Thanks mate! Hope things are good with you :)

Really glad you are back. You are one of the best cash game coaches here and the suit heuristics you talk about are incredibly valuable.

Thank you very much SoundSpeed, I'm glad you find value in my content here

What are your normal stakes now?

2k-10k WPN and 5k-20k GG

7:50 table 3 kq when you discuss not wanting to bet kqhd because they block the folding range of opponent, is there a big ev loss if you choose the wrong suits to bet? I have been working on understanding and remembering these heuristics but in the heat of battle I mess this up quite a bit.

KQhh indifferent
KhQd loses 0.1bb. Not too expensive by any stretch. However, it's worth committing the heuristic to muscle memory

17:10 is the 76 call on the turn a bit out of line?

Yeah, a little. Note that both of these guys are recs, and the sizing is 1/2p, not 2/3p. Still likely losing a little tho, yeah

30:46 table 4 k6 you said worse 6x start to raise. Is this just a function of k6 having some sdv?

Exactly, yes. See images below for respective pot equities with K6 and Q6 vs OOP check after calling their 25% probe ott. As you can see, K6 retains some equity on all nonimproving cards, whereas Q6 only retains on exactly a K/A

Thanks!

You're welcome!

That puts a smile on my face, cheers mx404 :)

Thank you very much! Frankie Carson

Not yet... but it's a work hopefully in progress :) nogamblenofuture

Thank you very much Patrick Cronin I'm also a huge fan of your content, and was a huge fanboy/railboy of your grind back in the PS HS days

Thanks man, appreciate it, and you're very welcome :) BlankyLion

Cheers sandr1x , lovely to see you here. See you in the streets ;)

Bluffing OTT vs OTR: also a factor to consider is that they usually give more credit to turn stabs vs river stabs and are less stubborn with their really bad bluff catchers

Hello Luke, very glad to have you back! Your content and replies in the comments are the best on the site.

Happy to be back! And thank you very much :)

11.00 - AT on J85dddQ
Great point here about a recreational players having flop donking ranges. I knew that recreational players over-fold to delayed cbets, but I had presumed it was simply a case of them probing too many middling hands on the turn instead of check-calling them. I guess then it is a combination of this plus the flop donking range removing continuing hands from their range?

Yeah, exactly. I'd say it's safe to assume most recs have a donking range OTF, albeit not too often.

Would you go as far as bluffing any bluff hand on the turn, or do you consider the 'check to river and then bluff' line to be somewhere equal in EV? My feeling is that it's better to take the turn spot almost always, as the recreational player is likely to bet the river too often to make us indifferent between the 2 bluffing lines (no data to back this up, just a feeling).

Not with ATC here as the board is a little intimidating, thus I expect plenty of middling-strong(ish) hands to X turn. There's seldom a situation OTT where I'd want to stab ATC. Yes they may bet river too often, however, we do have raising options there.

HeyGals Yeah, I agree with your logic, however, we also have more flexibility OTR. e.g. we can go XXB 200% IP OTR with complete air targeting their weak range to XF. Whereas I wouldn't want to do this OTT with still a street to go.

I hesitate to give "general" advice here as it's so situationally dependant. With that being said:
• be hyperaware of what is going on. If you sense strength/weakness, react accordingly
• do not limit your options, we are playing NO limit hold'em after all. Do whatever means necessary to win the pot, given the right situation -- do NOT play ABC

I thought this was due to unblockers of villains BF range but also being lower in our own range bluffing with worse equity hands?

matlittle RunItTw1ce

I think it's due to better unblockers and lesser EQ when turning a pair after floating. e.g. T5s can call and turn a 5 to beat 44, T3s cannot.

1:27 (T1) I find these spots incredibly annoying because the squeezer has such a tight range that dominates us but we have decent odds to continue. How much implied odds are you looking to have in order to continue here? Also if LJ calls, do you still call? Pot odds will be better, but now the SPR is much lower. What is the threshold where you would want to fold here? If SB is squeezing something like 99+ AQ+ and suited broadways, I am not sure Q9s is profitable.

As mentioned the squeezer is a big rec, his range will not be tight. If it were, I'd muck preflop. We should not confuse the two contrasting environments, instead we strategise respectively. Therefore, try not to ponder whether Q9s is profitable vs "99+ AQ+".

