Thanks for the great questions!

1) No, you really shouldn't. If for some reason you chose to bet AJ or KQ for value here, the sizing would be very small, because you are only slightly ahead of range.

2) I think this is a misconception on how to structure ranges. If he wants to hero fold, then my bluffs will pick up the value. If I bet small, I actually win less of the pot on average against good counter strategies (because I can bluff less), so I likely cost my range value with the smaller bet -- even if I gain value with TT.

3) Even he checks 100% of the time, KQo can't fold this flop. Only if his opening range is very narrow. You can check this, but strong overcards are calls on these board textures even with reasonably tight ranges.

Tyler Forrester For bluffs / value how much do you think it matters when pools are anonymous? Doesn't seem like you need to really be balanced at all in these pools with no huds. Do you think playing your specific hand vs range is better than playing a RvR strategy?

In my pool there are no huds, but often I am checking hands because range advantage is in their favor, but I know my specific hand should still bet because it's ahead of their range. Earlier I checked AsAh hand on Td8s7d board, where I know I can just bet fold and they will make more calling mistakes and bluff raise less than they should. I feel I lose a ton of value with these checks.

I am not sure if it's a mental leak trying to balance a lot of my bluffs / value. Feels like I would make more money just allowing them to make calling mistakes and not playing balanced. When the flop is AK4 for example and I have 44, I often tend to slow play because what am I really repping by raising flop when I only called preflop? Board favors their range, so I usually end up calling flop and turn and value betting river when they check. I feel like 44 on AK4 should be raised and let them make calling mistakes with all their AXs A10o+ hands that can't fold because my raise doesn't make a lot of sense. In the video you talked about how the guy with KhJh lost out on about 4bb in value because he did not size accordingly when you had Q6s. Where you have to call a big flop bet and a big turn bet On the KK62ss board. This is basically what I am talking about. Even though the KK6 favors your range, I feel KX should be going bigger as an exploit and trying to maximize the money based on calling mistakes. Don't think opponent has to worry too much about bluffing at appropriate frequency with that larger sizing because pools are anonymous and players are usually not very good anyways.

What would you recommend for me? I am not really sure what I am asking... Any feed back would help.

RunItTw1ce
You have two choices on how to play poker:

1) Assume quasi-clairvoyance where you know his frequencies, so can make always make the highest EV play by exploitatively overbluffing/underbluffing or overcalling/undercalling. This is the highest EV form of poker (it's also the lowest EV form of poker)

2) Play a balanced strategy, which is always lower EV than a correctly implemented clairvoyant strategy, but doesn't rely so much on frequency-ready ability. The balanced strategies don't rely on us knowing as much information about our opponents and keep us from losing lots of EV against players who play differently than our expectations.

I'd argue in an anonymous pool that playing quasi-clairvoyance is more difficult, because the pool + raise size forms the player type, so the variation in strategies is wider in most situations then a named player pool. You can find patterns in the data that allow you to make exploitative plays, but it's not nearly as accurate as playing a single opponent who plays poorly.

I think the other key thing to think about it is that our bluffs never make as much money as our value bets, so emotionally bluffs will always feel like a worse option than having a nut hand. If I have AA on a A 8 2 6 6 and I bet then I always make a pot + percentage of my bet. This feels good. If I bet 97 on the same board the maximum win is the pot and the minimum win is minus my bet. That means even a successful bluff is worth a small fraction of a good value bet, which emotionally feels worse.

The challenge is to see that everyone has AA and everyone has 97, so it's not really about the winrate of the individual hand. It's about whether my winrate with AA and 97 together is higher than my opponents winrate with AA and 97. Honestly, the question that our mind wants to answer and the actual question are two different things.

I think the other key thing to think about it is that our bluffs never
make as much money as our value bets, so emotionally bluffs will
always feel like a worse option than having a nut hand. If I have AA
on a A 8 2 6 6 and I bet then I always make a pot + percentage of my
bet. This feels good. If I bet 97 on the same board the maximum win is
the pot and the minimum win is minus my bet. That means even a
successful bluff is worth a small fraction of a good value bet, which
emotionally feels worse.

Thank you Tyler Forrester This part was really helpful. Maybe this balance thing is just more of an emotional mental block for me and I don't really see how much my bluffs are making because it feels way worse when I do get called and lose.

Thanks for the excellent questions!

It's really big for a block bet. It looks more like value bet that sized down because it's scared I could an ace or a flush I don't mind it. It depends heavily on how a structure my raising ranges.

27:20 -- People don't check back flush draws very often, so it's represented less frequently than the entire range. With the diamond, you can have more flexibility in sizing because it cuts the range again. Essentially he'd need to check back all of his nut flushes and King high flushes, before the bigger sizing is a mistake. Just mathematically he needs a flush 4% of the time before the overbet is a mistake and I think it's more likely that it's around 2%. I can't open shove but 10bbs with a straight here is never going to be a theoretical mistake. If you think he's overfolding drastically, then any Ad,Kd or Qd could be bet at this sizing along with hands like Qx and 9x. However, you do have some sizing choices on the turn, if you bet full pot, it wouldn't likely be much different EV at equilibrium.

Pio does it against himself. So should be good/fine against a pro.

Thanks OMG! Glad you enjoyed it :)

1st Hand -- I guess I could deviate to an always call, which would likely be fine against this particular opponent. It's a little bit risky though, because I'm really playing a max exploit game. We could also split the difference and overcall a little bit which hurts his bluffs (but not as much) and gives a little less to his value range.

13 min -- I'm guessing that's it's close and depends on preflop ranges. Tighter ranges == better fold. Looser ranges == worse fold.

16 Min -- This is going to be dependent on preflop assumptions, if I'm 3-bet ATo+ 100%, then yes it's probably a bad raise in PIO. If I'm mixing with those hands, then it's probably a marginal loser here maybe 1/2 bet. I'm gambling on the overfold which has traditionally been common here at mid/low stakes.