Yeah I talked about this concept with him. I believe betting equal on all streets streets as an optimal sizing is a concept what has been introduced in the MoP, based on a PvsBC toy game (if I remember correctly). I runned a few scenarios with asuth and in those we saw that betting small on one street, and increasing on later streets was yielding a higher EV compared to betting equal all streets, similar to the scenario I presented in this video. We haven't really figured out a very conclusive answer, we only saw that the EV increased.

What I think might be going on in this spot, compared to the toy game from MoP, is that on the turn villain is not betting a polarized range as it bets with a very high frequency. Then on the river it does bet a very polarized range because it has the benefit of position by checking back all mediocre showdown value hands that are not good enough to valuebet and too strong to bluff with. So that means that on the turn we favour a depolarized range for mainly protection for a small sizing (something what I've seen in a lot of other models as well where eg flop gets cbet with a high frequency on low/mid non-connected flops where the bettor has a high/overcard heavy range). Then on the river, we favour applying a polarized range IP and so we want to bet as large as possible, and we realize that by betting turn small.

I think in general sizing should be based on the range you're playing, or perceived to be played, as a more balanced approach. Exploitatively speaking you can of course mix a lot of things up.

One of the many intricacies of poker not being a (0,1) game I assume.

Agree with Djunkell, the main point being, that betting simular fractions on turn and river is likely superior if you want to start betting a polarized range right away on the turn. In this spot though, and in a lot of situations in NLH in general, we actually want to bet a lot of hands for protection on the turn, thus the small sizing, and then polarize our range further on the river.

Hey Kalichakra,

I think the kind of software you want to use depends what your goal is for range building and/or hand analyses, plus personal preference. Usually I want a hand analysis to take max 30 minutes because after that I feel the time investment/reward is not worth it. Personally I think PokerRanger/Flopzilla is great for that purpose and the UI is easy to use for range building and visualization. Then lately, like I showed in the video, I look at GTORB models to get a better understanding how to construct ranges. CREV is also great, but I used it more for in depth hand analysis because setting up the game tree usualy took me a while. I heard they are also working on an equilibrium solver, but I'm not 100% sure.

Definitely feel you should have at least used one of the GTO software programs 2015. So far I like GTORB and Simple Postflop the most because of the features and UI, but if I had to guess I think at the end of 2015 all the programs will have very similar outputs/options with the exception of a few specific features, and it is just a matter of personal preference (just as with HM and PT I guess).

CREV's equilibrium solver is in Beta and it might become a paid addon. You also have to create the tree yourself right now so it's a bit more work than in GTORB.

I love CREV though and once you get the hang of it creating a tree doesn't take that long. There's so much you can do with that program. It also imports HH so running a quick EV calc for calling a shove or a river bet or whatever is a breeze.

Hey thanks a lot and good to hear!

1) If we would have preflop solved, I'm pretty sure it would 5bet shove and call 4bets with mixed frequencies (for hands like AA-JJ, AK) for board coverage and 'range protection'. The way to apply that is either 1) setting your frequencies and use RNG software in-game or 2) be more practical and pick a hand that does a good job protecting your call 4bet range and I think AA makes the most sense. Overall the purpose of calling 4bets preflop with AA in LP is definitely more towards the second point: protection/increase strength of my call 4bet range.
2) No, for your 4bet range construction I usually go with a 45/55 bluff:value ratio based on threshold calcs I made a while ago and from doing preflop work in CREV. Not sure if you want to have big changes between IP and OOP as the SPR gets low and position starts to matter less.
3) 5bet bluff:value is not really something I made based on a calc, but just to make sure I do 5bet bluff shove from so I don't get exploited and a hand like A5s does still ok when getting called + has blockers.
4) Yeah, I made ranges for each preflop spot basically and before a session I like to go over my default ranges quickly so they are fresh in my mind. I think the default ranges are most helpful at the start of my session and when playing (near) readless/good opponents.Exploitatively I definitely make adjustments based on the factors you mentioned.

Hope that helps!