In live games $2/$5 for example I'll encounter this a lot as well. MP $15, Hero cold calls BTN, SB makes it $45, MP calls, hero? Now its $30 to win $140 so hero needs 21.4% equity, but SPR ($455 / $140) is 3.25, so how do we navigate these spots?

I hesitate to give any live advice as I do not play there myself.

Also if we just open $15 on the button, SB tends to just go 3x to $45, so still decent price IP but likely against a very tight range. I think these "pot odds" spots lead me to punting too much post flop whether its a FD or TPWK. I've been told we exploit these players by just folding preflop and not giving their tight 3bet range action.

Why is $15→$45 vs a "very tight range"? That sounds like an overadjustment without further leads

Luke Johnson I want to discuss these small 3bet sizes a bit more if you don't mind. In low stakes online everyone under 3bets. If I look on wizard for LJ 2bb vs SB 3bet 8.5bb (5.9% range). Wizard is folding 47% of the time preflop. A lot of hands that call 99-55, QJs-T9s, etc are 0EV.

You mentioned you would fold if villain was not a purple tag. I am just wondering where the profit comes from in these spots. SCs for example only flop 2 pair or better 5.6% of the time, so we are not even getting implied odds for flopping a monster.

If you were playing someone that was VPIP 30 / PFR 10 / 3bet 5 what range would you defend vs these small 3bets? On ignition for example there seems to be a group of players who 3bet roughly 7% of hands for 5-7bb and just pot the flop. Very annoying to play against small 3bets because you know whats coming post flop. Do we want want something like 15:1 implied odds? Are you looking for SPR to be above 6? Vs a tight 3bet range what are the determining factors for you to continue?

Sorry I know I sound like a parrot repeating myself, but this spot seems very unclear to me. I'm tired of mimicking solver charts that defend suited broadways or SCs only for the 3bet range to be JJ+ AK majority of the time. Feels like the fish are just baiting me all the time in these spots.

SCs for example only flop 2 pair or better 5.6% of the time, so we are not even getting implied odds for flopping a monster.

RunItTw1ce the math is nowhere near as simple as this; there's far more to it. e.g. we can simply stab flop vs a check and take the pot down.

If you were playing someone that was VPIP 30 / PFR 10 / 3bet 5 what range would you defend vs these small 3bets?

I would call a ton with my robust hands (Q9s, 54s, 33, A8s, etc.) and expect to over realise vs a weaker player.

Very annoying to play against small 3bets because you know whats coming post flop.

No offence, this is typical oversimplification weaker players make. You don't know what's coming.

Do we want want something like 15:1 implied odds? Are you looking for SPR to be above 6? Vs a tight 3bet range what are the determining factors for you to continue?

I'll consider their strength as a player, what I perceive their range to be, my pot odds and the SPR once I call. Accordingly, I expect this to equal an over realisation for me in the above example you gave

Sorry I know I sound like a parrot repeating myself, but this spot seems very unclear to me. I'm tired of mimicking solver charts that defend suited broadways or SCs only for the 3bet range to be JJ+ AK majority of the time. Feels like the fish are just baiting me all the time in these spots.

Don't worry about it. The best single piece of advice I can give you specifically is to try and stop over thinking it. You are falling victim to planning so many deviations in your game before you even sit down at the table, that your gameplan (and thought process) is quickly becoming broken. e.g. Instead of reacting according to what villain has shown, you have firstly gone about it yourself, changing the gametree without being sure your villain is susceptible. Try to make the majority of your deviations on a reactionary basis, instead of a proactive one. I appreciate this is quite harsh criticism, however, your leak is not uncommon in the poker'verse', and it's a damning one.

Furthermore, I've recently recorded what I believe to be a very educational video at lower stakes (200 RnC on GG), explaining where players go wrong in their thought process. The above (proactive vs reactive) is a very common mistake.

No offence, this is typical oversimplification weaker players make. You don't know what's coming.

