1. Yes, in this case I'm simply looking to compare EVs of a bunch of sims to each other, so as long as the numbers are converging to the same point, i'll get the idea. If I wanted to get precise EVs of individual hands within the strategy, or do a full preflop tree and analyze all the strategies within it, I'd usually just let the sim run overnight and let it get really accurate. Since my plan is to run lots of sims here I'm trading off the time it takes to be more precise, and I don't think there's any need to be that precise when making this kind of comparison. The numbers just need to be relatively close to each other, not precisely close to the true value. I probably could've stopped it way earlier and done just fine, but I usually go to 1.5-2bb just because I'd like the differences to be somewhat accurate in quantity when deciding if it's "worth it" to implement (decent segue to 2).

2. Probably not. But there's also the question worth considering in today's environment - do your opponents play substantially worse vs. a strategy that utilizes large bets more often (in theoretically accurate ways)?

3. I like to build heuristics out of what I find in the range explorer. This might be something I work in later in the series, but basically I think the range explorer is great for categorizing your frequencies, rather than trying to remember what every hand is doing and how often.

Thank you, I agree!

Thank you! I would say yes, there's definitely value in the approach you described. It's quite common among people who consider themselves naturally strong poker players. I know Sauce advocates funneling opponents into a part of the game tree they're less familiar with, and similarly I've said that when playing 6max I'll design a strategy that gets me into more frequent situations where I believe I have an edge.

That said, we are humans who will inevitably fail to execute our strategy perfectly. There are many strong players who choose an over-simplified, almost robotic approach, with the aim of rarely making mistakes and playing well against the population on average. This is probably more common in settings where multitabling and long hours are involved. To each their own!

If I could be honest for a moment, I think a little bit of voice inflection would go a long way. Your content is likely some of the most valuable content available to players, but I often find myself zoning out and having to re-watch because of the monotone voice.

therapist yeah I do agree but the thing is they are poker coaches and not actors, so I guess so long as they are providing quality content then it is up to us to be able to absorb that content effectively.

when you speed up the video I think it is pretty easy to listen along to and take in imo.

Yeah will try 1.25x thanks.

I do hold the opinion that coaches/teachers should be engaging with their delivery, but mean no disrespect to Kevin; there's no debating the quality of the content itself. Just a minor suggestion!

I assumed everyone has my videos at 1.5x by now honestly

Kevin Rabichow lol

Nah; I've gotta say Krab is the only one that talks slow enough for me. :)

radtupperware xD

I haven't looked at the effect recently, but I recall having the same thought and being surprised that it wasn't too relevant in the overall numbers. If you want to investigate how the EVs change on specific board textures, I'd be interested in the result!

I would regularly rearrange to a simpler mix strat and expect very little effect on EV as long as you're going about it in a deliberate way. Nodelocking is a great exercise for figuring out exploits in the population, but I think it should be considered alongside the unlocked solution. It's easy to get carried away with extreme strats within nodelocking and not realize how vulnerable you are to getting counter exploited.

Yep exactly, this is just because of the bb size. No need to change this if 1 chip = 1bb