Thanks, glad you enjoyed.

If you want to protect the flatting range I would just start with just 20% of your AA combos and see how that works. 

Sounds good, I will try to make some sort of follow up video with HHs related to these concepts.

Dear Parker,

Thanks :)

You asserted that our R goes up as stacks get deeper but in general I would expect the opposite to hold for OOP, unless we are accounting for changes to opponent's range, the potential of certain hand types, or skill. What am I missing?

My assertion that our R will increase as stacks get deeper, is due to having more maneuverability, as the postflop SPR increases. There are certain situations where we will have to fold at a shallower depth (and thus have an R of 0), but at a greater SPR we could have possibly continued to realize our equity. 

An extreme example of this might be if we had KQs on a flop of Jd9h4c. Say we are shallow to start the hand, and only arrive at the flop with an SPR of ~1, we would have to check fold to villains bet, which often will just be a shove of the remaining effective stack for a PSB. However if we were extremely deep to start the hand and see the same flop with a much greater SPR, we would have the option to continue in the form of a call or raise. Thus, because of our ability to win the pot later via fold equity, we can achieve an R which is much greater than 0 as we will get to see turns and rivers allowing us to realize much more of our raw equity in the hand.

There are other unrelated scenarios as well where villain becomes a bit more handcuffed and can't make certain turn bets due to the threat of a check raise and thus has to let us see a river (allowing full realization of our equity).

Having more maneuverability doesn't seems to be a good reason for the R to go up because villian is deep too so he will also have more maneuverability and more R, as you can imagine, both R cant go up at the same time. Intuitively it looks like having more maneuverability favours ip player because he also have initiative.

Hernan,

I'm not saying that the OOP player will have a higher R than the IP player when deep (or ever for that matter). What I am saying is that OOP's R @ 100bb < OOP's R @ 500bb.

Do you disagree with that statement?

"What I am saying is that OOP's R @ 100bb < OOP's R @ 500bb."

That implies that IP's R @ 100bb > IP's R @ 500bb, which is almost certainly false.

Parker,

my comment was trying to make a point about that R is going to be higher for ip playing deep than playing with 100bb, sorry if i cant explain myself well. What im trying to say is this: lets suppose that X is ip equity realization and Y is oop's, first of all X+Y=200. You are saying  that "Y@ 100bb < OOP's Y@ 500bb" because oop has more maneuverability in the 500bb scenario, but this statement is also truth for ip so X has to increase too (ip is deep and have more maneuverability too) and that can't happen because then X+Y>200. IP's R @ 100bb < IP's R @ 500bb because he has initiative and position so more playability even playing deep, for example he can make more overbets and put oop in more tough spots than being with 100bb.

Hernan - you mention initiative and position as the reasons that IPs R will go up but he also has those when he is shallow, so I'm a bit confused. You also mention overbets which could help his R, but sometimes a smaller bet serves to get us a greater R. This is the case if we are very shallow and we find ourselves on the flop for whatever reason with something like <.5 SPR. In this case the small amount of stack left usually means that IP will jam the flop a lot and thus keep his R very close to 100 by ensuring he sees all 5 cards. Whereas, if he were deeper he would have the threat of getting check raised and having to fold some of the time and thus a slightly reduced R.

Parker,

In games where stacks are really shallow oop's R should be higher than deep because in general the players will go all in on earlier streets and there is no room for overbets, multiple barrels or whatever. You are right in that if oop c/r ip will  fold sometimes, but that argument also applies to overbets (if ip has room to overbet oop wil have to fold more and thus R goes down, or ip will barrel more and oop will have to fold a part of his range on turn and river and thus his R will go down). In a really shallow game where spr is really low on the flop oop's R should be higher than deep because all the hands that calls a bet on flop sees the river. If you dont believe me you can watch the last Oxota's video where he says in the first 3 minutes that in CAP games in big blind you should defend about 100% vs a bn steal because "playability doesn't matter as much when the pot is 4.5bb and you have 18bb to go", what that means is that oop's R is high because they are playing shallow. Also in your last comment you say "This is the case if we are very shallow and we find ourselves on the flop for whatever reason with something like <.5 SPR. In this case the small amount of stack left usually means that IP will jam the flop a lot and thus keep his R very close to 100 by ensuring he sees all 5 cards." (basically same argument as mine, didn't read well your last comment), with this you are contradicting yourself and saying that im right, because ip's R with 100bb is higher than 100 so you are saying that ip's R goes up as stacks gets deeper.

