matlittle

Lots of good advice in this video! Do you know how many hours you study per week, and roughly how you divide that between certain types of study such a playing vs trainer, hand history review etc?

31.00 44 on 752ss3
Like you I struggle to work out which pair plus gutters to check raise the turn with. Usually I would opt for a flopped board pair + gutter as this blocks more of villain's value hands such as sets or 2 pairs. I would have therefore not opted to check-raise the turn with the 44. I think the reason it is used here by the solver sometimes is because 2 straights complete on the turn - A4 and 64s, so the 4 becomes the more important blocker as it is in both straights.

965cc88 with JJ
JJ was a mix call/fold in the sim, but you said in reality you expect it to be a lot worse of a call. Can you elaborate on why? Do you expect people to raise the flop with a range that is too equity heavy that doesn't contain enough bluffs on this runout?

17.20 - 66 on AK5K7
We saw that on the river 66 is almost a pure fold but 44-22 calling at some frequency despite being worse hands. Is this because SB will have more 6x bluffs than 4x, 3x or 2x bluffs given that SB will have more 6x preflop and so the lower cards do a better job of unblocking bluffs?

Thanks! The polarity of the cbetting range is important too. So then as either range increases in polarity, the % of flush draws in it increases

At the end we saw the strategies after check-raise on the flop and check on the turn from BB. Vs a polar range that checks, we should stab very high frequency with a small sizing, but against a depolarised range that checks we should bet less frequently with a more polarised range and with a bigger sizing? Is this the general trend across different board types for this exact scenario?

We saw that when check raising polar on the flop, the BB bet whole range on some of the flush turn cards. Is it fair to say that flush turns are better for the BB in this scenario, as the polar flop check-raising range is narrower with strong flop hands and strong draws, so most of it has high equity on the turn?

Really enjoying the series, thanks for the videos!

21.30 A96hh2
On the 2 turn after the flop check-raise you say that most players will over bluff with hands like a gutshot. I also think most players will never check-fold a flush draw on the turn too and will bet almost all of them. Do you think this trend exists on all board types on brick turns? Players want to realise the equity of all of their draws (especially flush draws) and so bet almost all of them as they don't want to check and face a bet.

So you opt for the sizing that feels most natural with your betting range rather than comparing EV of each sizing?

22.00 JJ on A72rA
Ran this board to see if the turn donk is a play - turns out it's not. BTN only has a ~2.3% raising range on the flop mixed amongst random stuff, but heaviest weighting on AK, AQ, AJ. No donk on the turn - and plenty of the BTN's range is now drawing dead to JJ so not much incentive to donk this specific hand either as there's no harm in BTN checking back and realising equity with these hands and we force them out of the pot by donking.

Another good video Jan! I think it's important to realise in poker and in life in general that our thoughts don't have to define us. Most thoughts are useful but some are un-useful, wrong, or destructive. Not taking ALL of our thoughts completely seriously is a great idea, so thanks for another useful concept!

Thanks for the screenshots! So the 9 that brings the flush forces OOP to size down more as it devalues more of the value hands, and is more of an equaliser in terms of which player has nut combos?

4.30 with KQs
A presumably recreational player opens 3.5x - would you interpret this sizing as strong on average? In the games I play some players are using multiple sizings, and my suspicion is that on average the larger sizings are used more often with premium holdings. How would you adjust to someone who you have no reads on and just sat at the table and opens 3.5x? How would you adjust preflop to this sizing vs someone who you know is using multiple preflop sizings for the same spots?

3.23 T87A SB vs BB
You delayed cbet the turn and opt for the block sizing. When I run sims for spots like this with multiple sizing it often mixes between multiple sizes with no clear preference. How do you therefore build a turn delayed cbetting strategy for spots like this? Do you run multiple sims with different sizes? Or do you run loads of subtrees in your sims with different turn sizings?

I also feel a little seasick watching, but it's worth it for the content!

I like watching these games with 2 of the top regs playing heads up! For the last hand on QJ8Q9 after a pot sized turn probe, you mentioned that TX in IP's range forces OOP to size down to block. Would you use just one size here, or mix in some bigger sizes with boats? Or do boats prefer the block anyway so that they can 3bet the river very large when raised?

With the KK5ss hand, how far would you go in overfolding? How much of the pocket pair region would you fold compared to the equilibrium strategy?

