Hey Odell,

First, I want to say everything I have done in this series has been under a number of assumptions, which I have stated in each case. As we change those assumptions, our outputs vary significantly. So as you say, you often are opening more than 48% (I think my button range was 52%?), well we can redo our range based on the wider button range and 3b worse hands in response, while keeping the same principles of this sort of semi polar range I suggest.

107s is quite high up to be 3b bluffing and so are some of the other hands I suggest. As I mentioned in the video, we are removing hands from a category that we can play profitably and often times just folding the equity it has. That's not good! However, I feel having hands like this show up in our 3b range is very useful as our range covers more board textures more efficiently. Moreover, the method I go through where we find all our potential bluff candidates and come up with some frequency we 3b it; we can scale that. So I think I got 41% of the time we 3b all of our candidates. Well, we could further refine that by saying we 3bet 107s 20% of the time, and compensate by 3betting 74s 60% of the time. So, 107s actually ends up in our flatting range mostly, thus the effect of 3b/f so much equity is minimised and we still have constructed an effective 3b range. As you rightly say, its not like 107s has a strong range advantage or anything, it's just a decent hand.

By all means, you can choose the best hands you can't flat with if you choose, and you should have all the info you need to construct that range from the info I gave. I simply think that the benefits we gain from sometimes having the hands I suggest in our range outweigh the negatives of sometimes folding hands we could 3bet instead, and flatting slightly less often. I am still all ears to arguments against this.

I appreciate the constructive input, I hope my answer shed some light

Hey! thanks for the quick response. makes a lot of sense. I really like also the wieght we can potientially use with hands that start to be too strong to 3bet/fold. I am also thinking that we could just remove this hand from our 3bet range if villains doesnt open enough, or just 3bet 100% when villain overfolds etc etc.

+1

This is actually something I'm going to deal with next week. It won't be expansive however, just some slides. I hope in the future I'l be able to present some more quantitative stuff on this topic but its incredibly complicated! Drawing useful conclusions over a limited sample of calculations is dangerous, and I'm limited with how much I can work out by hand, for now

But I hope next week will sate you both for now! thanks for the feedback

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Would you include some Ax when you felt you couldn't call them (because you were against a strong range, say a tighter player in MP)?

There is no position against which I feel we can't flat A2s in the BB, so not anymore than vs button

Hey sayplease,

While playing my daily grind, I pull interesting hands into a notepad on the side. I save these on my desktop and then run w/e analysis is useful on the days I don't play. I then try to write out as many elements of the sim that I can, cbet %, x/r %, preferred bet size, hands chosen, etc. I then review these notes periodically for the next month or two to try beat it into my head!

It is my opinion that you need to use piosolver a LOT to get benefit. Depending on how wide ranges are and how deep stacked we are, sims can take over half an hour each, and that's per board. You also would really benefit from a comp with a lot of memory, my 16GB reaches it's limit when I run say BB vs button for 50 eff and several betsizes per street. So 16gb is fine but I feel I would be quite restricted with less. I know the website says 6gb+ for comfortable use; I think thats pretty optimistic, but to be fair, I have not tested it on other comps, just gotten feedback from people saying they couldn't run certain spots.

I'm by no means a pio expert, I've only used it for a few months now, but I will use it in my next episode so you guys can get to grips with it and see how we can be minimally exploited with wide ranges.

Hey myNMDNBDy,

This is a great point and one I didn't particularly have time to deal with in this series nor have I solved this spot in great detail for 4b/5b/6b spots. It requires you to assume the defending range of the IP player and their realised equity when we do see flops, as well as their 4b range. You are correct in that 3b bluffing 55% incentivises the IP player to slightly widen their 4b range and, because they get to always realise that equity at a 4b depth, I would think they correctly end up being wider than a nash equilibrium. Astute point, one I hope to address in a few months time when I have done more homework and I'm looking to release an xbet video.

I'm afraid I have never used GTOsolver (I've never heard of this, do you mean GTORB?) and my knowledge of CREV only extends to the videos I have watched here. Pio basic and pro cannot solve preflop spots but I understand Pio edge now has a preflop solver that I have not seen it in action - apparently it requires a mammoth computer to run so I haven't upgraded. So unfortunately I cannot recommend software to help you with this. In fact, if you do find one, I would appreciate a PM or an update here to let me know how you got on. I would of course be very interested in such a program.

I love that this site has members good enough to consistently critique pro videos and suggest ways to improve, both at essential and elite levels. Thanks for the feedback!

Share with me also, please :)

Hey sayplease,

Yeah, you could, I don't see any huge issues with that. The reason I didn't just choose suited hands instead of mixing them is so that those suited hands end up being flatted a lot too, and that way I don't end up with any major gaps in my postflop range, which could hurt me on certain boards. This is much less problematic when you don't outright tell some of your opponents what your range is, like I do here! So if you decided to just nail down 88 combos of suited hands as your "always 3bet/bluffs", I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I will reiterate, however, that we don't want to move too far up in our range, yet we still want to have ok playability post. So choosing stuff like 29s can be tough postflop, yet a hand like 78s seems much too high value to 3bet/fold.

Hope this helps!

Hey joomorrow,

A lot of your questions are incredibly general, and there is no easy one paragraph answer. Its all very situational (stack sizes, positions, ranges, board texture etc.) So with that in mind, a theory video on this topic seems very ambitious. I wouldn't be confident in producing useful content in a slideshow format. However, I think a HH review of where I defend specifically these type of hands could work well. I've been defending very wide now for a few months, I have a good sample with the bottom of my range.

Exploitative adjustments in blind defence is still something I'm working on myself so maybe a few videos down the line, I can look to make a video on this topic.

Thanks a lot for the suggestions, always appreciated!

Thanks for your reply. The loose blind defense you described here is something new to me, and I've seen a lot of great players doing recently, so this interests me a lot. I'm just not comfortable enough to VPIP with trashy hands. I guess coming from a cash game background, I'm so used to defend very little from the blinds, as these are losing positions, so I'd appreciate to see them more in action, to get a feel about how to do it.
I'm watching your other videos where you show HH of some tournaments, but I have not seen much blind defense, except with decent hands like K7s, 98o. The few times I've seen you defend with rags like Q5o, you just check fold the turn after flopping a pair of 5 with 3 over cards (which IMO would happen a lot).

Hey,

I'm not sure where you got a 1:1 ratio. I was working of an example of 72 value combos (AJs+, AQo+, 99+) vs 88 bluff combos, which is a 9:11 ratio. This is definitely a bet size specific thing and I'm working off an assumed 4bet size from my opponent, which I explained earlier on in the video.