Zhe Li

Hey Dan,
I'm a big fan of you and welcome to RIO. It's the 2nd time I watch this video throughly and really love it. When you said that "when to play theoretically and when not" is the biggest challenge in poker at the beginning or the video, I laughed out and relieved to know even the best players in this world also find it hard.

I played live MTTs mainly in Asia area and most of the fields are soft. So in general I put exploititve play before theoretical play in game. Now I understand that it could be I mainly played down the pecking order and there are another side of the coin. It's a very good reminder when I'm preparing my first ever Triton game in March.

A little suggestion from my view would be put more of your implied thoughts on the slides. For example in the 2 hands examples in the "combination" chapter, you suggested 2 types of players. It'll be much easier for viewers to understand if you can put your strategies against each type on the slides to compare them.

But again it's a very good video and I'm grateful that one of the best players in the world can share his thinking process with us. Really appreciated and looking forward to playing with you on the table one day. Thanks and good luck on the table.

HU tourny is my favorate kind of game and the WSOP HU championship is really the best structured one. Love this video and hope to see of your following progress on this tourny.

OK，I got it. This is a good way to think about it. We can at least say when we overbet, if our blocker blocks similar amount of calling and folding combos, then most likely we can go for it.

Very insightful bro. Thank you very much for your time and effort.

Wow, that's mind blowing, I have never thought about it this way. Thank you very much for your insightful feedback.

One more question I want to discuss here. In this video, we come to a conclusion that in big bet scenarios, blocking calls is more important than unblocking folds, according to bluff EV calculation formula.

EV of Bluff= (Folding Freq * Pot) - EV (Calling Freq * Bet Size)
(Assume our bluffs have 0 equity)

Since we are betting big, bet size > pot, so calling frequency is the most important factor to improve the total bluff EV. Therefore, blocking calls is more important.

In my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, this argument implied that:
1. Folding frequency is driven by unblocking folds.
2. Calling frequency is driven by blocking calls.
3. Folding frequency and calling frequency are uncorrelated.

For me the 3rd point is not correct since Folding Frequency = 1 - Calling frequency, so they are negatively correlated. If unblocking folds can drive the folding frequency, then it drives the calling frequency as well.

If 3rd point is not tenable, then 1st and 2nd point cannot hold. Both unblocking folds and blocking calls impacts both parts of the formula through their correlation. We need to find out which one has bigger impact on calling frequency to support our conclusion in the first place.

Great video Qing Yang. I spent a couple hours to watch and rerun those simulations and really enjoy it. It answered a lot of my recent confusions about how to deal with my air combos after flop full range c-bet.

One question though, on the AQ62 board, Pio bet very high frequency with KJo/KTo/JTo but very low frequency with KJs/KTs/JTs. Is there any specific reason behind?

Thanks very much for your effort on these videos.

Hi Owen,

Thank you very much for answering my questions in such a professional manner. It's great to hear your opinion on those questions.

I think it kind of related to our way of thinking. I prefer to set the table in a standard manner so I know exactly how those ranges are generated. Then in practice I can deviate from it. So I guess I will handle my table in the way suits my habit.

And your practice in this video is also very interesting. It provide another angle to memorize and understand the ranges. I will do it in my table as well.

Thanks again for your attention and effort and good luck on the table.

Br,
Felix

Hi Owen,
It's a great video and I'm working on building this sheet myself. After consolidate several blind levels, I'm trying to make some adjustments based on your way in the video.

1) The way of finding the tight version of push range seems based on our own practical experience. But eleminating10%-20% of the range is ambiguous and we can hardly execute really well on every hand.

So my way is to remove all the hands which have an EV lower than +0.5% of the pot. E.g. for 6BBs, the pot could be 6+6+0.5+1+1=14.5, 0.5% of pot could be 0.0725BB, then I remove all the hands which have a EV lower than +0.07. So far I find it falling into the 10%-20% range well.

2) In your video you set villain's stack size randomly. But I find that their stack size actually have an impact on the EV they call the jam. It leaves some problems, e.g. sometimes the calling range of BTN is narrower than the CO since CO has a shorter stack.

I understand that there is no absolutely accurate way to create a perfect chart, but I want to get a chart following a concreate standard. So I start to set all the villain's stack to the average stack, in your case, 30BBs.

I want to know how you think about these adjustments before I go further. Maybe I'm shortsighted and missed some points on why you do it your way.

Thanks and looking forward to your feedback.

Br,
Felix

Great video, Peter. Absolutely love your way of pointing our those common mistakes people making all day long, but very hard to find out by ourselves. I even checked A7cc in the last example sometimes and didn't realize how big mistake it is. Cheers.

Thanks. I'm appreciated that you gave a lot of insightful comments.
I agree that the population would fold much more than they should when they face our XR. And a capped range should be able to work since we don't get to this situation very often, due to the overfolding of population.

Thx, bro.

I agree that on the turn if we bet, we are not in a clear state of whether it's a bluff or value.

But the problem is after we check, our range is kind of capped. If we check our 7x and 4x, which we raised on the flop, then we need to check a hell lot of other strong value combos to protect them from turn and river barrels. I felt that it 'll come close to a full range check.

I actually ran the situation on PioSolver. The first finding is that the solver suggest the BTN should go for selective c-bet instead of unselective c-bet, which is not aligned with Peter's suggestion on EP7. Also in a video of Nick Petrangelo on another platform, he also suggest a selective approach for this dynamic board.

Then I use the node lock function and force BTN to c-bet full range with 33% pot, then the XR range of BB is aligned with Peter. And on the turn, solver suggest BB to use a full range bet.

So my understanding now is that we need to really check whether villain on the BTN is actually c-bet unselectively, and then decide when XR approach we are going to choose. And the turn, I'm still not very sure we should go full range bet or full range check.