the problem when we x is that our range is even more face up imo than if we were to block.

^this is a dangerous starting assumption

which then leads to another assumption:

{block-betting} stops us getting bluffed off our AK type hands, as we
are clearly never x calling them and not x raising them as bluffs. and
gets us a little bit of value and when we do get jammed on we can
comfortably fold our AK and bet/call our flushes/boats and maybe AJ.

Without more objective/scientific support for villains' calling or bluffing frequencies, I think we're setting ourselves up for a huge mindset leak by extending another bet on the assumption that we know how our blocker bet is perceived. It doesn't make much sense to me to potentially over-extend the playability of our hand on one or more large assumptions. I'm not saying checking solves that problem, but it does de-leverage the hand which feels like the a sound mindset approach in a zone where there is a good deal of missing information.

yeah but poker is a game of incomplete information where we do not know, in any given spot, the exact range of a villain, and we probably do not even know our own range. so all we can do is use our experience, whether that be from studying using solvers or population/villain tendencies, and our intuition to make a best guess on how to play our range in any given spot.

of course the statements I made are assumptions, but they are assumptions that I would strongly believe would net me $EV in game. so you can't just dis-regard something because there may be a chance it is not true. we can never really know if someone has the nut flush or not in his river checking range, but what we can know is that a very low % of players would take this line with the nut flush. so we can then react accordingly. does this mean our strategy should drastically change when he shows up with the nuts?? not really. because 99% of players (from experience) will still not have this hand in their range, but we can make sure to take a physical/mental note that this villain is tricky in certain spots and we can then proceed accordingly in the future.

I agree with your premise, for example when someone says players never bluff to this line, we can never really know can we. we should perhaps re-phrase the statement along the lines of, I feel like this spot is significantly under-bluffed from population, and as a result I am going to make an exploitative fold that will perhaps lead to me being exploited by a player able to come up with creative bluffs/or playing a balanced bluffing range in every single spot. I have called so many times thinking, okay I have to defend x% of my range here and this is a good bluff-catcher, but in the back of my head I have a voice telling me to fold because it's extremely difficult to come up with bluffing combinations on such a board run out and with x range. and then he shows a set or whatever. of course this could be selective memory, but I try not to be too results oriented and feel like this is certainly not the case in this example.

okay the first point you made about it being a dangerous starting assumption about our range being more face-up when we x vs a bet, you and your student agreed that betting AK was too thin for value there, so you can include all AK combos in that checking range for the aforementioned reason. and we can exclude AK from our betting range. assumptions aside about how we split the rest of our range in to a betting/checking range, but we have just effectively turned a large portion of our range face-up when checking. we can of course still have strong hands in our checking range-AA/JJ etc, but AK/AQ combos amount to a much higher %, and some of these AA/JJ combos will be betting so we can discount some other % of them from the checking range (not an assumption as you both agree hero will have both a betting/checking range in this spot.)

I think we're setting ourselves up for a huge mindset leak by extending another bet on the assumption that we know how our blocker bet is perceived

I didn't say I knew, or particularly cared, how our blocker bet would be perceived. if they think it's weak then they can just jam their flushes and we can snap them with boats, and thus we maximise vs this 'exploit' from villains. and if they think its strong then we avoid getting bluffed off our share of the pot (given the fact we x folded AK) by not allowing IP players to bluff when x to. whilst also getting value from the fish from random hands when we have our weakest blocks-AK. so i'd be happy with either player perceiving my block as weak/strong-either way i'd say with certainty that it would net me more EV than splitting our range in to x'ing/betting.

Thanks for the great video, Nick! Good to see you back.

The first hand, to me it feels like AK/AQ is just worth more than letting other Ax and some Jx check down especially with a fish in the pot.

iamallin

Check overfolding is better than bet overfolding.

I don't think, this is true if our bet gets called by worse hands with significant frequency.