Luke Johnson no offense taken. I never take these things personally. Just trying to educate myself on this issue. When I say "I know what's coming" I am just referring to the larger CB size where I don't get to realize my equity. Even tonight I open 3bb, guy min 3bets to 6bb, 3 players cold call! We go 5 ways to the flop (30bb) of 762. Guy cbets 25bb. This is just what I am seeing a ton in live cash. These small 3bets followed by large CB sizes even MW. They feel like they need to protect their AA-JJ so they are just piling money in on the flop. Its nice whenever we flop big but now we have a lot of 54s, 98s, etc in range where we have to risk 1/3 of our stack. I just feel EQR is much lower. Once we get past the flop I do think we realize our equity more easily as I face a lot of smaller bet sizes or checks. I am just getting hammered on the flop though.

You are falling victim to planning so many deviations in your game before you even sit down at the table, that your gameplan (and thought process) is quickly becoming broken. e.g. Instead of reacting according to what villain has shown, you have firstly gone about it yourself, changing the gametree without being sure your villain is susceptible. Try to make the majority of your deviations on a reactionary basis, instead of a proactive one. I appreciate this is quite harsh criticism, however, your leak is not uncommon in the poker'verse', and it's a damning one.

Having a game plan and planning ahead is something we have all been taught to do. Have warm up routine in place before we even go to the casino. I try and base a lot of my heuristics around how the pool plays as a whole, which is under 3bet, CB large, and play face up poker. Being proactive does hurt my volume a lot though. I still have an edge over the pool but as you said I am over thinking a lot of spots instead of just keeping it simple and being reactionary. I'll try and take your advice going forward.

Look forward to your 200NL video on correcting thought process.

15:03 (T4) J85ddd-Qx with AsTs you mentioned using delayed cb vs recreationals who have a donking range and missed turn probe. Are you sizing down because its mono texture? Are you using a punching bag approach for delayed CB? How are you determining your turn delayed CB size? This is wizards kind of splitting 33/50/75 sizes.

I'd use a dcbT 50% on a suited texture as well. It serves great utility in the delayed cbet line when IP, provided you aren't mixing sizes, due to (most of the time) being somewhat capped via xbF, yet still wanting to leveraging a decent amount of chips into the pot

30:40 (T4) on the 732r-4dd-9x board you mention you are not sure what half pot accomplishes. I just wanted to note a recent wizard video showed B50 OOP loses the least amount of EV compared to a complex strategy where you split your sizes and B75 IP loses the least amount of EV according to wizard. Maybe he is simplifying to B50 as the only river size OOP? 21min mark

I'm 100% sure villain is playing multiple sizes here. Had he only played a single size, then yes I'd agree with your analysis here (also hadn't considered that POV, so thanks). But yeah, in this instance I'm positive it's just an oversight from villain

44:45 (T4) How come K6s is XR more often than a hand like KTs, QTs, Q9s, all seem to XR less than K6s. Is it also because K6s lower frequency call vs 3bet? I would just use the GS or 1 over + BDFD + BDSD. Also On Jd 5s 3h board we are using

Those higher hands w/ T-7x kickers connect w/ villain's polar 3b range preflop that often cbets flop on the J-Tx textures. E.g. all of those T8o T7o J8o.

clubs > spades > hearts > diamonds when choosing to XR? We want to unblock the bdfd that CB too often and block more Top pair making diamonds less attractive? I have a hard time finding clubs over diamonds because I want to be more equity driven when diamond turns.

The suits will be dependant on our hand class. The stronger the hand the more likely we will be to use the naked (in this case clubs) suit. However, the weaker hand classes should prefer the nuttier BDFD variants, whilst XF'ing the naked suit.

the weaker hand classes should prefer the nuttier BDFD variants, whilst XF'ing the naked suit.

Luke Johnson this part was very helpful on this Jd 5s 3h board. A4c XR while QT(s/h) > QTc.

Tight range vs Wider range configurations and SPR driven i would guess at. In the 3b pot we want to unblock hands like AQ Ad AT Ad that will barrel to allow for bluffs on turn and river diamonds. We also want to block AJs. In the wider configuration , we want to prevent bet calls from Axss and unblock some future K4ss and KTss on future non spade streets , with blocking specific top pair combos becoming much less important due to there being so much more Ax in villains range for a SRP.

Thanks EasyEasyEasy I overlooked the spr. Should be more polar not to be blown off our equity in lower spr spots

47:30 (T2) You mention spades and hearts are best to not get over flushed on future streets. Why is wizard choosing a hand like 54c > 54s > 54h > 54d here? But on the above comment on the Jd 5s 3h board its A4c > A4s > A3h > A3d. I'm having a hard time grasping why spades for the top suit is best for T4s hand but diamonds is worse suit for the A4 hand.
Thank you in advance.

