Sorry for the delayed reply! flip4chips

Great username btw

Super happy to hear you enjoy the format. I'm 100% behind it, too. My only concern is not to overspam it, haha.

If you've other video suggestions, please lmk!

Coolknights 1% of pot is on the higher end imo. I usually relate it to how many BB/100 we are immediately sacrificing.

Here is my (very subjective!) science:

(please take with a rather large grain of salt)

10bb pots:
<1/20th of a BB; 5bb/100; 0.5% of pot

30bb pots:
1/10th of a BB; 10bb/100; 0.33% of pot

50bb pots
1/5th of a BB; 20bb/100; 0.4% of pot

Hello Josh Lessner :)

Your content might be the best training content publicly available. Cheers to that.

Whoa, thank you very much! :)

I started taking your approach on strictly using a block/small OB sizing oop when studying river spots and it makes a ton of sense in lots of spots.

It makes life a lot easier when studying which hands strictly prefer to go big/small.

This is awesome; glad you appreciate the structure and hopefully the reasoning behind it. What's important is that it makes sense, as everything is already so close anyway.

Few scenarios in which something like 50/150 or block/75 would make more sense but it’s pretty easy to identify those spots.

Have you figured out any of the big bet only spots?

Thanks again for your very generous feedback!

Luke Johnson the spots which I deviate from block/small OB otr in 2BP are mostly spots where my thinnest value bets would be quite strong relative to V range. Ex., BU v BB 2BP and it x down on Q54 4 2 or some innocuous low runout. Even A2 could comfortably value bet for 50p (although makes for a nice xc), whereas the other bluffcatchers in our range function much better as xcs (Ahi Khi etc) so I'd have like a 50p/150p split instead of 25p/125p, for instance

I was also interested in the block or overbet only strategy for rivers. What is the logic behind only considering these 2 betsizes? That it simplifies the game tree and makes it easier to study? Are sizings like 75% not actually used that often by PIO, or do they just not add much EV to the overall river strategy whilst making it way more complex?

Would also be interested to know more of the spots where medium sizings are in fact important, a few more examples would be great if either of you have any!

matlittle

27/70 or 27/132, respectively, are both very good. In my experience, I'd say 27/132 is ever so slightly more common. However, my main reason for adopting 27/132, is to more distinctly separate my bets — there is no ambiguity in a 27/132 approach.

That it simplifies the game tree and makes it easier to study?

Precisely (Y)

Josh Lessner

Josh, I forgot to get back to you on this, sorry!

Try looking at some of the 4BW runouts in either XC XX and XX XX lines!

Whilst on the topic of simplifying the game tree, I have been advised by another coach to simplify to only 1 betsize on both flop and turn, and only to split range into 2+ betsizes on the river. Are you doing this too or do you split your range earlier in the game tree? I am half way through Josh Lessner 's video on double barrelling paired boards and you say that there should be multiple turn sizes, are you trying to implement this strategy in game or does it become too complicated and hard to execute. Unless you are well thought out I imagine you end up betting your exact hand strength too often and fail to add bluffs to certain betsizes often enough.

matlittle I do not split my range before the river, but there is no "right" way to go about it, it's up to personal preference.

Also, despite me using only one size on flops and turns, I still have many sizes to choose from. E.G. In BTNvsBB cbet flop situations I will use choose from 27%, 50%, 70% or 106% across all the flops, with the key note that I will only use one per board.

& thank you for watching Hellkid13

Glad you are enjoying! :)

No problem Jakob Tøstesen ! Glad you are enjoying :)

Thank you 72Just4U

Nice streams btw ;), I am a lurker!

I don't understand where in theory our value comes from those tiny leads on the turn, like in the hand on KQTr Tx.
I get that there is a big shift in EV for the ranges, even though BTN has still a Nutadvantage, but wouldn't Tx in a vacuum want to bet bigger there?
Is the EV mainly coming from the fact that we can put now also a lot of bluffs like Jx in that range and realize Equity for cheap?

