Thanks for the feedback!

when I first open up a video I check to see your cliffs. Thank you for them:)

I think Daniel is pointing out this exploitative idea, without meaning to say that we should actually shove always.
But One thing that stood out to me is that he is not taking into acount the Tx combos, which are probably another 25 combos and may well be interested in bluffcatching.
Also courious about your betsizing choice, I would be inclined to bet much smaller on the flop so that we can include hands like PP's in our valuerange.

I'm not saying we should shove 100% of our bluffs, no. But I do think that this is a spot where I will often just look at what our own range is and decide based on that withough giving enough weight to what I think villain will actually do with what parts of his range, so I felt that it was important to include this hand because I was a) pretty unhappy with my approach of not thinking through that in read time regardless of whether the decision was right or not and b) quite a few people I talk poker with seem to have the same mental leak.

Yes, I do think he might sometimes call some Tx combos.

Hi there,

There are two parts here, answers to both are below.

I can see that we end up bluffing with more hands as we increase the size of our bet, so that makes us increase our EV because a small portion of our bluffs now play for the pot indifferntly insted of checking and losing, is that correct?

I re-listened to the part of the video this is referring to and what I said was wrong (in terms of where the increase of EV comes from when we bet big).

So first of, you are completely correct that (assuming you are perfectly polarized) you get to bluff more as you increase your bet size. However, the increase in the EV of your range comes from your value bets making more money, NOT because we get to bluff more like I said in the video - this was a mistake. (After all, it doesn't make sense for you to make more money from your bluffs because your bluffs are going to be breaking even).

You get an increase in the EV of your range because how much money your value bets make goes up at a faster rate than villain's frequency goes down, if that makes sense. I'll show with an example below:

Scenario 1:

1k in pot, and you bet 1k with a polarized range. You have 12 value combos and many bluffs available to you. You bet with all 12 combos for value and 6 combos of bluffs, and villain calls you 1/2 times. You are both balanced. The EV of all your bluff hands, whether you get or check them, is 0.

Now for your value hands:
1/2 times villain folds and you win the 1k in the pot
1/2 times villain calls and you win the 1k in the pot + his 1k so 2k in total.

Weighing and adding those up the EV of your value bets is 1500.

Scenario 2:

1k in pot, and you bet 2k with a polarized range. You have 12 value combos and many bluffs available to you. You bet with all 12 combos for value and 8 combos of bluffs, and villain calls you 1/3 times. You are both balanced. The EV of all your bluff hands, whether you get or check them, is 0.

Now for your value hands:
2/3 times villain folds and you win the 1k in the pot
1/3 times villain calls and you win the 1k in the pot + his 2k so 3k in total.

Weighing and adding those up the EV of your value bets is 1666.67.

So the EV of your bluffing range remains unchanged, the EV of your value betting range goes up, so your overall EV goes up. Sorry for the confusion!

So if we make a huge bet we could add more bluffs. Is it better to bet even bigger, let's say 200% or 300% overbet or that bring us another type of complications?

Assuming that you are perfectly polarized and you are not looking for an exploitative approach, betting bigger is going to make you more money. However, yes there are complications, I'll give you a couple of things that could go wrong.

First, in practice you are usually not completely polarized, so as your overbets get bigger and bigger the negative impact of villain having even a tiny number of traps starts to get very costly. To understand this type of stuff intuitively, think of a familiar situation and then compare it to an extreme one.

So let's say you are in a common scenario where you are almost perfectly polarized - so let's say villain gets to the river with 100 combos and 1 combo is a trap, the other 99 is all bluffcatchers. If you bet pot - villain has to defend 50% of his range - so his 1 trap combo hardly makes a difference because 98% of the time that you were valuebetting your hand is good given that you are called.

Now imagine the same scenario as above except take an extreme overbetting version of it. Now imagine you neglected to consider villain's 1 trap combo, and you happened to have 1000000x pot behind. Being very sure that villain's range is all bluffcatchers and being a very GTO-oriented player you decide that the best bet size if for you to go all in. The problem here is of course that when you bet 1000000x pot villain has to defend <1% of his range versus that size, so he naturally just calls his 1 trap combo and folds everything else. Oops.

Second example of a thing that could go wrong has more to do with counter adjustments. For example, think of the common scenario where BU opens, BB defends and the flop gets checked through. Commonly, this is a situation where the BU is quite capped and his range is very bluffcatcher heavy. Let's say you become aware of this as the BB and decide to make probing turn for 3x pot a reasonably frequent play. The BB now has a lot of incentive to check back a lot of traps (whereas if you kept your betsizes "normal" he probably would have just using a strategy centered around checking back a showdown oriented range). So while the overbetting strategy would have been great versus villain's initial strategy, it can start to be pretty bad versus villain's adjusted strategy (and it's not a hard adjustment to make given how obvious what you are doing is).

Hope this helped!

thats a fucking sick response ^

It is! There are great and dedicated coaches working for the site, and I don't have enough words to say, thanks a lot!

+1
some insight on which street to bet

This was excellent feedback, thank you!

i also don't understand why daniel thinks that the 8 is so bad for our range as we have more Tx than QJ KQ AJ + backdoor type of stuff.
however, as we have a ton of Tx to defend + some fd, i think the 77 is on the bottom of our range even on the 8 turn, and so the call is very arguable (on daniel's simulation if we fold 77 we are still defending 57% that seems close enough to me)

thanks!

You do need to have coverage on a variety of boards for both the big bet range and the small bet range, however [and this is a super general answer] normally I think it's best to have your lower equity bluffs in the big bet range. Basically what you're going for is making your big bet range the more polarized one, while still taking into consideration being balanced on a variety of runouts and things like whether or not you fold or keep in dominating or dominated draws.