I'm pretty sure if you looked through 10 flops of similar Ahi textures, you'd see the spade variant come out on top. You can let me know.

EasyEasyEasy

With your first point in tighter configs, it's true, however, we also want to block the bdfd suits to block EQ for villain on later streets -- we want to block them from picking up a FD on turn, for example. So it'll be a compound effect (plus, there's prob 1000 other reason PIO is doing it that we are unaware of :))

Second point re. bigger SPR's is spot on, yes. Blocking TP at 15 SPR is a much lower priority than BDNFD's not being as present for villain.

Thanks EasyEasyEasy I overlooked the spr. Should be more polar not to be blown off our equity in lower spr spots

We want to be more depolar in lower SPR spots, as the pot is worth more to us relative to our stack than if we're in a giant SPR.

<3

Haha, thanks brother :)

You came back too haha

Hey innerpsy

IMO:
• we have many other FD's that are a higher priority shove OTT, typically those with lower SDV. In the same vein, we want to make sure to find some XXdd XC's OTT -- AQs is a good candidate
• we have LOTS of SDV (64% pot EQ on avg. across all rivers!) after IP XB OTR (see image below)
• Our Ax blocks many of IP's AJo & AQo bluffs ott. Unblocking this is preferred

With that being said, using slightly different parameters may indeed result in some shoves, like you've seen on GTOW. This is why opt for self compassion here, instead of considering it an error, as if we were versus MP, or a little deeper, our play is now totally fine(/may already be fine).

Ye Kudinov is definitely capable of finding bluffs here))

Hey Luke, your video is like a piece of art, I need to watch it again and again from many angles to be able to fully appreciate it, so much wisdom and the thought process is just so clear and concise. I wasn't part of RIO when you were actively producing video back then but I did binge watching fair amount, then again, so glad you are back and I get to catch you this time, please please keep making videos, don't leave us :D

Hey mx404 thank you so much for the generous comment and compliments! I'm really glad you enjoy my content and find value in it, that's ultimately the goal ;)

Also a side note -- I enjoy GG's gameplay over stars, better software/UI, and more importantly - limited HUD functions. I think without a ton of stats, it allows the top notch coach like you to bring up more natural reads & extrapolate player types/tendencies over the hands instead of interpreting stats (like you validate your read vs the Stephen guy in part II -- hope that makes sense), I really enjoy that.

Interesting take and tbh I agree with you re. no HUD. There is something inelegant about doing X because of hard data in a HUD, versus reading into timing/sizing tells and going back through HH's to dissect their game piece by piece. In future I'll try to be more vocal about my exploits vs recs :)

Cheers again mx404

There is something inelegant about doing X because of hard data in a HUD, versus reading into timing/sizing tells and going back through HH's to dissect their game piece by piece

SO FELICITOUS, I love you Luke <3

No exploit, I've used small 3b's since 2018, ever since OBORRA played on Stars (RTA bot that eventually got banned). It's not better than 3betting a standard size, however, it is more fun! But really, it's practically the same EV in GTO and forces players to defend wider, which I like

just have enough SDV vs his range and if we bet we usually get called by better

True, but this isn't reason not to bet. We are bluffing and expect to only get called by better. With these conditions betting can still outperform checking, even with SDV

However, I do understand the logic of
- 1) rec's double check range will be extremely weak & tend to be overfolding
- 2) we can make effective nuts OTR

Yes, with weight on the first point. If it were not the case, I would feel more indifferent (still not pure checking)

Also in the above comment regarding this hand you mentioned you won't stab ATC. So how would you construct the delayed bluff range here?

Tbh looking back at this, I think I do stab ATC, but not with 100% freq. If the board were J87Q, then I wouldn't delayed CBet naked 54. But yeah, given the board config, my range, and my opposition in mind, I don't see a single hand I wouldn't start to delayed CBet at least some of the time

ps: I checked the solve -- I think I'm finding too little of these AT-A6 bet in game and probably betting 97s/65s pure

I think that's quite a common misconception in these spots, which is to focus too much on the natural SD/FD's and not enough on the overcards. I.e. I believe population underfinds A6/K6. However, if they find too many SD/FD it likely balances out their freq (ish).

