samuelazo

37:50 left table, what about if turn was >4 SPR on left table w straight on that spot? Do u split XR XC according to what else u have in ut sidecards to accompany ur hand?

1) 2.598.960 possible starting hands in 5c. You can go in range explorer and find out for any format including 6c, go to "count" and type "100%", and it will show u the combo counts available for that format. For 6c you have to type "x" as it doesnt compute % as they are just too many, 20.358.520 to be exact.
https://gyazo.com/a1ef3a760aae6f45b92cae3271907566

2) no idea , lets see what they reply.

Similar to this video, but with 5c and 6c hh, or live play of 2 tables of 2 different formats, 5 and 6, 4 and 5, etc, since tracker sometimes dnt save hh well on the othwr plo formats

around min 36: The shift in XR size from BB when he's up against CO bet only,prefering a PSB, vs BTN bet (where CO hasn't folded yet), Could it have to be with leveraging SPR's arriving to the river?. I mean, vs 1 player you have to increase the size the pot ott to get a bigger pot by the river, but when CO is yet to react to our XR behind us, there is still a slight chance that CO gets involved by Shoving or cc a small XR? Perhaps the freq of that is so small that is irrelevant and what I said doesn't make sense. The other question that comes to mind is; when BTN face b50 XR, does he ever come over the top?(I am assuming typically not, which in the end still leaves the mistery unresolved, but just wanted to throw some ideas)

About the small sizing barrel on pairing turns; Do you also do this on SRP, or on SRP there are spots where you actually barrel big on pairing cards(turns or rivers). I have seen some sims where Potting some pairing cards seemed to be prefered(or split was used, which by now I know the easier the better :) ). If there is a case for big bets on some pairing runouts, how would you classify it? In game I think about nut advg, and overall range advg, and depending how I perceive them to be along with the board texture(dryer/wetter) and my removal, I choose big or small, but I feel I lack a proper heuristic that would shed clarity on this matter.
In 3b pots and XR pots, I have been using small sizing though, so at least got that one right. I used to use 1/3 but satrted implementing 1/4 after watching some of your content (specifically those series on XR w neutral/good/bad cards)

@18:42, Whats your minimum vbet hand there for you in that line for POT? only fh and bluffs? do u vbet flush? if so, also for POT? , and if so, and vbet w flush!T!A!7 ?

@30:19 Considering the potential XR; is there any room for a XR size other than "shove"/pot?. If Pot is the XR size; wouldn't you need slightly stronger eq w ur semibluffs? or given it's HU and wider ranges, that hand makes the eq cut already?

haahahahha, I love your cheeky hidden puns. "they even have different number of cards.."

hi, very good series indeed.
In the final hand, once you get in trouble by betting turn when u shoudlnt, since as you pointed out yoursefl, the follow up decision after betting turn is very close between calling/folding vs turn XR. Doesn't the fact that you are in the FT of such a trny make the risk of calling and chance of busting worse EV than folding and staying alive?. You are short but not quite ultradesperate yet, so u might steal few blinds here and there or get a better spot further down the line to chip up and perhaps one of the other stacks busts first in some confrontation, thus making folding vs XR higher +EV than calling IMO(when teh spot is so close in chip EV).
Im watching all of these series to gain some mtt experience and insights as I tended to play like cashgames, and just found myself punting left and right on trnys, so decided to actually learn some of the adaptations needed for torunaments. Does it make any sense what i said, or u still are short enough to the point where u prefer to gamble and give yourself the chance to run your stack up again??
Thanks

:-O !!! More of this please. I have made some 5c but very rudimentary using odds oracle and plenty of guesswork. Just realised how unsophisticated my methods are XD !!.

@25:47; Where explaining the reasons of why 2P w NFB do less raising vs wide DB than vs normal DB where you say that in a wider db range opp might be betting more sets. Following this same logic , could it also be the case that in a wider DB opponent is also betting more merged within the flush category? i.e db w weaker flush that would opt to XB in a more balanced strategy of "normal" DB? for instance a hand like KQJXX:hh!Qhh!Khh, that cb flop and could elect to XB turn to vbet/bcatch rivers and gets that line protected at the same time (B X B/call)if opponent were playing a reasonable strategy.
On a side note on the same topic. If u have 2 pair w NFD, it serves well as a bcatcher otr vs mergy guy.. I see 2 relevant scenarios happen; He arrives to the river w too wide of a range and it is forced to XB allowing u to get to SD and realising ur full eq(and winning at SD sometimes), or arrives w too many bluffs(by barreling too much ott), and you are likely best, given u will block his 3rd barrel vbets otr, weighting his range twds river bluffs when u hold the NFB in his 3 barrel line.

