Well i guess the whole video explain my question, awesome video mate, very interesting stuff, you are definitely top 3 Coaches in this site, very happy to see your videos and please keep them coming.

Hi,

Sorry for getting to this late. Did the rest of the video make everything clear or do you still need some clearing up?

In general yes on wetter boards you do lean to bigger sizing/two streets because denying equity and also getting value while you still can trump leveraging several bets.

They are below now.

Thanks for the feedback! Like you said in the future videos for this series I'll pick a narrow range spot and try to build a "full" strategy that will include all our (reasonable) available lines.

Hi,

How much changes the equation real ranges on this spot?

In this situation it won't be a huge shift because the IP player will mostly be either making a pretty pure value bet or a bluff (although some bluffs are going to be FD so those are not really pure bluffs). A toyish game representation will be more realistic in this spot than say a board like JcTc8d where value bets have much less equity and where there are no pure bluffs.

How much changes the different turns and rivers? If we make it indifferent I know that bet sizing and betting frequency should change in some cards, but in average, is it the same to put some blank turns and rivers?

I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding this question - do you mean to ask how making the turn and river are known in my simulation affects it when compared to reality?

And one more thing that I couldn't finish understanding is that you say "although it seems we are over bluffing, the higher ev comes from dropping to the appropriate ratio of our bluffs". Can't we do that in 2 streets as well?

Yes you are doing it when you bet 2 streets but when you bet 2 streets instead of 3 you are doing it once instead of twice (basically you get to leverage the ability to repeat the same move more times). So because you only get to drop some of your bluffs once when you bet 2 streets the initial number of bluffs you start with has to be lower.

Hi,

Sorry I missed this.

If I get what your doing by designing a strategy with indifference at each street your just locking in the eV from the start based on the initial range. By definition that is what making the opponent indifferent means. So the entire hand is then determined by the pre flop range choice. Your not really taking advantage of the capped range or even knowing, e.g. that the opponent has exactly JJ hypotheticaly . It seems the advantage of knowing our opponent capped their range is to exploit them by designing our range appropriately.

This is incorrect - just because two people are playing a strategy where they make each other indifferent does NOT imply that they just realize their preflop equity at all. In fact the video clearly shows exactly the opposite of this: the IP player only has 33% equity range versus range but we are on average always winning well over half the pot. We are taking advantage of the fact that our opponent has JJ because he doesn't realize even close to all of his equity versus our range by the time we get to the river. I think you are confusing exploiting someone with taking advantage of the particulars of someone's range (and still playing a strategy based on indifference).

For example, if we go AI on the flop, there is not a possible indifferent strategy based on our equities

I don't think I understand what you mean by this - of course we can make a strategy for going all in on the flop that is based on indifference - that's exactly what I do 30 minutes into the video. And you can see that even though our equity is only 33% we still win more than half the pot by using the flop all-in strategy - and the EV of it is so high specifically because we know our opponent has JJ and we therefore take advantage of this information by always knowing if we are bluffing or valuebetting.

Hi,

You would be able to bluff only combos of A2o on the river since like you said villain is getting 2 to 1 on a call. However you get to bluff more on previous streets and have villain's call be breakeven anyways, since when you bluff on the flop you get to choose to drop some of those bluffs later in the hand, and if you do choose to bluff, you get to put villain into a breakeven spot again. So when villain calls the flop he is not really getting 2 to 1 on his money because when he is "correct" and we have a bluff he does not always win the hand versus said bluff.

In the video in the first tree as you can see we can bluff more than 6 combos of A2o on the flop when we bet 3 streets, and villain still only has a breakeven call on the flop. As it works out, if we had enough of a stack and were able to go pot-pot-pot, we would get to bluff more 12 combos of A2o on the flop and would therefore have a 100% betting range.

so population would be making bigger mistakes against a player who has balanced his ranges for 2 street play

This is something that I think quite often as well, but I go back and forth on whether or not it is correct. I do think that the population will make more mistakes versus rarer lines, however there is the trade-off of making the game simpler if you make it two streets, so it's not necessarily the case that people will make more mistakes.

i also thought that being shortstacked we create the biggest edge by denying our villain his equity

It's not that we get that edge by denying equity specifically when we are shortstacked - denying equity is denying equity regardless of stacks. What changes as stacks get shallower is the tradeoff (or the consequences) of denying equity. With short stacks there are few consequences of shoveling money into the pot, however as stacks get deeper betting to deny equity can often make you end up in a reverse-implied odds situation which you would rather avoid.

and could u go into more detail about why 3 street is more optimal than 2 street. i mean where does it come from. stack depth correlated with betsize and the range?

It's not necessarily more optimal especially when it comes to wetter boards, but spreading your bets over more streets when you are polarized is necessarily going to be more optimal. I touched on why this is the case in the last part of my response to MorronGun.

Basically the extra money that you make comes from being able to start out with more bluffs on the flop, so there are more instances of villain folding the best hand.

Hey, what starting ranges did you use for the sim? Same ones that I had where you gave OOP JJ and IP A2o and AA?

ya and made it a rainbow board too so no bdfd's

I've been trying to replicate this in CREV and I'm having trouble with it - seems like no matter what I do I can't get the EV of a 66/33/20 line to be higher, but maybe I'm missing something or I'm doing it wrong, I'll keep poking around.

Really interesting result though - doesn't make sense to me logically because it's not like we get to make more bluffs in our range by sizing 66/33/20.

In a bit of a rush right now but I'll keep at it.

Hmm I just looked at it again. It has to do with the overcard that we have with A2o because with J2o and AA it again prefers the 33/33/33. I guess because on A turns villain gets to fold 100% and we lose that value.

Yup - that makes sense. When I was rerunning it I had the board run out blank, so that's the difference.