With these conditions betting can still outperform checking, even with SDV

This is fairly interesting as I always think checking back SDV (especially nut nothing) would be the play OTT since

• There's only one more card to come so equity denial becomes less significant vs his naked air (6 outs against us)
• When we are betting nut nothing we only fold out worse and get called by better + we usually won't follow up bluffing river with those hands so it feels like the bet achieves nothing

I believe population underfinds A6/K6.

I can understanding A6/K6 bets which folds out better A/K high -- Could you elaborate a little bit more why delay cbet AT here will outperform checking? Will preventing us from being bluffed by his air OTR counted as part of the reason?

Thank you very much!

If the board were J87Q, then I wouldn't delayed CBet naked 54.

Yeah this makes total sense :D

This is fairly interesting as I always think checking back SDV (especially nut nothing) would be the play OTT since
• There's only one more card to come so equity denial becomes less significant vs his naked air (6 outs against us)
• When we are betting nut nothing we only fold out worse and get called by better + we usually won't follow up bluffing river with those hands so it feels like the bet achieves nothing

This all makes sense, and it will be the case for many situations, however not all. As is the case with 'blindly' following brute heuristics (harsh way to phrase it), we end up not really understanding why things happen, we just do X blanketly because it generally works. If we explore why we want to bet over checking turn, it'll come down to range interactions, mainly concerning symmetry and our blockers. Simply put: if our range is very positively asymmetrical andor we have positive blockers, we indeed may want to bet a hand, that has plenty of SDV, over checking it. If you can think about this on a spectrum of dials, where if you slightly twist them, you change your range symmetry with villain / your blocker effects, it will begin to help you to properly understand the landscape and differing output effects. This is >>>> brute heuristics.

I can understanding A6/K6 bets which folds out better A/K high -- Could you elaborate a little bit more why delay cbet AT here will outperform checking? Will preventing us from being bluffed by his air OTR counted as part of the reason?
Thank you very much!

• Ax affords us extra EQ via having an overcard
• Tx affords us a blocker to eff nuts, extra gutter EQ, and a blocker to a bunch of natural XC's from villain
This + the fact that we presume villains X range to be too wide, and XC range to be too capped (thus allowing future exploits), we have a clear bet imo

If you can think about this on a spectrum of dials, where if you slightly twist them, you change your range symmetry with villain / your blocker effects, it will begin to help you to properly understand the landscape and differing output effects. This is >>>> brute heuristics

Thank you so much -- this sounds very abstract, but it did solve some of my doubts -- I will run some sims and experiment myself, try to digest the concept. That being said, you might save me lots of time building/using "brute heuristics" before it's ingrained.

Massive thanks again!

Thank you so much -- this sounds very abstract, but it did solve some of my doubts -- I will run some sims and experiment myself, try to digest the concept. That being said, you might save me lots of time building/using "brute heuristics" before it's ingrained.
Massive thanks again!

You're welcome man.

I know first hand how good it feels to build these heuristics. However, as you improve and learn more about the game, you'll soon arrive at a different, more overarching and clairvoyant viewpoint that now better understands what's going on. This supersedes the heuristics. Now when I coach, I try to get my students out of these traps as early as possible. It's harder, but worth it for the long run

Nope, just 1 size. We lose very little/no EV by not mixing flop sizes in SRP's.

However, given his stack size (32BB OTF), do you think the leverage will work well on later streets?

With our hand in mind, yes, as we've ability to barrel on SO many turns.

Since some recs might get pretty sticky when they hit something. Or generally, do you think the effectiveness of the idea will vary for different stack sizes (assuming all playing vs rec player)

At 100bb I wouldn't CBet PSB w/ T9o, as I'd want more EQ in a bigger SPR (FD+). The shorter I am w/ T9 (around 40bb's is really nice), the more I begin to like it. Note that I'm also completely winging it here, so whilst I do feel confident in my strat, I wouldn't say that I am 100% correct

At 100bb I wouldn't CBet PSB w/ T9o, as I'd want more EQ in a bigger SPR (FD+). The shorter I am w/ T9 (around 40bb's is really nice), the more I begin to like it.

