AH

Hi Paul, Yes I was thinking more like you phrased it in the edit. Only if we know how Pio would chose to construct a range for a lower amount of CR could we know how to play against that. Node-locking how we think the population plays might be very informative but we are not finding out how to play against a 15% CR instead of a 20% CR, like we for example would if we eliminated the CR to find out how to play against 0% CR. I thought it was important to point that out since the response after betting 100% of hands and being check raised was so extreme, we would not do that against someone that did not have a way to strong CR-range. So the response against a good player that is not quite checkraising as much as Pio might very well not be to cbet 100%.

Hi Paul, very interesting video!

I think the extreme number (86%) that we are folding to the check raise in the node locked sim (11.10 ) shows how dum it is to try to defend normal against a too strong check raise range. That being said I think the sim is a little bit misleading since the lower node locked check raise is so clearly weighted with too many strong hands. If you compare the range in 10.18 to the one in 11.10 you will see that the former does not include close to all the sets but the latter includes all of them. It is not certain that people that check raise less than they should will also slowplay less strong hands compared to Pio.

It would be sweet if you could just tell Pio to not check raise more than a certain number to see how to play against that strategy when it is done in the best way possible. I have asked Pio several times if they plan to implement such a feature, but they have told me that its hard to do. What is your heuristics for creating a node locked range like the one I have been discussing above?

The question is if you always get called with 77 on the river with that play? In a case where 77 folds the bluff spot is quite good. And if 77 Always calls then you will get fully paid off with your stonger boats. Included in our range is also AA (3 combos) which he can´t have. As long as you don´t over-do this kind of play with a too weak range, then it should be profitable and you will put a lot of pressure on your opponent. This strategy includes the river check back with a part of our strong range as well, eg J8.

I agree with the reasoning about the combos that have me beat if I face a CR allin. The thing is that I expect him to come to the river with a lot of marginal hands also. What does he do with thoose hands? (Check-fold everything that is not TT, T9s, 99, 77 and A9??) I guess he would like to hero call some of his combinations with blockers or bluff CR allin some part of the time with thoose blockers.

I think that the problem with not betting river here is the protection of the turn bet and how often I like to bet turn with; combo draws, blockers and for value. If we have a static situation on the river where we almost never get called and paid off and some times face a CR allin we would almost never be able to have a wider range than a few combos of nutty hands on the turn that follows through on the river.

In my opinion the Flop Cb is key to which rate you have to follow up on the turn and river. If you have a very aggressive and wide betting range on the flop eg. AT, A8, 87s, KJs, KQs, QJ and maybe sometimes AK w bfd etc, aside from all the obv value hands (not saying this is optimal) and you want to continue with almost that whole range on the turn. Then I think you have to follow through with some sort of "thin" value on the river, for example J8s.

When villain CR allin on the river it is very much related to which opponent you´re up against, if it´s a bet-call or obvious bet-fold.

Is there an argument for a different bet sizing on the river, than the one I choose in-game. Afterwards I have been contemplating an over-bet-turn-range for an easier river shove with the top of my range and a small part of the bluffing range with blockers, for ex J9s. Shoving river is not a J8 strategy though. But the turn overbet would be nice, since you then might have more incentive to check back river. What do think?

Seems pretty terrible to have that many short stacks at the table when playing live. Stops you from playing a lot of speculative hands. I doubt that they play their stack size especially well but their presence hurt your potential winnings too much. Try to find games without decent short stackers if you are going to play 1/2 and 2/5 live.

If you cant find games without shorter stacks use a smaller sizing than what is normal live and try to figure out how they think about the game. If they mess around in too many pots when they get down to about 20bbs reraise them allin with a large value range when possible.

Since my approach is pretty practical I couldn't come up with a better way to present the information than what I have put together below. 

 EP/MP 

I open about 15% EP and 18% MP and usually stick with that range if I have short stackers at the table, but I will change the size of the raise from 3x to 2,5x.
If they open in early position I don't call with speculative hands but call some off suit broadway hands that I fold against full stacks. If the SS open a lot in EP and MP and fold  around 70% to 3bet i bluff 3bet to 2,5x pretty often, my value 3bets are jj+,aks, ako. 

 CO 

In the CO I open to 2x and if the short stack trap one or both of the remaining regs I open more hands than normal, which is about 35% 

 BTN 

On the button I used to be pretty aggressive if a 100bb stack was trapped in the SB and the short stacker was on the tighter side, which should
be okay if I am winning the blind enough to profit immediately(>57%) and the BB does not alter his strategy. Since this won't happen much anymore I have started to open pretty tight on the button(around 40-45%) if its an aggressive SS in the blinds. If the short stacker 3bet I usually go allin
with about top 15% of hands and call something like 7-8% of total hand. So I am folding to his 3bet about 50% 

 SB 

Some of the short stackers defend the BBvsSB with to few hands. Against them I open 70-80% of hands to 2,5x. When I face  a better SS I open
about the same hands as on the button. I 3bet their button open about 20%, calling of half the range if they 4bet allin 

BB 

I 3bet about 25% to 6bb when they open the button, if they are not very tight Not really sure about how big my defending range should be, think I end up defending about 35%.
If they open around 40% in SB I 3bet aq+,tt+ and some bluff depending on if they fold enough(which they probably don't if they open tight), if they raise closer to 70%
I 3bet 88+,ajs+ and 3bet bluff quit a bit. I call 35-45% if they open to 2,5x in SB.

 Would be interesting to know if someone has done some deeper math calculations about shorts stack scenarios, the little math I have done has
been pretty situational.

If the the calling range that I suggested above is accurate then the EQ of our range vs the Button is about 50%. It is true though that we have 18 combinations of overpairs which he doesnt. So we should be able to bluff a lot of hands.

I think it sounds a bit strange to bet marginal value hands on the flop(ex. pps>second pair). And if you want to check/call marginal hands it is probably good to add some stronger made hands in the same category to protect the range. It is also important to add that it is very easy for the button to find 60% of his range to call our cbet with, I think he can even call much more if he thought we played weak/predictable on later streets.

I also made a small mistake. If we are offering 30% pot odds(75/75+100+75=0,3) and have 57 value combos the correct number of bluff combos should be 24 (57/0,7=81,4-57=24,4)

It is very clear to me that BB needs to continue with at least 57% of his range when UTG bets 75% of the pot. But when you say that "If you bet 0,75 times pot on the river you need 57% valuebets. Hence if you have 57 combos and bluff 43 combos you can bet all 100 in the river."

I thought that if you come to the river with 57 value combos and intended to bet 0,75 of the pott you could only bluff with 17 combos( 75/75+100+75=0.3x57=17,1). In which way am I misunderstanding what you are saying?