3:30 - I was wavering here about whether or not I should even be betting pot with my hand, I think i'll want to use a smaller sizing a lot more often. That said, I think fds are some of the best hands to size pot with as bluffs, because he will be selecting a calling range that is somewhat heavy on fds when I start to size bigger. Some 7x (especially 78) should probably be in the potting range as well and we can use ones with spade blockers if we are concerned about using the bet size too frequently.

7:15 - I think it's a spot some people would use the turn donk but I'm not sure that we actually gain an advantage on this card (and if we do, I don't think it's large enough to justify stabbing so many K high type hands against a wide range of better hands). I like to use that play if some of my weakest floats are improving (like Ax turns on low-mid boards) because in that case we have a linear range that benefits. In this case, we have many floats and relatively few boats or quads because his small flop bet has barely defined our range.

It's definitely relevant, but the importance of that to our EV depends on how often he actually has AT beat. If he just takes his range that's mostly capped at Tx and rips it in with Tx every time, we simply call and chop and never lose any EV (and sometimes gain EV if he decided to bluff). Of course, he might have 76o/86o as I mentioned, so I will lose some EV here if he manages to build a balanced x/jam range with those hands. We have to reconcile the frequency at which that happens with the frequency of his calling hands, against which our equity should be near 100%. I suspect we'll find it's still a better option than checking behind.

Since my range is in the lead on boards like this, I think I can bet at a high frequency and be protected against raises because of the wide 88+/2pr/straight part of my range that is so often best. AQ is probably a somewhat lazy hand to bet but I think it accomplishes stealing equity from hands that would successfully bluff me at some point if I were to check. (ie QJT9 offsuit hands)

I wrote up a reply to a similar question in my last video, dan vs lotte part 2 that I think will help explain this.

13min - see above

17min - you basically answered this correctly. I think larger sizes are going to lead to me overplaying some combos that are fairly frequent within my range, like KT/KQ/AA/89

24min - You're correct on this - for some reason I had convinced myself that the calculation would change, but this is only if you fail to use the full size of the raise in the indifference equation. The additional raise size would be the amount he's "risking" against non-bluffs, but we will still simply want to fold 2/3 of our overall range here.

Re: A5s - this is a non standard ace high for me to bet on these boards more recently, I'm not sure why I chose to bet A5s this time. I think something like A9+ would be my choice more recently for the same sizing that I used before.

Thanks for the good analysis as usual, although I get the feeling you watch too many of my videos because a bunch of your comments are following the same logic that I already use :P

Expanding on 76 on K98J hand I think you still can bet closer to pot w Kx hands (and turned made hands) and many of his Jx hands (as well as some pure draws) still have to call and larger sizing increases EV of our valuebets.
My question is does your smaller sizing imply you still will be interested in merging QQ, many Jx and adding a larger amount of weak draws +/or some kind of blockers type hands?

It might be a higher EV strat isolated on turn but not sure its best for whole strat.
Guess the issue is weak draws run poor vs range he continues with and you would have to give up lots of them on the river.

Or have you just used kind of exploitative approach? :)

Good video Kevin as expected.

Hey, sorry I let this one slip through the cracks for so long! I think the way you're talking about Kx being able to bet larger is an exploitative approach. If villain knew we were betting quite large on these turns with Kx hands he could take advantage of that because he has a relatively wide range of hands that beat Kx. Sure he will still have to call pair+oesd type hands but every turned straight/2pr has Kx dead and if he starts using a higher freq x/r our hand is doing even worse.

Obviously you never cbet QQ, so idk how I managed to add it to your range in prev reply.

Kevin, I meant betting whole betting range to a larger sizing (I conceed you implied the same though) bc we don`t bet Jx anymore and have more strong 2Ps, sets, straights! (he 3bet % QTo, T7s, guess we check back some QT otf as well though).

Is it a good idea for him to split his proceeding range ott considering all of above?
Besides what are that bluffs that plays better ott as c/r considering how coordinated the texture is?
How is many of our Kx are dead ott vs 2p? Many of them are quite live.
I think if he could c/jam turn (w/ shallower stacks) them it could`ve been more of an issue.

