5:30 – We're supposed to check back Kx and just reopen with a few Ax with the Ac that we find OTT and 2p+ so, indeed, is really easy to end up over bluffing here.

11:45 – I don't tend to use 10% in these spots for simplicity reasons but it can work nicely assuming you have a better idea of how your opponent will respond against it as opposed to how they will respond vs check.

32:40 – I don't play any leads in any texture SRP OOP. In HU the ranges tend to be pretty simetrical on the low end of hands so you don't get to have much of a leading range in any board, however, these 3 low card textures would be the better ones for OOP to implement a leading range given that IP misses them fairly often.

44:00 – Thanks a lot for the good advice. I never thought about that because I've always studied raising by thinking about the x multiplier rather than the % of the pot.

Vs the PSR we just defend 50% of our range? Then vs 50% PSR we defend 2/3 of our range?

I'm not particularly good at math but I think yours is right.

Do the pot odds work the same when we face a bet and have to defend X% of our range compared to facing a raise and having to defend X% of our range?

I think you're mixing pot odds with MDF here. Pot odds shows us the amount of equity that we need to continue vs the range that is betting. MDF is the minimum % of our range that we need to continue to not be exploitable against opponent's bluffs.

Nuno Alvarez thanks for the screen shot. The 8% donk lead wasn't too surprising to me, but the 40% size instead of 25-33% was. Six max it's 8.5% on this board using the general solutions, but wiz only shows 33% donk option. Would have to use custom Ai to explore this a bit more for other sizes.

I think you're mixing pot odds with MDF here. Pot odds shows us the amount of equity that we need to continue vs the range that is betting. MDF is the minimum % of our range that we need to continue to not be exploitable against opponent's bluffs.

Using wizard six max BTN vs BB on 632r board.
vs 50% cbet (2.75 into 5.5), wizard folds 37.8% on 632r as the BB.
BTN vs a 50% raise (2.75 to 8.25) wizard folds 38.9%. BTN has to call 5.5 to win 16.5bb. Wizard link. It appears that whether we face a raise or a bet the continue frequency is going to be the same. Going to be less than MDF because of the future equity.

thanks for the screen shot. The 8% donk lead wasn't too surprising to me, but the 40% size instead of 25-33% was. Six max it's 8.5% on this board using the general solutions, but wiz only shows 33% donk option. Would have to use custom Ai to explore this a bit more for other sizes.

40% makes a lot of sense in HU. Because of the nature of the board being so low, if we bet too small the IP player gets to continue with basically their entire range so we don't really accomplish anything by leading.

Using wizard six max BTN vs BB on 632r board.
vs 50% cbet (2.75 into 5.5), wizard folds 37.8% on 632r as the BB.
BTN vs a 50% raise (2.75 to 8.25) wizard folds 38.9%. BTN has to call 5.5 to win 16.5bb. Wizard link. It appears that whether we face a raise or a bet the continue frequency is going to be the same. Going to be less than MDF because of the future equity.

Correct, thanks for the link.

34:25 – In these type of spots we often end up overfolding slightly when being OOP and facing a river bet. I think it has to do with the fact that we want to give IP the incentive to bluff with hands that have quite a lot of EV by checking back. IIRC Quin Yang talks about this concept in depth in this great video

Nuno Alvarez Really cool video! I loved the toy game example at the end where he shows 9s8s calling the turn on KQ74hh board vs AA. Why does 9s8s call the turn drawing dead? This was a really cool example!

This seems like an interesting counter to the min cbet range bet that lots of high stakes regs seem to have adopted for these monotone boards. Is your thinking here that you will make it difficult for A-high and K-high hands with no FD and potentially induce mistakes from that region?

In part yes but not only from that region alone. I think playing vs the min cbet is difficult in many ways since it also uforces OOP to develop a very aggressive raising strategy which is quite hard to implement even if you really try given how unnatural it feels.

I ran the hand on GTOWizard and it seems like ATo+ and KTo+ with no FD are the tricky hands that need to pure/mix call here.
The solver seems to prefer XRing to 4.3BB instead and this will generate more EV for OOP at equilibrium. IP's response to that is also not entirely straightforward, they must mix folds with some gutters like QJ/QT and 2nd/3rd pair hands like 87s, Q4s, 74s etc:

What would you think to using this slightly larger size instead?

Thanks for the screnshot. I actually learned something by reading your comment and doing some testing. Seems like to punish the min cbet strategy we want to raise 2x or 2.5x when the board is really dry and locked since there are a lot of hands in IP range that won't be able to continue anyway.

However, when the board becomes more connected, the smaller raise sizings don't accomplish enough and we start using 4.5x instead to deny equity to a bunch of draws.

Nuno Alvarez isn't the bigger XR size on the mono board due to how vulnerable top pair is? That is why there is a big difference between A62 & T73?

It's also that, but not only that. There are multiple reasons why raising really small is not ideal on T73. Is a more ''open'' texture and we want to deny equity from a lot more hands such as gutshots and overcards to the T.

Thanks for the screnshot. I actually learned something by reading your comment and doing some testing. Seems like to punish the min cbet strategy we want to raise 2x or 2.5x when the board is really dry and locked since there are a lot of hands in IP range that won't be able to continue anyway.

Awesome!

I think if someone is range betting this type of board they will find it somewhat tricky to pick the correct response vs any of the small raise sizes. So then if the solver prefers a specific size on that board texture then its probably our best response. It's cool that it likes the small sizing on A62m and that this small sizing still folds out a bunch of hands with good equity against our 6x and 2x.

Good question. I'm not sure if he did any MDA himself but it certainly seems like he could intuitively know that this sizing would work exceptionally well vs the population given how hard is to defend properly against it.

do you think that this type of play still works at these stakes?

I think so. People who don't play highstakes tend to think that everybody playing them is really good and that, IMO, is very far from reality. High stakes regs still make plenty of mistakes at this level and these type of exploits can still work very well against them.

That's an interesting perspective. I guess we all have leaks, its just that people at high stakes have fewer of them. If high stakes players still have predictable leaks in common areas then MDA might still generate EV there too

Hey man thanks a lot, glad you enjoyed it.

I think the sizings in these type of spots can't be too large given how symmetrical the ranges are in terms of flushes. Ideally you want to be check/raising 3x or so OTT and mostly potting blank rivers repping nut or 2nd nut flushes only.

As for the rivers that would alter your sizing, any pairing river would heavily decrease the equity of your value hands and you would have to start betting 2/3 pot or even block on some very impactful river pairing spots.