Munchausen

Very late to the party here, but I must be missing something. In the sim, you have the BB calling 80% then calling around 50% of the flop. By the river the sim is showing 37% of his range is set+ which seems impossible.

On my HUD it would express the % as 0% fold so I wasn't used to the 45% open 45% played (meaning 0 folds) - sorry for the confusion

In the second hand, the button has an effective open of 45 and a call of around half that. I didn't see a 4-bet %. Is this at all realistic for mid stake games, or is your sim for a particularly tight button? People who open 45 would tend to call more I think. I think the usual call % in position in mid stake games to be 75%+, meaning that the range of hands for your sim be something more like 36-40%.

Confused by the first hand. You have no con-bet range on the flop. I assume that you don't think it's correct to con 0% here so I'm not sure why you are focusing on a balanced checking range when you aren't advocating a balanced range inherently since all your bets would be weak.
The exception to this would be if you actually do think checking all hands is correct here and I find that hard to believe.
Also, if you want to have a checking range it doesn't seem inherently necessary to have a x/r and x/c range. You could just have a bet and x/c range for example. As long as the x/c range is balanced with some strong hands, it is not exploitable (though it may not be theoretically optimal)

Related point: in the sauce hand Q-flush vs 9-Flush you talk about how he is correct to call you down with a mid flush and how your value range could go to lower. I like the video but it seems that what you are describing is how to play versus your opponents' play rather then capped-ranges per se. Sauce for instance is not folding mid flushes because he knows your range is wide enough to be profitable to call down, but other players may perceive your range as tighter and may fold wider. In these instances, you make your money by bluffing and x/ring much wider (like some of your other examples - bluffing without a blocker etc.) The fact that your opponent may have a capped range is interesting but your opponents' play WITH the capped range informs what would be the proper way to attack.

The player with the "capped" or weaker range seems like he needs to take into account your x/r % into developing his call or 3-bet range. While his range might be weak, it may in fact be reasonable to play a higher % of his hands if your x/r range is too wide. While both sides may have detection issues, the concept of how to play when your range is capped and your opponent is overattacking it seems similar to how to play versus a maniac where your weaker playable hands may pick up a lot of value if your opponent is x/ring and bluffing too frequently. Additionally straightforward play picks up additional value.

I think J988 has to hate the bottom card pairing on the turn. Either he's beat or you will probably fire twice with a draw that can't comfortable for him to call down - even a card like an ace would make an impossible river call. The KKT7 might pay off twice though, but I don't see bare overpairs getting 4 bets in (c/r + t/r) by showdown without a strong read or improvement (though the 3 pairing could be considered improvement).

Related to previous point: How many QT combos are in your c/r range here? Villain may not notice but are you c/ring QT97 with 1 backdoor here? How about QJT7 with 1b/d? I might be wrong here, but it seems like from previous vids that these aren't the hands you like to c/r a lot of.

In the QQ32 c/r spot on J93 rainbow you mention the good implied odds you are getting if you hit a 3 and he has an overpair or top 2. Then in the next statement, you talk about him folding out some overpair combos. I agree with the villian folding, but can he really pay off 2 bets (after the c/r) with J988 or KKT7 on a J93 32 runout?

Don't know how to reply to a reply so putting it here. Quick clarification: I love Phil's approach in explaining his decision in the vids and am only looking for an occasional quantification of the value of X versus Y plays. Sometimes, with Phil's creativity he can justify 2 plays (which is very helpful to understand the reasoning) but I leave not knowing which play is more "optimal". Sometimes they are close and choosing doesn't matter, but I feel sometimes it's a 3 or 4 to 1 ratio to balance but it gets left to ambiguity because both plays were given equal airtime in the video.

Good vid and I like the series. An idea on a video: How to watch Videos! One issue I notice in watching these videos is that it's very hard to know how to interpret the videos themselves. For instance, because we see a certain play being made on a certain board, it seems like this is the "right" way to play the hand, but it may be the Hero is playing the hand this way only 20% of the time and what we are seeing is actually a minority play that may only be used for balance. I think a video that went into what types of situations require heavy balancing and which types do not would be interesting. Last one additional comment on the commentary: In a spot, where you think both X and Y play would be fine, a quick % estimate of each play would be helpful. As in, I fold here probably 1/3 of the time, but I like a check/raise the rest. This happens occasionally in the vids, but there are spots where it's ambiguous what the proper %s should be.

Leo - at the 36min mark when you have AAT8hh vs Genodir, I'm not sure I understand the merits of the check versus the bet. In the vid, you talk about checking helps balance out your range, and while that might be true, I don't see how that makes your range much easier to play. If Genodir is willing to bet twice versus your check and we aren't autopaying him off, it seems better to have no checking range here. For instance, in any spot where our hand isn't as strong like when we have AKJT or TT99 without flush draws I don't see how checking generates any line favorable to us. Genodir would fire 1-2 more barrells, and these types of hands would be very hard to call bets with, even with light improvement. If we fire 100% of our range on this flop (perhaps with 1/3 sizing) , it seems that we extract good value/protection when he folds and we hold the weaker part of our range. Additionally, when he c/rs, we make a killing on the better part of our range. Long winded but I am wondering how you think a lag would play this spot versus your check-backs, and how you would respond with the middle to worse parts of your check back range.

An issue I have here is why we call the turn without a clear non-improvement plan on the river. If we need to improve to call, then calling the turn seems poor as I doubt we are improving 1/3 of the time (assumes Viktor auto-shoves which probably happens 85+%). Not to mention that some of our outs are contaminated. If we don't need to improve, then our river plan is:
A) Autocall non-club/non-straight rivers
B) Fold otherwise
If this line of thinking is uncomfortable, then perhaps we should shove the turn, so we do not make an incorrect judgement call on the river, or we should consider folding on the turn.
As an aside, my mid-stakes read would be to fold flop, but as played, shove turn even with no fold equity (mainly because I'd rather KNOW Viktor's money is in the middle, then have him decide on the river where I doubt he would make an incorrect decision unless he fears the straight/clubs and we have a chance to bluff)