I like your videos a lot Todd. You explain your thoughts very clearly, keep up the good work!

2:22 you said in prev videos he's 4bet jammed quite wide, do you ever 3b calling with 88 in this spot?
16:00, the trouble with betting your sizing on the turn is that if he calls it doesn't give you much information on the strength of his hand, he can still just call down very strong hands AQ,88 as hes seen you 3 barrel,  but i don't think he folds Qx or a draw that still has 6 extra outs against us that he wouldn't perceive i.e the T9, 
how do you feel about a large turn bet and giving up river, we look committed to the hand, so it's difficult for him to either call or fold his draws, it also puts alot of pressure on Qx type hands which feels they will have to call river too, perhaps we just have too low equity with 66, i think its a definite consideration with something like KJ though if we believe hes calling river if he calls turn, then we'd only jam T river or in your case the 6

Hi Thomas,

The opener has less than 20bb, and I typically am jamming my entire 3bing range when we are that shallow. There are some exceptions to this rule, but BB vs button against a reg I just call/shove/fold. When I start getting to 22-23bb I have a 3b bluffing range and will then start 3bing hands for value. 88 is a particularly bad hand to tiny 3b to induce oop w/ stacks this shallow. He'll peel a ton of overcards correctly and make your life miserable. 

The more I look at that 66 hand the less I am convinced I missed a barrel. I think given my dynamic w/ him that I should be giving up on this turn w/ this hand because like you said I have so little equity and I'm very near the bottom of my range. Since I even have a tiny bit of showdown w/ this hand it makes sense that this would be in my giveup range. I really felt like he had a hand similair to the one he had, so in game and in the video I was mad I didn't go w/ my gut, but I still think 66 is probably just too bad a hand to do it with when their are lots of better hands for him to call with and lots of better hands for us to be betting with. 

I don't love your idea to bomb the turn and leave yourself 1/2 pot or something on the river. This may be overly harsh, but I always thought that was sort of a cheap trick to try and play pots in a vacuum (that good regs can pick up on), when really you should be trying to set up your ranges properly and bet the same amount with all of it and then let your opponents make mistakes against your range (and they will if your ranges are good). MTTers give away so much about their hand w/ their bet sizing all the time and I think it's a huge problem for even a lot of regs. 

The worse a player is the more exploitively you can play and the more you can play "within a vacuum" (i.e. betting different sizes w/ bluffs and value); conversely, the better a player is the more (game) theoretically you have to play (same size all hands, or two different, but balanced sizes). This certainly isn't binary: there are bad regs in the middle for instance, who I will play fairly theoretically against, but I will play exploitively when I identify obvious weaknesses. So in this hand, when I'm playing an aggressive reg (we'll assume that), I should be playing a little more theoretically and betting the turn the same size I would w/ Ax or a set or KJ because they're all the same sizing. And in the end that will make my opponent's life very difficult and make me money. But especially from that theoretical standpoint, a hand like 66, which is so far down in my range, should probably just be checked back on the turn.