Over folding in this line is actually the standard. Think there probably a few reasons for this. But the main one i believe is that the BB will be drawing bluffs from hands which can check for > 0 ev so to force indifference the BTN needs to be a touch tighter than mdf ... For example if a flush and a 4 card straight completes on this board texture by river, we should see the BB turn some of his worst pairs into a bluff, and these should check for some considerable pot share. So in order to be have incentive to bluff one of those hands in such a situation the BTN would need to over fold substantially. Also while the BB is able to bet any 2 in these situations, its not as though he can is able to call any 2 on the flop with the hopes of arriving on the river with a profitable bluff, think this also plays a role in the BTN's over fold but not sure.

We wont be seeing the BTN overfold in situations where the flop checks through and the BB probes the turn, gets called, and barrels the river though. As if the BTN defends MDF facing a probe on the turn then over folds the river this should allow the BB to probe any 2 cards profitably starting from the turn.

I assume you are discussing the AQo hand. Rootsmanuva answered the question very well. I think the key to understanding this hand is that is a slight overfold (by my math it's roughly 1bb to ATC) on an uncommon runout. This is a very common outcome in pio where on unusual runouts, the strategy overfolds, because a slight win on a rare runout isn't enough to offset the losses on more common runouts. In fact then the overfold becomes important because if I don't overfold then I essentially encourage an big overfold on the flop things like 8c6c.

Missing these slight overfold river spots can cause large butterfly effects in the sims, because lots of hands on the flop are very close to 0 EV. If they don't win the 1bb on the rare runout then they are all forced -EV and folded, which means I make less money with my value region and if I choose to max exploit the new calling region, my strategy makes very large changes, promoting more air into the betting region on the flop and checking more turns with smaller turn value bet regions. This new max exploit would actually cause hands like 86cc to be much more profitable to float, because villain would get two free cards here too often (even though he couldn't bluff river profitably). These big swings in strategy are the hallmark of an exploitable strategy where one opponent can improve his value unilaterally against the other strategy. Let's contrast this with GTO:

PIO has settled on a stable point in the system, where any unilateral strategy changes can't improve EV. This is definition of the Nash equilibrium. If do choose to call here too often with my bluff-catchers, I stlll lose the whole pot if my hand is in the right bluffing catching strategy and I could lose more if like in this hand, I slightly block more bluffs than value.

I can generate a new strategy to max-exploit the flop overfold, because of the overcall on the river, but this is spot where I would either lose more than Nash against max-exploit Villain strategy or alternatively lose the same amount (co-optimal strategy).

I think the right way to interpret the river overfold is that as the OOP player if I find myself with hand with no/minimal showdown value that it's mandatory bluff which adds roughly 1bb worth of EV to my strategy. And if IP tries to change this, then both strategies oscillate wildly to exploit each other.

Thanks for the feedback, RunItTwice!

We focus on button vs big blind, because it comprises a disproportionate amount of the game and it's the spot where with wider ranges, big mistakes are more common.

There is nothing easy about playing a strong flop strategy here. Each region benefits from different strategy choices. I gave you a brief rundown below of how I see this board.

So an individual hand betting frequency is the average frequency + an adjustment of its hand strength. Weaker hands == more checks. Stronger hands == more bets.

In this case 2p+ and QQ, KK are clear high frequency bets.

Jx could go either way, it's going to go for two streets mainly so it doesn't benefit from the 3-barrell potential of the flop play. We put in both ranges, so we can have some bet/bet/check value hands and some bet/check/bet value hands as well as check/bet/bet or even check/call/call-raise. Depending on runout.

Tx is usually worth 1 street value so it's going to be checked often, because it plays equally well as a check, check, bet or check, call, call as it does bet flop check turn call river.

44 through 99 are too weak to bet for value and too strong to bluff so we see them checked.

Our bluffs need to balance our v-betting ranges, so they are chose first from the hands with the most equity least showdown value and the rest are bet roughly 40% of the time to keep our frequencies in line with our value-betting regions. This is also complicated because we want to have some nuttier hands on common runouts, so we'll check hand that can improve to a flush or straight along with the worse air, because no equity bluffs on low-frequency bet boards are -EV bets. The Ax, Kx, 22,33 region is used as check back region with some bluffs to prevent our opponent from reading our hand perfectly. Without the occassional flop bluff from these hands, if I straight or flush it. I could conceivable have no bluffs, which substantially hurts my EV (because my opponent can overfold).

Thank you for a FULL RESPONSE of this question, greatly appreciate all the feed back and streets of value based on different portions of the range you discussed above. Only part I disagree with is the frequency part, especially in anonymous pools where I see zero reason to balance anything over a small sample of hands and mostly looking to play streets of value based on hero's hand strength vs opponents range. Don't care about balance, just maximize EV for my own hand based on opponents perceived range. As for coaches making videos of BTN vs BB, I agree it is a over whelming portion of poker that we encounter the most frequent. Just feel every coach made videos on this around the same time frame, so probably watched 3 of these videos this week and another 2-3 last week. Can't please everyone :-) but completely understand the reasoning behind making the video and thanks again for the full break down. Was very helpful.

Thanks SoundSpeed!

Good question! I use Jurojin poker to tile the tables.

The reason I've avoid potsize here are mainly exploitative. What we found through experimentation early in the game was that the potsize bet was too big to get value from a most fish. It was the sort of bet that generates lots of folds (correctly) So in some sense moving the sizing up here is likely to benefit our opponent, because he will naturally play closer to gto.

The idea is that it's possible for OOP to bluff his weakest Kxs here like Kd2d or Kh2h, but I believe most if not all KsXs c/r flop so its simply more likely that he could bluff when we have Ks7d.

Sweet, glad you liked it!