egcornish

I got the alan jackson coaching 6 months ago, spent a ton of time on it. It only improved my win rate by 1bb/100. I will say that the database review is very good, but I don't give alot of weight to Alan's individual analysis of my game. I've found the most useful thing about it just comparing my game to toher winners and then drilling away at those spots. I can go into more detail if you'd like, but I think Alan doesn't have enough experience with statistics and gets fooled too easily by variance. He is also a little bit causation biased, and is always "behind the curve" as far as what his poker opinions are (since his methodology is simply just to copy what is working).

The idea is that I'm just far enough ahead of the betting range, not that I'm calling to hit the river.

For what it's worth, the flop bluffing frequency is not 1 bluff for every 2 value bets for a PSB. That's for the river. The correct frequency on the flop for a pot sized bet would be 2.375 bluffs for 1 value bet.

Thanks for all your replies guys, I'm going to tighten up my 3b defense range a bit I guess

yeah raising turn with like 43s seems far fetched. Also I think you have to decide between b3b ott or bet/call your entire range/donking river. I can't really see any advantage to b/c donk over b3b, I don't necessarily see disadvantages either but it's def weird.

I think if you're showing up on the river with AK, then you're probably c betting flop too much. I put about a 15% preflop 3 bet from the SB, I'm not sure what your range typically is. However, the value range doesn't change that much unless you're 3 betting j5/j6. (I even threw 65 in there so as to over estiamte the value combos you'll tend to show up with). given that range, you're def cbetting to much if you cb AK, which in turn cuts you river VB range in half. Now you can afford 7.5 bluff combos and can choose from a2s, ATs, QTs and T9s based on my half assed range estimations. A2 and AT seem to be gimme's to me since they block AJ and A2 fails to block QT played as an occasional float by villain. However I'm not sure which effect is greater, the blocker effect, or the occasional realization of equity when you check (something for y ou to look at further)

I think if you're showing up on the river with AK, then you're probably c betting flop too much. I put about a 15% preflop 3 bet from the SB, I'm not sure what your range typically is. However, the value range doesn't change that much unless you're 3 betting j5/j6. (I even threw 65 in there so as to over estiamte the value combos you'll tend to show up with). given that range, you're def cbetting to much if you cb AK, which in turn cuts you river VB range in half. Now you can afford 7.5 bluff combos and can choose from a2s, ATs, QTs and T9s based on my half assed range estimations. A2 and AT seem to be gimme's to me since they block AJ and A2 fails to block QT played as an occasional float by villain. However I'm not sure which effect is greater, the blocker effect, or the occasional realization of equity when you check (something for y ou to look at further)

bet into 5 people? I think that's suicide. You're way behind the range that calls you and it's very easy to get bluffed by the button. I don't think you missed value, but then again I don't know what position villain is. If villain is BB, it's way more likely that youv'e over setted him than if he's B. if he's button, then he can have 20 combos of straights and realistically only 9 combos of sets, which may not even call a check raise all in. I think if anything your lead may be too thin (although he probably calls any 2 pair so whether its' too thin depends on what position he's in again), and check calling turn seems like spew to me.

no 3 bet bluff in and of itself is "bad" just because of the hole cards, or opponent tendencies. Also you can't check call/check fold turn/river based on your reads so just fold turn.

This is more or less correct, but you have to account for the fact that as your range gets tighter your R will also increase. R is very much a moving target, so a hand with 55% equity vs villains opening range is not going to have 73% R. You either have to use DB analysis, or your intuition to form these conclusions (The former being my recommendation).

I'm not going to share my analysis on a public forum. However, my assumptions were,
Villain opens 30%, 4 bets aces and kkds, folds to 3bet 21%, both 3 betting and flatting shared equiivalent R values and those R values were 90%.
Given these assumptions, 3 betting carries an ev of -.1/1, while flatting carries an ev of .5/1 as compared to folding.

Perhaps a case could be made for 3 betting having a higher R value than flatting, but I don't think the case is very strong considering how top heavy this hand is, and it's single suited and disconnected. Even if that is the case, flatting has a higher ev than 3 betting until the point that 3 betting carries a 15% higher R than flatting does. this is possible, but my intuition tells me it's unlikely, and given that everyone else also seems to think it's a bad 3 bet I will stick with my gut here.

No one is getting on your case hard enough about this so I will. This 3 bet is massively -ev. not just "not that bad". My estimates have it losing around 10% of a BB, while flatting earns 50% of a bb. that's .6bb/1 equity differential that you're spewing.

I'm sorry to nitpick, but what exactly is your rational behind not 3 betting? Even if we were to 3 bet every 3 card remotely connected double suited hand OTBvCO our 3 bet would only consist of around 8% extra hands, so I don't think CO could relentlessly punish us with 4 bets. Also, equity is never worse than 42% IP, and playability is not a major concern since we're effectively just trying to set up profitable bluff situations postflop.
I only keep going on the issue because I saw you fold 5 or 6 times throughout the session in similar spots where I've been 3 betting every time and I wonder if I'm spewing in these spots.

at 9:08 you fold 8542 ds to a CO open. Is this standard for you? or did you just fold because you were in a tough situation on table 2?

at about 20 mins you suggest that 3 betting smaller increases your win rate because of play-ability vs aces (amongst other reasons). I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that 3 betting smaller probably DOES increase your win rate, however you have to consider that when you've 3 bet smaller, you're playing a smaller pot vs the more common scenario. That scenario being villain calls with a weaker range/more dominated draws than we posses.
I actually think it is a massive mistake to 3 bet smaller until villain is going to 4 bet you MUCH wider than just aces. Even amongst the tightest of BvCO ranges, aces is only going to comprise around 10% of that range, so you're sacrificing money on every CB in 3b pots, and every spot where you get your opponents dominated 90% of the time