seriousstudent

I found it valuable because it described your end to end process to reach a specific set of modified actions you intend to take in the future. It included a way to "bucket" opponent tendencies and gave a label to those, described how to summarize PIO results in a simplified way in the spreadsheet, and then showed your thought process to summarize a series of simple non equilibrium plays to take maximal advantage.

What would have been valuable to add would be to look at a few additional, similar flops as PIO is quite sensitive to the flop texture -- similar to iamindifferent analysis where IP range makes a big difference -- how the range interacts with a specific flop. Lets say instead of a 5, there was a 2, or a 7.

I ran some PIO myself and saw that the Bet The Good Stuff is really terrible on a J42 flop as the Optimum EVs are significantly higher than the J54 flop at 3.56 for OOP but Bet The Good Stuff is 2.85 for OOP. This is because Optimum OOP should lead 50% on this flop of mixed bluffs and value, but in BTGS he leads 39% and mostly the good stuff. For either an Optimum lead or BTGS lead the IP player should only be calling 26% and raising 8% ,

The most notable difference on a J74 flop is that the response to a BTGS lead has twice as many raises at 27% call 18% raise compared to either of the two flops.

Also, I don't believe I saw you look at the difference in EV for specific combos -- as for many combos a IP flop action between bet and raise, and sometimes check/call versus bet -- has extremely small EV differences. It would be interested to see which combos most significantly contribute to the overall EV difference you highlighted between strategies -- looking quickly at BTGS it seems a lot of the EV comes from being able to bet 100 percent when checked to and get lots of folds so low equity hands have much more equity than in the Optimum case.

Would love to see you continue this series....