John Bolton

Hey guys, really like the video. At around 25m table 3 when you discuss c/r a half pot on 37T3 as bb vs. utg and btn: I get that a T blocker is nice for a couple of reasons, but it doesn't feel that important after the flop checks through. BB will have TT sometimes (and lead turn a lot of those times), but utg and btn have TT 0-5%? Having T784 will make our c/r get through a lot, sure, but I think it just gets through a lot anyway.

I think we can kinda go nuts here, actually. But for starters I think we can c/r all the double pairs, some 4456-ish hands, and probably as light as A3 for value.

Of course, JJ+hearts+gutter, just c/c. Interesting though, I think we're like never good at showdown, but hearts should be live a ton. If hearts are no good it's just a gross c/f though (aka a c/r, lol), right?

A year-ish later, still more of a Sam fan than many other RIO coaches.

Format wise, I don't think it makes a huge difference between spot-focused and hh/ft reviews, but for me specifically (nlhe is ~10% of my volume), I prefer videos with more variety like this one that touch on varied concepts.

Phil plays heads up is probably my favorite Phil video format. +1 for more!

Good stuff Phil.

At 10m with the 62955cc after x/c flop on Kc24cAc:
I'm not sure if you want a x/r range here at all, though given the "he always has outs" theme, it seems plausible. If so, I'm not sure you have a lot of Qc hands that have showdown value (vs. xb) on the Ac turn. I think you have some KQxxx that I don't think we want to check down | x/r and some AKQxx that are pretty ideal to check down | x/r.

Alright, I think I may have convinced myself that just using AKQcxx as your bluffs for a turn x/r is enough, especially since I don't think you c/c a ton of queen high flush draws on the flop, since you more or less need a king or a gutter? Am I right that QcJT8c6 just goes into the muck against a psb on the flop?

All of this is to say that it seems really uncommon for you to have either the nuts or the nut blocker here, particularly when villain is betting - if you have AKQcxx, that doesn't leave him a lot of combos of AA/KK/bettable flushes. So, I think it makes sense to consider turning some flushes into bluffs. I'm not sure that the J or Tc have any value as blockers here, since they'll restrict villain's Qcc combos much less than in 4 card, where suited danglers do more damage to hand values. Maybe removing Qc6c and Qc9c in the actual hand makes a turn bluff worth considering. Even if your AKQc combos are enough to balance your nut flushes, I think AKQc might be best as a x/c x/r at least some of the time, whereas low flushes certainly aren't.

jd - Naturally, the answer is that how OOP should adjust his strategy depends on how much IP is underbluffing. In the extreme example where IP is bluffing never, then OOP should only call hands that beat 34%+ (getting 2:1) of IP's value bets and fold 100% of the hands we think of as bluffcatchers. But, using Daniel's CREV tree, if IP is bluffing only 10% (instead of 12.5%) and value betting 25%, OOP will fold some of his worst bluffcatchers. You'll find that blocking IP's value region is a better way of selecting which bluffcatchers do what. If IP is bluffing even close to a good frequency, hands that beat even small parts of his value region become slam dunk calls.

Daniel - Nice video, thanks for the illustration. Lil blooper at 68m: 4c2c makes two pair otr, which is why it's a way better call than 7x. The hand selection stuff you're discussing is still visible in the trees, though - CREV prefers to call the weaker A7 over JT/QT, for all the reasons you mention. Thanks again!

Hey Phil and everyone who's not Phil,

At around 40m when you're discussing OOP's range after he donks river on QsTs4cAd7d, I'm still struggling to find bluffs for him too, but I think his one pair nfds should have close to 0 showdown value after IP bets into 3 on the flop. Seems like he should have lots more nfds than KJxx being first to call the flop, so he should have at least some AJJx, AJ98 (a pretty specific holding lol) to balance a river donk if this is his standard line with bare KJ.

Still, seems unlikely that 1) this is his standard line, so he's trying to balance it properly and 2) in trying to balance it he's actively looking for Axxx hands to bluff with otr (or calls with a lot of J9xx ott, as you discuss), so he's probably value heavy, but...interesting idea.

