twooutricky

yeah i noticed he used this word a ton as well. i think it refers to your opponent refusing to cooperate + attempting to maximize their expectation in the game at your expense. i think in the prisoner's dilemma this is the equilibrium but here tyler is saying that this is a step away from equilibrium, where players are exploitatively weakening a range in the hopes that villains dont 3! properly (or properly realize their equity postflop).

also interested in tyler's take on this word, and if he has any lectures or books he'd recommend on game theory (outside of poker).

QQT57 double flush turn, river brick, your opponent goes X-50-166 or so, do you think this is a reasonable line for BU to take with QX that checks flop?

The very first hand with T2dd on AdK8rain, you hover over 25% and then decide to pot it. Are you betting range here and splitting into a larger size with some hands?

If you pot flop and get called on that texture, will you underbluff later streets?

at 26:30 - board is 63289 you have K6o, block probe turn, block barrel river, and you talk for a while about how close the pio model is to reality and make the assertion that IP defense is easier to construct than OOP block, and there's not necessarily a clear reason to think that having a block sizing here is producing EV in practice.

If you don't expect IP to make bluff catching errors facing the river block, would you be willing to assert that they'll under or over bluff raise facing block? or that they will underbluff or overbluff river when checked to? do either of these factors make a decisive difference in EV for K6 in either the block or X line?

I often hear arguments for block more bc villain won't raise enough for thin value or as a bluff.

starting to think i misunderstood you and you were saying they overfold to 66% but not 33% or 200%

thank you for the response. given that you expect minimal EV difference between sizing choices, how do you come to a sizing preference? is there an exploitative assertion somewhere down the tree, is this about ease of implementation (smaller, more polar range = easier to implement), or is it just not very important and not worth spending very much energy on this particular strategic choice?

i recently spent a fair bit of time tightening up my XR sizings which perhaps wasn't maximizing the EV of my study time.

why use 66% as the XR size on KK2? im assuming this is an exploitative deviation from the pio preferred size, which I would expect to be smaller.