2DHades

I fully agree with your points. I was thinking the same thing about the bluff success threshhold( havent looked the exact numbers tho). 

But also i have 1 more point- if it is true that icm affects different stack sizes in a diff.way (mb thats an illusion) there will be some spots where there is no/strange equilibrium.

Let`s say- 3 players, stacks A-50chips /B-15/C-15 (prizepool 3/2/1) and hand is between players A and C and pot on the river is 10  (C has 10 left) and C is with polarized range. So, to shove on bluff he risks tournament chips and busting so A could overfold. This means C could bluff more and normally(!) there would be equilibrium when C should bluff X% and A should call Y%.

X1 over 33%

Y1 under 50%

But mb A(reasons-even if he loses he is chipleader and some intuitive things like this) is less affected from icm than C, so he would start making some +chipEV calls that are ok in$EV for him but will make C' bluff losing $EV(for C). 

So the equilibrium would be connected to:

X1 / Y1 = Z1        X2 / Y2 = Z2

Z1 > Z2

So this would decrease shortstack's EV (in general in this spot) compared to cash game model or ICM with equal stacks model even when he is the bettor.

Is that true or im dellusioning myself? :)

Very interesting video!

In the 77 example it seems very intuitive that calling would be better although FoldEV next hand is not 0 and being able to play higher vpip doesnt mean more $, like in sats there are spots where is optimal for big stack to shove any2 but this doesnt rly increasy his $ev

(it was ask before but still) Do you think/let`s say on a final table/ given stack sizes we could vary our preflop strategy in some spots by like only limping/only 2x/ only >2.5x ? I think in theory it should be relevant even to our flop cbet strategy (for example). Another thing is betsizing on the river - lets say u r the smaller stack and pot is big compared to stack and the spot is such as that in a cash game ur sizing should be all in but now if u go all in as the shorter stack on FT (it seems to me) u should have less bluff than in a cash game and villain should be overfolding to some extend to make the equilibrium(so less ev, so smaller betsizing could be better)./but then 'the caller' should be making -ev calls?/ (and the opposite - if u are the bigger stack u could have more bluffs than in a cash game- /no contradiction here/)

?

what i (tried to) say is that u cannot overcall(folding less than 1-X) on a good turn

i have to disagree with this. it`s true that u could overfold some turns but u cannot fold a lot less than 1-X cause it`s exploitable.

Also, there are other ways of 'gaining ev' when turn is good for your range.

good vid, u missaid in the end that folding a bit more on some turn card is going to be compensated by not folding nearly anything on another turn(which would be mistake in theory obv)

saw u in mtts last days how do you find them?

the way i see it, even if BB folds u have to ''win the pot'' 4way 20% with a hand thats not even included in opponents ranges(and being oop)

That Q8s call from sb :d

sry dont want to go in too much detail

it may sound simple but i rly dont see a better way to play this spot

u should be mostly checking on the flop, but it`s ok to have some betting range on this one, T5s is ok to be in it, on the turn u should check everything with a little c/r, this hand is ok to c/r, on the river u should give up some bluffs, T5ss being one of them, cause u have at least a little sd value + having a Ten< having 2spades when considering bluffing

''if a polarized strat maximizes the frequency of +EV plays, has a strong
flat calling range, and responds well to 4bets, what has to be true for
a more linear 3b strat to have higher EV?''

that those strong hands that dont fit in polar strat gain more when 3bet than when called(which i personally doubt, tho if u r correct in the way u play vs 3bets, then 3betting non-polarized might be the right way to do it)

4min - KJ - why do you bet turn there and even consider betting flop? Would you ever bet if flop was QQ2 instead?

''I find it hard to justify flatting a pfr without antes in play''

u gotta be kidding :)

u played it good, now u could fold riv(fold most combos AK if not all in theory, fold all AK combos in practice)

Merry Christmas! :)

min35 - u checkbeh AQ on A93r with intention to raise on most turn cards. Is this an exploit vs our opponent, or u think it`s optimal to do it with AQ % of the time and have it vs every opponent?

deffo check turn

Hey, im not sure if u realise that the EV of AK there is rly close to 0EV even vs wider than optimal ranges, i mean let`s assume:
-we 4bet to 24.5bb
-no calling ranges for villains
-3bettor stacks off with QQ+,AK when MP fold (which is rly loose even as a value part of 3bet range MPvsCO(and i doubt that back in 2008 those guys were 3betting wider % range than optimal given their sizings)
-for some reason the openraiser also stacks off with QQ+ AK

Then we have ~breakeven call with AK when somebody shove and also our bluffs(and the whole EV of AK for this spot) are not showing profit cause when we 4bet even to 24.5bb we need to take down the pot 62% of the time and we are never winning the '15k in the middle' more often given our assumption.

All that compared to CC which would make us at least 2-3bb/h

    

sry i didnt specify obv folding is out of question, the thing is i think cold calling is quite better for AK both our particular hand in vacuum and range-wise compared to 4betting

15min - mp opens, co 3bets, AKo in SB - why do u classify cold calling as ''a terrible play'' ?

I was a bit busy last few days, but made it today.
It seems like my favorite option is:

- bet 50% OTT, w/Jd,Qd,Ad(sometimes Td might be included), bet 50% OTR w/Qd,%Ad and 1.5pot w/Ad

Havent found the freq we should check Ad OTT

Thanks for your comment,

I just made a quick analyze, with the idea of not letting him bluff profitably(ofc it depends on our preflop range and flop strategy) and it showed Td is the borderline(it`s Kd and 9d on the board btw) (I personally prefer to call with any 2diamond hand(like 4d3d) cause of card removal reasons).

My first idea was that I wouldnt worry too much about him being able to valuebet with Qd, because if he chooses to use this betsizing with Qd he is definitely decreasing his EV(like if he has 55% vs our calling range) but it seems that`s not rly true and I underestimated the impact of being BBvsBTN on this board texture. So it seems Qd could comfortably bet turn + river. I still feel that betting 3/4 turn+river is not optimal


The idea of betting set/2p by BTN is cause if board pairs on the river, BB could have like 5-15% FH in his range while BTN would have 0(and it seems reasonable for me BB to c/c turn with all his sets/2p and fold some low flushes).

I find this spot quite hard for making a decent 2-street betting strategy(with taking into account river play after checkbeh) because BTN`s range gets less polarized so I`d be grateful if you could give me some hints

On the AT hand(4to flush), you should call river with ~9hi / Thi flush+ vs those sizings and obv cannot c/r because villain is betting Ad/bluff.
Which one of those BTN`s betting strategies on the turn would you prefer?

-check 100%
-betting ~2/3 w/most of his Ads+some lower flushes to checkbehind on the river

-betting 33-40%pot 

*Do you think BTN should bet(bluff) a high proportion of his 2p/sets on the turn?

lol the answer is that Sauce is not going to shove on the river all his Ax+ hands, because then it would be correct for Rider to vbet(+bluff obv) a lot more than he will if Sauce checks his whole range on the river but then Sauce has better ev if just checks with Ax, so there is a equilibrium where it`s optimal to donkshove just X% of his Ax+bluffs,but he would always be inclined to shove his non SD hands so this easily becomes BE+call(also his hand blocks only value combos) for Rider because Sauce is perceived to have some non SD hands there