TheRedWind

Sweet! Both short and full stacked scenarios would be my pref

Hey Richard, enjoyable as always!

@ 6:30 When you say you'd rather raise AK97 BB vs SB cbet on 743dd, did you mean that you would only do it with the Ad, or is that combo good enough without a diamond, if you decided to attack?

A quick wish-list thought: It'd be nice to see a video focused on SB cold call spots, with some monker work, as vision doesn't easily do that. I don't believe any other PLO pro has made a vid or series on specifically that. Cheers!

I liked this one alot. Easier to apply some of these lessons than recall solver minutiae. Though I agree you are a monker endboss, and the deep dives are great too.

@16/17min You small range cbet on J99r after iso'ing the limper. Is this something that works on a large variety of board textures when iso'ing a wide and likely weak range, or just the drier paired and monotone boards? (And ofc AKx, AQx...)

Thanks for the vid!

@35minutes, you stab KQ66 no heart on A83hh,J vs a check back, after you limp SB. Which rivers would you consider bluffing?

In hand 1, would you say all AA combos are strong enough to call the 80% bet vs Peter's range (all sets, some 2pr, NFD+, 2ndNFD+, and a few combos likeAhJxx) on J62hh; and if not, which combos AA worse than yours can still call? Is the 6 blocker or bdnfd more imporant here?

Thanks man, enjoyed the vid! P.S. I know Peter. He's a nice guy. He also makes 5% more quads than the average human

Good stuff! Especially liked seeing a few bomb pots.

~@35:40 Interesting discussion of flush composition in IP calling ranges vs delay OOP cbet, on JT5dd,6d vs hypothetical J65dd,Td
What adjustments do you (or solvers) make to your delay cbet range and barrel range in OOP's shoes, between these two textures? I have a couple thoughts on the fly:

• The only population exploit that seems obvious is that midstakes/lowstakes IP players will probably overdefend vs river barrel on JT5dd,6d bc they don't realize how many flushes they have. How do we maximally exploit this as OOP, beginning with constructing our range at the turn node?
• OOP should have the same sort of constraints on their cbet range that IP has on flop float bet range, ie the JT- wrap interactive parts of range bet way more on JT5 than J65. So then are both players less flush heavy on J65,T after ck/ck flop + delay bet/call turn? And how polar should OOP be with turn delay, given he might want to follow through on river quite often, anticipating IP overfolding bc they are too reliant on flushes for calls, (when it's a smaller % of range)...?

Thanks RG

Hey, great explanations as always.
@12min... You say hypothetically if we c/c K655 vs pot sized turn bet on AK3r,2ss, and BB pots a brick 7 on riv, they mostly rep 54 bc stronger hands bet flop or 3b pre...
-Would you be calling this hand on riv before many other bluffcatchers?
-Is our hand a mandatory peel vs pot on turn?
-The weird spot for me is when we try to 3 street this hand, barrel turn 2 and get raised small. Is it simply a fold?

Very nice video.

You defend 9322 BB vs SB open in one of the last hands. Was there a read that made you defend so wide?

Do you have your HUD posted anywhere? It seems like you get alot of value out of your setup.

Hey Phil,
Thanks for the vid!
@11:45 w/ AT97 on Q72,Qdd after calling c/r and betting 1/3 in pos, when ck'd to, are you intending to bet large on lots of rivers? I'd imagine this is close to bottom of range by the time we see just about any river besides A or 7, having called flop c/r. And the 9d gives us the green light on diamond rivers, no?

Hey Richard,
28m, same hand as above. It sounds like you're saying something profound about the turn, but I don't think I'm fully understanding the implications. Can you unpack it a bit more?

-most villains are likely cbetting a bit too equity driven, missing some polar cbets
-most villains do not c/r turn enough
-most villains end up with some midstrength stuff that easily c/c's turn

Are you basically saying the solver wants to check back JJ often vs a more polar cbet range that is likely to stab as air on river? And that we lose value checking back JJ vs a range that frontloaded (into cbet) too much of it's range that is eager to see 3 streets?