If IP is double barreling a hand like TT78 and then folding river, might it be worthwhile to set this play up? Actually, I think that's my question - theoretically, it makes more sense to donk river when IP is betting linear/merged (e.g. in a 4 way pot), because it lets OOP seize some value against a range that's kinda thick in the middle (i.e. likely to xb a lot)?

Not sure how filterable this is, but I've been thinking that a video on donking (particularly on) draw completing rivers would be useful. Feeling like it could be more of a deeper stack/cash concept as well as difficult to filter for. Really more of just an initial bounce of an idea than a request.

As usual, enjoyed your insights and am still finding fresh content in each of your videos, thanks.

That does seem like a good summary. A thesis is simply a statement of the problem you're trying to solve, so this is still way too much detail. Something along the lines of:

"Mixed strategies are difficult to execute, particularly those involving small or incomprehensible fractions, so it's worthwhile to create exploitable strategies based on pure or near pure actions that don't require us to spend energy attempting to achieve actual precision. Of course, since we deviate from a precise strategy, we should do so in a way that's designed to exploit our opponents' own deviations."

is really all it takes to convince readers that you're not wasting their time leading them on a wandering path through a forest of incoherent gobbledegook. Of course, if this is what the video is about, then it has nothing to do with range strength on particular flops, stack depth, etc.

Yeah, do whatever works for you/the site/etc; I don't and didn't mean to say "zomg zach freeman is lolterrible and/or has awful ideas," it's just feedback, and I do rarely have trouble finding content that's presented in a more agreeable way.

But it seems you've missed my point: digressions in general are fine (arguably even necessary), but it's the length of yours that drives me up a wall. Without re-watching, it seemed to me yesterday that over 90% of what I watched was parenthetical to the point you were trying to make.

Again, just feedback, trying to help.

By way of general feedback, I have a very difficult time watching your videos due to the length of your very frequent digressions. I end up dealing with it for about five minutes, then trying to skip ahead a few times, then getting very frustrated and just doing something else. For example, I made it to about minute eleven on this one and had basically no idea what your thesis is re: the intersection of gto+practical play, and I gave up.

It's a per-street calculation, so at any given point, the larger relative to the pot size villain bets, the less frequently you have to defend.

I'd 3b or (prefer to) fold pre, as 4-way your suits have little value and T982r will flop dominated more often than it'll flop dominating.

As played I think you can flat and play a turn without toooooo much fear of co/btn raising on this board. You have 48% vs. 97 and 55% vs. nfds that don't have you beat. Having the 9h yourself does remove some of his 97+higher fd, against which you still have 20% even if your gutter is dead. Basically depends how often you think sb leads with all of these and TT+/-hh, if he ever just bets QJ9 no hearts, QT6h5h, etc.

Folding is probably not giving up too much, though.

The deeper analysis here was refreshing. Looking forward to the heads up footage for basically the same reason. I also think that the five card footage would also be good as it'd involve you thinking on your feet more, whereas it's easier for you to gloss over stuff in your more normal games. So, for example, I enjoyed your discussion of the 2bb pot against danmer(sp) quite a bit.

Thanks for the video, Ben, and the poke to make the effort to watch it. I initially shied away basically out of laziness. Unfortunately I don't have many ideas for making analytical study less dense that aren't annoyingly gimmicky and intentionally distracting (wear a bunny suit), but a thought might be to pause the analysis every 15 minutes or so and bring up a reinforcing anecdotal hand or story. This, of course, is more work.

Please don't take the data out of the solver type videos, lol. One kind of lame point is that had you referenced the hand in the title or description - "otb vs. kanu hse" or the like - I'm pretty sure I would have watched it sooner. Not that I think you'd come up with uninteresting scenarios to talk about, but I think it's fair to say that the previous video got an enthusiastic reception, even for one of yours.

Very cool to see that c/r 66 on the turn has such dramatic effects on otb's strategy choice.

Hey, Phil. Enjoying the video, as usual, though I've not quite made it through yet.

6:39, top left, vs. 29:44, top right. In the former you turn the nut flush heads up after check-calling flop, in the latter you turn the second nut flush with a set redraw after the flop checks through three handed, and you're oop in both spots.

