LanguidlyClinical

but his 3b% is 4.

I guess betting the turn is ok. It's an annoying spot to get shoved on and the value of a bet only comes from CR-(semi)bluffs.

You know the KK hand on 28/29minutes(top left)...
When you got 3bet, I was thinking something like "be careful here" cos ICM is shit crazy in that spot and villain should only be 3betting AA for value.
So I would have called the 3bet assuming that we're pretty even vs his value range.
But you say you were super-stoked (or something like that :-) ) when he 3-bet.
Which leaves me a bit worried/confused....

Regarding the KTs on 27minutes.
Do you think maybe your sizing is too small. Seems unlikely OR is ever folding to the 3bet.

Flop bet is a bit like a hand on your previous video.
I doubt the guy who is all in always has T9s or 98s in their range. So you're behind the all-in player almost always.
The flop cbet is risking 10K to capture the 3.5K sidepot and split the equity of the OR between you and the all-in guy in the main pot. You have little equity in this main pot and increasing it to a little more is probably not increasing the reward part of the equation sufficiently.Increasing you're equity from, say, from 10% to 20% is worth maybe 3K or something (optimistic, i think).
Could maybe do a CREV simulation on this.

It does certainly suck to bust like that. But sure, his calling range could well be too wide (to the detriment of our shove).

Yeah, I was being a bit daft cos when we bet and villain folds obviously we get back that bet. So I can believe it's close

Sorry, I meant the KTo hand is a shove when the BTN folds.

The KTo hand on 28minutes is (i think), according to ICMizer FGS nash equilibrium, a shove.
It says you should be shoving 35% and villain calling 21%.
That 35% range includes K9o, 76s,86s,T7s,T9o for eg..
Obviously, if villain is calling much wider we have to fold a lot of this range.
But ICM generally undervalues shoving innit.

I guess a bet prevents villain bluffing 2 streets and making you fold the best hand but this is surely a bad play as villain can't bluff the player who is already in.

You know the A9o hand on 18-19 minutes?
You don't do it in-play but in the video you advocate betting the flop to take villain off his 6 outer hands.
Thing is, a 6 out hand probably has <20% equity. And you're saying bet 1/3 pot or something.
So you're paying 1/3 pot to redistribute 1/5 pot between you and the player who is already all-in. So it seems like it's not worth it.
There are other holdings villain can have, and most of them make this bet even worse.
Would be good if someone can point out a hole in my analysis.

In the KJ hand on 10 minutes. I think the river is a bet as we're never behind(AJ+ shoves the river like 100% as it's almost never behind). Villain is probably almost always folding but may look us up with QJ,JT,J9s,J8s,J7s (which shouldn't really be in villain's PF 3betting range and should maybe check flop/turn) and possibly even TT,99.

I think flatting is just better. Raising the flop narrows villain's range to one which we're behind. What does the raise accomplish? It folds out hands that we crush and hands that beat us call...with very few exceptions.
I mean, raise+GII is profitable but seriously suboptimal.

Another good vid.
ICMaments would prob be interesting. One situation that isn't often discussed with much rigour is pre-bubble (at least IME). Final table situations are calculated fairly easily by software and i think ICMizer goes up to 60 players, but larger tournaments are not covered by the usual software.
It's often said that one should usually be going for first and that ICM only applies when there are 1 or 2 tables left, but i've never seen a good justification for this. Maybe you could discuss that a little.

hi, no worries if i'm replying too late.

Seems like you're not fully addressing the question:
is this turn bet profitable?
This probably depends on the river action on various cards but shouldn't we also be looking at how this turn card affects both your ranges and how his range responds to a bet. Seems like a turn bet folds out all his floats and weak showdown hands and gets called/raised by strong draws, trips+ and 9x.
So it looks to me like there isn't much value in a bet and a check keeps villain's range wide.
Considering ranges, it seems like the turn card favours villain in a big way and you should consider checking your whole range. How much Jx do you have there?
(I would prob reach the flop with AJ,JTs,QJs,KJs and maybe check the flop with some of the weaker combos...say, QJs, which has some outs protected and doesn't love gii postflop). So maybe check call the turn with T9s,TT,QQ+,JTs,99(32combos) and bet AJ,KJs(10combos)+bluffs.
He's an aggro player and yet your bet seems to force him to play close to perfectly. If you check he's likely betting a large% with a range that you beat (not massively ahead of but,hey, this is a tough spot...and anyway, you don't need to be ahead of this turn-betting range to call).
Seems like you wanted "to end the hand there" and this caused you to turn a bluff catcher into a "bet-to-take-down-the-monies". I suspect a bet is profitable cos villain may float the flop a lot and overfold the turn.
But i guess a major issue that i'm not addressing is that calling the turn and river with TT will involve putting our life on the line. But we're not that deep yet and a turn check seems way better than a bet.
Not that my opinion is that credible. I mostly want to share my analysis in the hope that someone can rip holes in it.

Really enjoying the series. Apparently it's gonna turn into something a little bit special. I'm blatently gonna get pissed for the last 2 videos and pretend that i'm hero!

so you've worked out the evs of all these options?

yeah, i had a look at the icm and that's what i found.

tbh it seems that JJ and AK are close (using an 18% open which i kind of plucked out of nowhere). Not too sure how wide villain should be opening. He is covered by 3/6 stacks but 2 of those would not be at all eager to get it in with him. 

