Only played one session vs him and didn't record. He is very hard to play, so probably will pass up on recording until I get a little more comfortable :D

Hey matlittle apologies for the delay in getting back to you!

Ran this one as it seemed like a big mistake with the overbet sizing on the river to me. According to PIO it is a mistake too. The turn doesn't get barreled by IP all that often given that BB can have AK, JJ, 2 pairs. As such this leaves a decent amount of unpaired AX in the BTN range as Linus has to be more selective with bluffs, along with some AQ, AT, AJ etc.

Everything makes sense, although I am a little surprised IP doesn't get to barrel all that many Ax OTT.

Do you think Berri just made a mistake, or do you think there could be some exploitative reason for it such as Linus making hero calls at too high of a frequency?

I'd wager it's a little bit of both, in that he was trying to exploit LLinus, but perhaps misunderstood how far he was deviating.

42.30 - 742Q
Interesting to see such a large turn barrel size and small remaining SPR - is this a product of the 2-tone turn card? Or would a similar size be used on offsuit turn cards too ever?

Nice to see you watching this far in the video matlittle :)

50% is almost certainly too big, but not by that much. I'd prefer a b33/b40. The point, however, is that we can size non-AI without being forced to bet 15% pot.

Nice to see you watching this far in the video matlittle :)

Getting max value!

45.46 - J732
Berri check-raises the flop and then checks the turn. What are the characteristics of the board that determine the stabbing size for Linus here? Am I right in saying that vs a depolarised check-raising range Linus should play a more polar big bet/check strategy. Then v.s. a polarised check-raising range Linus should play a high frequency stab with small sizing to capitalise on the high check-fold frequency from Berri?

There is more to turn stabbing, like whether IP finds 3b's OTF, and whether IP is mixing turn. Tbh, I am not entirely sure of all the moving parts; this is a node I am currently working on in my own studies :)

Yes, I had not considered flop 3bets. Presumably having a flop 3betting range will weaken IP's calling range and thus reduce his turn stabbing frequency and/or sizing?

For now I have other fish to fry but will look at it one day. Seems like stabbing 1/3 on brick turns very often works quite well given that most people don't trap enough on the turn. At my stakes it feels like even if they xr the flop less polarised they will bet their exact hand strength on the turn (e.g. bet 1/3 or 1/2 with a middling strength pair), and their checking range is still extremely weak and check-fold heavy.

Yes, I had not considered flop 3bets. Presumably having a flop 3betting range will weaken IP's calling range and thus reduce his turn stabbing frequency and/or sizing?

Exactly

For now I have other fish to fry but will look at it one day. Seems like stabbing 1/3 on brick turns very often works quite well given that most people don't trap enough on the turn. At my stakes it feels like even if they xr the flop less polarised they will bet their exact hand strength on the turn (e.g. bet 1/3 or 1/2 with a middling strength pair), and their checking range is still extremely weak and check-fold heavy.

Might very well be true. Remember that OOP is supposed to overfold these nodes on average after xr flop x turn

Hi Luke. Great video. Can you be more specific on why you don't want to depolarize your when your range is wide? "You only want to depolarize when your range is tight and doing very well." I assume this is also why we blocking bet at times when our range is so low on bluffs.

Hi johntozz

Sure. In hindsight, defining a range as wide or tight is an indirect way of saying how well we are doing. Instead, we should just focus on how well we are doing.

If we are doing well, villain must not be doing well. Therefore, we should be afforded an opportunity to size down and bet often (depolarising). This is not always the case, but is more times than not. Inversely, if we are not doing well, villain must be doing well. In this case, polarising proves more effective, as we are now not on the offensive anymore.

I hope that makes sense, I'm not the greatest at explaining these concepts through text haha

Pinzo It depends on the stakes you are playing. For lower stakes, it can work quite well. However, if your goal is to reach significantly higher stakes, then I would avoid making MDA a foundation in your game

Thank you TRUEPOWER

Welcome as always