You say you don't have a leading range on these kinds of turns in the first hand, and that makes sense. And clearly, if you do have a leading range in the second example, your hand is one of the absolute best to include. Slam dunk, well played, super excited to lead that hand.

My question, as is probably obvious by now, is why you have a leading range in the second multiway situation if not in the heads up spot. Thoughts:
1) you don't need to defend as much, but you also need to defend with stronger hands;
2) you're more free to c/r turn vs. btn but not nearly so much vs. bb (can't bb probably pot-pot an awful lot after you check turn?);
3) while bb can have ~everything (we can exclude a chunk of (particularly nut) flushes that would squeeze pre), btn probably has a lot of giveups but can have some delay cbs, say KTs8x.

Basically I think the initiative has kind of shifted to the bb when the flop checks through, and it would make sense for you to be checking a lot in the sb - not necessarily 100%, but if not 100%, then it's not clear to me why your frequency should be different than it is in the first spot - especially if btn isn't defending a ton after missing cb (not a trivial assumption).

In sum, I think this should in theory be a situation where we're pretty concerned with sb defense, and maybe concerned enough to not lead even this hand. Again, if we do lead, this hand is a great choice, but the two situations seem so similar that I'd think that not leading the second is an option that merits some consideration. Why lead one and not the other?

14~17m in on the replayer with the 78s. I agree that this isn't the optimal hand to triple barrel with, but after you check the turn it seems like a good spot for IP to raise the river quite frequently as you're repping one (big) pair very effectively. Including say JT seems thin for value, but not totally implausible that he xb turn with that hand.

I don't play a lot of no limit. Do most regs not have well developed river raising ranges? It just seemed odd that that was something you didn't mention in your discussion of the hand, since you were pretty thorough.

I think it's an important idea here because it seems that ip should have more nut hands (pre. not sure anyone is xb turn with KQ) than oop and (as you discuss) a ton of missed draws that want to bluff. So attacking your mostly cappedness with an expanded value range seems to make a lot of sense here.

Thanks for that pokerjuice breakdown Phil. Some of my wording was terribly far off, haha.

I still like the idea of cbetting a lot quite a bit, but I guess I'd acknowledge (again) that while I don't think it's amazingly better than a checking strategy, I do think that if it can be justified theoretically it does give playability advantages.

Isn't it possible to address the issue of how close the ranges run in btn's sizing? I'm not a total math reject, but this isn't something I've quantified before (and there's probably just a freaking button for it in pokerjuice, but bear with me while I talk it out, please). What I'm thinking is that if bb has x% 2x and that has y% equity vs. abcdef; average xy over abcdef and sum with x(sub)1y(sub)1 for other parts of bb's range, and I think you get an answer.

And I think the answer is that btn is still pushing equity because the advantage that his overpairs (by which I mean to refer to an overpair that fears very few overcards; distinct from say "mid pair") have against the air/gutter+unders/etc is very nearly as large as bb's advantage with his 2x. And btn has a lot more more overpairs than bb has more 2x.

And if btn's pushing equity, doesn't he get to bet? Theoretically, I mean. If a 2bb cbet induces a check-pot half the time, isn't that a good thing? And if bb has such a high xr frequency, isn't he kind of dead in the water when he check calls (maybe he never check calls)?

Stopping here because I'm tired and I'm going to start spewing forth a whole bunch of..stuff.

You're right, "awful bluffcatcher" is too harsh, and I don't think the river call is spew. But a lot of his bluffs don't really have to bluff any more, because they make a king - I don't think even this guy is flatting your utg open from mp with many really disconnected hands. So that+bad blockers would make me lean towards folding, but I do think 9s&8s is one of the better hands you'll have in that line, so not unreasonable to call.

There's kind of a whole bunch of your analysis that I don't agree with, which, before I get into it, is not the case in your nlhe videos. Mostly I think you're a bit bethappy and your postflop estimations are rather light/optimistic with weak hands, but those are, I think, kind of normal tournament player characteristics, and possibly these adjustments are good. I don't know. But about the last hand in particular:

There's a nonnegligible set of hands that fred wants to fistpump get in vs. your utg range and would be feeling pretty queasy facing a xr from the bb - any set and bare 75 in particular, but also some medium strength pair+draw, which will have meaningful equity but isn't loving life playing for stacks. You are shallow enough, as you note, that he can play a two street game ip against you and let a card fall to keep the bb's range wider. So, while I don't think he has a ton of T7xx after xb flop, I don't think he's as severely capped at one pair or something (not entirely sure how capped you think he is).