Anyway if I`m missing smth it seems its a very good spot to analyse it deeper ;)

A quick flopzilla of the situation showed me that KQ/KT (our best kings here) have 70% equity vs a range that arrives at the turn (defending 55% preflop and 60% against my flop cbet). If we bet the size I chose, I approximated a range that would continue about 66% of the time and our hand now has 61% or so equity going into the river. By comparison, AA/AK have around 55%.

If we were to pot it and he dropped his continue range to 53%, KQ/KT are near 55% equity and AK/AA are underdogs at around 45%. This is basically my point here - I think you're overestimating how good of a hand 1 pair is in this spot on the turn.

Sorry, it sounds like I mistook the pot size for just the 260 in the middle before my cbet, which would have made 1 - MDF =(300/(260+300)) = 53.6% folds allowed. In reality the pot size was 260+85=345 so the allowed fold frequency is a bit under 50% here.

If our opponents lowest equity bluffs beat a number of hands in our range, then we will fold higher than 1-A at least, potentially 50% depending on how many dead hands : bluff catchers we hold.

Hands like 74s, 22, 44 are some of my favourite x/r hands. I prefer to block hands that would call my probes (weak pairs) and unblock hands that would value bet IP (flop top pair/2nd pair, rivered top pair) and consider calling raises.

Yeah I'm kinda regretting talking about it this way - this would be somewhat relevant if we were looking at the additional raise size, rather than the total raise size. I've occasionally done the math in an unnecessarily complicated way but you (and the above comment) correctly pointed out that you should do it the simple way and defend 1/3 of our range vs a 2x pot bet.

I guess I'm trying to use it in the sense that we will have very few literal "bluffs" in our range (hands that lose to a significant portion of villain's cbet range), and also not many near nut hands. Polar strategies and big sizings don't make much sense for a distribution like this, but it's still possible to have an overall equity edge here range vs range, which makes checking our range less attractive than leading our range.

Do you mean a larger bet size is strictly better for my range or for AQ here?

Range if you have 1 bet size.

I did some PioSolver simulations on these boards a couple of weeks ago with my ranges and found that it was up to 0.1bb/hand better to bet 62% than 31%. Even if I forced the software to always CB the larger size was higher EV.

Yeah that's pretty interesting - my intuition is that a high frequency is good on these boards and I know that my approach of 1/3psb cbetting pretty much all dynamic boards is lazy and suboptimal. I definitely intend to start using more than one bet size in these spots eventually, but I suppose I could start by optimizing the bet size that I use for my entire range :)

I think you're on the right track thinking about those variables, but I have generally relied on my experience with villain's aggression frequency when checked to on the particular turn card. If his betting frequency is too low, it reflects that our range improved too much for him to keep betting (if we assume he is playing well). This is obviously important because if our range is slightly improved but not so much that he won't slow down, our x nut range will do better by check/raising than stealing the lead. I suspect that arriving at a specific set of numbers here would only work with the given board texture/range distribution and may change if you tweak those things a little bit.

Ah I didn't notice this fold - it's usually a call for me but I probably interpreted his 3bet range as tight and his sizing is pretty large here compared to your average 3bet.

The ace is a pretty good card for his x/c range on this texture - every combo of A5o-A9o probably plays this way up to the turn. I'm going to have a low 2brl frequency for that reason, and KJ is definitely not a high priority bluff hand for me in a tight range.

KJ will fit into my 2brl range primarily when it improves - 7x-Kx non pairing cards are going to be higher frequency spots for me and KJ will be a better quality bluff (or a value bet) on those turns. I also think that undercards that turn a bdfd are a good spot to bluff a small % of hands like this that block bdfd combos and have 6 clean outs against most hands. KJ specifically would bluff nowhere near 100% in those spots though.

This is actually somewhat relevant to your comment on the other video, but these delay cbet spots are ones that I expect a lot of the population to check really strong to me in. My range is certainly almost all Kx+ for value (although I'm rarely stronger than Kx, and will occasionally fit in a protection bet like 55-77), but the increased expectation of getting x/r means I'm a bit more conservative with my bet sizing.