Tough question. I would say I err on the side of not giving myself credit for any special postflop skills unless my opponent is clearly a recreational player. I might be leaving a bit of money on the table but it's just so easy to overestimate your abilities (at anything, but especially poker) that I try to be pretty conservative in that regard.

Thanks, glad you liked it!

That could definitely be part of it. I tend not to worry too much about blocker effects I don't understand at this point. Sometimes they seem very logical, other times it's just a little too deep for me :)

That chart won't tell you what you can call vs bigger sizings because the pot will be a different size. So for example QJo has an EV of 3.028, but that's of the 5.5 pot (less rake). Had button made it 4x and BB called the pot would be 8.5 (less rake) and the EV of QJo would be higher than 3.028. Without running a new set of sims we don't know what it would be, especially since ranges for both players would be narrower.

Re: is 3x'ing button losing money, my understanding on preflop sizings is mostly just from what I've heard from people who have spent a lot of time with preflop solvers: smaller tends to be better but it's not a huge deal as long as you adjust your opening range appropriately.

Re: flop sizings, if you screw up and use 3/4 where 1/3 is better then yes you'll lose some EV. But if you only use 1/3 on all boards you are definitely giving up some EV. My default when playing is to size up on boards I know big is better but to use the smaller size when I'm unsure because I still feel like most small stakes players (including myself) struggle to defend properly against it.

As for why no one uses half pot in their sims, that's a good question that I don't really have an answer to. One thing I will say is that often when you get a spot where the solver mixes between the big and the small sizing, you can instead use an intermediate sizing (like half pot) with a very minimal loss in EV.

Hey,

First of all, I think people tend to be reluctant to leave negative comments but they are often the most useful so thanks for the response.

I do find it very hard to find the balance between going too in depth and losing people's attention vs going too quickly and having it be difficult to follow (I've quit watching videos for both reasons myself)...rewatching, I can see I glossed over a lot when showing some of the spreadsheets, I'll try to do a better job of introducing them in future videos.

Re: the losing defends, what I was trying to say there is that since BB had to call 1.5 preflop, any hand that has an average EV <1.5 is a losing defend in this sim (thus A8o etc. were losing.) If you have any other questions feel free to ask and I'll do my best to address them here.

Steve

that makes sense. Yeah, don't know exactly what you could do differently, but I know I would like to see it done differently haha. Sorry to be so vague.

Clarke does a pretty good job simplifying these concepts with imagery. Maybe I'm just way more visual, and these detailed charts are hard for me to follow

Ryan - "Maybe I'm just way more visual, and these detailed charts are hard for me to follow"

I'm with you, man. But also, it can be helpful to understand that human brains often operate quite differently from one another, so while guys like Steve and KRab and Qing Yang might seriously benefit from spreadsheets and charts, guys like me (and presumably yourself) struggle to make sense out of what we are staring at. Just stick with it and eventually you may be able to visualize for yourself what is externally visually "unappetizing."

Quick self-deprecating anecdote:
I took the Qing Yang C-betting course. It was great. But my brain thinks and learns very differently from Qing Yang, and so I have been staring at the course content for months (lots of spreadsheets) and trying to force my brain to make sense out of it all. So far, no luck. But I'm going to hope that something eventually clicks and so we'll keep on trying! =)