If that's it, I guess I get it. But it doesn't strike me as that different to face range x, vs range x + a bunch of polar flop stabs...because I'd still think we'd be incentivized to bet turn very often in either case.

Also, how would you start to form a turn c/r range here for OOP?

Hey Phil, thanks for literally ALL the content!

Is it harder to find 1-sizing cbet simplifications in 3b pots at 6max? Can we get away with betting range on J72, as described at the 32min mark? Any thoughts in this wheelhouse would be helpful.

Hey Phil! You're the man!
@32:30 A22J on KQ64K, you prefer pot as your bluff size w/ 22. Would you have a small betting range as well and put some unpaired hands in it? Would you ever bluff hands as strong as 6x-JJ?

Hey Richard,
This was fantastic. Narrow spot focus, multiple solvers, multiple betsizes. Thanks!

1. We didn't see a T8xx output in vision. Any surprises in that strategy shape?
2. Which boards most lend themselves to a 1 size probe strategy BTNvBB? Right or wrong I feel like I always find a use for the small size.

It would be interesting to see what 3-way multi-betsize probe solves are spitting out, particularly in terms of hand thresholds, and whatever tactics you can divine from range constructions.
Cheers!

Hey Richard,
Thanks for some 3way solver work right off the bat. That’s my jam.

Regarding that first sim: how does BB’s c/r range change if BTN flats CO’s delayed cbet?

And re AT87 on T75cc as oop 3bettor: I assume you’re splitting between 25-33% and pot? Is that super standard and could you clarify what you’re doing with range here? Especially which hands go small that aren't board crushers.

Hey imba,
Great stuff. I like the volume of diff spots you get in.

Combo question, concerning TT85 on J99T as a single size large turn probe, and also AAT2 where you flat 3b pre and we only have large bets on 95489 bc our value range is AA+. Are either of these spots in which you’d look to exploit in villain’s shoes if we notice hero blocking or betting small here? Perhaps we could slowplay slightly more to raise vs the block, and add in a few more bluffs.

Hey imba,
Great first vid! Really enjoyed it. @24:00, on 887r 3way with sb and bb, you say sb checks range and bb donks 20-25%. Is this pretty typical on sub-broadway flops, or is this specific to 887r? I'm flying blind in a lot of multiway SRP spots at low stakes and only seeing heads up outputs from vision. So any advice or future content on that would rock. Thanks

Wow, Richard. You just made me realize all I ever wanted was for someone to look into my eyes, grab my hand and throw us both off the ICM cliff...

Good stuff! Might be nice to dive even deeper into the 3b-bluff Axxx combos that keep popping up, to see which components are strictly preferred and how tweaking the spot might change the combo selection. Enjoying the series!

Hey Richard,
Great vid as always. In the JT75 hand analysis, toward the end you mention the solver would rather use the T for its showdown potential, and instead pair an A blocker with the open enders for its bluffs. This seems like a common mistake. I must be forcing relevant showdown combos into bluffs all the time without realizing it. When I'd rather wait and bluff the combo that replaced the showdown element with a removal element. But to try to fix that across my whole game seems complicated. I wouldn't want to overapply it and start checking every medium strength draw + mid pair (not pocket pairs, but with board interaction). Can you think of spots that would tend more toward this mechanic, and spots that would tend away? Or a thought process that might help approximating in those spots?

To your question about preferring the video series interspliced with solver dives. I find it hard not to get value out of your content, whatever the format, as my plo game is still catching up to the post-solver years. Maybe better players would feel differently.
I do like seeing your monker sims b/c I'm looking at vision outputs, ie predominantly single betsize strategies, all day. And that doesn't always show where the rubber meets the road. Thanks

Hey Richard,
Re: the AJJ4 hand, if IP is missing a lot of the airball turn bluffs (which I'm assuming they are in low stakes), at what point do we start folding AJJ4 and similar close-to-indifferent hands vs the large size? If you have the sim handy it would be nice to see some response outputs vs a node-locked range that misses lots of bluffs, in either of the sizes/strategies.
Thanks!

