I was the opposite in terms as I wasn't very excited when I seen this video posted by clanty because I thought it might almost be a bit of a waste of his talent to review a live play. I couln't be more wrong. Great video.

'a slightly different theme of video.' ... that we've been waiting for!
Very very excited to check this out after getting done with Friday poker stuff today!

Glad you so much Sungar78

I was a little weary making this video as I hadn't done anything like it before. However, I was pleasantly surprised with how natural it felt. More to come!

I was the opposite in terms as I wasn't very excited when I seen this video posted by clanty because I thought it might almost be a bit of a waste of his talent to review a live play. I couln't be more wrong. Great video.

I_Fold_Jacks PHEW for a moment there I thought I was being roasted, hahaha

I agree with your initial thoughts. In fact if I made this video two years ago it would've likely met your low expectations. In the past couple of years I've become a lot more exploitative and open to mixing things up, which hopefully came across well in a live setting

<3 happy to hear it! TRUEPOWER

Yes, exactly. Sure, there are times we call, spike an A/K and hope Bord fires with an airball. However, I think we can reserve these calls to hands more like AKs/AQs, which brick a lot less postflop

I prefer the more frequent strategy inputs. I make a living from high stakes live cash games and this was probably the most insightful video for me on RIO in regards to live cash. Please don't change what you are doing and make more videos just like this in the future! Thanks Luke!

I prefer the more frequent strategy inputs. I make a living from high stakes live cash games and this was probably the most insightful video for me on RIO in regards to live cash. Please don't change what you are doing and make more videos just like this in the future! Thanks Luke!

FIVEbetbLUFF Ok cool, thanks for the feedback, glad you enjoyed the inputs.

More strategy is better!

Luke Johnson The more interruptions the better, we are here for YOU not the clips <3

The more interruptions the better, we are here for YOU not the clips <3

mx404 Aha noted, tyvm :)

I didn't notice it, no. But yes perhaps he was picking up on this, too.

When playing online I am typically playing 4-6 tables and therefore unfortunately too busy to notice a lot of my villain's decisions in hands I am not VPIP'd into. Occasionally I'll catch hands, but I'm sure I miss a lot of important details. That's the nature of multi-tabling I suppose. In a live setting, yes I would expect myself to pick up on a lot of these micro details and to do my best to mentally note them accordingly. One thing to note here is that whilst I would cbT PSB with my NF's and sets (not all sets), Daniel may do something similar, just for a smaller, suboptimal sizing OTT. This is likely revealed in his BIG sizing OTR despite the board pair -- perhaps he was already thinking ahead as I was suggesting, but just got the turn sizing wrong. Therefore, it is important not to project our own thoughts too much. That is, a wrong sizing OTT may not actually be so strategically different.

thanks for the feedback, do you ever go through Pokertracker and look at some of these bigger spots that you aren't involved in post-session if something look extremely fishy, or are you hyper focused on your hands and the spots that you play?

I don't, no.

Do you think that the best players in the world are balanced multi way in these flush spots where the machine would smooth call so many of the Ks combos? I remember seeing a Sauce video years ago on monotone boards where GTO saw both players check down to the river quite often with their flushes and then go 3bet/4bet/all with a massive SPR and it struck me that this was one of the places where the biggest deviations from GTO happen in the real world. I am sure that things have evolved drastically in the high stakes since, but in your local $5-10 game these spots amongst others could be the place where we gain masses of EV versus the average player.

I think people do try to be somewhat balanced when MW vs only other strong regulars, however, they still likely fastplay considerably too often. Probably as a result of mixing, but not finding low enough numbers. E.g. "I'll only bet my NF 66% of the time, and then XC/XR 50/50 vs bets", whereas PIO may just go pure XC mode. It's really hard to be this passive with the nuts.

I think part of your logic for the pot sized bet was the perceived lack of K flushes in Doyle/Hultman's ranges.

I agree about players fast playing KXss on the flop way too often so that definitely removes some flushes. However I disagree that we shouldn't expect much offsuit KsXo in Doyle/Hultman's ranges.

If Hultman is calling BTN with QJo, then he's likely calling a high frequency of KQo, KJo, KTo.

Doyle called the BB with an offsuit dominated hand that plays poorly in a 3way 200bb deep hand, so he is unlikely to fold dominated offsuit KX like KTo. (The fact he is likely calling very wide in BB would of course dilute his percentage of K flushes though of course.)

Fair point about us likely expecting more NF's in both of villain's ranges. Even with this being true, I still opt for a PSB as I'm only betting NF or boat mines. Sizing down just because they have NF's isn't heuristic I'd play to, unless I also do not have too much NF myself. As played, I still expect us to have the most NF's here, and we are also the most polarised.

You can check this out in a regular BTNvsBB or MPvsBB sim by giving both players lots of NF's on a 4f board. IP should still be hyperpolarised with both hand and bet sizing choices.

Thanks for the idea of modelling it as a heads up SRP. It's hard to model this exact scenario given that Daniel is OOP in the hand and also shouldn't really cbet here. I tried a few scenarios like the ones you suggested and in general the pot sizing is usually a good sizing.

Thanks for the idea of modelling it as a heads up SRP. It's hard to model this exact scenario given that Daniel is OOP in the hand and also shouldn't really cbet here. I tried a few scenarios like the ones you suggested and in general the pot sizing is usually a good sizing.

Nice

In general, we only tend to size down when polarising if we are doing badly. e.g. negative symmetry. If it is at least neutral, we'll size up, provided we want to polarise.

2:50 you said when this deep the 4bet size should also be very large. If you are ip do you still feel the size needs to be that big?

Not to 35, but to at least 28-30

8:50 you talked about the turn cards that would allow the 55 to barrel. Do you need to trun eq to barrel off? I have seen that some low pocket pairs like to fire off often even without blockers or eq.

No, but I intentionally omitted this when talking as it can be a slippery slope and lead to bad habits. It's fine to barrel a whole host of bricks and overcards, too, just gotta be careful with the reasons on the do's and don'ts.

Great analysis on these hands.
Thanks!

Thanks mate, glad you enjoyed

This deep, we care less for two overs vs TT/JJ (we also face these hands less often at this depth), and more for the unblockers to the BW region that folds. You'll even sometimes see hands like 65s and 88 get in there over KJs!

Luke Johnson is it also just the getting paid off on low boards? Like QQ2 less likely to get paid off when flopping trips compared to 552 when we have A5s. Where lower boards we will face some larger bets and people can put more pressure on us for having "middling pairs" in our range.

I was thinking of some 100bb sims where some times we see hands like 99-66 mixing folds and 55-22 pure calling. But part of it is lower frequency RFI to begin with, so pure continue vs 3bet. Other times when they have TT+ they are more likely to play for stacks on low boards where we might have 99-77 in the minds so flopping a set of crabs on 732 is pretty nice.

For sure! Our robust EQ with A5 is far higher than AJ/AQ. And the deeper we get, the more prominent of a detail this becomes.