Your perceived utg range is getting murdered on 986 three way, which means that fred's raise on the turn is probably extremely profitable, as you're going to be pretty capped after checking the flop - unless you check full range on that board, which I think is likely but am not sure of. In that case you're not as capped, but still getting murdered, so I like another check on the turn basically because I don't think you're pushing much equity against anything that calls you+your range is in a very vulnerable spot. Your stab-small-turn-after-flop-checks-around range looks a ton like overpairs with or without fds. fred probably assumes that you fold AA without a fd and shove with a fd, and flat with worse fds. If that's the case, his small raise is totally owning your strategy (unless he stacks off with KKdd ott).

As played ott, I think bet-shove turn is probably better than bet-call-decide, but both are reasonable. I do think you're too high up in your mostly straightless range to fold on the turn. Shoving can deny a lot of equity, especially if he folds his actual hand or something like it. With less than 1psb and being too high in your range to fold a brick river and not improving on many rivers, it's probably best. You probably don't want to always have a fd when shoving the turn in this spot, and your hand blocks a lot of his calling range. That said, shoving is overrepping your hand/turning it into a bluff/making it easier to play rather than a valuebet in the sense that you expect to be pushing equity.

As played otr, your hand is a pretty awful bluffcatcher, even against a bluffy dude. While I do think his value range can be any set+, I don't think he'd include the weaker ones at 100% frequency; they have a lot showdown value and hardly any ability to get called by worse. You do block the middle sets, but more importantly you block zero straight combos and all his nfds. I do expect this player to have a larger semibluff region than just nfds on the turn, but the problem is that a lot of JTxx has real showdown value on the river. Most QJT9, specifically, is probably in this player's 3b range, you block AJTx (most AQJT 3bs), so most if not all of his unblocked semibluffs have a lot of showdown value. So I think you can fold, and basically that folding this river is why flatting the turn can be a good play.

I started to post a sarcastic suggestion - "please talk faster, not getting enough info." Then I realized...it's not sarcastic, hahaha.

Have missed your content, to reiterate a previous post: always enjoyable.

I think all three spots are interesting, but I'm going to limit this reply to the first for various reasons. The short answer is that Phil cbets a high frequency as pfr in those spots to leverage the middling strength (overpairs, etc) portion of his range, which is where his range advantage comes from. To do this he has to size down quite a bit, which forces oop to defend more of his indeed more polarized range.

The more polar ip strategy you're describing is a very different way of attempting to maximize value, and I'm sure you size up/normally with your QQx2+ and bluffs. It's that strategy that Phil's suggesting WithColor is adopting in a multiway pot, because being up against two opponents he should polarize his betting hand selections to a much higher degree.

As to which strategy is better at maximizing value, which I think is ultimately the question you're trying to ask and might be opponent/player pool dependent, the intuitive reply I can give is this: I think Phil's method is more attuned to the specific dynamics of this situation, but as you mentioned there are factors that cut against it. The main benefit I see to your strategy is that ip gets one street closer to showdown with most of a very showdownable range, and indeed it doesn't require a lot of protection as it should be quite rich in both overcards and overpairs.

But it seems like you cap your range pretty effectively with a ~70% xb, and particularly on 22x you might want to check full range instead as it seems like a very high percentage of your 2xxx is going to have to be in your cbetting range, considering that you have so little of it. I think this is a huge problem, and one that oop will attack very naturally by leading large on a lot of turns, which puts you in a difficult spot with precisely the category of hand you'll have most often and the one from which your equity edge comes - overpairs.

By contrast, Phil's strategy allows him to remain uncapped cheaply, while also using the advantage that ip's range has rather than turning it into a handicap. This puts oop in difficult spots with a ton of his air, as it's really hard to continue a high percentage of the time on 226 type boards with hands that feel natural/have equity.

Would have really appreciated a timestamp or even a left/right table indication.