Hey Richard,
@31-32:00 on KT222 with KJ99, regarding the assumption that most opponents would see QJ as a bad bluff in this spot as it blocks hero's missed draws, I somewhat disagree. Or at least my default as villain would be to bluff a lot of my QJ9x or QJ8x, and not bluff my KQJx, QJTx as I see it as favorable to block QQ, JJ, 99, 88, and unblock Kxxx, Txxx. In the moment while 4 tabling, I think this logic would pop into my mind faster than the logic of worrying about hero's AK as a valid bluffcatcher---and would also expect similar from my opponents. I play at lower stakes than these hands, so that's probably a factor.

That being said, how to solve the puzzle of when you see viable but opposite logic routes to different bluff combos, and are unsure which the villain might take? Perhaps some players tend to, all other considerations being equal, prefer bluff combos that block calls, and others prefer combos that unblock missed draws.

Also, which hands should villain bluff here if not QJxx?

Thanks man, always great.

Good stuff! Your live play cash videos (and those of its ilk) make my day. Theory videos are a close second.

In keeping with the theme of the closing sim, I wouldn't be confident how to execute the small size oop in one of the earlier spots-- (19:30) with 9965cc on T883 after chk back btn v bb. I see how this hand fits in nicely, but I don't trust my own intuitions on which other hands to stick in small size that will handle aggression.

A) What are the combos or hand types we stick in this small size that aren't so intuitive? Vision only shows me a single 75% range.

B) When you say "we set our own price vs a ten," it sounds great but also like a piece of logic I'd overapply. Vision is checking back most Txxx anyway. I get that we also generate folds, which is the main reason to bet. Setting a price vs Tx would also be competing in my mind with the logic of going larger to make Tx fold. Convoluted question perhaps, but any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks!

@21:30 on JT2dd you say you're checking range in every position except sb/bb. By that do you mean categorically every time you are the pfr oop in a single raised pot? So utg/btn, co/btn, etc?

Phil, @35:00 on A94r with Q995 blind vs blind you advocate a c/r. I'd have an incredibly hard time picking a bluff range, and it normally wouldn't occur to me to c/r bluff here so I'd probably have no c/r range at all. Do you think that's a leak? What are your bluffs?

If I had to pick bluffs... double pairs, some small pairs with K or Q for showdown improvement, and maybe A66x could work as well. But again, I'd mostly bet or c/f these. Thanks, really enjoy the content!

At 36:00 you defend 7753, c/c for 1/4 pot on 542dd vs utg opener on 4 way flop. Turn 5. You say a block bet makes sense. Could you elaborate? i.e. What size do you prefer? What is villain's range, and how you structure your range if you have a block betting range?

To me it seems villain has mostly Adxdxx, A3xx, overpair+FD, 76xx (including better draws); and villain will rarely have sets, and 63xx.

So we gain value/protection vs the FD (w or w/o overpairs) parts of his range, and open up the possibility of bluffing him off all his combo draw outs on river. The alternative is checking a stronger range to him on turn when our range is fairly wide, as we are closing the action on flop facing a 1/4 pot bet. Why not do this and strengthen a range that needs protection? (Again, I realize you checked turn in this hand, but also wanted some elaboration on why a block bet might make sense)

Any analysis would be insightful. Thanks!

I think pf is fine.

I x/f flop since he's not folding much. As played you have to call turn, then eval river based on how you expect him to play Kx. Against a villain who bets Kx only once (either turn or riv), then I'm def x/c riv too, esp if he barrels off frequently when our range looks as capped as it does here. There just aren't enough value hands he can have that play this fast

This spot seems player and gameflow dependent. Shove if you expect hero calls, c/c is nice if you don't. But keep in mind you'll have enough Jx in your range to consider bluffcatching with (or even AQ). If villain expects me to show up with QQ and KK here I'd lean more toward c/c.

Seems like a c/r is just putting money in vs a nutted range (UTG cbet on BBxhh/ plus you block semibluffs)...and it would take a very special opponent to ever fold turn with AJ+. I'm just not going to have a bluff range here. Is that so wrong?