Thanks! My suspicions on how people play in this spot tie in with the conclusions you have too, glad to hear that they are confirmed by database research. I would like to start some population tendency research with a database. How do you go about doing it? Do you use Hand2Note? Do you just use your own hands, or pool them with other players who you work with? I think it would be a cool idea for a video as I know data can be powerful, but it's hard to know how to start with such things.

So am I right in saying that by calling down an appropriate GTO-based range the opponent will exploit themselves by putting in too much money with the wrong types of hands?

It would have to be a pretty wild deviation across multiple streets to make up 13bb difference though. Given that your stats show a slight tendency to under-bluff overall and the fact that some people are randomly betting hands better than yours sometimes, I think it would be a heavily losing call almost always.

28.28 AJ3cc
The BB check-raises with A9, and then bets 1/2 pot on the turn. I see this pretty often - a weaker player betting a middling to strong-ish hand on the turn for 1/2 pot presumably for "protection" and because they don't like the idea of checking so they opt to bet their exact hand strength. How can we adjust to this strategy where our opponent is betting many middling hands instead of being more polar?

16.00 KcQ on 663cc8c4
You said you regretted folding here, but I don't really understand why. According to PIO, you played the hand perfect, calling the river would be a 13bb mistake, and you lose to a few of the opponent's bluffs. Calling AcX on the river is losing ~2-3bb. I can just about understand calling AcX if you think opponents are going too wild with JcX or QcX, but calling KcQ would be a pretty wild call. Also, would you not be afraid of having your opponents counter-adjust to you making such a loose call down, or are these games anonymous?

14.30 AsJ vs 66% on KK5ss
You say here that in game you would fold vs the big sizing as players tend to have strong hands here and under bluff for this sizing. Would you under defend whenever facing this big sizing, even on boards like JTX vs a good reg? Is this based on your feeling of how people play, or based on database research? How far would you go in terms of overfolding? I agree with the idea, but never really sure how far to divert from equilibrium when playing.

In single raised pots and 3bet pots, most people recommend using just one bet size on flop with your betting range. Do you think that in 4bet pots it's reasonable to have 2 bet sizes on the flop, given that they are somewhat simpler scenarios due to the shallow stack depth? I'm thinking that in the specific scenario of wanting to have a small bet size and a shove it could be useful and manageable to have 2 bet sizes. Are there any other scenarios where you would think having 2 might be worthwhile?

Enjoyed the video! Lots of people making big mistakes in 4bet pots so definitely somewhere we can find some exploits. I have been looking at ranges for BB flatting SB's 4bet, and they differ a little in how often BB flats AKs and KK vs the 4bet. The ones I have seen range from ~50% flatting for both hands to 100% flatting for both hands. What made you go for 100% flatting in your ranges?

Thanks for the screenshots, nice to see that my theory checked out!

JT3cQc5c in first hand
I think some of my opponents are playing something more along the lines of:
Check call any TX and maybe even some JX
Bluff with ace highs pretty often
Against this strategy I think bluff catching IP is probably pretty profitable if you beat A high, and bluffing when checked to is -EV. Any other ways to exploit such a strategy?

Enjoying this series a lot! I am keen to learn some heads up to help with table starting in 6max, so this is great content for me!

I was the person who asked previously about why you use pot and not overbet as one of your sizings. I assume it's partly due to the fact that after a small flop cbet the turn is checked often like you mention, so IP should check back often with draws too that complete on rivers and leave IP somewhat uncapped on lots of runouts. Do you always use these 3 bet sizes for this line, or would you use some overbets if the runout is particularly dry and nothing completes on the river, leaving IP more capped?

I would imagine the river being a brick would lead to more bigger bets than the turn being a brick? If the turn is a brick but the river isn't, IP can still have draws that checked behind turn and got there on the river, whereas if the turn isn't a brick but the river is, IP is way more capped as nutted hands bet the turn almost always and nothing completed on the river.

Your point about how we just size to the strength of our hand. that our value range is "honest" and we balance it with bluffs

I think it's a good summary of value betting sizing, especially on the river. An important aspect to mention is that we add some traps to the smaller sizes too occasionally, so that we are not vulnerable to big raises if we bet a transparent and capped range.

Wow, almost exactly the same! Thanks for the pic!