Since eq denial has such a big factor in this game. How important it is to have strong protected X ranges OOP in comparison to other games like in PLO high, where even on favourable boards for PFR , still gets to do a lot of X on the flop, and construct a rather solid XC XR strategy in many instances. Is that less important in 08 games, and one should be more inclined to bet when in doubt, for value and eq denial despite being OOP.?
What common situation grants more a pot control strategy for OOP?
Thanks for the content

This is more of a theory/conceptual question. I get the point and logic behind digging deeper into your range o find "lighter" XR on boards that doesnt favour your range in order to hit proper Raising freqs or else IP will get away w aggressing you and realising his eq way too much. But have you come accross any situation where for instance say IP PFR has such an advg in polarity and range , that thet way for OOP's range to combat IP "justified" overaggression could be to "superstrengthen" his XC range a lot (since you have to XF a lot of your range anyway)and put almost all of his potential XR along with all the other more medium stuff into his XC range?
Don't know if I'm making myself clear enough, to illustrate my point I will give an example of a mid str8 board for 3btor OOP where 3btor's OOP gets to slow play almost all of his strong stuff in order to protect his XC, since he will be XF or XC XF plenty of his range alrdy. I know in the example PRF is OOP and is a bit different, but I am most interested in expanding on this concept of having to fine absoluet weaker hands to build continues on these bad boards. Basically in extreme cases how low you move the standard for XR , and when do you override this logic in favour of choosing the line that best suits a particular given hand in play.

Sorry If my question is a bit confusing, I tried my best :)

in the very last hand Ktt5 weak flush. By the river, isn't it just too thin a vbet? Especially vs competent opponents like the ones on the table that will have their fair amount of XR bluffs(as u pointed out yourself when you saw his combo of counterfeit trips), despite u blocking a K. The issue I see is that , how many weaker flushes are there that could actually call us? They might even fold Jss there, either we get called by better hands, or give him the opportunity of raise us off the pot , is it not? I like more a thin vbet vs loose fish who will call any flush and aren't capable of turning trips into XR bluff, but I dont think it was the case.
Anyway, I know this is an older video , but your content is kinda timeless and great quality, very thorough and well communicated thought processes. Keep it up.

was i the only one to laugh out to the "pattonwise" joke at the begining? I think it was solver approved :D

Hi, related to the ovearll strategy. If a consequence of having this trick in IP's arsenal is that OOP's 2nd barrel freq goes down, what happens, or how would u adjust when ini reality OOP's does not know you can do this, and wouldn't reduce his 2nd barrel freq but in fact keep playing his own default strategy of barreling small on turns at a very high freq regardless?

Very good instructional series, seems to be the case that eq denial and playability/visibility on later streets have a greater effect when 3 ways.

13:36: About QQ and 44 being X more than KK. Is the greater likelihood of running into KK mway(because your up against 8 cards, and their ranges contain a fair amount of KK from preflop), when you unblock the K w QQ/44 hands, also a factor that influences this action? (along with the reasons you already state). If those are the reasons, you also happen to perform better vs a wider stabbing range+ feq, and "lighter calls to XR" than when u bet and get raised, where you still doing well, but raising ranges will be narrower and contain more KK in there, is that right??

At the begining of the video,(still on the preflop intro),you discuss on why is it that QQds are 3b a lot more when SQ than when HU 3b v CO. U mentioned about the promotion in value of the suits when the SPR is lower, and bad mway hand when SPR is higher in a srp 3 ways etc. I had done a bit of digging in the past but w KK hand class. And it similarly happens w the KK category in general. Plenty of KK!AKK hands are just flat preflop, very seldomly 3b (vs wider ranges, good sidecard structure connectivity, premium ones , etc etc), but when added a cc, the 3b freq of KK goes through the roof in comparison with the vs rfi only counterpart. I have always have thought , and this might be in part also a factor on why is similarly occuring w QQds category as well, that when added a capped range in the mix(the cc inbetween), now your hand goes up in value and pushes more eq 3 ways(and also capable of reducing SPR more postflop to push its raw eq more efficiently), because one guy is capped, and if the initial PFR does not 4b you, all of a sudden you have the best hand , pushing eq, w the strongest and uncapped range, vs 2 capped ranges, one quite strong(the initial PFR), + another considerably weakend(the initial cc, that "caps himself twice" sort of say). Probably this is even more true in practice than in solver, as solver does cc some AA in there as cc but I dont reckon many people are setting up this kind of back raising situation but rather playing more straight fwd overall. Also, despite the 4b freq of initial PFR increasing slightly in comparison to a single 3btor, he has to fold significantly more than when facing a single 3btor. So in summary, the chance of being up against weaker and capped ranges (when called), plus the combined added fold eq from any of the 2 players, increase the EV of a 3b w these type of hand classes.

