I obviously don't speak for Phil, but the fact that he starts bluffing this hand OTT, indicates to me that his range can't support enough obvious bluffs given his value region. This makes sense as 60% is just a relative frequency that depends on the width of the value region. IMO this hand seems reasonable to start betting OTT as 9s blocks a portion of Phil's continuing range and the Ad blocks a portion of Phil's check-back, flop range that continues on turn (mainly AK).

For me, this hand plays better as a pot-and-done bluff, and especially on this river. Phil's range sim had him effectively improving to Q-full like 8% of the time, and bluffing once to target TT-QQ seems reasonable with our blocker effects OTT, but bluffing twice with zero equity to fold everything worse than a 2 by the river seems mighty expensive. I could obviously be wrong about that though, as my thoughts are lazily compiled from intuition. Would this be an ev calc to determine break-even amount of fold equity to justify betting twice?

Good questions and comments, guys - as usual!

When you considered folding this, did it cross your mind that SB might not have enough bluffs, and you were likely facing a pot bet again on the river?

I didn't have a ton of history with him at this point, and from my experience with the player pool, I expected the river pot and I expected to be behind his turn range. I think many players tend to bet again at a way higher frequency than normal once they pot, and I think many of them don't bluff like this often enough, especially on a board where many people in my spot are very likely to have Kx+.

I tanked on both streets and in the end I decided to call down because I felt obligated to. I actually expected it to be -EV, but I didn't want to leave myself to open to exploitation without stronger reads.

Just to recap the math, if his strategy were to pot turn and river, he can pot the turn with a 4:5 value:bluff ratio, and if called, he should pot the river with a 4:2 (or 2:1) ratio, i.e. give up with 60% of his bluff. In retrospect, do you think he has less bluff than this on the turn?

Clearly, AF has enough bluffs. Without running the math right now, I'd assume that people don't have a ton of obvious bluffs (as Synapse mentioned) because many of their flush draws will come with a King or other high pocket pair that would be likely to check turn.

On the other hand, he shouldn't have much of a value range. He can play AA and KK this way for value, but some would 3-bet pre. What he does with AK or K4 I'm less sure, but potting suggests he may not have those. He should have almost no 2x hands in his SB calling range. In fact, I assume the overwhelming majority of them would come with AA or KK anyways, so those are already accounted for. (Funny to say it this way, but my hand blocks his 2x hands!)

When he was implementing this strategy, it is important that he gives up with some bluff on the river if you call the turn. Do you think his actual hand was a better candidate for pot-pot bluff, or pot-and-done bluff?

I actually think (without knowing the true makeup of his range) that once he bets turn, this is a reasonably good river bluffing candidate.

As you said, he needs to lose 60% of his bluffs. A lot of his flush draw hands (and other bluffs, it appears) will contain a Queen, which becomes a pretty natural give-up in my opinion as the showdown value it gains is decent enough.

Good for Bluffing:
He blocks one Ace
He doesn't block any 6,5,4,3, or Jack.

Bad For Bluffing:
He blocks one Spade, one Ten

I think he should choose most of his two or more spade hands to give up with. Not blocking any of my A34x type hands (besides the one Ace) or 345x is good for him.

In this particular spot, villain needs to either check back more of his 5x hands, turn almost every non 5x hand into a bluff, reduce his betsize (at least sometimes) or multiple of the above.

In general, there is an inherent advantage in being the one to go all-in. This is due to the fact that it takes the option to raise away from our opponent.

The reason this is the case is because any time a villain can value raise, he gets to add some bluffs (to make your call breakeven) and this allows him to increase his EV with his range.

Some people find that explanation confusing. To them I like to give an extreme example:

Let's say there is 5000 in stacks and you bet 4999. Now he only needs to call 4999 with his bluffcatchers, but when he has a big hand he gets to put in the last dollar ahead (we virtually never fold). He gets the option of taking that last dollar from us when he wants to, which increases his EV.

All that said, it doesn't mean you should choose all-in as your bet size "just because you can." It's just extra EV when you get the chance to remove some of your opponent's strategic options, which should tip the scales towards shoving anytime two sizings would otherwise be close in EV.

I wish someone else would make a video on paired boards! I haven't quite figured them out well enough to cover them in depth.

I will add this to a list I keep with video ideas, but I can't promise you anything soon. Thank you for the suggestion!

J875 is a lot more connected than QJT2, despite the gap at the top. It will connect well with many flops, whereas QJT2 will completely miss 7-high flops and under.

I do slightly prefer J875 to QJT2. Whether or not each get opened from the CO depends on game conditions though.