Just wanna say thank you for putting up something that is almost a study and a break from studying/playing at the same time:). I've watched almost all of your videos and really enjoyed the concept+HH format, and of course the excellent editing.
Thank you again and keep them coming!
Feb. 21, 2020 | 3:30 a.m.
Great video, Gary. Thanks a bunch.
The most interesting hand to me personally is the AhQh vs. AdKx hand. Firstly, do you think the turn donk is necessary? Given it's a 4B pot, V will still have a huge range advantage even with a Q turned and the SPR dictates that we are guaranteed a river shove? Secondly, you mention that with Ad it's the worst combo of AK to call if there is a folding frequency with AKo. With the SPR on the river with this hand, it probably doesn't matter that much, but let's say we are slightly deeper in the hand, doesn't solver usually suggest a call with Ad since OOP are supposed to give up a lot of the missed FD?
Looking forward to your response, thanks again
Oct. 25, 2019 | 1:35 a.m.
Great content as always, thank you!
I really liked your analysis at the start of the video on why QTcc here lean towards a flat and you are clearly right, which leads to my question: Is it fair to say that NL made a mistake in response to LLinus' turn lead? If this is indeed that case, isn't LLinus' line adding a lot more EV than suggested by the solver?
I know it's dangerous to assume that player like NL will deviate from the optimal, but in this particular hand, he kinda did. So learning these low-frequency spots might be actually worth your time?
April 26, 2019 | 6:47 p.m.
I feel like this argument about river sizing is heavily based on the assumptions of your flop and turn sizing being the way it was, which I don't think is very good.
If you think you can have a 200% psb range on the river when you go 2/3 and 2/3, my guess is the same range will get a higher EV when you go 1.2x, 1.2x and 1.2x.
April 21, 2018 | 7:40 p.m.
Thanks for your response, Tyler!
I tried to duplicate your Excel form and got the same answers to your examples in the vid. However, when I tried some 'extreme' equity&SPR combos, the results are somewhat strange.
i.e., I tried equity=99%, SPR=2, the optimal bet sizing came up negative. Would you say this is due to the lack of some form of boundary conditions inherited to the equation?
Jan. 17, 2017 | 7:38 a.m.
Great video as always, Tyler.
I've read through some of the previous discussions about how betting big will throw our range off balance. I kinda get the point of your responses, but can I sum it up by saying that you made an exploitative adjustment?