Hey, thanks for the comment Shaun! It all comes down to how the ranges are constructed. So yeah, it's true that population don't block bet enough OOP OTR, but that information alone doesn't provide us awareness about how weak/strong their bet is when they do blockbet.

From my researches even tho they underblockbet in frequency, they still overbluff when doing so. So in practice pool has even more incentive to raise blockbets OTR

And about your second question:

Unfortunately we (BrPC) haven't build the reports for river spots on SBvsBB SRP yet, we only have it till the turn, so I won't be able to give you the exact number. But I do agree that it makes a lot of sense, the spot that we usually want to depolarize the most is SBvsBB SRP.

It all comes down to how the ranges are constructed. So yeah, it's true that population don't block bet enough OOP OTR, but that information alone doesn't provide us awareness about how weak/strong their bet is when they do blockbet.

It does to some degree. Let's assume that their value:bluff ratio stays the same no matter which frequency OOP blockbets.
60:20
45:15
30:10

Because the absolute amount of value combo's changes we can assume that the average strength of a value combo is stronger. Due to this IP can not raise as light for value. More hands in IP's range are considered solid value raises vs the 60:20 compared to the 30:10. Even with the right value:bluff ratio IP's raising frequency becomes smaller as OOP's frequency decreases. In your example we'd start seeing K8s to become calls instead of value jams when OOP's blockbet frequency decreases.

I do want to state that this is what I think happens theoretical. It's possible (for pool) the lowered blockbet frequency is still made up off the weaker value hands and the stronger value hands are being used in a larger betsize, keeping the average strength of value the same or even weaker.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more unsure I am about my logic.

From my researches even tho they underblockbet in frequency, they still overbluff when doing so. So in practice pool has even more incentive to raise blockbets OTR

Ok. That's an MDA I didn't check out yet.

Alright, so here's 2 sims, 1st GTO and 2nd node lock for half of the betting range. As you said, I didn't change anything about the range construction, I just copied and paste the checking range to change the freq. OOP's line is Bs-X-Bs
1st:
OOP
IP

2nd:
OOP
IP

So, on the GTO sim, IP raises 22.5% vs the small bet, while on the node locked sim, IP raises 21.94%. So as I expected, the raising frequencie won't be very different. The equity of the small size betting range remained pretty much the same (left locked, right GTO with the Bs selected). But the equity of the bigger size decreased, and the equity of the checking range increased. So even tho I tried to make the different ranges for the different actions remain with the same equity, that wasn't possible.

I'd say the conclusion is that the frequency of blockbetting doesn't influence the frequency of the raise response, but it does influence on the sizing, mostly because of blocker effects I guess.

Another thing that it influences is the calling response, and that's pretty interesting. I guess that once again this is blocker effects. So if you take AQ for example, on the GTO sim OOP is blockebetting a lot with those combos, while on the node locked one it's much less. In response you see IP calling much more with AQ on the node locked one.

So yeah, I guess my theory is still correct, maybe the only way we can confirm that 100% is by making some toy games in which blockers have zero effect over results.

Hey! Your doubt is very similar to the question Shaun asked above, there's a misconception of correlating frequency and range construction. It's possible for a player to only raise 1% on certain node, but when they do they are bluffing much more than they should.

So as I said above, even tho the reg population underblockbets, when they do it's still overbluffed, so we have incentive to raise. I don't have this info for every single possible spot in the game tree, but from the most common ones (XC-XX-Bs on SRP OOP as PFC for ex) they still overbluff when betting small.

I'm glad you enjoyed it =D

Thanks my friend!

I'm glad I could add some value :)

Thank you Luke, your videos are awesome btw!

Thanks!

You're welcome!

Ty!

Nice to see you here! Thanks pal

Awesome! I'll keep that in mind

Thank you! Yeah, GTO is nothing more than a set of strategies completely exploiting each other to a point where there's no incentive for any of them to change anything. It makes no sense to play perfectly GTO on an environment where deviations are huge (assuming someone could actually play perfect GTO, which is impossible). But it's important to always keep GTO at the back of your mind, cause at the end of the day, those are still very important concepts and guidelines of how poker works, and without knowing GTO frequencies and trends, there's no way to know if (and how much) someone is deviating from it.

If you bet 1/3 pot on the river then 25% bluffs is an overbluff. Opponent is getting 4:1 so only needs to be good 20% to call bluffcatchers.