We have two Richards teaching PLO on RIO now?! Oh boy, that is rich

Nice video :)

Cool video, really like to hear discussion of exploitative lines and descriptions of differences in rw human play v solver play and their consequences.

As a viewer, it'd be nice to hear some of the discussions about the differences at early nodes leading to later street unbalances/asymmetries and how those influence later street lines. I think this is especially difficult because idiosyncratic or even trend deviations can necessitate perhaps non intuitive counters and the profitability of early street play can be undone if assumptions (supported or not) don't end up holding. I find the more I ground these theoretically, the stronger and more portable they are. Hearing you discuss these in fundamental terms would be great.

(There's also a whole other discussion about the correlations between opponent leaks, sort of what you were talking about after the opponent raised AKxx on 499QA v hero's mid-sized river bet. But maybe this is more of an ignition thing with anonymous players or at least more important in those conditions.)

I disagree about the AT88ds sb v btn. The PLO matrix tool (sry RIO) uses this hand as a 3b/call 4b combo (which suggests its robustness is high) and it appears in the Vision 100bb sb v btn 3b post-flop ranges, so yada yada yada. As such, not vpip'ing it seems like a meaningful ev loss, not 3b'ing it more so.

nice one, like the format. appreciate the comments on your preflop deviations favoring playability, and any other deviations from solvers you're making. if you do use vision again soon would like to see your study on there

Alot of great stuff, love the format of the video. Around 51:00 you say that villains will pot-bluff to you with non-nut flushblockers, if you check flop and turn and pot river. I would say this occurs almost never but I think it's still better to pot / bet v small than c-raise.

Really enjoyed this.

I also really enjoyed this analysis.

Disappointed to see you are hiding the player names Richard. My plan to watch your videos then bum hunt your students in hopes you have a piece of them has been foiled. Sorry I'm just too used to seeing you in twitch, automatically feels like I should troll you.

Like this format. Looking forward to more

My RIO elite value has just doubled. Thanks Richard, keep posting!

Really nice video, great content, please more of this!

Can you elaborate on the CBet sizing on the flop? If I understood correctly, you said the concept of sizing depending on wetness/dryness of flops is very 2015-2017 and not done anymore today?

I’m going to dissent on this one.

Maybe I’m a cynical veteran, but we’ve seen a lot of coaches make videos like this over the years, and their premise is always something like “my ranges win more than optimal, trust me”.

While this may or may not be true for a given stake/site, how usefully can this approach be taught?

For example, in the KK88 hand at start of video, Gayler advocates 3betting and betting flop as an exploit against general player pool tendencies, but when the student has his own explo reason for sizing down on the AJ4ss texture BTN vs BB, he gets over-ruled as “levelling himself” and choosing to play a “lower quality game”. But then with the AA62 on Q43 CO vs BTN, we’re back to massively deviating in our cbet strategy because we’re “playing against humans” again.

I don’t think you can have it both ways here. In fairness, with specific knowledge of your game environment and particular opponent tendencies, it is possible in principle that one reg’s explo preferences all win more and another’s all win less, but in the absence of solid evidence it’s all a bit speculative for me.

Really enjoyed this video. Thanks!

You have a lot of intuition about population tendencies; I was wondering if you've ever done any database analysis to confirm any of these? If not, I'm curious if you think that's a useful avenue to develop exploitative lines further. (It seems highly plausible that it would be for others who have less experience with the games, but less so for you).

I also noticed in some hands your thought process emphasised things such as: "I wouldn't value bet JT here because you don't have enough bluffs to balance it, given you wouldn't bet enough JJ on the flop". I've always assumed, perhaps from a highly exploitative NLHE background, that such considerations aren't particularly relevant when playing in a moderately sized population of non-elite players (which it appeared you think Betonline is?).

More relevant are considerations like: what size will they make the biggest mistake against (in this case, calling too frequently). I'm curious if you have any heuristics which determine what situations you tend to think from a more game theory oriented mindset vs exploitative mindset? Just at a glance through this video, it appeared your earlier street (preflop especially, somewhat less so flop) considerations were very exploitative focused, whereas your turn and river thought process was much more cognisant of what you were representing/what bluffs you had. That said, sometimes you had a 'game theory' thought process which you seemed to be using to assist you in figuring out how your opponent's are thinking (e.g. with the A8 nut flush hand, table 3 51:00) you used considerations about what was being represented as highly relevant to how to exploit - so perhaps that's what's going on?

I now realise that was an abstract question, so may not generate particularly useful answers! Obviously in general wherever you have good reason to be exploitative, you ought to be, and when you don't have good knowledge of tendencies, defaulting to GTO makes sense. I suppose what I'm particularly curious about is how you tend to balance these considerations on different streets/situations.

Thanks so much! Also, really enjoyed your commentary in the challenge.

This was a great video and it took me about 3-4 hours to get through it, because I kept rewinding to take notes. The really nice thing is that most of the question that I would have had were answered within video in the conversation you were having with the player. My questions are from the end os the video with the slide.

I'm a microstakes player but I wanted to get clarity on pushing equity vs. equity preservation.

Pushing equity = playing a more aggressive and risky style? I'm assuming that the "risk" is somewhat offset by the additional fold equity that you pick up from being aggressive?

Equity preservation = a more defensive, check-call style where you're less likely to call, raise or pot the river without a very strong hand or the nuts? Wouldn't this be more of a weak tight approach vs. pushing equity, which is more of LAG?

In regard to just stabbing all the time,IP, in 3bet pots, you want to be playing more of a check or pot sizing strategy? Is this more to protect our check back range by checking back some of our strong hands too, so we're allowed to check-call with our middling hands in the future. If this is correct, what frequency would you suggest that we check our strong hands back, IP, so it allows us to call with our middling hands in the future? 15%? 20%?

What about OOP? Are we still playing a polarized strategy or are we going to be leaning more toward check, 1/3 sizing or pot / check raise?

Sorry for writing a mini novel here, I'm just trying to get every straight in my head. I'm taking this very seriously and trying my best to get better. Unfortunately, I'm not a natural talent, so I'm trying to somewhat make up for it with study.