Bernard Tung

At 11:00 on JJ2JT, you said having a big betsize when your range is stronger is "theoretically" correct.

I agree that you should bet bigger with a stronger range advantage, in practice. And you should bet pot in a pure nuts/air vs bluffcatcher scenario, in theory.

However, when you have a capped range like this, when your villain's range is weaker but contains much more nuts, with plenty of money behind, is it still "theoretically" correct?

There are many similar situations: 3B pot, flop A25r or 665r, 3bettor has a stronger but less nutted range, most coaches bet small.

Can you show some math/toy games where this is "theoretically" correct?

Luke,

Thanks for your comment. So if the board overwhelmingly favor villain, and he simply smashes it so hard that he won't have enough bluffs, the MDF goes out the window and we fold everything. (Eg 4 bet pot in PLO on A94r)

If he has some bluffs that he will give up, we have to use MDF to prevent him from profiting with ATC.

Am I on the right track?

EXCELLENT VIDEO!

If we don't have enough bluffs, villain should fold his entire range regardless of our bet size.

This pretty much dispels the myth of "Minimum Defense Frequency" (MDF) that was popularized by Matthew Janda and misinterpreted by a generation of SSNL grinders?

eg if villain bet x%, we have to defend y% to guard against him profiting with ATC. (I don't think Janda meant that but he was misinterpreted.)