Raphael Nogueira

3 would be relevant if there was enough 73/T3/83 on his range. If there is a minimal amount on preflop range, most of it would lay it down turn if there is no equity to go with it. Probably having a 7 or 8 is more relevant if you are considering the blocker factor. It is such a small portion that really doesn't matter. It is probably a jam in theory, you have equity, polarity and position in your favour. Would play the same.

Not sure if BB calls 77-88 even 50% of the time pre. Seems a spot that 99 is getting insane odds but his range is too dense on TT+. Most unpaired hands are isolating pre as well. I don't see any worse hands betting the flop frequently as well.

Luke Johnson sorry, I missed the timestamp and can't find it anymore. Anyway, was J8o on the button, DavyJones on the SB and Nacho on BB $10/$20 table.

13:34 left-hand table. vs pot-sized bet on the turn, this hand gets into your continuing range (against an average opponent)?

37:12 bottom left, J8o fold. Given that 10/20 run low on the rake and the weaker player is on the BB isn't this an open? Would you rather open another hand class instead of J8o at this more fringy hands? As always, crystal clear high-stakes video.

Just pointing out at 3:05 left-hand table, rake on those HU games is gigantic (way larger than the already huge on 6max) so limping does decrease in EV by a large portion. Probably too weak to 3x and too strong to fold. Not sure if there is some smaller raise sizing going on at sims.

3:15 top right. if IP pots (vs lead or not), are you continuing with that hand? Assuming that IP generally gets it in with AA+nfd/strong draws I don't see that as a continuation and probably naked AA are naturally checking IP on that board even with that SPR. So as you stated later probably checking generates more EV and visibility for this hand.

28:42 Top left. Interesting hand. Didn't run a sim yet but Th seems a higher frequency bet than check with his hand class. Does A4 need to bluff vs bet so often when you can use of 2x/3x+straight blocker as bluffs too?

38:31. Really interesting hand on the left-hand table. As far side cards go, having no spade or club seems to be better to have it and 44 doesn't seem to hurt a lot when OOP shouldn't have that many 4's on their bluffing range either when it doesn't block either boats or straights. At first glance, I thought you can have a better 96 to call with but this one doesn't seem that bad. Can you touch a bit on what you expect the side card's relevance? Thanks, really well-documented video.

6:19 right table. When he narrows his range to flushs+ (I assumed that!) coming from a T76 texture I assume that at 100bb's a lot of fd's+bdoor equity are going to play more aggressively especially when IP bets 1/2. So his value range is way more strict than it would vs a larger flop cbet or a more dry flop texture.
Then I ran a sim and found that some of the non-flushes/straights can bet 2x pot vs 1/2-check line. Interesting! Maybe it is not just as common for humans. Flushes are mixing quite a lot, ranging from 75% to 500% pot, maybe very sensitive to IP strategy setup.

Luke Johnson sorry 48:03, table 3, the one you got the K9.

Tier 1 content. Curious about what is the value betting threshold for that sizing OTR. A5+ seems good enough but how the side card along with a 5 impacts the threshold here.

Glad to see O8 content, thanks for bringing it in Kevin!

Hand 2 @20:38. I wonder about having a larger size on this turn (not necessarily pot). If we start spliting our range OTT, 4d is a decisive card. Having 4c blocks a touch of improves from OOP and not having any diamond makes OOP more likely to continue vs larger sizings. If IP has 53 (with diamonds or not) he has incentive to bet larger since it is an uncounterfeitable low draw and the nut high. Probably not high enough to scare away AA+low/AdXd+low but to exploit how weak in general OOP range is when he checks OOP on this turn that counterfeits the flop nut low. I agree with river sizing, OOP probably only calls flush+63 and putting maximum pressure on that seems the right play.

Hand 3 @29:03. Probably a hand like A6554 (hand is good enough for the high) would perform much better than A662 as a bluff. No flush 62 would be a better candidate to raise vs somewhat weak OOP range but having two 5's does much more in blocking effects than 62.

Against wide openers it is a jam and against tight openers is a right away fold. May choose to shove as a bluff AQs instead of 99 since it has more equity when called and gets called less often due to blockers.

The call is losing slightly from just a $ev standpoint. Busting the one of the best MTT players on the table and putting yourself in 2nd to challenge a larger share of the prize pool probably fills that gap from the negativity on expected ICM value. If he loses he is tied with ben and not that far away from EEE27 as well. I don't think that can be classified as a punt.