Am only halfway through, but am really enjoying your first effort. Good stuff!

Hey hey, hope you are well.

Right off the bat - 2:06 with KsJsTd9s on Kc7s4c after cold calling pre, flatting flop and xb turn IP vs a 3-bettor: how much showdown value do you think you really have? Especially when he checks the river, doesn't this remove his airballs (say, nfd+bdsd) and leave him with KQ+ nearly every time?

I also think that KJ is near the bottom of your range on a 5d2h runout, which should have plenty of 2p+. Even if you remove some of the straights by xb turn with spr < 1(not totally unreasonable), I think v almost never shows up with better than AA; maybe the rare AKQ7 double that was c/c instead of jamming turn? But even that isn't a fistpump river call.

But I do think you have a fistpump river jam, especially not blocking clubs. I don't know what your thinnest value bet here would be, but if you can value bet K7+, surely you can bluff with KJ (probably the stone bottom of your Kx after coldcalling pre)? You won't have a ton of A-high, Q-high, in this line; a few J-high hands got there, and everything under J-high either is a value bet or has actual showdown value. I assume the high card heavy part of your coldcalling range is pretty defined, and I think it doesn't have a ton of Q/J-high hands in it, and most of the A-highs that call the flop have either AK (sdv) or clubs (give up? but given how good this runout is...).

So, yeah, pretty clear shove on the river. Unless maybe you're floating flop with a bunch of really weird stuff, but that's silly. Does any of this sound off to you? What do you think about turning KJ into a bluff here?

Cool mate thanks. Enjoy your holidays!

Hiya Mr. Nandez, thanks for the video. Couple questions:

First, at 5:11 on table one you go check-check-pot with the nut low flush in a single raised pot on 8KA5T, which seems alright, but I'm wondering if you don't want some flushes in your check down/call river range. It seems like you won't have a ton of hands that need to bluff against a button range (can check pretty confidently as weak as Kx, say), so I'm not sure you need to open the betting here. It seems like he's betting more often with QJ than he's calling a pot sized bet with it, no?

And second, at 14:20, you repot AKJ2 on J42 four way on the button. This seems a little optimistic with everybody being uncapped; I think you'd do better by calling and using your position with 2x pot on the turn. Yes, J2 is a strong hand on this board since not even the blinds should have a lot of J4/44/22 and there's only one combo of JJ, and there are some uncomfortable turns for us, but not as many as for mp, especially if he's potting a hand like QQ56, as you mention. Do you not have a flatting range here at all? If you do, including this hand seems good because after raising, we're committed against everybody but not printing (a lot of) money. MP should have more overpair-y hands, but I'd think also shouldn't be going bananas with them four way very often.

tl;dr - #1: isn't this the ideal hand to check three times and call to balance/protect your river range?
#2: do you ever flat a pot sized bet multiway on the button with spr ~7? If so, doesn't top+bottom on a dry board seem like it fits pretty well in that range?

Hi Phil. Thanks for the video, good stuff, as usual. At 25:17, you delay cbet KK22 on AKhAh9 on the top right table, he calls turn and folds an offsuit 4 river when you lead again. My question's about your sizing: you went for 60% on the turn and 50% on the river, which seems normal enough, but sizing on paired boards is a common talking point in your recent videos, and you've been going much smaller.

So the most obvious difference is that on AKA there are no overpairs to include in your two street value range, and Kx doesn't need much protection. Are you not betting the underpairs on this board, or just balancing them by taking the smaller sizing with some percentage of AK/AA? Maybe - you're both going to have trips+ somewhat more often on AKA than on J33 (not entirely sure how much more often heads up) but that doesn't seem a big enough reason to exclude several classes of hands ("anything with hope") from your betting range.

Clearly, check-bet-bet is a different line than bet-bet-decide, but I'm not sure this should impact your sizing so much because your sizing is predicated mostly on the card removal effects of the board type. AKA seems to lend itself to your attack-with-range(ish) strategy particularly well because there are no overcards, and very few backdoor possibilities. I could keep rambling, but I think I've said enough :) and my question boils down to: why did you deviate from your usual, nonpolarizing paired board sizing strategy in this hand?

More heads up, please. And again, great video.

