sturutter

Great stuff, please more 5card!

Excellent video, love the 5card content. The call down with 2NF vs NF hand (24:30), I'm surprised there isn't some thought to fold? I think it's fair to assume his PSB is almost always the bare ace of clubs, or the nut flush? (If this isn't the case, however, the logic changes)

If we give him the ace of clubs in his hand, I make it about 60% that he has a flush (the probability that at least one other card is a club). So, if he bet every single bare ace of clubs, and every single nut flush, we would be 40% to win, and we need 33%. However, if he is not bluffing every time that he has the bare ace of clubs, and presuming that he does bet every single nut flush, then the chance that our 2NF is good will probably swing to less than 33%.

It's also fair to argue that he is more weighted to suited ace combos, over bare ace combos, given the 3bet?

Great video, more 5 card content please!

Well done for calling out GG on their false advertising, which imo is bordering on being a scam. Absolutely sure that they are aware they are reeling players in with their advertising of 50% RB, which turns out to be as low as 5%.

Loving the series. When we say that chips won from fellow short stacks are worth more than chips won from big stacks, is it not the case that chips lost to fellow short stacks is, to an equal degree, more damaging than chips lost to big stacks?

I guess not, as for the other short stack, if they have say 20BB, then, for them, adding 10BB is not as valuable as losing 10BB is damaging for them? So, maybe the better way of thinking about it is- because of this, making another short stack gamble some of their chips is a useful thing?

Great video, thanks Peter

To illustrate the probability concept, let's say that I throw two dice, and make a bet if at least one is a six (Equivalent to improving a 2 card draw). When I make this bet, what is the probability that both are a six? ( Equivalent to making a pat hand). Well, before the throws I will throws two sixes 1 in 36 times, and will throw at least one six 11 in 36 times (calculated by throwing zero sixes being 5/6 multiplied by 5/6). So, of the times that I have thrown at least one six (equivalent to improved), then I have thrown 2 sixes (equivalent to pat) only 1 in 11 times.

However, the "one card draw three times," is like assuming that the FIRST dice was a six, and asking "what is the probability that the next dice is?" That is 1 in 6. But it's wrong in triple draw to model is as 1 in 6, because it is the first method (throwing 2 dice being like drawing 2) that models what happens in a draw two triple draw spot.

Overall, the concept in triple draw is that, if an opponent draws 2 and is improved to 1 or pat , it is quite a lot less likely that he is pat, than the chance of him drawing 1 and making pat.

At 1:09:00, in the 2-7 hand where Mizrachi draws 2 and bets, and Hennigan makes 98632. You say that, because Mizrachi won't bet unimproved, therefore he is a one card draw or pat, and therefore it is like having a one card draw 3 times. I don't quite agree with this. When Mizrachi started as a two card draw, and is now either 1 or pat, he is weighted more towards being a one card draw now, more than he would be if he just drew one. Your assumption would be completely correct if Mizrachi just looked at his first card, and bet, signalling that the first card improved him. Then, he does have a one card draw three times. But, when he draws two, of the times he improves, a large percentage will be to a one card draw, and a small percentage to pat. Therefore, I think we do maybe have value raising a 98632, and patting if he draws one?

Great video, thanks. Are you avalaible for badughi/badeuecy/badacey coaching?

Enjoyed it, thanks

Great as always

Well done for calling out GG for complete lack of transparency. To add my own opinion, the cunningly disguised rakeback system I would say is not far from a scam. The often misunderstood element of the disguise is that people assume that the average PVI, across all players, is 1. It is most definitely not. Anyone showing any signs of being a reg at all, will soon find themselves with a PVI of 0.3, and in alot of cases, fairly quickly, of 0.1

Great video

In relation to you saying that a Queen is a far more significant blocker of KQ on the AT87J river than a King is, could we even go as far as arguing that having a King is bad, as it counter-intuitively UNBLOCKS them having KQ, on the logic of taking this blocker maths to an extreme:

If we assume that KK makes up a very large fraction of his XR river bluffs, then holding a King ourselves blocks 3 of those 6 bluffing combos, and so blocks as much as 50% of his bluffing range.

In terms of his value combos, of KQ, holding a King blocks 9 of those 12 combos, and so blocks only 25% of his value range.

(This comes from the theory that not all blockers are the same, and that having an X in terms of blocking opponent holding XX is twice as significant as having an X to block opponent holding just an X.)

Love it, great series

The one rule I can deduce is "If you block his check raise range, then you can go for value more, and can have the biggest cbet % with the 2BDFDs. If you unblock cbet range, the opposite." I guess it differs on small detail of each board, but I am trying to find more general rules!

Great video and series. Can you give any insight into one small detail of Vision, which is how it differs between types of hands (2 BDFD to no BDFD) when it is using them as cbet bluffs. On the 432 board, Vision seems to contradict itself- With AK87, it has the smallest bet % with 2 BDFD, and that seems logical, as we don't want to be raised off equity, as you say. But then, on the next example with Jt86, it has the bigger bet % with the 2BDFD. In what seems to be almost the same spot, it does the opposite. This ordering of the hands seems to differ in general in alot of spots, and I can't quite pinpoint the reasons why.

Makes perfect sense, thanks so much

Great video, as always.

Regarding the relevance of the A in AQT4 hand blocking AA, which is a hand he doesn't need to bluff with.... If the groups, as you say, are 1) bluffs, 2) hands he doesn't need to bluff or value, and 3) value bets, is it not the case that blocking the middle group is irrelevant, and all that matters is the ratio with which he has bluffs to value bets (and how your blockers affect that)?

I would say that blocking AA does have more relevance, as, whilst of course he "shoudn't" or "probably won't" bet-bet-bet with AA, then there must be a significantly non-zero chance that he does, and it is the beneficial to block AA from the "not impossible" bet-bet-bet value range?

Great video. Not that this goes against the point of the video (indeed it backs it up), but is it not the case that using the MDF (1-alpha) as a simple, strict rule is never right, apart from in a river spot? If there are further streets to play, then bluffs have >0% equity, and so that changes the calculation from being as clean as MDF would make it seem. Further complications for the price of a previous street float, or a turn bluff having the added equity of sometimes winning with a bet on the river if called, and so on. The reason I ask is that some people quote MDF (1-alpha) as if it is a simple GTO rule, but that doesn't stand up to examination much more than facing a pre-flop raise in the blinds, and saying "I have 2-1 to call, so I have the odds to call."

When facing the river Cr with 5543, you talk about the signfiance of a diamond. This is something that a lot of people talk about that confuses me, as 1 diamond is basically the average number of diamonds you should have (the average would be something like 0.9, with 2 of the board 5 cards being diamonds). So, is it not the case that 0 diamonds is significant in unblocking FDs, 2 diamonds is significant in blocking them, but 1 diamond is basically just average, and of no significance blocking or unblocking wise?