Got it, makes a lot of sense

I do feel confident in my strat

Indeed a very unorthodox play, do you have certain reads before this hand that this rec is playing somewhat passively so that you wanted to bully this spot?

ps - the "alpha fish" commentary after this hand makes me giggle real hard xD

ps - the "alpha fish" commentary after this hand makes me giggle real hard xD

ikr, I stole this from a student when he was explaining a certain aggro guy in his pool. It fits perfectly :D

33:08 bottom left AT3ss board you mentioned this is usually a pot or check board for you but vs unknown likely rec you elect to range bet b25. Just curious here what's the main driver for you to shift to range bet vs presumably rec?

The big size here allows recs to play perfectly with more hands just by folding. However, B25 forces some lesser intuitive play on AT3 (e.g. lots of raising w/ all the low wheel hands), which recs will miss. In general, I try not to let recs play perfectly vs me. If we instead consider KQJss, all low hands auto fold vs any size (bar some PP), so then we can size up without the possibility of inducing mistakes with a smaller size.

ps - the flag is Singapore not Turkey :P

God damn it.

My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined.

Got it, thanks for the explanation.

the possibility of inducing mistakes with a smaller size

Also curious how do you determine what board rec will make more mistake vs smaller sizing? For example the board I asked in the above comment, 732r, you said your baseline strategy vs a potential reg will be overbet or check, will you still shift the strats to b25 range if villain is a rec?

I also ran two sims -- by forcing IP b25 range, BB's reaction is to fold 3% and raise 24% on 732r (while on AT3ss BB needs to fold 27% and raise 18%)

So by the nature of rec (or majority of the player) under XR, it seems we can just cbet range, however does that really makes our EV higher in your opinion?

Thank you very much!

My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined.

If I told you this makes my day, does that make you feel slightly better?

Also curious how do you determine what board rec will make more mistake vs smaller sizing? For example the board I asked in the above comment, 732r, you said your baseline strategy vs a potential reg will be overbet or check, will you still shift the strats to b25 range if villain is a rec?
I also ran two sims -- by forcing IP b25 range, BB's reaction is to fold 3% and raise 24% on 732r (while on AT3ss BB needs to fold 27% and raise 18%)

You nailed it in the 2nd point via forcing strategy's. The boards where going small outperforms the most will be the ones where we see the biggest deviations from PIO, which the rec population will most certainly not find.

If I told you this makes my day, does that make you feel slightly better?

Alas no, I will be forever haunted by the Turkish flag. Sorry, I mean the SINGAPORE flag.

Thanks a lot mate, these are the type of vocal explanations I'll continue to do moving forward that I mentioned to your other comment :)

hey man, awesome videos really enjoy them. MTT player here but I do like to educate myself on cashgames sometimes.

Hey Linc thanks a lot! I hope some of the cash game footage is relevant in your MTT's

29:43 top right corner with the A7 after we bet: if he raises us, it is just a fold right? I feel comfortable in mtts navigating those spots, but whenever i play cash occasionally, I never fully know player pool tendencies and also know the ranges as much and somehow this just makes me more paranoid about getting bluffed too much in spots in which i valuebet like middling to bottom of my value range and get raised. Especially in spots like this when we checked turn and he can basically deduct all or most of the two pairs and sets from our range. So I just end up thinking " well he knows I have a lot of Ax one pair type hands" and vs aggressive player can easily see me leveling myself. But next question would be what would be our calls vs raise, obviously depends how large a raise. We have some 43, A2 and maybe some 52 for strong hands? Actually I assume also a bit of J5 idk. I assume we still need to call some Ax one pair in the end, again depending on sizing?

I believe these thoughts are mainly stemming from you not protecting your turn XB range enough. The better you become at it, the less concerned you'll be with getting raised OTR. You mentioned we bet all, if not most of our two pairs OTT when checked to, however, the nut portion of our range is relatively asymmetric with villain after we just call pre and flop, we are IP, and the SPR is still LARGE. Therefore, we should look to play cautiously, resulting in us checking back the turn with a high density of strong hands, including 2p's. Once we know this, we should feel more rest assured by betting A7o. Noting this should hopefully clear up your other uncertainties re. not knowing pool tendencies and which hands to defend vs XR. Hope this helps.

