nontoxic

Echoing all the above responses; enjoyable to see someone with your more rigorous background navigate such unusual opponent play.

Welcome to the new world, RG! If you’re ever around Detroit, meal/drink/coffee on me.

Re 7765s hand
You mentioned that you could both vb a 7 and bluff a 6. In game I often think this way, but it feels contradictory to believe that both cards are higher ev than average for opposing reasons. How do you rectify this contradiction? Sizing choice? General idea that you can realize your existing equity in some way part of it?

Cool video, really like to hear discussion of exploitative lines and descriptions of differences in rw human play v solver play and their consequences.

As a viewer, it'd be nice to hear some of the discussions about the differences at early nodes leading to later street unbalances/asymmetries and how those influence later street lines. I think this is especially difficult because idiosyncratic or even trend deviations can necessitate perhaps non intuitive counters and the profitability of early street play can be undone if assumptions (supported or not) don't end up holding. I find the more I ground these theoretically, the stronger and more portable they are. Hearing you discuss these in fundamental terms would be great.

(There's also a whole other discussion about the correlations between opponent leaks, sort of what you were talking about after the opponent raised AKxx on 499QA v hero's mid-sized river bet. But maybe this is more of an ignition thing with anonymous players or at least more important in those conditions.)

I disagree about the AT88ds sb v btn. The PLO matrix tool (sry RIO) uses this hand as a 3b/call 4b combo (which suggests its robustness is high) and it appears in the Vision 100bb sb v btn 3b post-flop ranges, so yada yada yada. As such, not vpip'ing it seems like a meaningful ev loss, not 3b'ing it more so.

Awesome video, thanks a bunch.

"Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the syntax you used, you're saying Vision is suggesting a half pot bet 55% of the time?"
(Aiming for accuracy here with detail, please don't think condescension.) Not sure if you're familiar with the restrictions of Vision but the most comparable situation I can find in it in sb (OOP) v utg (tightest IP pfr range). In this Vision scenario, for the sub class of AA w/o K,Q,J or T, b50 is used at 57% freq and b100 is used at 14% freq. I hadn't connected the sizing restriction to the lower freq when I watched the video, but it makes sense in a way that begs the question, what the difference in ev of a single sizing and multiple sizings? Intuitively I'd guess we do somewhat better using multiple sizings, can gain some amount of understanding from looking at sims w/one large sizing but that understanding would be relatively impoverished.

re: T8 hu v mw
hu: A chunk of IP's range is 1pr+some other equity that will fold to a bet but may improve enough on various turns to call once or twice/will bluff + T8 is a good candidate to generate ev but allowing IP to barrel aggressively (IP has more KK than OOP here?)
mw: there are more hands in co+btn combined range that will stack off at lower spr that are worse than T8. This also follows then general trend that as SPR decreases less polarized ranges are bet by everyone

Sry if this is a bit of a derail...
@~15min you say that AA on KQ4r v co will be able to xc (and the graph shows AA bets about 23%.) Looking into both sb v btn and sb v utg at 100bb in 3b pots in Vision, I see that AA is v hf bet in both scenarios (even the subrange of AA!KQJT sb v utg b50 55% and b100 4%). This also jives with what Gryko has mentioned in some videos regarding the solver using b/f lines often w/some immediate sd equity. This disparity seems quite high to me, perhaps explained but differences in pf range constructions?

Re: AsTT8 hand
How much do you think opp being good/observant/(extreme case)clairvoyant, implementing smart adjustments on draw completing rivers, matters here? (e.g. Against opponents, especially in live games, who will pay river bets when draws complete their worst draws since they don't realize its super hard for opponent to be bluffing w/o having bet these types of hands on earlier streets) How much is the ev of the turn bets generated by the river follow through?

Enjoyed the series so far (semi-reg in these games in the last 5-6 months)

@28:55 you def 7652s bb v sb steal, raise cb on 932ss, then check back turn 2...
Given the specific qualities of your hand (trips no kicker, sd and no spade) why do you prefer turn check to bet? I'd guess the ev of check is significantly lower than ev of turn bet (b33-b66 seems reasonable, prolly choose b50 mostly) because of the sb's heavy weight toward flush draws and OP+either fd or sd. I'd prefer to xb weakest full houses at some freq (esp those that block spades.) Maybe I'm missing something about how your constructing your flop ranges and how you view your opponents flop cbet(/call) range.

