ChunkyMonkey

RaoulFlush (sorry don't know how to reply under your specific comment) good point, and I was not initially thinking about how datamined hands could be used to exploit specific players, but rather to inform our understanding of a player pool. But I do find it still quite a gray area: I could datamine 1k hands on someone and it is no different to playing 1k hands, but all of a sudden I am "cheating" when I buy it but not when I play for the hands. Granted your example with 200k hands is far clearer, but it is not beyond possibility that you could play 200k hands against someone (maybe heads up in a small player pool, but I know I'm stretching the argument).

I just hear a lot of talk about "the player pool" as a whole for some quite specific spots, and I feel like most of these claims are unjustified if they are not based on actual analysis of a large dataset. Datamining hands would support these claims, and in my opinion would be the only way to do so.

But this is information that one would obtain by just observing anyway (it is not like we gain some secrets about players' hole cards). What makes it cheating when they are bought but completely ok when we sit and accumulate those same hands via our PT4? Or you mean it is "considered cheating" by the poker rooms?

Re-bumping this, there were some really golden series on that site! I still have some saved and am quite tempted to resurrect Apex Predator, & the thin red line now that I'm coming back to playing. I wonder how relevant they are today?

I keep reading about those issues with improva, blah234, and sthief. Does anyone know what the hell that was all about?

What made hands do we have here? AA/KK/AK/KQs and that is about it unless we are min 4 betting 66 or 44. What draw do we have? Do we 4b much beyond AQs? Maybe A5s?
Probably definitely no 66 or 44, but draws I can imagine we might have A5s if I'm feeling dangerous (I'm probably not).

Regarding postflop betsizing, I guess this is another leak of mine to be playing too prescribed. I picked up the ~1/3 psb in 4bet pots and pretty much never think about betting bigger unless I'm against a complete drooler.

You say jamming non diamond turns. But what then is the plan for the 20% of time when a lovely diamond slaps the turn? Every possible outcome feels difficult.

When you say at the top of my range you are right, I can't actually see myself with a better hand at all in practice. So does this mean that I need to have some more bluffs in this spot preflop (ignoring my silly size)?

Ignoring this specific hand where it seems unanimous that river is a call, I wonder what are the implications of (1) being at the top of my range, and (2) facing a spot where I know the population underbluffs and I'm f'd? Feels I can always justify stationing because I'm at the top of my range, but it seems like a bad justification unless villains are all playing balanced.

I guess we found a leak in my game for not thinking enough about my 4bet sizing :D it is a completely silly sizing looking back.

About the river. My question is, if we have this view of population tendencies (which I think is pretty reasonable), and if I have no other reads on villain, then shouldn't my default be based on the population? Otherwise what is the point of thinking about population tendencies at all if we won't use them when they matter the most (i.e. when we are readless vs a specific villain)?

Interesting. I would have thought that playing 4bet/fold with AQ and JJ would be questionable with the logic being if you're going to fold after a jam you should just call and see.

On a side note, how do you find snowie? Haven't seen people speaking about it much - seems like everyone is using Pio these days.