Very nice video and format

Yep, that would make sense. Thanks for the feedback

Hey, Thanks for the feedback.

1. Depending on whether you mostly see raises or calls vs the probe you will need to adjust your range accordingly. If your opponent doesn't raise very much you will be allowed to cheaply realize your equity so you can lead a lot of marginal hands. On the other hand vs a more aggressive strategy you will want to heavily favor leading a polarized range. Additionally, If your opponent calls a lot he will probably get to the river with a pretty weak range and you will find a lot of very good bluffing opportunities.

2. You are right in assuming the river effects will be pretty similar. However there will obviously be some differences, the main one being that since there is no more equity uncertainties we chose our bet sizing entirely based on the opponents defending range, and we don't have to factor in how often his calling range will beat our value bets on a later street. This makes it much much easier to play.

3. Not sure if you're talking about the 7h turn or other 2? A little difficult to answer trying to relate to all 3 boards, but my best guess would be that we don't have enough value bets to be able to bet all of our strong drawing hands (which on all boards we will have a ton of) and pio just figures that the fds retain their pot share better as a check than some of the other draws.

Hey,

I do that intentionally to reduce my solving time and also allow for more turn options as I lack RAM on my computer to run some of these trees with a ton of bet and raise sizes. I've played around with this before because I had the same concerns you did and I found that turn strategies aren't much affected as long as you give a mid-size bet option and raise size option on the river.

Hey, you're right 2x and 3x are definitely not "bluffs", just a mental lapse ;)

33:00:

When talking about the conclusions, calling the Flop because population will not overbet 50% OTT makes sense, since we overrealise our equity and win potshare back.

But when our opponent is not overbetting the Turn enough, against what kind of Turnaction should we call looser OTT.

If villain is not betting enough [but balanced] why would we call the Turn looser than equilibrium?
Or are you talking about that we should defend the Turn looser vs a smaller sizing than we would defend vs a bigger sizing? I am a bit confused by this.
If you defend the Flop wider, then you should already have gotten your additional potshare in case Villain does not overbet frequently enough and OTT we should then (imo) just call the solver-range given the ranges we get to the Turn with ("balanced").
Is this a correct assumption?

Additionally to this point: Is the leading River on interactive cards an exploit vs a Turn overbet or a "normal sized bet". Because I don't think IP should call too much one-pair hands after playing bet 50% / Bet 150% / interactive River getting donked into. But I could be wrong; guessing you mean the smaller (Turn)betsize tho.

In general as a feedback I would like to see you structure and talk differently when talking about the overall conclusions. Kind of like you do in the summaries of the different Spots with OOP and IP. You often use the word "we" when describing what a certain player should do. This gets confusing when switching back and forth between different exploits both players could make and therefor I had to listen to the conclusions multiple times to sort them in the way you intended them to be (hopefully at least ;) )

Edit: Saw you making it more clear on the last two presentation parts, I liked that more

Thanks for the videos, I really appreciate the content and for me the work you do is one of the most relevant PIO-workform out there. Especially the way you sort it relevantly and summarize your explorations instead of trying to make sense out of micro-cosmos-dynamics that the solver is doing is really making your video worth watching.

Keep it up!

Hey Markus Schuldig

Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate constructive criticism.

27:20, You're right the A6ss specifically is not calling, I was mostly focusing on the hearts, should have been more careful with my wording.

33:00, What I meant there is that since our opponent will be using a smaller bet sizing we will be calling looser than what pio shows in the sims I went through. Even if he is betting a balanced ranged our marginal folds (vs the overbet) will now be getting a good enough price to squeeze in a call. Essentially I'm just saying if you're studying these turn ranges keep in mind that they are only correct vs the overbet.

Additionally to this point: Is the leading River on interactive cards an exploit vs a Turn overbet or a "normal sized bet". Because I don't think IP should call too much one-pair hands after playing bet 50% / Bet 150% / interactive River getting donked into. But I could be wrong; guessing you mean the smaller (Turn)betsize tho.

This is somewhat difficult to answer because it just depends on what the river card is exactly, and also what lead sizing we would chose(both as an exploit or not). You are correct that this will apply to a smaller bet sizing strategy for IP much more so than when IP overbets. Speaking strictly from experience, when players overbet turn, get called, and the board changes, they tend to assume that since OOP called such a large bet he will have a difficult time turning the bottom of his turn calls into bluffs. There will of course be players out there who are very good and vs whom we shouldn't make these assumptions, which is why I am careful with my wording when making these videos. What I mean is that this is something I've noticed from players, and if you notice the same leaks: here is how you can exploit them.

In general as a feedback I would like to see you structure and talk differently when talking about the overall conclusions. Kind of like you do in the summaries of the different Spots with OOP and IP. You often use the word "we" when describing what a certain player should do. This gets confusing when switching back and forth between different exploits both players could make and therefor I had to listen to the conclusions multiple times to sort them in the way you intended them to be (hopefully at least ;) )

I will make sure to keep that in mind in my future videos. It is difficult sometimes to not sound awkward repeating the word "OOP player" or "The button" when talking about the same situation over and over, so maybe I focus too much on trying to make the video flow smoothly and not enough on making sense.

Cheers, and thanks again.

Thanks for the reply and making that clear. It helps me when you differentiate between exploits and GTO approach.

There will of course be players out there who are very good and vs
whom we shouldn't make these assumptions, which is why I am careful
with my wording when making these videos.

Maybe simply put it like "the majority of the pool in my experience is not able to adjust accordingly, but be aware that you are opening yourself up to being exploited by the best regs [at your limit]" or something like that

I will make sure to keep that in mind in my future videos. It is
difficult sometimes to not sound awkward repeating the word "OOP
player" or "The button" when talking about the same situation over and
over, so maybe I focus too much on trying to make the video flow
smoothly and not enough on making sense.

Maybe just sort the possible exploits into groups "by OOP" and "by IP". That would make it easier imo (still keeping them on one sheets you have done with the conclusions as well)

Happy you are open to constructive crtiicism :)

Hey,

1) That sounds pretty reasonable(As for why A6 raises). Blockers always bring up the value of your bluff (for the obvious reason), so the easy answer to your question is yes. Keep in mind when you build your bluffing strategy, specifically on an earlier street, you will want to keep a variety of hands in there, and not just pick the best blockers regardless of equity. What you also have to be careful with is that oftentimes you will have a ton of good blocker hands to choose from as your bluff, but using all of them will make you overbluff. On the flip side, in some spots you will need to pick your bluffs out of no blockers hands because you simply won't have enough blockers.

2) Not sure I fully understand your question. I gave pio an option to lead 33%, are you saying you feel there might be a significant difference in strategy if I allow a smaller lead? When watching super high roller footage I would be careful before applying what you see to your own play. These guys know each other so well that I would imagine most of what they do is catered towards the specific player. When you throw in live tells they might have picked up in the specific hand it becomes very very difficult to understand the players motives.

Cheers.

Hey. Sorry this reply is so late I was away from home for a while.

Both these hands get very little ev from calling, which is why you see them both mixing in the 0ev folds, meaning they just mostly expect to lose anyway and end up calling to get to the minimum defend frequency and not allow our opponent an opportunity to get a profitable bet with any2 cards in. So for those super low EV, threshold hands, the blockers won't have that big of an effect unless the opponents range has very few combos in total. Nevertheless, I agree I would have expected the A8 to have slighlty more ev. Part of the reason might be the fact that he has all JJ betting but not all AA, or it might be how he designs his river betting ranges across all the different rivers. Difficult to say for sure.

Cheers.

Yeah absolutely. It's a combination of reasons and that could definitely be one of them