therapist

No you shouldn't go from opening 66+ utg to 22+ in Hj. Keep 66+ utg and gradually work in the pairs until you have 22+ from bu or co. I would be trying to opening tighter than your ranges due to very high rake and players defending too wide.

Not sure how others feel but changing bb into $ does not improve my viewer experience

You talk about making exploitative folds. At 16:20 (3b pot with KQs on AQ8m) what do you think about just folding vs cbet? You said yourself you are going to play cautiously here. And I don't even think your hand is a clear continue in GTO.

That min donk bet with QTs was really cute. I don't really understand how you can see this spot and realize that our range just wants to donk for 1bb. It seems really unintuitive to me.

In the first hand, deciding about what to do with our 34s on the river... I am interested in what heuristics you use to come to the conclusion that it would work best as a big bet (rather than block or check). I normally try to think about how relevant the blockers are for each size. So, here we don't block any calls vs the big size, yet vs block we at least block 33 44 calls. So I would've blocked (or checked since clubs blocks folds). So what am I missing? Because according to you (and pio) the big bet has the highest ev.

Do you remember what Krab said about this in the past? I know I have made alot of mistakes in the past by just auto giving up missed flush draws. Fwiw I ran a pio sim of that hand and 34s is definitely a better river bluff than bigger flush cards. I guess because it blocks less of opponents missed flush draws.

Im a little confused about our flush blocker effects on these double flush turns. For example in the hand vs Jinmay on Kd 5h 3h Td, you recognized that Kx with Jd would be the lowest ev KJ combo. But in my mind Jd and Jh have the same blocker effect. What is it that makes the Jd worse to have than the Jh?

At 31:15, you fold A9 in 4b pot bvb, after rivering the ace. The main reason you give is assuming the sb doesn't find enough preflop 4bs with KQo and KT. Seems like an iffy assumption. Wouldn't it be safer to assume a 500z reg will get a basic preflop spot correct? It's not very difficult to get and follow a solved preflop range.

If anything I would think SB would be more likely to fail checking their flushes on the turn (which pio is doing vast majority).

Hey good video. Have you been having any issues lately with Ignition software and loading regular cash tables?

Also at 33:00 on bottom left, I was wondering if we can value bet river, given villain failed to x/r flop or lead river. It's not great that he has an utg rfi range, but it feels like weaker players don't like folding to bxb lines.

Actually I was curious about the flop 3betting, so ran the spot. I assumed flop 3betting would be a thing and it would be a mistake to not do it. But I believe pio had less than 1% flop 3bets.

Are good enough to find the river check fold with the (one card) K hi flush on the last hand? :D

I was surprised we don't do any flop 3betting on the AQ5 board. My thinking is that since we have the nut advantage we get to play more aggressively. Why do you think pio disagrees with me?

At 9:10, Tonka 'shoves' half his stack with 88 UTG. Was curious if this is something solvers do? Or if people just started doing it because it makes sense to them.

Im not the real Ben Sulski, but adjusting your game due to a 16k breakeven stretch is madness. Play around on prime dope variance calculator and input Ben's winrate and standard deviation.

So I tenderly simmed that last hand. On the river the KcKx combos are indeed potting about a third of the time. Making about an extra $1.50 with the play.

DavyJones seems pretty out of line in this hand. The call vs the iso looks too wide. And on turn, oop should play an overbet or check strat, but Ac6x does not make it in there.

It looks like, in my ranges at least, A5o is 3b about 15-20% vs a 2.2x from MP and CO, and mixing call/fold vs utg.

I'm feeling a little confused by the term protection you use alot to justify the sizes. You say the more protection our range needs on a board, the larger our cb size should be. But then you say on the AK3 board we use the big size instead of small range bet because "our range just sort've 'naturally polarizes' and which we don't need much protection".

So i'm the guy who punted off over 2% of the pot in my first attempt on that JT6 board. Can anyone beat that? Found this video really helpful, thank you for exposing me as being a nit. Don't know why I never tried doing this before.

When you are about to node lock a strategy do you always think about your global % and then sort of tweak the individual hands around that baseline?

At 17:40 on the left. Hi vs BB. 66 on KQ7r, you decide to check because opponent is fishy. Why does that make it a check? I was thinking a fish would have more air and x/r less often making this a cb.

Enjoying the series so far.

You mentioned that, vs the ip range with all the draws, oop wants to x/r to 'get more money in before the board changes'. But why would a made hand want to do that? If the board does change (flush comes in) the more money it has put in, the worse off it is. Why wouldn't it just wait until the turn, and start piling in the money on bricks?

Hi, I just found this series, really look forward to watching future parts. One thing that doesn't make any sense to me though. As IP range got stronger the over bet frequency kept increasing. However OOP overbet frequency peaked at 30 then started decreasing as range got stronger. This seems like a very interesting meme, I hope you can help me understand.

Hey Benjamin how do you deal with pio outputs that you don't fully understand? I'm always torn between trying to figure out the underlying mechanic, or just intend to remember the output and move on.
For instance in 4b pots oop can just shove JTx flops instead of cb smaller. Is it important to try and figure out why? Or is that just a waste of time? I know whenever I try to figure out these things, I barely ever come away with anything useful.

Hi. I was thinking about what you said about needing to randomize. But theoretically in an anonymous game where noone adjusts to our strat, why wouldn't we just always take the lower variance option if we assume the two options are similar ev? For example never making 0 ev bluff catches, never making the 0 ev river bluffs, and calling instead of x/r (if we assume the two options are similar ev).

ON a couple of turn spots (J63J after cbetting and the A745 after you x/r with flush draw) you identify that pio will use normal bets and overbets, but you decide to simplify by just using one sizing, and both times opting for the small size. Wouldn't it be a higher ev strat to simplify by only using the overbet size?

May I ask where you got your ranges from? Seems like every GTO solved range is somewhat different.

Please keep making vids like this. I really like the pacing, and incorporating pio.
Was pretty surprised at the j5o iso vs button limp. I don't know the gto for this node, is it similar to bb vs sb limp? I wouldv'e thought we have alot less fold equity so need better hands.

I've been playing with HRC recently and think it's only really good for basic hands (push fold). The advanced hands with open raises just isn't good enough as it allows flatters to always realize their equity which isn't true. In reality people have flatting ranges from all sorts of positions/stack sizes these days to maximize their ev.

What are people's thoughts on PIO preflop and monker solver? Does monker allow for ICM?

I'm surprised the effect isn't more extreme tbh. Would've expected more value bets and less bluffs. Did you also nodelock oop over-calling 5x?

I don't see why it makes a difference if a coach plays $200z or $500z (especially when 500z isnt running). Dropping down in stake isn't going to make the coach play or teach any worse.

Re-watch from 2:17...He explains this pretty well