ThinkingPokerAndrew

I'm very late to the conversation here but I think the higher check frequency on the Axx board also has to do with protection being not very important. Hands like JJ don't particularly like checking T8x because so many overcards can come. On the Axx board, the worst card is already out there, so checking is less of a liability for those kinds of hands.

I don't understand this argument that more tables -> more spots to discuss. He's only going to talk about one hand at a time anyway. If there are boring stretches in a session with fewer tables, just edit those out.

Concerning the question of whether value at equilibrium comes from value bets or bluffs, I think it's actually a misleading question. The value comes from the pot. Betting the right combination of nut hands and bluffs guarantees that we claim that value one way or another. If Villain plays an equilibrium strategy, then he calls at a frequency that makes Hero's bluffs 0-EV, in which case it looks like the value is coming from the value bets. But if Villain always folds his bluff-catchers (but Hero continues to bet his own equilibrium range), then Hero's EV remains the same, and now his value hands and bluffs are worth the same amount, which is the size of the pot. But of course, the bet only adds value to the bluffs (AJ wins the same if it checks), so now it looks like the value is coming from the bluffs. Basically, this is a question that only makes sense given a certain Villain strategy, and I think it's best just to see a strategy as a way of forcing Villain to yield a certain fraction of the pot to Hero one way or the other.

Great analysis Daniel, thanks! Taking your logic in the second video even further, have you experimented with giving SB a flop leading range?

This is great, thanks Daniel!

Good stuff Sam! I was thinking to myself, as the video neared its end, "He should really talk about what happens if V raises." And then boom, there it was! Well played.

An interesting principle of game theory is that the amount of money Villain will put into the pot shouldn't change based on whether you bet or check. If it does (for instance, if he bluffs and/or value bets into a check for a total amount of $ greater than he would raise into a bet), then he incentivizes you to check your nut hands consistently, as he puts more $ into the pot when you do, and bet your marginal hands consistently, as they will face less pressure than if they check.

As you point out, the field may well be responding too passively to blocker bets, which may incentivize us to employ them exploitably much, but at the very least suggests we should employ them at GTO frequency.

Wow this a fantastic video, thanks Ben. And thanks to "Iamindifferent" for the excellent comments. I don't have a lot to add to what others have said about why it was so good, just seconding that I would love to see more theory-based vids about how to exploit various common strategies. This is in no small part because I found my own play way too close to that of the "tricky reg" for comfort!

Thanks, Sam. FYI, I believe that HRC handles calls very badly, maybe just treating it as a checkdown pot. Needless to say, you won't realize anywhere near that much equity when you call from the SB, which is why it gives some janky answers for calling. It should be right about which hands can 3-bet profitably, and in fact some others will belong in there as well because they won't actually play better as calls, although HRC thinks they will. If that makes sense?

Also, for whatever reason, I've found that Snowie doesn't deal well with multi-way pots.

I don't know that I disagree with a lot of the conclusions you come to in this video, but analytically I think some of your reasoning isn't sound. For instance:

1. Just because a range of [the bottom of the deck] has 33% equity against [the top of the deck] doesn't mean that every hand in that range has sufficient equity (and more importantly equity realization) to call. You really ought to play around with some of the worse hands in that range by themselves to see what kind of raw equity they have.

2. Just because you can sometimes do some things from the BB that deny equity to Villain doesn't mean it's a wash in terms of who has a harder time realizing equity. On balance, being out of position is a disadvantage, and most of the hands you defend from BB will, even taking into account the occasional bluff or value bet, realize less than their raw equity.

It helps your equity realization if you have ways to exploit a particular opponent easily after the flop. For instance, against the player with the 93% c-bet, knowing you'll get a lot of profitable flop check-raises makes it a lot easier to realize equity.

But I think you need to be explicit about this. Just running a hold and cold equity calc and then saying "the math dictates" that you call is going to mislead a lot of people.

