i think given I should beat all his bluffs it would be too risky to hope to fold him off a high heart with a jam - i'd expect there to be more value in just calling

hey sorry I didn't get back to all these questions before now. Yeah, 3b/f is a very viable option and I should have mentioned it if I didn't. The issue is it may be a little too strong for it to be the best line and taking worse Ax may be favourable for that part of the tree (I'm not sure about that though, obviously we can't be 3b/f too often) - I would like to have a flatting range in this situation generally so having various types of hands for board coverage is important. I would definitely endorse this as a 3b/f as part of a no flatting strategy anyway.. and vs this opponent on this table I'm not sure having a flatting range is logical to begin with.

Thanks mate - in the JTs spot I think people aren't very careful about understanding how they weaken their range by jamming exorbitant sizes when they clearly play their premiums differently. I think if it's correct to play JTs aggressively here preflop it's likely that playing it as though it were AA is the better way to go because it probably has the equity to stand up to a jam and the playability is great in the rare event of a flat call. It means you have a wider r/call range which makes it harder/worse for your opponents to 4b-jam certain hands versus a more polarised strategy. This assumes calling ranges are accurately wide versus big overjams, in which case there really shouldn't be a huge upside to shoving JTs here versus 3b/call. In practice against some opponent types there will be though.

Hey James, great video, I really enjoy the in depth analysis, keep it up!
You say that 3bet/calling JTs here as opposed to flatting makes it more difficult for him to jam certain hands, but I would think that the opposite is true, since hands like KTo/QJo,QTs, 22-44, A4s, A8o or K9s should in my oppinion be in a tough spot vs your 3bet. So depolarizing your 3b/call range to an extent that includes JTs should makehis decisions easier in that he can now just jam a very wide and linear range, expecting to be ahead some of the time with a hand as weak as KTo.
In regards to our jaming range being "weak", I don't think that is necessarily the case. Stacks are shallow enough that I would think jamming with AK/AQ/88-JJ is at least reasonably close in ev to 3beting to induce., while also decreasing variance and shifiting more ev to those hands that want to jam.
So I would just jam most of my reraising range, something along the lines off 22+, ATo+, KJo+, 98s+, T9s+, JTs+, QJs+, K9s+ and have just a small 3bet-to-induce range with JJ+ and a portion of AJ+ (favouring the suited combos) and 88-TT, maybe some KQs.

What do you think about that?

Thanks! I think from the hijack here it's a bit harder to have a flatting range, on the button I surely would but if I did here it would probably only be an exploitative adjustment. Re. river bluffing, you'd be as good as me at figuring out his best bluff hands! It's going to be one of those bad spots where theory says you should bluff x% but in a game of human vs human theory may be leading you down a suboptimal path.

It doesn't seem weird at all to me to bet/fold TT if I don't have the equity to call, no. If I'm bet/folding "too much" (if he's c/jamming very light) then these hands will become bet/calls. It's a tough situation but I'm confident denying equity and keeping my range uncapped is the way to go with a hand this vulnerable. On the river I think the question is more what hands do I lose to - even the KxXh hands only make a degree of sense here and there's hardly any of those.

hey sure - I think the concept of denying equity is pretty critical. In this example tens has many overcards and backdoor hearts to protect against, so you'd much prefer to bet no heart tens here than QhQx. That's probably the most important factor to be considering and something I try to focus on when I play.

Phil, thanks for helping me out on this hand! Looks like I needed it. I agree with all your analysis and I suspect it's right that we can have a high ratio of "bluffs" vs pure value here and that theory will dictate going with some of them to small check-raises so we can't be exploited.. it's just that in practice it might be hard to pull the trigger. How it leaves our checking range looking and playing on future streets is interesting.. I wonder whether tens should just be played as a check back to give up then (so far I can only see AK, KK and maybe QQ as checks), and maybe TJs, QJs, QTs play best as delayed c-bets if I have them. I'm seeing AQs with bdfd as probably the best bet-3b to prevent exploitation, though it's not many combos.. not sure if our range needs something like QQ to play that way sometimes in theory. I guess unless this bot situation I'm reading about now extends to tournaments, practicality will always override theory when it gets this complex but I'm definitely interested by it. And p.s miss you making NLHE videos. I'm going to stick to the HORSE today :).