Fantastic video (and series.) Looking forward to the next installment. Echo radtupperware regarding notes, been thinking about transcriptions of your videos (eg pdf w/screen shots-and of course including the jokes) would be pretty neat (and is basically what my notes on your live play videos end up being.)

How did you arrive at .5 bet sizing? Interesting video. As a mostly live player right now I wonder how to incorporate live reads into my strategy--where to flex, maybe convert mixed to pure w/some hand classes? Does that matter?

Cool video, enjoyed the mix of sims and hands.

Interesting video, Nick. I have lots of questions about the first section (utg v tight btn 3b range) though I'm not sure which you will feel comfortable answering.

1) Why does having an A blocker not imply we should 4b ABBBd more often but instead 3b AMMMd? (Same for AKK and AQQ combos) This seems to imply raw equity (I'm using equity v pf 3b4i which seems likely to be a point of disconnection [perhaps you anticipate an even more polarized 3b range?]) isn't what we're looking for in a 4b range, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

2) @~7min you mention that we have poor visibility with KBBB and QBBB hands? Are you referring to flop visibility in a 4b pot?

3) Why do Jhigh rundowns fair so well here?

@29:00, btm right table, QJT9s v jricardosc and nimzon
You state that j is more likely to check AA-non diamond on A87dd as pf sqz'r than he is to check to Nimzon than AA+dd. It isn't clear to me why that would be the case.

If what you claimed is true, then call/fold to backraise in your spot wouldn't be so good. If it isn't true, then call/fold is going to be a pretty attractive option.

I would consider repotting pf as well. In games I play the straddle's range is often quite wide in this sort of spot and unless I believe that someone is being pretty tricky, repotting should afford me lots of fe and a fine amount of equity.

I don't think varying your play at 10plo ought to be a high priority. I think the standard play would be to check and decide. You don't have the nuts, your opponent has been calling and the second most likely draw just completed.

To deviate from this standard, I would need to believe my opponent was going to make a specific type of mistake that I was exploiting by taking that action. If you bet he can raise too much, call too much or fold too much. If you check he can value-bet too thinly, bluff too much, or check too much. What type of mistake do you think your opponent is most likely to make here?

"I had the feeling he wouldn't expect me to continue with the blocker once the board paired Which made me feel that my bet was thin.
...a tough opponent I'm in fear of chk deciding and making a mistake by folding vs a small flush or a top 2 type hand that didn't believe me on the turn and has the perfect hand to turn into a bluff. "

How likely is a complete unknown tough?

Do you think an avg unbelieving opp. will turn one of these hands into a bluff?
Do you think a tough unbelieving opp. will turn one of these hands into a bluff?

If you decided to bet, why would such a large bet be best?

I play in a good amount of live PLO games with what sound like similar structures and player pools. Here a a couple things I like to keep in mind, that should help inform answers to the question you are after.

-maintain constant awareness of stack-sizes
It's difficult to keep so many number straight, but being about to size your bets accurately enough to keep-betting open when you want to pays dividends.

-maintain constant awareness of moodiness
I've found that modeling many hands from these types of games is difficult because opponent's play rarely are based on constant (let alone sound) pre-flop ranges. As such, running equity calcs against specific ranges (pf and psf) can be overwhelming. In game, its more important to know who's going with a really wide range and who's going with a more narrow range. This also helps with the first suggestion.

-consider whether further aggression on a street will produce folds
I've very often found it the case in spots where I consider myself to have almost no f/e. (I found it easy to become slightly annoyed with this, but in reality I just needed to accept it as fast as possible the way people play and as an assumption in your thinking.) If no one is going to fold, how much stronger of a hand do you need to have to win at showdown?

-what do equity shares look like on ppt?
I found it very surprising at times to look at which hands push equity and which hands don't mw and mmw (massively multi-way). If a hand doesn't push an equity edge, doesn't make the nuts and doesn't work very well together, its probably going to be really hard to recognized and then realize your equity.

GL,
Dom

@ 6:45 the slide reads "High c-bet frequency (OOP) as we have strong range, which on these boards we benefit a lot from"

Are you suggesting a high cbet frequency because we have a range advantage and, or, or and/or because in villains' spot, its rare to have a hand worth check-raising? I am trying to differentiate between the range implications and the board implications.