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?