Its all observation bias. I filtered for the biggest pots where I bluffed the river. That leads to a bunch of hands where my big bluffs were called. If we look at less biased hand sample we see that my opponents actually fold the river more often than they should. Which means I generally choose good places, these just happen to be not so great outcomes.

I was more referring to your sizing choice in a couple of spots. < Pot on the river and the recs will just mindlessly call their midpair or whatever. Bump it up to even ~110% pot and suddenly they notice they have a fold button.

I appreciate your opinion, but I need to note that it is an opinion.

I generally don't play games with my betsizing based on hand strength.

I find that the risk of being hand read perfectly to offset any small gain that betting 80% pot for value and 110% pot bluff against fish will gain.

Thanks Cozaro for the kind words! I appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment on my videos : )

Its certainly possible that the recs have a higher WTSD. I'm not sure though that I can filter hm2 only for recreational situations. I may to tabulate it by hand. I'll have to get back to you on this.

It would be a mistake to be your two pair that largely, I cover this in more detail in "Some hands revisited with piosolver"" This situation is analogous to the hand where I hero call 66 vs an allin bet on a Q7549 board.

Hi John,
The comment was referring to the flop call rather than the river. If I was to pick a river combo of Ax to call this might be near the top, but the flop call imo is very light (pio supports this).

When I don't have enough bluffs, they should be folding enough to make the EV of turning some marginal value hand into a bluff equal to checking rather than bluff with no showdown value.

Hi FBB

It's bluffcatchers, but in this example even something as weak as 96 would have showdown value, which makes "bluffcatcher" a very broad term. A better example would be SB river checking range where he occasionally checks 54. Since 54 could never win, it is excluded in 1- a calc.

thanks! that makes sense to me. Seen BB is IP, he wins regardless of bet or check if SB has 54 so 54 excluded in 1-a calc. Does SB need to defend 1-a when he checks here? I wud think he is so polar that maybe its okay if SB is always chk/folding as he he will be betting such a high frequency that BB cannot float to steal anyway

Hi FBB,

I would think that SB would need to call 1-A, (I haven't verified this), because BB still has hands as weak as 65 here, which should mean BB has enough bluffs and SB has enough equity with his checking ranges.

how do i go about investigating further? (verifying it)

Put it into pio on the river with some realistic betsizes/raises.
Change ranges to weaker and stronger see how check calling frequencies change.

if i do not have pio, is there any other way? i do plan on getting it but curious if any other way

Thanks Strug Life! It's awesome you enjoyed the video.