xxHaZ

Hi Raphael,

@3 mins: CO call 3b with AQo vs BB squeeze. Flop = QTTr. Facing a check you say you play a mixed strategy here of betting ~80% and checking 20%. I watched a couple lessons from a mid-stakes pro who discussed analyzing these type of spots in a "GTO program" (like Snowie, for instance) - not necessarily advocating doing so, but making some important distinctions: Snowie will weigh these bet/check percentages but this actually doesn't indicate a mixed strategy - it just hasn't fully edged out which play is better yet (suggesting there is 0 mixed strategy, and always 1 better play). What are your thoughts on this?

Great vid, btw. 

Thank you

@39 mins: are you mostly flatting Ax suited BU vs BL 3b which is why you choose to use A5o as a 4b? When devising 4b ranges it looked like it if I wanted to use that strategy it would have to be something like A5o exclusively. 

(Janda actually had suited Ax double-listed in call 3b / 4b in this formation from his book). 

I like your pic in the video section, btw. 

Yes, thank you. So because the board is static you can directly convert percentiles into equities, and to commit stacks you'd require a hand that beats half of his 1-A defending range. Since 1-A is 30%, we commit ourselves with a hand that is 85th percentile or better. 

So this: "Based on the odds you'd be laying him (1.45-1), he'd need 41% equity to call if you just straight jammed. So, I thought it was just 1 - .41 = .59 as our minimum required equity to get stacks in" must be incorrect. Or at least partly, right?

@25:30: AA on 8QQr. How did you come up with the % you need to have the best hand to go all-in profitably here? This is probably just simple math I'm not understanding -> "Putting 1000 in to win 450 I need to have the best hand 85% of the time to profitably get stacks in."

Based on the odds you'd be laying him (1.45-1), he'd need 41% equity to call if you just straight jammed. So, I thought it was just 1 - .41 = .59 as our minimum required equity to get stacks in. 

Are you just estimating based on range "percentiles" since equities are non-static with two streets remaining?

Thanks for the vid, btw.

What's your criteria for betting your turn range as a unit when you peel cards that strengthen your interior flop ch/call-ing range? Obv it works super favorably on Qs Jh 8h Jd with AcTc when both a ch/call and CR suck. 

Let's go Dad

Hi James,

Been watching your vids for a while now. I understand from the SB you're basically playing a 3b or fold strategy. This is simple enough. Could you briefly explain your strategy from the BB?

Some confusion I've been having recently is when to flat MW when receiving such great odds on a call versus when to squeeze and reduce all the dampeners playing OOP MW may have on our EV. Without completely defined ranges my thought process is basically: "do I significantly raise my preflop EV by 3 betting compared to a cc?" and I look for some criteria to be met like fold equity, potential isolation vs fish, large cc/fold to 3b stats, etc. How do you go about doing this? 

Also, the more cc's to squeeze over the less success our hand needs to work as a 3b, so we can essentially widen our squeeze range and include more hands to do this with... so from my understanding it might make more sense to slot some of our weaker hands we'll usually defend with by cc-ing HU into a 3b sq range... and keep our hands with robust equity potential (PP's/suited hands) intact. 

CO opens, BU calls, when do you cc KQo (or AJo) in the BB and when do you 3b it?

Thanks (great work btw)

ImMIke

Ben, where I can find Tyler's response to the question about red line?

It's in one of his latest videos.

Hi Sam, 

For the first hand example did you just estimate the "weighted averages" or did you solve for them somehow?

Also, slide @18 mins: How do you average the multiplied weights*ranges when looking at sequences of events... ex: How does NE+10% = 45.13% for SS? (I understand 67*.39 = 26% for NE+10% and their first shove. I also understand the weight for NE+10% increases upon seeing a 2nd shove)

Right, against an opponent peeling widely to the flop I think it's good to block 99 and 88 using your above rationale. But against an opponent defending a narrow range to the flop (in which case an 18/13 will be) I think it's actually bad blocking those combos because there's now more likelihood he has a hand in the stronger region of his top-heavy flopping range... and you'll just lose a bet more frequently. He shows KQo which proves my point obv (rftw). 

