos look pretty!

Hello. Second hand - I think the main difference between your strategy in-game and PIO was how you play Qx hands at the flop. You probably gonna call most of them and after that, you have many straights at the turn and you can lead hands like A3s. But PIO c/r AQ almost always, c/r QTs almost always, c/r QJs ~50% of the time and even sometimes c/r KQ. So, PIO does not have many Qx in check/call flop range and can't lead turn at all. What do you think about that? I think the population would mostly lead towards your strategy, not PIO.

I think the KT hand is not going to be a mistake unless you are up vs someone really good. I dunno how good the average 500z player is cause I don't play in these games but say on a fenced in site what is very likely going to happen is this on the turn:
1) OOP is not going to bet any Tx and will check all the weaker Jx hands also
2) OOP is not going to bet a lot of the AK
3) OOP is not going to find the shove - so all the strong combos that end up in the shove range are going to be in the non-shove size whatever that's going to be
All of this will add up to the OOP turn betting range being way more polar than it is supposed to be making calling with pure catchers like KT suck a ton and calling the draws way better imo
I believe Francesco went in depth into a very similar spot in a recent video and was all about dumping the hand.

Mistakes were made. Lessons were learned. Sauce got even better (Scary!).

About the KJT hand, you guys are right, just cutting down the XR frequency by 15% (going down from 20.5% to 17.5%) is enough to see turn leads. Small lead sizing though, probably there's no reason to polarize to AQ yet, having river left to play. Very likely, IP's cbet going up now to 94% also affects the turn play.

River follow up

Finally, this is what happens when we cut down the flop XR freq by ~50% (~11% flop XR freq). A4-A3s become pure turn lead and are very often shoving the 4d river. So, it wasn't too bad!, quite impressed by your play in game, actually. Turn OOP play:

Hey Saucy, on the KT hand. I noticed the pio sim gave ip no raises on the flop. I'm very curious to know why this is, I can't quite understand it.

curious if you gave the OOP player a bigger size instead of the 1/3, since typically pio likes bigger bets on this flop texture, if that would have made a difference for the IP player on the turn.

Hey Ben, nice vid. Is KQs pure 4b/c BvB 100bb? (as seen in h1 oop range).

i really enjoy that you are often trying to find the root of the 'mechanic' at play in a given hand/node.

Nice video and analyses! How do you think we should approach these '' mistakes'', we can always tweak tree/find assumptions... etc... and make them look like a decent play (no EV loss). Yeah maybe we did some suboptimal plays, what we should get out from studying this spot? 1) Under this assumptions my play is correct, in normal circumstances mistake 2) Seems like low EV mistake and vs these guys can be proftiable 3)...

Don't really know how to explain well, but feels like most situations after they happened I can make look like solid play after throwing some assumptions about my/opponent play.