On turns where we lead small and often, IP is also supposed to both check back often, and raise aggressively vs the lead. Therefore, leading allows us to more effectively leverage our value. The sizing almost always end up being small, as it is very rare that we pick up a NUT advantage; often, the advantage is our middling-strong portion of our range, not the very very top end. In instances where we do pick up a strong nut advantage, we lead bigger, but only by a little (up to around 1/4p). Again, this is do better leverage EV, as IP is still supposed to raise aggressively, and otherwise xb often. Finally, it is also worth mentioning that we are OOP in a big SPR, which means that big bets are often too selfish in relation to our overall range, which is usually struggling when OOP in the big SPR!

Haha, thanks man.. just write in chat when I am blundering :D
Alright, thanks for the detailed explanation, definitely a lot to think about. :)
Luke Johnson

72Just4U I haven't seen any blunders :)

Hi SoundSpeed :)

I mentioned why in the video, and also just above in my response to 72Just4U

The Qx are definitely not bluffs!

SoundSpeed

We are going to get raised by the nutted portion of our opponents rng and face raises from his.jx which puts us in a tough spot

This raises will otherwise cbet into us; we are going to be in a "tough spot" regardless of our initial bet or check

I do see from the solver opponent is supposed to call with a lot of Ax which I suppose is where our value comes from but we get into tough spots on a lot of rivers.

Precisely. And, we will still get to get some hands to fold (even for the tiny sizing) that would otherwise mix cbets and force us to fold.

I think I am too risk averse and afraid of tough decisions.

In this spot yes, however I cannot speak for your overall game! What is great, though, is that you are open to the idea, which is step 1 to fixing a leak :)

Hi Luke

Hi matlittle :)

I enjoyed the video, I think this is a good level of detail to go into when discussing hands. You provided some good heuristics to follow with regards to board textures which I found pretty valuable.

Awesome! Glad you enjoyed. :)

You mentioned in a few spots that you cbet for bigger sizings on slightly drier board textures and slightly smaller on wetter ones - e.g. playing pot or check on TMX rainbow CO vs BB but 2/3 or check on TMX two-tone. Am I right in saying that on boards like this we usually size down on flop and/or turn when it's more likely that our opponent can catch up? So the flush draw being present hampers our ability to bet big on future streets if it completes?

Yes! The two-tone nature reduces the amount of hands we have that are effectively raring to go (JJ on T82, for example). On rainbow, JJ is going to be bombing two streets almost always, however, on a FD flop, this effect is greatly reduced. I suppose PIO sizes down to balance this effect out a little.

3.50 - AJo vs 14.5bb player min 3bet
I find in this spot a weaker player with a tiny stack will tend to min 3bet super-premium hands like JJ, QQ, KK, AA essentially as a trap, and shove other hands like AX, middling pairs etc. I think it's ironically similar to a GTO short stack strategy except with no bluffs in the 3betting range.

Without reads, I'm going to be shoving AJo (for better or for worse; who really knows!)

given that this guy has shown no preflop aggression at all to this point it seems unlikely. (p.s. I wrote this before seeing them turn over KK). If they have 3bet a lot so far then this completely changes and I think shoving is probably best with AJo.

He was looking to be tight, but only over a <40 hand sample. In general, we should look to ignore HUD stats over tiny samples like this, unless the data is significant enough (>80 vpip or <5 vpip)

Thanks for the replies! I agree with not adjusting strategy from such a small sample, however my default assumption would be that it's a trap as I tend to see this from more player types. I have shoved this spot many times too thinking it can't be bad for ~15bb and then get shown the nuts. I think calling is probably a higher EV line than shoving unless villain shows some kind of weird min 3b tendency or some other weird spewy line.

You may be right, just try to make sure you aren't suffering from a memory bias. There have been many times where recs have min3b and then called my 4b's w/ complete junk

Thank you Lono :)

More to come :)

Hey vishant5 !

New to your content and loving every bit of it.

Awesome, glad to hear this :)

Sometimes i find it a bit overwhelming but awesome work as ever.

If something is overwhelming, feel free to post a question on it

This is a bit off topic but which software were you using before and which software did you switch to now? as i am facing similar porblem

Not following, sorry. Software for what exactly?

thanks

You're welcome!

Oh yes sorry. I was using Camtasia studio. Now I'm using "Streamlabs OBS"

Lmao, yeah, wcyd :D