Always enjoy your clear, detailed explanations. Thanks for the vid!

The top left river decision at 44:40 with 3456 on A425Ar as pfr after bet-bet(small) oop seems a lot like the top left turn decision at 35:15 with JT97hh on Th82h5h as a caller after betting the flop ip. In the latter case you decided to xb turn to get one bet in otr and avoid getting raised ott, which seems very rational/standard, but in the former you led out otr and folded when raised.

While I agree that probably these guys will not be raising A678 or AQ** otr (some case could be made for a value raise with AK? depending on how he interprets your 2bb bet ott), so you should fold to the raise, I don't see why this hand isn't a pretty easy check call.

I guess to be fair, if we assume that he's never raising with worse and always betting with the hands that he calls with, the EV of b/f and c/c otr should be identical, right? So you should c/c if you think it's more likely that he raises with worse (assuming the plan is to fold to a raise) and b/f if he'll call with more losing hands than he'll bet for value?

I still think it's pretty close (which is to say that the EV of typing up these four paragraphs is...pretty low). If he ever raises otr with AK or the one card straight, having assumed that your blocker bet ott caps you, a c/c might be a little better. I can see a rational person checking back an AQ turn float otr, though I'm not sure how many rational AQs get to the river, and I think most rational AQs would be very suspicious about calling a bet otr.

Great video, love ya love ya show, long time listener first time caller, etc etc. Being pretty stuck in the US, I love the Bovada videos. It's definitely more exciting watching play on a site that I have access to, even if it sucks by comparison.

I'd seen these spots before - the 6532 discussion in particular was quite memorable - but I think this is a nice idea, and well presented. Good video.

16:19 - you check/jam AA+NFD+OE 3 way after 3 betting OOP on T96 because you say betting turns your hand pretty face up (want to induce other draws) & you want to check strong some times (presumably to protect dry overpair hands? though I'm not sure why multiway on a straight board), then,
23:27 - you bet/call KK+NFD 3 way after 3 betting OOP on Q76.

So, this seems pretty inconsistent. In both cases I think you're at a range disadvantage but your hand is doing fine (i.e. good things will happen when you put money in the pot). Seems to me, though, that your opponents have a tougher time with their flush draw+ hands when you check (and probably jam). You're not going three streets for value with KK with 4xpot on the flop, though, so it seems like a good spot to start with a check in hand #2.

For sure you get outdrawn on the turn some, but on most turns you should be pot controlling anyway, right? Basically what I mean is, regardless of whether the flop checks through or one bet goes in on the flop, you're never ecstatic about jamming something that isn't the Kh or a diamond on the turn. So I think the argument is that the EV you lose from these ~2 pair outdraws is pretty marginal, since we're only talking about the cases in which the hands won't call a flop bet and will call a turn bet, while the gained EV from getting villain(s) stuck in the pot with draws is substantial.

I'm not sure how to quantify this, and I'm probably going overboard (because c-betting seems totally standard) but it seems like a common (really important) spot, where we have a marginal made hand, but most of our EV when the money goes in comes from draw-over-draw scenarios, which get quite a bit weaker when they don't complete on the turn.

Mostly, check-jamming avoids the awkward situation where our flop bet gets flatted and we have 1.6x pot on the turn. This seems important because we're so infrequently going to turn a strong made hand that is not a flush (on which our opponent mostly shuts down). There's no clean 2 pair, and if we check, our hand looks exactly like what it is (so folding feels weak), but betting is committing and now we mostly have a marginal hand and a draw with marginal value.

If both our made hand and our draw is going to get weaker most of the time on the turn, it makes sense to play it for a smaller pot, or just realize our equity if someone bets the flop. If the flop checks through, probably we're not missing many of the very high EV spots where one of the villains has a combo draw.

It's not lost on me that the boards are very different. On T96 your made hand value range is really thin after 3betting, while on Q76 it's a bit more robust, including at least some QQ combos and some Q*s, so villains will be more apt to go with their combo draws against the c-betting part of your range. Again I think it's clear that we are pretty happy to go with both of these hands, but since we can't really just shovel it in in hand #2, I like a check.

Apologies for the diatribe, did quite like the video!