It sounds like you're implying that button can rep the nuts on some boards and then balance that with some nut blocker hands. He can do that no matter how many nut flushes we have in our range since nut blocker hands (and nut flushes) block all of our nut flush hands.

Having few nut hands on some runouts is somewhat unfortunate but we will still have a lot of very strong hands (flushes) on those boards so button can't really go too crazy just because we're "capped"

Steve, nice vid. I wanna follow up 'geradstdenis' question. If we don't have nut flush draw on wet board. How can we balance our c/r range? I'm raising w/ 9 high flush draws OTF often, and it sometimes turn dominate flush which is disaster.

Having flush under flush after raising the flop is going to be a disaster no matter what your range looks like :)
I think too often people get in a spot and think "I can't have the nuts here...man if I could have the nuts here that would be sweet". But just because having the nuts in a spot is pretty sweet doesn't mean you need to alter your preflop strategy so you can have the nuts in every spot.

Oh.. right. Can you comment this hand?
https://www.weaktight.com/h/5605869ed39043c9478b4568
especially my flop raising.

meh I don't think it's the worst flop raise or anything but you're in a pretty dreadful spot if you get jammed on. You also have quite a lot of draws and few stron value hands given preflop action, so you don't want to raise a high % with your draw hands imo. So my default would be to call flop, but I'm losing a stack in this hand. I think it's important to avoid the thinking of "I lost a stack therefore I made a mistake"

:)

I'm not at my desktop right now but i'll upload it later tonight (if you don't see it by tomorrow morning send me a pm)

Here are the powerpoint and excel files:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1B0NQEce3NzM0lZa3kwMElMRjA/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1B0NQEce3NzRk50TXFEeGtvWDg/view?usp=sharing

Hello Steve!

I'm still shocked about this stuff. I've never seen that deep math behind the game. For example the blocking effect of various hands, and after that choosing "random" hands for bluff. I believe 3beting with 85s is a very good deception. :-)
/I can't remember the exact range now.../

So, is there any possibility to get all the PP presentation that we can see in your videos? :-/
Or I clearly understand if it is not the part of my essential membership, so I can pay for it.
It is just a very good short drill for me.

Have you ever tried "PREZI"? I believe you could make spectacular presentations!

Thanks for all of your kindness!

Best regards: T79

Oops. Solving gives x = 0.763, but the number we're interested in is the 3bet % which is 1-x = 0.237

For clarity I should have written the equation as:

(1-0.18) * (1-x) = 1-0.375
since then x represents the 3bet %

Sloppy by me, but doesn't affect anything else.

I rather would like to look a BTN vs. CO/MP/UTG video, because most of the pro tells you, that you need a much higher 3bet IP than OOP.
Actually, I have 2x larger range 3bet on BB/SB, than BTN, because I really like to play cold call big pots IP. (dont need FE)

Yeah I copied some snowie ranges in at one point. I have mixed feelings about snowie as it seems to do some stuff that's clearly wrong, so it's hard to trust the rest. It does a reasonable job of marking hands for review (not all of its "errors" are bad plays but many are) but not sure how useful it is beyond that. Oh I also like the balance page it has where it tells you how often you're betting/raising strong/medium/weak hands by street, etc.

http://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/steven-paul-designing-preflop-ranges/

You can filter by video maker and then just keep loading more, it was one of my earlier videos.

Glad you like the videos!

At 8:30, the math in the video is correct. The a/(1-a) where a is % of pot only works for bets, not raises. The more general formula is (money in pot)/(amount risked + money in pot). An example:
Postflop: pot is 2. Villain bets pot. He risks 2 to win 2, so we defend (2)/(2+2) = 1/2
Postflop: pot is 1, we bet pot, villain raises pot. The pot sized raise is to 4, so he's now risking 4 to win 2 (the 1 in the pot plus the 1 we bet). So we must defend 2/(2+4) = 1/3.
You can do EV calculations for both spots to confirm that defending those frequencies makes EV(bluff) = 0.

It's just a quirk of the terminology people use. A "pot sized" raise risks significantly more than is actually in the pot, whereas a pot sized bet risks exactly what is in the pot.

Makes sense. Thanks for the good explanation SP. I've run into this problem before.

yeah it's a really easy mistake to make

Last question :) (on this topic) if 26bb is 4BS that would be 29bb total of money we put in this hand.

I have to use his pushing range to calculate the minimum eq (vs my weakest 4bet) to figure it out the maximum size I can 4bet/fold right ?

For example if the eq of my weakest 4Bet is A3s vs his pushing range (QQ+), my eq is 28%, so
0 = EV = eq200 - RoomToFold (or callSize)
RoomToFold = 200bb28% = 56bb (if we use a rake pot it would be 53,2bb)

Right? I'm not sure of this because when I started learning poker I heard million times that if we put more than 20% of our stack preflop we can't fold anymore.

Haven't rewatched but EV(3bet) is made up of 3 parts - when we get a fold, a call or a 4bet. I'm guessing in that part I'm keeping the fold/4bet parts constant and then finding the breakeven point for EV(when called)

We're trying to come up with an EV for the 3bet. We put in 8 to 3bet and get back 2.35 when we get 4bet, 2.35-8 = -5.65.

edit: if R<29% we have to fold and so lose 8bb, R=35% we can call and gain back 2.35bb from our 3bet and so only lose 5.65bb

I have had the same problem recently on my desktop but for some reason it works on my laptop, no idea why. I don't know of any program that does the same thing unfortunately.

Looks like a bunch of the hands are only weighted 50% in the video