The question would be, vs Opponent that either don't 4b enough(typical AA almost only heavy range), or vs players who don't know the folding Button is clickable preflop, (or both), what would be the right adjustment to make w these handclass(QQ ds,medium to high KK, best sturctured JJ, etc)?
(sorry for the long post)

is it because in the 3b pot, the small size is used to push eq w the "belly" of ur range? For instance, 3btor usually has a huge range advg and polarity is just slightly on his favour or almost equal,in some boards. Hence there is a significant assymetry in range distribution favouring the 3btor whom he can get advg of by betting frequently and small.(even if it is also using big size for other parts of his range that benefit more from eq denial/fold eq).
In the XR case is it more related to capped vs uncapped range, and also a big disproportion in advg of range v range atfer XR-call, and static card runs out?

Is it because at that stage of the hand the ranges are so assymetric, and aggresor has such a big eq edge accorss the whole range as well as nut advg, that it is really hard for the other guy to find too many hands to defend, hence making him overfold vs a small bet(in terms of MDF),whereas if in those static cards where the ranges have such assymetric distribution the aggressor bets big, the defendor will have an easier time defending naturally more accordingly, just by continuing w the stronger hands and folding the rest. Is that correct?

I would say the main thing, is you need the 5 cards working together, and just good 4c hands + 1 doesnt cut it. Yes play tighter and be more careful OOP. Smooth hands become more important , and high card value is much more important as well. High cards and high suits, you want to have the nut suit as often as possible. Connnectivity is also more key for hand selection. AA hands can rank from 1% to about 30% of hands wehereas in 4c AA is always within top 2,5%. SO you can get an idea of the variety of quality of the same hand type. That means that u dnt 4b all AA and u dnt 3b all either. The mediocre bad one, you play them more cautiously, and yes, there can be situatiions where AA can be behind of other hand that is connected and ds and live. Another reason to not 4b AA always is that there are some AA v AA matchups where the worse AA can be even 45% underdog. Another nuance to consider is the exact suit distribution , the difference between having XX suit or XXX suit even in ds can be significant, esp in some mediocre hands, there are no rb hands so having xxx+ hands become the equivalent. For example A9875: Axxxyy isworse than Axxyyz, to the point that in some cases can deem a hand from 3btable to not, or from playable to not playable (depending on exact structure of the hand. For example, AQ986 w Axx suit, is openable from MP or soemthig, but have it Axxxyw or Axxxx, and it becomoes a fold and that much weaker. There are plenty of cases like this where u really have to pay attention to the detail in order to not start opening too many hands and end up playing too loose, and again , same hand can vary in rank a lot more than in 4c. And lastly, double pairs are easily overrated. Fro this category, you have to shift a bit the mentality from 4c of any double pairs are usually strong and good to play in almost any situation and always look at the whole strucyture of the hand. If u dont have high pairs, you need it to be very well connected and ds, otherwise u'll get dominated too much and leak a lot. And pairs below 77 i basically fold them except from the BTN, and some premium exception, for ex: AK66T or AQ667 : Axxyyw. Even high double pairs w low pairs, suck, so for example , QQ225 would be a hand that i would fold from EP even ds, low pairs are the worse. I prefer 77889 over KK233 for example, and we could have a very long winded disucssion on this topic on and on. I have done quite some work myslef on Odds oracle, and check the rankings, and have a pretty good idea where the hands ranks at, and then I play around w different situations to see equity mathcups preflop and postflop, etc.
I would say , marking hands, and then quizzing yourself on trying to guess where the hand ranks at, it is one of the exerfcises it has helped me the most to adapt to 5c preflop. Then getting familiar w equities, cos rank is not always as indicative since there are some rdwns that u may 3b that rank at 20% etc. But u get the poiint, I think that doing that kind of exercise can go a long way.
In summary, High cards and high suits way more relevant. Connectivity always important even on premium hands. Play more passive and cautions OOP both pre and post, and 3b smoother hands than in 4c (since your eq edge to push is not gonna be that great pre, and your fold eq is non existant), and dont overate middling/low cards cause they look pretty.
Still have a ot to learn and trying to imporve every day, fwiw my WR on H2N 5c format tracked hands is almost 4Evbb/100 over 100k hands, so there is some work to do , but getting there.
Hope it helps