The extent to which you'll have difficulty realizing equity varies from hand to hand. Stuff like suitedness and connectedness helps. Lefort has some some excellent videos here on RIO that go into a lot of depth on this topic.

Thanks, Sam. My own work with solvers is limited, but I found it's valuable to look at the EV value-add of splitting your ranges. So, solve for scenario with and without check-raise allowed (or donk bet, if you want to look at that), and first find cases where allowing that option adds appreciable value. Then, look at those spots more closely. Even if the solver check-raises something like 15% of the time when it's allowed that move, it may not add much EV relative to strictly call/folding, in which case as humans we might well prefer the simpler option.

Apologies if this is pedantic or something you've already done, but I didn't see you address it in the video.

Great video, Ben, and I love that it revolved around hero folds. This seems to be an under-appreciated skill, because they aren't as sexy or "sick" as hero calls, big bluffs, etc., and I know that for me one of the eye-opening things about watching your videos is seeing all of the hands that you do play, and how much wider some of your ranges are than what seemed correct to me a year or two ago. So it's great to see your same analytical prowess applied to this less sexy but at least as important topic of hero folding (or checking).

You did a really fantastic job with this video. In my experience this is a tricky concept for many players to accept, but you laid everything out very logically. I was sold on the general idea before I watched the video, and even I was surprised by how little is lost by betting into a player who calls/folds perfectly. The only thing missing was some analysis of how to deal with a river raise.

Thanks for including us on this list! For the record, though, Nate Meyvis is the other regular host of the show, though Gareth is a frequent guest and has served as a back-up co-host in the past.

How has WTF with Marc Maron not been mentioned? Marc's a stand-up comedian and a great interviewer who gets his guests (usually comedians though recently he's add musicians, actors, and other artists as well) to open up and speak honestly about some tough subjects. The show is frequently moving and hilarious, often in the same episode.

Interesting stuff, thanks.

I wonder how applicable minimum defense frequency really is here. That formula is derived from the point at which Villain would be indifferent to bluffing with 0% equity. Considering that even Villain's worst hands will have significant equity against Hero's flatting range, I'd think the minimum defense frequency formula used here would only work if Hero were shoving that entire range such that Villain didn't get to realize any equity with his bluffs. If Villain knows that you'll defend exactly 44% against his 16BB 4-bet, but that some of those defenses will be calls, I don't think he'd be indifferent to 4-betting 72o. 

Not that you'd have time to get into it in this video, but with deeper stacks Hero could end up 5-betting more often considering that he can have a 5bet-fold range and thus risk less than 100BB with his 5-bets. Also, while it's probably empirically true that many players get more polarized with their 4-betting range as stacks get deeper, your findings suggest this may be incorrect. If Hero starts calling more often with deeper stacks, then Villain has incentive to 5-bet more linearly.

I think Herni et al are clearly correct here, though it may be a bit hand dependent. It's possible that some hands do actually improve their R OOP as stacks get deeper (I'd think big suited cards would be the most likely candidates) while others do dramatically worse (hands like AJo that rarely make better than one pair, which pair is easily dominated). On balance, though, the positive of influence of position on R must be larger as stacks get deeper, unless there's a huge skill disparity between the players, as I'd think that the influence of skill on R would also be greater with deeper stacks.

Satellites are not a way around your bankroll limitations, especially not on PokerStars when you can just take cash for them. Winning a satellite to the Super Tuesday doesn't make it a good idea for a player with a $20K bankroll to enter it on his own dime.

Yikes! Yeah I can see folding this. With a more vulnerable hand that is nevertheless way ahead of UTG, I'd think UTG2 would want to drive you out and end the hand pre. I mean, unless he thinks such a big chunk of your calling range is big pairs that he's flatting TT or AQ so he can get away from them if you shove, those seem like really clear 4-bets for him. 

Weaker stuff than that (88, JTs) I wouldn't expect him to make it 70 pre knowing that UTG is probably going to re-raise.