Thank you Linc :)

0:40 what is green tag exactly ? You said it's weaker player but how weaker ? I play sometimes vs Samu Alto, his strat looks too simple, is that the reason you put him in green ?

It's "1.5"

1 = strong pro
2 = rec

Vs 1's I will hardly exploit, moreso just COUNTERexploit if I suspect something is up. Vs 1.5's, I'll be a little more aggressive with my exploits.

4:40 what do you think about betting 1.5bb here ?

Which spot?

20:03 don't you think 1.2bb is better ? Blocking the Tx region is not good for using a big size and if he starts folding everything that is not a T we are really not in good shape.

W/ exactly Ts I don't think it's too relevant. Ax is more damning than the Tx here.

Unless I expect them to bluffraise me too much vs 1/3p, I will always size 2/3p vs a rec here without caring too much about my blockers, as generally speaking, their inelasticity>my blockers

39:20 seems a fold to me on the turn. Most of them are going to raise nuts and call the one d region. If you have reads on this guy of course why not but seems quite difficult to even call turn as in the worst scenario you loose -7.3bb. It's close tho , but prefer to fold.

We can never fold turn vs this player type. He can just have a bunch of worse Ax w/ or w/o a diamond raising because it's gone XXX otf and only 1/3p ott. Folding would be a considerable mistake

River super clear fold imho, you rep a ton of strong hands, he bets , he need to find the random no EQ hand raised turn + bet river.
Almost never going to happen.

In theory I'm with you, however, this villain is anything but theory. I expect him to find those random 0/lowEQ turn raises into river barrels (provided he sizes down river as he did to 1/2p). So for me it's not a super clear fold. Tbh, I would call if I could go back in time, as his 2bet turn into river bet is quite polarised, meaning if he's only vbetting Td+, and we can subtract some of them from his flop xb, and we get 3:1, I think we just sigh call and expect to run into a bunch of flushes, but also K4hh that I expect to see in his range from time to time. Like my reply to your other comment: "give a bad enough player enough hands, and they'll make enough mistakes".

Also worth noting that this is just my opinion of a rec and my strategy to counter them. Not willing to say I'm 100% correct, but willing to put money on it via hopefully finding the XC next time!

41:00 nice play, and also we can mention that Kx might re raise turn so he will be even weaker vs XR and bet OTR.

True, good point. I wouldn't expect many 3b's from recs here, but definitely some. If we give them Kx+, I expect a 3b 12-18% of the time, what do you think? I'm talking exploitatively vs recs.

48 T4s always call for me, even if the solver raises I don't like it it's terrible for our hand to get rejam here.

Fair enough. But know that PIO has already considered getting shoved off its equity, and it still likes raising.

It's "1.5"
1 = strong pro
2 = rec
Vs 1's I will hardly exploit, moreso just COUNTERexploit if I suspect something is up. Vs 1.5's, I'll be a little more aggressive with my exploits.

Ok, funny cause he has a decent wr on a decent sample size.

Which spot ?

KQo 3:50

W/ exactly Ts I don't think it's too relevant. Ax is more damning than the Tx here.
Unless I expect them to bluffraise me too much vs 1/3p, I will always size 2/3p vs a rec here without caring too much about my blockers, as generally speaking, their inelasticity>my blockers

Agree for the blocker part , I'm ok with 1/3, 3 weeks ago I wanted to size bigger but now I changed my mind I want to bet 1/3 haha. You I think if you go bigger and they start folding often it's really bad for our EV, compared to the scenario where they call more our EV will not so higher than 1/3 as most of them will have some kind of elasticity.

We can never fold turn vs this player type. He can just have a bunch of worse Ax w/ or w/o a diamond raising because it's gone XXX otf and only 1/3p ott. Folding would be a considerable mistake

I totally disagree with you on this point; it's late for me now so I'm gonna edit and develop my answer tomorrow; but I'm sure here I can make you change your mind on this one maybe ! And of course I might be wrong but have high certainty in this spot that folding has to be considered.

KQo 3:50

Yes, fine sizing with our range. However, as mentioned in the video, KQo with these suits is about the worst hand possible in our range to find, so I check

Agree for the blocker part , I'm ok with 1/3, 3 weeks ago I wanted to size bigger but now I changed my mind I want to bet 1/3 haha. You I think if you go bigger and they start folding often it's really bad for our EV, compared to the scenario where they call more our EV will not so higher than 1/3 as most of them will have some kind of elasticity.

