Thanks bro <3

Mad respect for the honesty regarding shot taking and not running so well during the initial stages. One of the things that annoy me the most nowadays in the poker community is lack of transparency with results/ only sharing winning sessions, so big kudos to you.

Thank you Doblou07 :)

I do have a question about a hand though:
@9:48 You say you do not like to bluff when you have the diamonds combo, but isn't that pretty irrelevant if we consider that villain is almost certainly cbetting with range on that spot? Well, I guess you're right and it is probably slightly better to give up the diamonds combos since villain will continue vs our turn bet more often when he does not have diamonds (since more of our flop floats will contain diamond, which will lead to us bluffing with diamonds more often on turn). But still I would say almost irrelevant if villain is betting range on flop, agreed?

Whether or not villain is cbetting at a high freq or range on flop, he will still continue with hearts>spades>clubs>diamonds ott. Therefore, having diamonds is mostly certaintly a negative to blocking his xf's OTT more than any other suit.

Very nice video Luke!

Thank you zache86 :)

Tough to run bad when shot taking
Apreciate the honesty and showing the viewers some very interesting spots!

It is, but I will be back there soon enough!

No problem, hope you enjoyed them :)

For BRM when shot taking are you using the same number of buy-ins for these 2-3 handed games as 5-6 handed games?

Yes.

AQ at 13:15 you mentioned you want a heart here to block some of the 8x hands. When I looked this spot up in wizard that is true, but I also noticed hands like KQh QJh are close to pure checks. In the link I filtered it for top card being a heart, so you can see that KQh QJh is pure checking and KJh starts to bet some but AKh-A9h still does quite a bit of betting. I'm trying to figure out the blocker effects on betting this flop.

The AK-AT region both suited and off suit variety seem to prefer to have a heart. Then the KQ-KT suited variety prefers to have bdfd and then KQ-KT off suit variety prefer to double block the bdfd. Is this because the lack of K8s Q8s J8s in BTN's calling range preflop? Not sure how to phrase my question here. How am I supposed to think about suits in this spot?

AXo wants to block 8x
AXs wants to block 8x
KXS/QXs wants bdfd
KXo wants to double block bdfd

If Anyone else wants to chime in to my question feel free because it's a very common spot. I was doing it wrong with cbetting blocking bdfd because I thought I wanted to block the back doors and was ignoring the 8x given the SPR at 100bb for paired boards.

Good question RunItTw1ce

w/ AQ we want to bet w/ hearts for two reasons:
- It is a value bet, so we want to unblock some bdfd continue w/ hearts
- Hearts block A8 (not Q8, as IP does not defend Q8s pre)

However, KQ is not a value bet, so the effect is flipped on its head, and now we want to block the bdfd continues

Thanks Luke Johnson . So easily explained once you determine value bet vs bluff haha.

In SRP's I only use 27%. It is in 3bp's where I use both 22% and 32%. I used to do the same (22 & 32) for SRP's, but could not find enough patterns to justify it, so I brought both together and began to use 27%

1. Does it complicate your strategy a lot to add this extra sizing?

Yes, and no.

Adding an extra size will obviously increase the amount of nodes in play. However, with the extra small size of 22%, I can range bet more boards.

Really well done. Looking forward to part 3 then maybe you could devote a video or 2 to deeper dives on interesting hands.

Cheers SoundSpeed !

After part 3, there will be a final video recapping the series, using a brand new format. I'm really looking forward to releasing it :)

At 25:25 you talk about depolarizing turn when board is q33k and polarizing if it is k33q. The way I make sense of that is on the first board we still get to value bet good qx so we merge a bit but the second board we are only betting the stronger portion of our rng as opponent has kx more often. Does that make any sense?

Yes it does make sense! As solvers do not provide captions for why things are done (other than binary notions such as Equity & EV), it is up to us to find our own reasons. Often, there are many ways to make something make sense, which are all right, respectively.

At 29:44 a similar hand occurs btm left with qq on A turn. Do we always need to polarize vs a wide bb rng when we can still bet the A turn and get some extra value? What if the turn was a K?

It is all to do with how often OOP connects with the turn. Position (EPvBB vs LPvsBB), sizing (cbF 2/3p vs cbF 1/3p) and turn card (932J vs 932K) will all effect this. In some cases, you can choose to depolarise for 2/3p's, and in other cases you must choose to polarise to OB. The more they connect, the more you polarise and size up.

At 33:50 you said that if the board was QJ3J you overbet turn but on JJ3Q you would go 66% pot and bet more often. In my head I go 66% regardless as opponent has quite a few jx on the first board and still has some jx as well as quite a few qx floats on the second board. Am I totally off here?

OOP has less Qx relative to IP on JJ3Q vs QJ3J.

All 3 of your above questions are linked quite nicely, so cheers to that. Hopefully you can find the underlying theme from my answers.

Thanks Luke!

No problem SoundSpeed :)

Hey Raphael Nogueira sorry that I missed your comment until now!

Even if A4 were pure, that would not mean we jump to 2x 3x; we'd still want to use some other 4x first

Yep, it is an extremely cool/fascinating node OTR.

It also perfectly showcases how limited humans are, relative to machines. Haha.

Timestamp please

Haha, what's the timestamp?