Big Blind vs Button with K6 on A836 after the flop has checked through -- I don't think the overbet is appropriate here, because 1) Even against big sizings he's supposed to call one pair and 2) With the number of draws available, I don't think the overbet looks particularly strong (even a big one).

On button after calling 3-bet, We call flop with 66d on 7s5d2d, turn is the 8d, I bet/fold. I generally check this hand back because bet-folding that much equity expensive. However, I've found that PIO advocates having a small betting percentage in these situations, so I rolled high and bet. I don't think the call is appropriate, because I am drawing dead often and rarely have my full outs, but it is certainly mathematically close and the situation is rare, so I may be making a mistake here.

I don't generally change my ranges much 200bb deep, because being deep doesn't often affect the actual pot size. The key differences at 200bb deep in these situations would be how large I bet with assymmetrical nut hands on the river -- hands I can have but he can't (like KJ or KT). Other adjustments would be tighter river calling requirements to c/r, bet, jam lines.

On Q22A after c/c flop SB vs Button, I'm not going to have a turn raising range, because AQ is the only hand that is strong enough to raise and I think it generally gets more value by calling turn and checkraising river. However, I think you might raise a good point here that having small raising value/bluffing range on the turn might be more profitable and JdTd would be a good candidate hand for this.

I couldn't find one, so I wrote a python script to generate a random number every 4 seconds.

Hi Jeff,

I definitely agree that bluffcatching overpairs here is not only reasonable, but also correct some % of the time. My hang-up here is that percentage is much much lower in practice than it is in theory. If we have JJ here, something like 28 cards either bring a flush, a straight or an overcard and I think most players default to protection in this situation. Especially given the low double-checkraise frequencies in the pool.

My other thought is that raising an overpair on this river is actually kind of slim, because my calling range consists only over c/r pairs on the flop which is a small region.

wow even folding J9,. that suprised me,..

This is my winrate with these hands over two years on Pokerstars.

1) Ignition has higher rake with no rakeback. My model says that this is a -14bb/100 penalty to an open raise.

2) I pay a penalty to see a flop with 0 EV hand in Zone, because the 0 EV hand blocks my table from receiving a more profitable hand.

Tyler Forrester I'm obviously not familiar with the intricacies of the model you are using for preflop hand selection in these games. However, after watching how erratic and poor the player pool has played in your series, I have a hard time believing the model is going to do an accurate job simulating future street(s) play. This would lead me to believe that slightly widening opening ranges on the btn would be +ev.

grtwhitehoop

The simple fact is that 3-betting frequencies are the largest factor in preflop profitability for the weaker parts of our range and unless those 3-bet frequencies are substantially lower on Ignition than Stars (which they aren't) the values will likely be very similar.

I know what works for me in these situations. However it is definitely possible that a more skilled player could make more hands profitable than I can.

This hand shows (maybe too much) bias to underbluff the river after repping a polarized range on the turn and all the draws missing. This would generally be bluff for me on the river, but two factors made me check:

1) My opponent called my overbet on the turn so either he is generally strong or he thinks I'm overbluffing. The river does not weaken his strong hands and does not improve my bluffs, so a non-gto player will call here too often.

2) The other factor is that on a Q439A board, even a tightish player can find some hero calls, because JT, KJ, KT are 48 combos and all missed.

It's really a poor situation to bluff and without screennames, I don't need to worry about this exploitative check-back changing my opponent's strategy.

Thank you great points!