I guess this goes to show how much leverage a min open has on a final table with these kinds of stack sizes. I have to fold >96% of the time!!!

(Flatting/small3betting leaves me vulnerable to worse spots, surely(?)...while sacrificing some of my stack and not giving me any/maximum FE)

Seems like you missed that the Ten on the river affects the value range.

And no mention of ICM.

Kind of annoying. And not a great advertisement for the elite subscription.

What magnifies this annoyance is that there are no "essential" mtt videos which go into situations with this kind of rigour (and this rare/unique attempt is very flawed).

But i guess no-one will reply, as no-one replied to earlier criticisms.

how much 9x would you have in your range? i think i wouldn't have any.i think i'd have one combo of quads and nothing else which could beat villains overpairs.

But what is the point of a turn donk? What are you getting value from? Possibly 1 combo of a8.

Seems like villain can double+ triple any old garbage given the responses in this thread. But no-one wants to talk about PF ranges so it's difficult to tell. 

i think turn and riv are either check calls or check folds depending on barrelling tendancies of villain. I guess its a fairly bad flop for our range and leaves us with a poor distribution of equity

will have a look but i doubt setmining is profitable vs this polar range.

CRing to find out where you are has got to be bad...its not a reason to raise.

Profitability of a squeeze prob depends on how often CO will fold to it, no? I dont wanna go up against the 13/10 oop with KQ in a 3bet pot.

Flop seems like a check call. Little to no value in a cbet and we certainly cant bet 3 streets for value.

Sounds like youre going for a pretty hardcore triple barrel bluff. Seems like he is hardly ever folding to the turn bet anyway as he has at least a pair with a SD.

didnt see it was 19% 3bet range. Villain needs to defend at least 8% of all hands vs. a 4bet then or else we can 4bet bluff any two.
 And you can prob just shove 88...if 2.5k hands is enough for that stat.

Someone 3betting IP 6% to 12% seems more difficult

Its a polarized 3betting range.... ace high that arent worth a call.

i doubt donking the turn is a sound line as it compels villain to play perfectly. JJ seems like a bluffcatcher vs. villains range so why would we bet it? Villain has no value hands that are behind JJ.

I think villain should respond to a turn donk by shoving all in with a balanced range of value and bluffs because his range has more very strong hands. Not entirely sure why i think that...

I just posted a very related hand.

I've been thinking that it's very difficult to play well postflop i these situations. In particular, how do we play aggressively? If we are 4betting AA-QQ,AK, then we have a lack of value hands on most flops vs. villain's range which contains those hands.

On dry boards with one high card we should be able to bluff catch easily enough (could prob even call a street with those nightmarish middle pairs). 

But on low and/or coordinated boards, surely we have to find a way to play our range aggressively(or else we have no FE with our draws and villain can check behind turn/riv when we hit). Possible options seem to be (when villain is barrelling):

1) check raise the flop (allows villain to shove flop with FE while realizing all the equity of his hand)

2) donk-3bet the flop (realizing the equity of all of the range with FE)

3) check-raise shove the turn (realizing equity of all of the range with FE)

Whatever we do, we're faced with the problem of having few hands better that beat villains overpairs. But if we 3) check-shove the turn, then we at least get him to commit half his stack with some bluffs and we realize the (albeit diminished) equity of some draws.

And maybe we should call the 3bet pf with some combos of AA

(Disclaimer: these are little more than the ramblings of a slightly bewildered man)

P.S: FWIW snowie loves calling 3bets oop with middle pairs

In the last hand(where you bluffraise tpnk), maybe you shouldn't have flushes in your range as calling the turn oop with a FD is probably -EV (excluding JxXx and the low combodraws). 

Although, you seem pretty confident that the reverse is true. 

[actually we'd have to defend 2/3 of our 4combos which is 2.67 combos of 44]

Sorry- didn't see FireGoblin's post above which talks about this, although i have no idea what proportion of 44 combos theory suggests we should pay off with.

Great video anyway.

And sick hero call with q7s obviously

With regard to this range splitting: is there no danger involved in capping a range?

For example, in the hand where you check call to the river with your whole continuing range and have 44 and QT to value checkraise.

It seems sensible to want to CR 44 smaller but you now have a range which is beaten by 22 combos in villains range (I'm excluding JJ and 99 cos i think they don't get to the river this way).

Clearly you are intending to call a villain shove with 44 or else you are folding 100% to a shove so villains "GTO" response is to shove QT,AA and KK and 6.6 bluff combos (my maths might be wrong) to make us indifferent between calling and folding.

My issue is this: if i'm 3bet on this river, i'm gonna fold 44 cos i'm always beat. Which means villain should be 3betting all his range. Which means i should be calling 44. Which means villain should be shoving 22valuecombos and 6 or 7 bluff combos and we are back at some kind of equilibrium.

(Have i gone mad? i guess i don't have a problem with this but i feel very uneasy when my 44 isn't protected by QT. Which is silly because, at the small stakes i play, no-one's bluff 3betting the river so we can exploit their deviation from GTO by folding 100% to a 3bet)