There will be some elasticity issues, however, recs in XX XX lines become quite stationy with pairs OTR vs non-giant sizes. It doesn't really matter too much what we do anyway; you prefer 1/3p and I prefer 2/3p, both will likely perform better than solver output

I totally disagree with you on this point; it's late for me now so I'm gonna edit and develop my answer tomorrow; but I'm sure here I can make you change your mind on this one maybe ! And of course I might be wrong but have high certainty in this spot that folding has to be considered.

Let me know your thoughts

Size down on monotone and size up on rainbow.

However, you may still bet small on rainbow and occasionally even 2/3p on monotone. It is very much situation dependant. i.e. Range vs Range intereaction; nut end vs nut end, SPR, IPvsOOP, etc.

Awesome video Luke! Wouldn't have expected to learn some of the best exploits vs fish I've ever seen from a 25/50 video!

Hey BigFishTheory thanks very much! Recs (on average) are fairly consistent throughout the stakes, regardless of 50nl / 5knl, so I'm glad you were able to learn a thing or 2

I'm just wondering what range do you iso fish limps with?

Dependant on the rec. Vs big losers I'll iso WIDER than my RFI range for the position. Vs nittier types, then surely much tighter than my RFI. I'll also change my sizing accordingly.

Hey Luke, great video, as always :)

Hey VillainNo5 thank you very much :)

CBet turn after xr for 1/3p at 50% freq is quite a standard/betting volume, perhaps slightly on the lower side. Whilst 50% may seem high on a Kx turn specifically, we mostly barrel for small, the Kx isn't nut-low comparative to an Ax, and we arrive in a SMALL SPR with a range that is filtered given our previous raising action. So TL;DR be less afraid of the Kx in general, esp. in small SPR's with a positively filtered range. Also, we still have a decent chunk of Kx arriving here!

Yes, but making mistakes theoretically can be okay if we’re making more money exploitatively? Like the same exploits we use vs a weaker player we would approach differently or maybe take a different line vs a competent player who’s game we respect more.

Yep. Little note on the bolded text: I wouldn't even worry about how it performs theoretically if I plan to play exploitatively. The two should be separated. Moreover, if we make a huge (and for the sake of this point, good) intentional deviation and get snapped off, we shouldn't then look to consult PIO. We should be happy with our play

And no we can’t be perfect in every session, every single line we take in every hand. We can only do what’s best in the spots we find ourselves in!

Precisely. Simply put, I aspire to try and make less and less mistakes moving forward, with the foresight that it'll never be reduced to zero.

What I’ve come across lately, is battling an all reg table, we’re we’ve all have like 10k plus hands vs eAchother or more, so we have an decent understanding of each others tendencies, however still small sample, however, I think table selection is important for maximizing your win rate. If I spent more time bum hunting can maximize it more.

This really comes down to your personal preference... you are fine to reg battle / bumhunt. There are pros and cons to each.

Reg battling = more knowledge and less money
Bum hunting = less knowledge and more money

Finding a balance is what I would personally recommend

Awesome thanks Luke!

Thanks mate!

Yes if we do decide to deviate exploit for specific reasons, trying to decipher it in gto wizard or pio can sometimes make us more frustrated because the inputs doesn’t always go with our “why” we decide to take a specific line.

If I am exploiting for XYZ reason(s), I will at very most use PIO as a very loose guide; I'll generally not need enquire as to the "why's" in PIO when I am more focused on exploiting my villain

I’m sometimes careful when I try to run hands in the solve of other players play as well, because I don’t have their back ground and perspective that they have in the hand. Look at the output, the ranges, lines bet sizings we can only gage and calculate with the information we have or that is given in a specific hand!

Interesting comment, thanks!

When looking at their hands, I'll use a baseline of theory, so I shouldn't need to know their thoughts/perspective. Of course their thoughts/perspectives are important, but as you mentioned, they are not ascertainable. If their play ends up being a good in the solve, I learn a thing or two! If not, I put it down to a bad play, or a potentially good play, but without knowing the context as to why (again, their thoughts/perspectives, etc.).

Hope this helps!

Ni idea, lo siento. El traductor de Google funciona bien, como puedes ver. :)