I think Herni et al are clearly correct here, though it may be a bit hand dependent. It's possible that some hands do actually improve their R OOP as stacks get deeper (I'd think big suited cards would be the most likely candidates) while others do dramatically worse (hands like AJo that rarely make better than one pair, which pair is easily dominated). On balance, though, the positive of influence of position on R must be larger as stacks get deeper, unless there's a huge skill disparity between the players, as I'd think that the influence of skill on R would also be greater with deeper stacks.

Sounds good - this video was already a bit long to add on any HHs, but I will see if I can gather some interesting ones that include these concepts for a follow up vid at some point. Or possibly use some user submitted hand histories.

Thanks! Sure, I'll send it your way and see if it is helpful.

No, you don't realize any equity until showdown.  Even when you see all 5 cards, if the opponent successfully bluffs you on the river, you have realized 0% of your equity for that hand.

tehduper is right, we can't technically realize our equity until we see all 5 cards and a showdown.

For example a hand like 23s against of a range of overpairs will derive most of it's equity puerly from making a flush. There is only a .84% chance of flopping a flush, but still a 6.25% chance of making one once all 5 cards are shown. You can see how that does not correlate to the idea of a certain equity share per community card shown. 

Yep - that is correct. Thanks for the equation.

Sure, here it is.

Thanks  for the feedback atton and I posted the spreadsheet above for you.

The idea behind that slide was not to present good or even viable 4betting strategies for ourselves, as that is outside the scope of this video. I was just showing some different types of possible 4betting strategies that we may run into - often from weaker regs.

Anyways to respond to your queries:

The first range is pretty standard and solid ~ 60/40 ratio of value to bluffs.

The second range has way too many bluffs as you have identified. That is the problem with creating a range that is too polarized at a 7.5% freq.

The third range is also not ideal at all as we waste many hands that we could put in our range that calls the 3b.

As far as A8o vs A5o, it's close as they are very similar hands, but I do prefer A8o due to the 8 blocker and slightly better kicker.

Yes I think 60/40 is a good place to start, but the one that you have now can work as well. It's a complex thing that depends on a lot of assumptions but for a default range, somewhere from 55-65% value will be good.

The chart represents both. 4bet range is confusing because it means the actual hands that make up a range, but there is also a numerical statistic in PT and HEM that is called "4b range." When I said I wasn't using 4b range, I was only referring to not using that specific statistic.

I wonder how applicable minimum defense frequency really is here. That formula is derived from the point at which Villain would be indifferent to bluffing with 0% equity. Considering that even Villain's worst hands will have significant equity against Hero's flatting range, I'd think the minimum defense frequency formula used here would only work if Hero were shoving that entire range such that Villain didn't get to realize any equity with his bluffs. If Villain knows that you'll defend exactly 44% against his 16BB 4-bet, but that some of those defenses will be calls, I don't think he'd be indifferent to 4-betting 72o. 

MDF is very applicable here. My goal isn't to make him indifferent to 4-betting 72o,  rather I want to make my own ranges such that they are not easily exploitable. If I fall below my MDF to his 4bets, then he can 4bet 72o and auto profit, regardless of what happens postflop (he can just check it down/fold or only bet the nuts).

Not that you'd have time to get into it in this video, but with deeper stacks Hero could end up 5-betting more often considering that he can have a 5bet-fold range and thus risk less than 100BB with his 5-bets. Also, while it's probably empirically true that many players get more polarized with their 4-betting range as stacks get deeper, your findings suggest this may be incorrect. If Hero starts calling more often with deeper stacks, then Villain has incentive to 5-bet more linearly.

5 bets certainly do come into play as we get deep enough, which will change things a decent amount.

And yes, that is a very astute point (and good adjustment) that villain can/should become more linear as we get deeper and he expects to see more flats from us. 

Thank you. It was in Excel.