Demondoink
I agree, that it can be a part of a good strategy to block AK/AQ and mostly fold to a raise, protecting this range with our nutted combos. I think it is safe to say, that the hands villains mostly put money into the pot OTR are suited Ax hands and flush+ hands. (fish might have some other random combos that call vs sufficently small bet). Both our AQ/AK and boat type hands get a lot of value out of the Ax hands with a small sizing. VS the small sizing we can expect most opponents to raise flush+, thus our boats get the value they "deserve". Altho if we do decide to bet AK/AQ, in theory vs raise we will have to mix in some calls without clubs and with diamonds

the problem when we x is that our range is even more face up imo than
if we were to block.

Even if it is true, that our range is face up, why would it be a problem in this spot? OTR we have 1,5x pot to play. If we do decide to check AQ/AK, we can easily just click the call button with good blockers if we think villain is capable of bluffing. I think in order for us to be exploited, not only our range, but our action vs bet should be "face up" and I don't think, that is true for the latter.

iamallin
1- I am not saying that we should be betting small with medium strength hands and betting large with nutted hands. I am saying we should be betting small with ALL of our potential value betting hands-so AK+. of course, I agree that if we were to bet small with ONLY medium strength hands and large with nutted hands then this strategy would be awful. it would quickly become <0EV with our med strength range when betting. so you misunderstood what I meant, but I also agree that playing such a strategy was poor, unless fish was calling 100% of range to a small bet, for example.

2-it's not hard to evaluate. checking everything versus betting everything would lead to a drastic decrease in our EV, as we still have the strongest range, with key blockers to betting ranges for the other 2 villains in the hands. so it would lead to too many xx by IP players when we have hands such as AA or KQdd. and probably, although not definitely, under-bluffing when x to, and thus we cannot get in the x raise very often with the strongest parts of our range.

so when we have the strongest range, and villains aren't betting enough when x to (due to blockers and the fact it is a 3 way pot) then it is >>EV to bet as opposed to x.

i'll give you a quick example, say we 3 bet and barrel off on a particular board, doesn't really matter what it is. the board contains a flopped flush draw and on the turn there is a straight draw, but on the river everything bricks. here PIO would be x calling a decent amount here, assuming that IP turns hands like missed straight/flush draws in to bluffs, and even some pairs, perhaps. however, villains don't bluff enough when x to. so betting very quickly becomes far >EV than check/calling. they don't turn enough hands in to bluffs, and they tend to over-call when everything bricks. but of course, against certain opponents, or against bots you should probably mix a bunch of hands on the river between bet/x. but not in the current games because people are over-calling and under-bluffing, thus betting>x/calling.

I am not saying this is the case for EVERY single player, of course not, but we are playing vs populations, for the most part, and most of the time we just have to use our experience of the way certain spots play out to attempt to generate the most EV for our range.

hariadam completely agree with your first point. if we think that villain is capable of bluffing we should be bet/calling some of our AK, especially the combos with the Kd, and likewise with AQ with the Qd.

the second point I also agree, i'm not saying that we shouldn't be x calling AK/AQ ever, but if IP is polarizing his range properly then these hands should be 0EV bluff catches, and I feel as if including them in a betting range that includes nutted combinations then we can make these hands >0EV bets. especially given the fact that the fish can call us with random Ax or even some Jx.

and then say if villain were to start under-bluffing IP, then x/calling AK/AQ would now be -EV. of course the same could be said if he were to start over-bluff as well, then they would become better x calls. but again, if we were to guesstimate which one of the two options would be the case, based on the way these spots normally play out from experience, i'd say the spot would be under-bluffed. because the reg can't assume that the fish will x fold Ax here, even though that regs line looks like a flush. so I think IP reg is actually more likely to bluff here vs 2 regs, than a reg (who should have some nutted hands in a x'ing range) and a fish who might x call JT.

I don't think you will get an answer to this one buddy.

Why? It would instantly make this one of the most informational vid ever.

Common knowledge by now, even HM2 supports it. It is the chinese apps since they all have the extra straddle.

AlexW

Randomizing would be an attempt to play a balanced strategy by mixing a hand between 2 different strategy options. If I'm talking about it it's usually to point it out as either impractical or not incentivized.