adi1

haha cool. i look forward to your next vid :)

thanks for the reply.

i think capped was the wrong for for what i meant. i meant what if you come up w a value range of JT+ for cb on flop and a betting plan of 2/3pot on flop, pot on turn, pot (or higher) on river, and so need x number of bluffs on flop.
after coming up with hands you deem as reasonable/good for bluffing, should you add weaker/random/backdoor bluffs to reach the ratios you want (given your value range and bet sizes), add in weaker made hands to your bluffs, or lower your betting % and take away some value hands?

is there always enough (at least) semi-reasonable bluffs on flop? and the worst of those can give up on turn?

last question on this (sorry it's so long), same scenario but with only 1-1.5 spr on flop. do you use same cb size, shove it all in, or bet very small to set up turn shove? (or even separate your range into 2 bet sizes of all-in and 20-ish% pot?)

liked.

i'm wondering about polarizing flop cb ranges in multi-way pots...say you raise and the pot goes 4 way and flop is AJThh....

this is a board where you obv don't bet your full range for 1/3pot, but i'm wondering if you can bet as big as 2/3 (like you would in a hu pot) when you're probably just not going to be bluffing a whole lot here.
is this a spot where you polarize your range, but still have to bet on the smaller side simply because you're capped by the bluffs you could show up with?

great vid, really well done.
2 questions:
1- does this hold true for raising vs a bet too? i imagine it does, just wanna make sure (assuming deep enough spr).
2- if when you bet flop you're mostly bluffing, isn't a great response to that to just reraise flop really often? eg. if you cb on 555 then your range is mostly bluffs that can't call vs raise, so i can raise a ton?
assuming this concept holds true for raises too, if i cb on 555, you raise, can't i reraise super often w air too because you have tons of air?

i kinda assume the answer will be that it would be an expoitative adjustment that you could then readjust to. but it seems like the 2b:1v ratio is expoitable too esp on these board types where your bluffs can't call a reraise.

i vote option 3.

pretty sure it's hard to show up with enough bluffs betting river here given line.

for him to not have you beat here, doesn't he have to pretty much have exactly what he has? (ie. some kind of made hand on turn + flush blocker) i'm not sure of that, but it seems reasonable.

trade the As for Js and i like the play better...

you don't consider 4betting pre co vs btn?

playing AK+nfd or KT+fd this way would be pretty spazzy imo.
guess it depends if you think he's a spazz w deep stacks. if not, i'd be unhappily folding now i guess. don't gii on flop.

OP: try limp/potting and don't open fold more than like 1% of hands

wtf are you on about?

this is all true but i really hate to have this hand in my b/f range, as so many turns make our hand look good. betting flop isn't really for value,  just protection/ opportunity to pick up the pot so i'd prefer to b/f a hand like AT53 or KTT6 1diamond or similar. with your reasons these seem like better candidates for a bet imo.

now i've thought about it i def. like x'ing this hand on flop and betting the hands i mention.

i think i only have 1 betsize when betting here, so i want it to be on the bigger side. looks stronger, price out hands, more folds etc.

how could we need 40% when max raise is psb...

and idc about the numbers you pluck up there you've not x'd flop and x/r'd turn to fold vs a reraise.  ugly situation but no way you should fold.

what was your flop plan after betting?

what was your reason for betting turn?   after deciding to bet, why did you choose 1/2 pot?

pot 263 at ~275 effective?  no need to get fancy just mash the pot button imo. preflop is good.

would for sure be 3betting pre even vs a tight opening range, there are plenty of similar but not quite as strong high card hands you can use to flat pre. 

agree with checking flop although i like  (some of) ph3rox's argument for betting.   i don't agree w "I will take our hand in position against a hand like K567 out of position."  i also don't think hands that x/r here necessarily have us in bad shape.  at 1/2 we can probably expect utg is folding his missed cb which obv favours betting.

flop is the only noteworthy street here imo. i don't feel too strongly about either option.

as played, would size up the turn bet.

"pray that players in 1/2 zoom are unbalanced and will over bluff here?"

it's because these players are so unbalanced that you consider folding here imo.  still not folding though.

line looks good. 

ott, 46 into 65 seems too small to me since we're not trying to rep a straight, we're repping (and only blocking) the nuts.   it kinda sucks at this spr for rivers though...thoughts?

i think shoving ott seems fine.  largely because i don't want to fold and i dislike the situations you get into on rivers if you flat and someone calls behind.

this is one of those spots where it's not very theory orientated but in practice it just seems better to bet 25-35% pot with range because it works so well vs the player pool at mid stakes.

with that said, if you are constructing a balanced range, i think this AA hand specifically might be better in your x range since you have a blocker to middle set and the high wrap.  other 2 pair/sets that have a club blocker are proly also good for your x range...

think flop line is clearly best; b/f would be disaster and b/c doesn't usually work out too well, especially being oop to 2 of the players. b/shove is absurd. so yea checking and taking it from there seems clearly better than those options.

turn standard.

river, i think this is a great bluff that you're rarely able to make. you have the A and 9 blocker so this is one of the few hands you can make this play with imo. 

what's your winrate? what's your standard deviation?   get those numbers and plug them into a variance simulator and decide what you consider enough

i'm also very curious whether my questions are the right sort of questions or not

@ phil-  sorta specific to you now but does this mean that if someone decided you were over cb'ing in 3bp, they should attack your cb's on boards like QJ4r since you show up with fewer sets and there's no fd for you to have?  also, on that board, how would you construct your checking range? do you cb 9887ss there?

