Hand #1 In the beginning you mention having multiple sizes on the
987cc flop. I was hoping to see bigger size on the solve as well as
Linus half pot sizing. I wanted to try and determine if there is a
read linus is giving off with his half pot sizing being a wide betting
range and maybe more capped towards bluffs on later streets if sets
and straights prefer bigger flop size.

I don't think he's giving away anything by using this particular betsize OTF because I'm pretty sure he's just playing a one sizing strategy on this board!

On the river the Tx which you mentioned you wanna unblock from
limitless folding range, I think you are still correct, but the Tx
that was choosing to bluff had no sdv. Like T5 higher EV bluff then J6
maybe because J6 beats T5? So just a slither of sdv for the times J6
checks back river.

Iimitless range doesn't contain any T5 combos by the river but J6 has a very small amount of EV checking by beating exclusively Jc5c and chopping the pot vs Jc6c while T5o has 0EV by checking back the River.

Question for hand #1 with the river being mixed with some 2 pairs
folding, some top pair calling with blocker. Wonder if its better to
call with all 2 pairs higher frequency and fold more of the top pairs
with blocker. Also adding to this would be because of linus flop
sizing, if he is using 2 sizings would weight half pot to less
straights and more hands like pair+draw, so would wanna unblock Tx in
limitless shoes and call 100% of two pairs.

Does that make sense?

Your idea seems very good if he was playing a mixed strategy OTF but, as I said, I'm pretty sure that Linus is playing only a 1 sizing Flop strategy so we should expect him to have his whole value range in this line. Therefore we should expect that our 2 pairs and TP with straight blockers will have similar EV when calling vs the River jam.

Hand #2 I found both turn and river pretty interesting thinking back
to more six max sizings on the turn, 2k to 7k (XR). Nuno Alvarez
mentioned Linus can shove some 88 55 33 for sets and some K8,
effective stacks were $41k, which seems like a gigantic shove 7k to
41k almost a 6x 3bet. You also mentioned Limitless can XR some lower
fd with less sdv. With these thoughts in mind, I was thinking Linus
can use a $15k 3bet (2.1x) so he still can raise KK (top set) or a
hand like AhKh that gives lower FD a price to call still. So would
look to have two 3 bet sizes 1) being top pair + fd or some smaller 2
pairs and protected by top set maybe KhKx. 2) shove size I agree with
some K8 and some smaller sets or maybe some Ah3h?

That seems like a very reasonable re-raise sizing to be playing here. I just think that it ends up over complicating the game tree a little bit too much for a very small EV gain in exchange but it seems like a good idea in theory.

On the river I found it strange that more Kx hands wasn't bluffing, as
you thought some top pairs would bluff, blocking some 2 pairs that
limitless could have.

Seems like the IP bluffing range here has to be chosen very accurately since we're facing an extremely narrow value range (1.1 combos) therefore, we need to pull the bluffs from higher EV bluffs such as 2P hands.

The 53 for bottom 2 pair I assume solver is bluffing with that combo?
I guess 53 does block more 2 pairs than Kx, but where is the line
drawn? Why not bluff with 85 as well? If limitless is calling the
shove with 33 and K8 mostly I would think 83 would be a better bluff
than 53 blocking K8 and 33.

Yeah, 53 is a bluff. 85 doesn't bluff as well because it doesn't have as good properties as 53 since 55 is almost never in the OOP value range OTR while 33 is the main value combo that OOP has. 83 is indeed a way better bluff than 53 but it's also a way better bluffcatcher and the solver tends to avoid sacrificing a lot of EV by bluffraising a combo that it's a very good bluffcatcher. Instead, we prefer to pull our bluffraises from weaker hands that don't win nearly as much by calling.

Anyways loved the video! Keep'em coming!

Thank you very much RunItTw1ce! I'm very glad that you liked it and thank you as well for the interesting comments!

Thanks a lot zache. Appreciate the support!

I like this format a lot too and I completely agree on not spoiling the result of the hands, this YouTube channel uploads them like that but I will try to avoid showing them for future videos!

I saw the hand on youtube channel 'Online High Stakes Poker' ,mostly 6m hands but a lot of hu too

1st hand seems like an example why bluffcatching is very important
concept. In my opinion BB would be doing bigger mistake by overfolding
than IP by overbluffing(of course in reasonable amount).

Definitely agree! Bluffcatching is extremely important in HUNL, especially in smaller pots because they happen way more often and they have a big impact in our overall winrate.

I'm curios If OOP playing like solver on the river (by that I mean
exactly like solver) if IP start to shoving 100% of his range, EV not
gonna change right? Since OOP not adapting(exploiting)

This is a fun one. I did some testing and the IP EV is actually decreasing. Since OOP is calling a GTO frequency, IP can't get away by overbluffing because it's not generating any overfolds.

GTO Strategy → IP EV, OOP EV

Locked Strategy → IP EV, OOP EV

is difference really big? those nl40k is tough to calculate which amount of % IP losing. I suppose it is close to 1% which isn't ''very big deal''

Or 3% if I'm not right; which is pretty huge blunder

I mean we need potsize/evdifference ~3% of the pot

Actually I think I know why (one reason)

I did some testing and the IP EV is actually decreasing

Because many of his bluffs are - EV bluffs, so he cant bluff them vs GTO without losing EV. If all his bluffs were 0 EV he certainly will be able to bet 100% and not lose any EV.

Yeah I think you nailed it!

Thanks isquirtbullets! Glad you liked it.

Great catch! Been thinking about it for quite a lot of time and I can't find a reason why. I think that it probably has to do with a super next-level interaction on some rivers but I can't find it (yet :P)

excellent question isquirtbullets I wonder if oop will have a donking range on the river on the K853 board if 4, 2, or 7 come. So maybe oop wants to unblock folding range (2nd pair 8x) or unblock thin value bet range. I was thinking of your last video on the AT4JccX board where Nuno Alvarez said wants to unblock the Q9, QT, QJ type hands that call the turn and fold the river. Maybe the 65o is also being used as a check raise bluff on the river against players who value bet too thin, so as nuno told me in earlier comment, PIO wants to bluff hands such as 53 because 83 is a better bluff catcher on the K853J board. Would this be the reasoning for 65 Nuno?

There isn’t a lead option for OOP OTR after calling the Turn in the sim. I think this has to do with some sort of interaction in some specific River cards. In any case it seems like something that we shouldn’t take into account since we won't be able to extrapolate it to other parts of the game tree.

Thank you lospollos! Glad you liked it :)