I disagree with that, I don't necessarily think he's going to call the correct percentage of his range when facing a check/raise, and there's a decent chance I'm freerolling myself by putting in a raise knowing he can have all offsuit combos of better straights.

i definitely shouldn't have said definitely lol. I think you're right- if you think hes under calling you can better exploit him by bluffing- he may not need to see thin value bets to keep folding. :)

Can you please discuss this spot.  I questioned if 3b > call while watching as well.  If he he is the kind of villain that thinks "his flop check behind caps his range to weak Ax, so I'm going to x/r turn and barrel off river", then call > 3b.  If he is mostly x/r hearts but then shuts down on rivers unless he hits, then I like 3b > call.

Can you talk about some of the considerations you made when deciding to 3b turn?  I think in video you mention something like "there are lots of action killing cards", but there has to be more...

His sizing doesn't indicate that he's trying to take advantage of a capped range (and he'd be wrong to do so, since I have AA and KK here) so I felt like creating a 3bet range to protect my 2pair hands against some potentially thin value raises like Ax and some semibluffs. I don't expect him to put tons of pressure on me or bet very large on rivers once he decides to do this, so I think incentive to trap is lower. I'll have to bluff with some heart combos and potentially hands like JT/QT/QJ that decided to play this way.

My general approach to preflop bluffing is to use the hands just outside of my calling range. I don't think it's incredibly important which ones you pick, but you want some postflop playability because you'll get flatted these days. Blocker cards (Ax, Kx) are more useful against a polarized 3bet range, since he won't be able to flat as often and we want to remove combos of shoving hands like AK. 

It's a PT4 HUD for purchase, I can PM you the details on where to buy it if you're interested

Can you PM me this as well? thx

great vid 

Very interested too about the HUD! Could you send me the details too? 

Can someone send me the details? Ty in advance :)

Very interested in where to buy it. 

Yeah this might be a board where I shouldn't be leading the ace turn, I still maintain leading ace turns on most board textures with my range but I may fold some Ax on this flop and he may bluff some...in addition to what you said about the top of our range he's probably still favored here. 

please send me info about HUD too

AsianCutie~ <333

see you sitting on some of the sites I play on :)

The fact that 7x doesn't make us a large number of nut hands means it's definitely not a good idea to lead a big size, which is something I'd prefer to do in a different spot with a polar range. We also have fewer Ax than him because of the preflop action, so essentially I agree that this is a poor spot to lead with my range. At the time of the video I was using the generalized approach where we lead every pairing spot for simplicity, but I wouldn't lead this spot now.

I'm not sure which situations I changed my sizing during this video, but I probably just added a sb or two because we were slightly deeper stacked. It's also possible it was vs a different opponent where his fold to 3bet was too low/high and I adjusted a bit for that reason as well. 

Could you explain this second question a bit more? I don't really understand what you're asking with regards to the hands that are strong in CAP HU.

I often treat river situations after a flop x/c and small turn lead (assuming we got called) as if the turn checked through. It's a very similar range distribution, villain should raise most hands that would have double barrelled against a check and should call most hands that would have checked against a check. He'll fold a few hands as well but it won't impact the river spot too much. With K7, had I checked the turn and he checked behind, it would probably be a close decision between betting for value and check/calling. I decided to check/call because the turn lead tends to make his range slightly tighter in practice, and that swings my close decision towards the more passive option in order to let him bluff some hands. 

sorry kevin. english is not my first language but I will try my best. 

If this question is too 'personal' and you think it is completely out of the video theme feel free to just ignore.

I usually play HU matches from 20bb-40bb effective so I was curious about some hands that are ez raise/jam like 99-TT on this games but in 100+bb games, how do you think a post flop strategy with hands that are so limited in terms of barrel opportunities in games that people don't fold much to 3bets. Is this the case to stop 3betting polarized and using mid parts of my continuing range ? How 99s should be played on your view in this case ? 

I think an example would be better.

30bb effective, bb opens 2x and I have 99 on the SB, I 3b to 5bb, he calls. Flop comes Q86r.

100bb effective, bb opens 2.5x and I have 99 on the SB, I 3b to 9bb, he calls. Flop comes Q86r. 

My intuition says to me that on the first case given your range advantage is a bet the majority of the time since there is little room for him to have a raising range that would put me in a tough spot with the my whole range. But 100bb I rather put this on my x/c range since I don't expect that our range advantage would be enough to make him fold a lot on this situation. 

I hope you understand this time (:

I did not thought that this x/c-lead on this way, like the turn checks through. In my mind, the turn lead was a bet that helps us to polarize our range in textures that it plays better polarized than depolarized and thinking this way some rivers that are blanks for both ranges should be played with a overbet strategy. Probably my view had a bias since I never fold to this turn leads and people very very often just x/f almost any river. For me looked a bit of 'let me introduce this beautiful play on my game' but people did not thought through the river decision when making these leads and they open the door to be exploited by not betting river. But what you said makes perfect sense. 

Your example of 99 on Q86 being a hand that might be strong enough to cbet for 30bb and not for 100bb is quite good. You probably know that this is simply because with more money behind, we need to control the pot size with hands that are no longer interested in putting stacks in. 99 would be a fine stackoff in that spot with 25bb behind and 10bb in the pot, but not with 91bb behind and 18bb in the pot. This is why my ranges are often clearly polarized in a situation with larger stack to pot ratios.

Kevin, 

re: 99 cbet with smaller stack sizes...

Except that you block his most likely bluffing hands which can have a significant effect on the hands he calls you with that do not beat you. In this situation I think 8x with decent kicker would be a better candidate. I don't mean to nit pick but I think its a solid point to keep in mind when CBETing a non top pair+ hand for value (even at lower stack sizes). You really want his possible draws that he calls with to remain available b/c that is where a lot of your value comes from. 

Check your PMs, I sent you the details. Thanks!

I'll see what I can do!

Thank you (:

The basic idea is controlling the size of the pot when we aren't interested in putting 3 streets of value in. We don't need to bet the flop to get the amount of value that a 2nd or 3rd pair hand is worth, so we can protect our checking range and also prevent ourselves from getting check/raised on the flop relentlessly by keeping our flop cbet range more polarized with a stronger value betting range. We can bet some of these hands when protection is quite important, but I don't often believe it's the case that it will outweigh the benefits of checking. 

Elegantly put.