5:05: When the interior card hits on Kd 2c 6c Jd: 9s8s blocks his middling check-back range on the flop... so you use it as a bluff randomizer. The opponent is 18/13 so he's going to have a top-heavy call 3b range which is pretty protected on this board. In this scenario it seems bad you block his middling check-back range on the flop because he'll most likely have a stronger holding on account of this (you block the weaker end of his range and just wind up getting called by the stronger portion at a higher frequency). I would probably just check/out the bottom of your range exploitatively. 

How is him folding way above 1 - alpha against > PSB sizing detrimental when we always win the effective pot with a balanced bet for a given size no matter his response? I just don't understand how his defending range comes into play such that we should "stay away from large sizing when [we] remove a decent chunk of [an] opponent's dominated felting range."  

If he calls below optimal at 0%, at optimal, or above optimal at 100% we always yield 1 PSB. 

I don't understand this part:

the problem with overbetting Ahx arises when villains range is protected by nut flushes.  bc then he folds way above 1-a vs overbet sizing and you dont actually realize the benefit of overbetting.

Exploitatively how often do you pass up betting large? In practice I'd like an opponent to fit a certain criteria before I go buck wild against them with GTO bluffs (regardless of how capped they appear). The higher EV may often times simply be to showdown or give up based on how far they will deviate from an optimal response (discrete strategies FTW).

Hi Nick, 

You mentioned as a general rule to "stay away from large sizing when you remove a decent chunk of your opponent's dominated felting range." From my previous understanding this will often result in a "polarization error" where you fold too many bluff catchers, and get called by only better value.

I've had some discrepancies in my thought process about this for a while. I'd like to use the following example to help clear up some confusion: 

We hold AhJx on 3h 4h Kh 9h 5c in a heads-up pot. We have the clear nuts and our hand prefers putting as much money in as possible. Let's say we decide to use 2x sizing to put the hand all-in. 

vs GTO defending frequencies for a 2x bet:

(.33)[(3 PSB)(.6) - (2 PSB)(.4)] + (.67)(1 PSB) = 1 PSB, called at the right frequency. 

My initial concern would be we fold too many bluff catchers (by making a "polarization error"), but using this model we always win 1 PSB, regardless of the frequency our opponent defends at. So this shows we don't really care about removing a huge chunk of our opponent's felting range provided we have a balanced bet. 

The obvious problem for 2x sizing with Ah Jx is we run out of bluffs to balance with on such a polarized bet/board. So, this bet should not exist in theory. But, just to clarify, the balance effect is what leads us to use a specific sizing, not how we anticipate the opponent to react. Right?

Cliffs: provided we have a balanced bet, we do not concern ourselves with how an opponent responds.

Hi Ben,

@7:45 : BB cc vs UTG with KsJc on 6s 8h Kh 6d. You decide to lead on this turn after check/calling flop. I understand the turn card improves your range (and the stronger range usually does the betting) but why is this warranted with KJ? Do you decide to just bet your entire range as a unit because overall we have turned a card that improves us so well? My confusion is: betting turn and river with KJo appears too thin so I can only presume you're betting turn to check most rivers. After a river check you're going to face a naturally balanced bet- perhaps KJo is at or above indifference vs a balanced river bet here on the majority of river cards, and you're betting turn to protect your hand against free peels. But, overall I imagine we still face domination vs UTG at a pretty high frequency. I am also concerned with your turn check/calling range which is going to be capped <Kx if you're leading with KJ+ (if you intend to play a ch/call range here). KJo just seems more functional to me as a turn check/call... and then instead leading turn with your nutted hands and draw makes most sense to me. Can you elaborate a little on the composition of your turn check/call and betting range based on board texture/player positions?