Hey. Hand #1, just one sizing, b75.

Hand #2. This spot isn’t comparable to first hand since we are cbetting in first and floating in second. Nonetheless, fair point on sizing given deep. This hand was played a while ago, but I may have missed stack depth in game. Lazy error, but I’m guilty of this from time to time when going through the doldrums of multitabling hours of cash.

Not necessarily, it’s board/player/position dependent. But in short, in this case, I think when a rec calls much wider then theory, our equity naturally goes up which can make range betting small vs rec more profitable. They also will initially defend to wide vs large sizing. But everything is case dependent.

Hey matlittle! Glad you enjoyed it . I enjoy trying to tackle these difficult, more obscure topics. I agree, big underrated benefit of implementing these merge bets into range.

That's interesting takeaway. However, I wonder how the response is on the turn in the nodelock version. If they are overcalling 1 pair region and weak draws I feel as though we can widen our merge range as I would expect people to overfold those hands to solver who has perfectly adjusted their turn/river strategy to make up for the mistake on flop.

Yeh, for sure the downside of this nodelock is that GTOWizard will play river perfectly as the "rec". For this nodelock I had the rec calling 75% of JJ and TT which seems to punish IP's merged bets as they are barely folding out better hands.

Can we just cap our check back range on the turn vs recs? So be very linear with our KX, QQ, JJ, 99, 66, 55, 76s region? And just not care about our X back range? Hopefully check back enough gut shots where we improve to 2nd pair on the river or a straight enough of time to bluff catch vs the recs? While getting a lot of linear value on the flop and turn?

The downside to capping your check-back range would be that your opponent can make very large bets for value and punish you in that way. Also they will have the ability to value bet thinner. Both of those would include more bluff allowance too overall, which is bad for your hands wanting to get to showdown. I don't think recs on average are able to recognise that you are super capped or are able to work out how to punish you for being so.
Another thing to consider though is that the sim pictured above includes GTOWizard playing the river perfectly as the rec. If you check back the turn, the rec in reality is gonna fire way too many bluffs on the river, and also bet random middling hands for absolutely no reason, so calling river bets with QQ, JJ etc will be much higher EV than in the sim.
A final thing to add to the mix is that recs will donk the river way more often than the sim expects after calling a turn barrel. That would presumably hurt QQ, JJ and push them closer to checking the turn (unless of course we have data suggesting this river donking line is way over bluffed).

One thing to keep in mind guys is there is a speed limit here in terms of value betting. One of the reasons in theory we begin to check back lots of KT/KJ is because this is COvLJ and we are going to run into more of V's value range that is better as we move along streets increasing the pot. So while yes we would like to get more value if V overcalling flop, we could also get the additional value river post x turn while reducing getting stacks in with a more marginal hand like KT.

This analysis goes out the window if we are dealing with the highly profitable and fun rec variation that calls too light on all streets, but in my experience most recs will find folds on river.

Frankie Carson I video on defining different types of turn bluffs would be great!

Equity driven semi bluffs like flush draws or straight draws with low SDV

Merged bluffs like in this video from 2nd or 3rd pair with a gut shot

Over-under bluffs that have an over to top pair and under card to the board that unblocks all draws where they get 2nd / 3rd pair hands to fold and called by flush draws, then Ace high ends up being good on the river.

Two over card bluff that have low SDV but serve as a future bluff candidate on flush completing rivers whenever you have the suit.

There are many types of bluffs and I think defining different types of value and bluffs will build our strategy in a more defined picture.

The 'future bluffs' you mention is a powerful concept. Sometimes these hands can seem like poor bluffs in the current street but solver has figured out that its about the long game...future streets.

Thanks for the suggestions RunItTw1ce.

The 'future bluffs' you mention is a powerful concept.

Agree. This has been over looked by many coaches for several years because it is low frequency stuff that no one really understood or used themselves. So was thought of solver noise in many videos. Trying to get the suits and frequencies right on these future bluffs is no easy task. I usually don't do these things myself and just increase my aggression for other GS type draws. But on two tone boards I'll use GS that has the suit to bluff flushes on the river.

But making these types of future bluff videos could bump you up to an Elite coach ;-)

Thank you Seven!

Yes for sure. Low pp's can be a nice 3rd barrel given there great unblocking attributes to folding range. Of course it is spot dependent.