@ ben- i know there are many factors when constructing a 3b range; but equity seems like a good place to start, right? or is it more important (again, assuming 200bb+) to have a range with better board coverage and things like that?

so i guess my next question would be is at what sort of stack depth does it stop making sense to 3b AA72r and start making sense to 3b 4567ds?

i've noticed that you don't 3b several hands i would usually consider a 3b, specifically KJJss and QQTss. 

 i think having a high  suit with a high connection to your high pair, those hands hands are 3bets at any stack size. 

does this just mean your 3b% is really low at >250bb, or that you change your range to include more hands where all 4 cards work together,  like the 9887ss you talked about?

pretty sure you'll say option 2 there but imo the hands i mentioned are still 3bets and you can remove big pairs that have no suit or 2 low cards  ;o

wrt KJT6 being a better hand to play than KT52. ofc i agree with that. that's a hand i think pretty much everyone plays.   what i'm wondering (not suggesting) is whether or not you could also play a hand much lower down in our preflop range (ie. the KT52), despite obviously being less favourable than most other hands.  folding preflop is expensive...

remember, i'm not saying that it flops well or has much playability (can't tell if you were being condescending by suggesting i don't know what these terms mean or just genuinely think i sound  clueless from my posts... maybe i do).  obv some hands are much nicer and easier to play and are making you money, but  losing hands that are only losing like 20bb/100 (or anything under 100bb/100 as i suggested earlier) you should always play, because it's cheaper than folding, right?   i'm wondering which hands fall in to that category...

"You're presenting a situation where you want to play KT52$ss preflop without having a plan for it postflop.  That's not about putting you in a tough spot or not, that's about having a hole in your strategy."

i did present a plan :o  

"and with that hand example, i'm not even talking about getting fancy and stealing tons of pots. if you have correct odds preflop, then you should be able to just continue on flops you hit? (too optimistic now?)."

btw thanks for all your responses itt, really getting me thinking and as i said, i'm not saying you should play all these random hands. i'm wondering whether you should or not and presenting an argument as to why i'm even considering doing so :)

i'm also realising now that because of rake, the correct vpip is lower at lower stakes and higher at higher stakes

(hoping this post goes below jonna and zenfish because it's a response to their posts)

" "but the goal is only to beat losing 100bb/100 with any hand, right?  "Ummm, sort of."

sorry, i worded that poorly. i mean that if your ev with any hand is better than -100bb/100, you should play it.  

let's say for the sake of arguement that with the top 20% of hands you make money, middle 60% b/e, and bottom 20% lose money. from that bottom 20%, you should play any hand that loses less than 100bb/100 because it loses less than folding. i guess it's impossible to know which exact hands achieve that...also it's on the premise of no rake which screws up everything :)

you're both right, what i'm saying is under the (false) assumption that you play properly or can outplay your opponents. but i think the only way to learn to lose less money with these hands is by playing them. fwiw, i'm not talking about TTT2, but there's probably plenty of hands that we all commonly fold preflop that we could lose less ev with by calling...

correct me if i'm wrong (because i don't know), but if you have more than 33% with a hand vs a range then you have immediate odds to call 3x with it...so if you're playing a fish who isn't taking advantage of his position postflop, and you're fairly certain you're a better player than he is, then a hand like KT52ss becomes a clear call preflop even if he only raises 50% of buttons?    

and with that hand example, i'm not even talking about getting fancy and stealing tons of pots. if you have correct odds preflop, then you should be able to just continue on flops you hit? (too optimistic now?).

i think i remember in one of galfond's vids he said something to the effect of "avoiding a tough spot is not a good enough reason for folding" 

any merit to my argument here?  fwiw since making this thread i've had a couple of unsuccessful sessions playing much looser in bb and a good session with my normal stats...

i have another question too; if you were playing totally perfectly, what would be your bb/100 in the BB and what would be your true vpip bb/100 in BB?    

i totally agree that i'm not making money on the bottom part of my range atm, and that adding hands makes alot of spots difficult to play,  but the goal is only to beat losing 100bb/100 with any hand, right?  and from a purely mathmatical sense, it seems like you're technically supposed to call with basically every hand..

i did a little messing around w hands like KsTc5d2h and TTT2 and both have >33% vs 50% and 100% opening ranges. so my thinking atm is that if stacks are shallowish and you think you probably have an edge on your opponent that you should defend 95%+ vs min raise and maybe vs 3x too...

i'm not sure where to meet math with playability but i think it's probably wider than i'm playing atm...

the following few minutes from the part i quoted is full of good strat talk though. more of that please :)