x5ms

Your math isn’t great: .75 is not “1 in 20” less than .80… it is 5/75, which is 1 in 15… I stopped watching at that point

not true that these situations defy mathematical insights, including generalizations about how much sharing of responsibility for defense reduces mdf overall & for players of diverse ranges & about range interactions. Lecture unjustifiably assumes that solver analysis can't generate manageable heuristics--simple 3-way software demonstrates that this isn't so.

You variously describe a player’s range advantage in terms of “EV” & “equity.” The former is not helpful; it is a consequence of the player’s strategy, not a cause of it. One can’t look at a board and set of ranges and identify “EV advantage” unless one knows the optimal strategy that produced the advantage; accordingly, one can’t use “EV advantage” to identify the strategy. Equity advantage and position determine the strategy. So you should characterize the analyzed boards that way only.

Did find interesting but agree solver supplement would have been valuable. In general I had feeling there was only a very loose connection between this video & earlier theory-driven one; solver could have helped to show connections, if they are there, between these hands and conditions you identified as theoretically optimal for block betting