very interesting what you say. How do you "draw" in your head on the fly an estimation of the eq distribution graph for the flop in 5c? you just picture what it would like in 4c, and then consider the impact of potential 5th cards to see if that fact increases the amount of nutted hands in some1 range, or viceversa, or maybe remains stable, etc?
Also Like the idea of 1/4th turn , I have been reviewing paired runouts lately cos i seem to be themost unsure on those, and I saw in some of your vids that the 1/4th size was preferred on pairing turns after XR otf or something like that, so even though it is not the same spot, I guess the same logic could apply in situations where one players has polarized himself on the previous street and have a big eq in the middle of the ranges but not so many trips??
Am I just overthinking and overcomplicating thinking process?

great stuff, thanks again for the clarifcations. Get it.

Thanks for explanation. 2 follow up questions:
A)Sometimes I forget about the more str8 fwd things, good point, no need to overcomplicate things.
B) If the strat i mentioned was the case, how would you best attack it? if a robot implemented that stragey perfectly, do u think it still would be more vulnerable to being attacked than 1 size only strat?
C) I didnt think that deep about point C which I think it is a very good point. So to clarify myself, in order to keep things as simple as possible(w/o dropping too much EV), but as efficient as possible, one should always focus on what is the most relevant part of the ranges in play(i.e , most represented handclasses), in what part of the distribution is the greatest advg at(or lack thereof), and tailor bet size and bet frequency according to that as a rough baseline before looking further in detail into other factors, such exact hand, blockers, equity hand vs range and vs hand, dynamics, etc in order to make the best strategical decisions?
On a sidenote; the "cleaner the graph" the simpler the strategy?. Ex: Clear polarly distributed ranges = 1 big size at lower freq. IF the graph is all over the place w peaks and valleys overlapping, that might mean that implementing various sizings depending on what parts of the ranges distribution you wanna focus on may be better and so on so forth?
Am I understanding correctly?

min 31:00, maybe it calls because of the sizing that is facing (b50), but when facing bigger bets might not have enough to continue no more?,Plus you would need to defend less hands?

+1 as well for river series.
Following up on my comment from previous part, on min 25: How do u shift the defense if OOP were to face a POT size bet ott, particularly on the deep spot?. Basically continueing w flushes and stronger sets and preferably when having a relevant H in hand(so u drop a lot of the 2 pairs here)?. And raise extremely polarized? What do u think the threshold would be there to XC, what about a hand like AQ:Qh!hh, which is worse in absolute terms but may be a better bcatcher than say A3!h. ?

On the last board, do u ever use a pot size turn barrel on such dynamic board? only b50 or perhaps both sizes?

Min 24: Do you think is sensitive/reasonable to implement a 2 size strat on this turn? One would be Potsize, and other 1/3 or 1/4 size, where u polarize to the nuts and best blocker bluffs w big one, and then merge a bit more on the small, where u thin vbet more even non flush hands like sets and A9,(esp if the have a h blocker), and some of the the crappier bluffs which u'll give up if called, but just enough to get some eq denial to STD's, bad 2 pairs(96, 93). Then to protect the smaller size u put in there some nutted hands such as AKhh or some Khhh(basically hands that block some of the calling range from opp if u were to bet big with it but not enough were it would be better to slowplay), and then your X range will include weaker flushes that make better river bcatches, marginal made hands,natural checks and the give ups, and the rare slow play that blocks everything and want to let him catch up.
This way you get the benefit of having big sizing without the downside of having to reduce your betting frequency so much but at the same time having a reasonable XB range to not get to the point where u over barrel this turn.
Hopefully my explanation is not too confusing and managed to get my point across clearly enough.
Very interesting series, I have always been interested in this comparisons between "normal" stack and deep stack play and where are the main differences and nuances at. It would be great to do the same for 3b pots spots.

Thx for the feedback. X whole range ott and include some nutted XC as well as higher eq(and nuts) XR seems like a good aproach. If he XB turns, probably means that I am not getting more than 2 streets of action anyway w my value parts.