You dont take into account the fact that the SB can counteradjust and 4-bet a lot vs a wide 3-betting range which is not easy do deal with when ure sitting in the BB with K2o type stuff trying to exploit a SB opening too wide. And when in the BB you turn it into a preflop raising war you effectively negate your positionnal advantage. The whole BvB exploitation game is not as easy as you make it look like.

Also a small technical detail: if you think that your opponent is limping only weak hands then straight shoving 100% in the BB is maximally exploitative, yes, but certainly not GTO.

So how would the math be for BvB limping we have 50% ev from a pot with 2bbs in it so 2*0.5*0.7? so 0.7bb/hand we make when we see the flop as R is 70%.

If we limp and get raised we lose 0.5bb/hand if lets say we fold vs a raise 100% of the time

 then for limping to be 0ev bb have to raise 59%?

whats the definition of bb being exploitable vs limps?

Even tho a 100% limp way of playing bvb make your unexplo sb strategy bigger then a unexplo 100% pfr strategy (100% of the hands you play) do you Think that the bigger hands like AK AA TT etc makes so much less that rasing still might be better?

How are the players you know doing limping the hands like that vs rasing them?

If you play vs a BB that is to tight will you raise vs him or just keep limping?

Can you take a look at the rake at different stakes and how that will affect this strategy? I'm playing 200nl and 500nl, there is a big difference between those stakes if it comes to rake. 

And what about losing value with premium hands that don't like to give away free equity? Letting opponents see free flops with hands that would have folded to a raise? And losing value with the top X% of our range in general? I could be convinced that limping hands just out of the range that we can open is profitable, but if that means I have to give away a lot of free flops with my "valuehands" that usually show a huge profit, I find it hard to believe that limping all hands we want to proceed with is better. I'm not saying I don't believe this is possible, but I'm very curious to see the next video because you'll probably go more into depth about this strategy :) I have a lot of respect for a player like Sauce and he introduced this strategy to me in the leggo video a while ago, so it probably out bests my current strategy haha. 

Also, good to see you back on the theory track! I have learned a lot from your theory vids. 

Hey guys.  I think I'm going to hold off and comment on questions after the 2nd (and last) part to this series because I think it will help answer a lot of the current questions.  As for the rake question, its on the list of concepts for me to explore in the near future.  

this is a strategy i've been employing on and off for the last 6 or so months playing mostly 5/10 and 10/20 and i am also very interested to see some #s that take into account the % of pots that are raked and how it effects our potential WR in these situations.

i assume it must be the case that limping ~80 or so % of hands loses less in these situations than raising ~40% ... but are we able to overcome issues we run into WRT rake being a higher % of the pot?

Hi - I wanted to ask a question about R. I'm trying to build several mathematical models and have a really hard time estimating it. Say I am UTG and get called in/out of position - the ev of playing each hand in my range varies wildly according the whether my R is 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 etc. Is there any good way to evaluate this?

Really diggin' the title "Modern LAG" haha. Look forward to Part 2.

i think i would throw away word 'cosmic' ( and just left micro exploitative and macro exploitative as a rule ) : ) beside Love the video

I think you might find it interesting that almost all top HUSNG players use a mixed limp and steal range from the SB 10-25BB deep (although they are from position). 

Hi, where can we find the Rfactor video you are referring ?