Hardest poker variant (with reasonable action) to be very good at it

QQ-TT should bet more frequently than AA-KK due to protection reasons OTF so having this particular combo may be harmful card removal on effects. Considering the amount of possible gutshots+ on the turn that bricked on the river on a runout that doesn't improve any of them, given that there is less than PSB left bluff frequency should decrease significantly. This probably has way different solutions on 40-80bb. On the turn I have you bluffing 3 combos (~26%) and river 1.5 combos of QTo. When 80bb, QTo enters more often on the 2 PSB sizing. The main problem of this hand is that you are too shallow to threaten stacks by repping only 8x+

This river is pretty bad for OOP and should be checked extremely often as x-r outplays betting with the nut part of the range at this SPR. Against a weaker player I assume he plays most of his range as bets and range wise raising should outplay calling by a significant margin except when his betting range contains a disproportionate amount of 5x.

There almost no good material available, so stick to Odds Oracle and poker fundamentals. Watching replays from COOP final tables and high stakes cash games are useful as well.

Flop is probably a mix and turn is a above than average card for OOP then you can just check your whole range if you want but as you decide to pick bluffs this one seems a great candidate. OOP should have all JhXh on his preflop defending range, blocking the nut straight and TPTK seems one of the very few hands without showdown value that can follow through pretty safely without overbluffing.

If OOP plays too wide pre than probably jam is making more than raising with a hand that doesn't flop so greatly but has decent showdown equity,

Turn is pretty much a blank for his xr range since his value bets are still strong enough to continue and his bluffs pretty much doesn't improve, just the bdsd-fd-bdfd 7x hands.

Those hands are not guaranteed to call the turn always, he needs something to go along with it, if you narrow it to 7x with hearts that xr the flop with some frequency, then you have just a super small subset of combos that are reasonable river xr bluffs (Th7h-9h7h) vs your range that decides to put four bets in.

If you compare that (that are not even 100% of those two combos due to flop xr frequencies and turn xc frequencies) to the amount of value combos is just a large assymmetry that makes KK probably a losing call. Any pair on the board probably performs better than KK due to card removal effects.

Just be aware that you are against what should be very strong ranges from UTG and UTG1 cold caller (I assume it is 8 to 9 handed). Against their continuing ranges on this board when should you have almost none offsuit bluffing combos K6 isn't doing that well on K32r when you decide to put a lot of money in.

You have QQ-77 almost crushed (that are unlikely to put more than one bet in specially vs two leads) on the flop and KQ+ is crushing you, so almost every time you put two bets in you get just a clear cut fold or a snap call by a better hand.

If the opening become more profitable because BB is defending less, then, if BN (you in the CO) are 3betting way more often due to that, adjust your range to win larger pots against BN and still be more profitable than the start point scenario.

On models that passivity dictates the play which should be the case on this stack setup, there is almost no preflop raise or just very specific combos. Against wider than usual humans preflop raise strategy vs limp, AJs is doing 22% better by limping than jamming ICM wise on a general HRC model that allows limp, 2x and jam.

The street that your hand has the largest equity advantage is the one you put (proportionally) the least amount of money in. Using roughly 56% sizing you can geometrically get all in by the river and it is easy to balance roughly three value bets for each bluff if you want to be precise.

If you use 25% flop sizing, on this specific turn, your turn betting range should become polarized and then you should be betting way larger than you did.

The flop size doesn't accomplish anything, you don't get enough value when your hand is pretty good (compared to how it will look on most runouts) and your betting range is super narrowed for value and for bluffs. I'd lean towards betting pot and going broke with it.

Having the Jh this is probably fold since it blocks the most likely IP bluffs. I doubt people on 109's are bluffing enough to KJ be a +ev call even without a heart, specially on this texture. AK is a mandatory call but be aware of your turn checking range to include hands that are good bluff catchers on rivers, this one is definitely not.

HRC does only preflop calculations, so the raise range is assumed to confront with the call range to a check down scenario postflop. This leaves SB and BB playing extremely loose preflop strategies.

Mostly agree.

Ran the preflop spot on HRC (the program assumes the hand goes check down so there is some weird SB flat calls) using ICM.

Adjusting to the more "realistic" strategy play then 22 is losing significantly preflop.