endymion

Thanks Laurence, excellent reply. And I see my error there. It's certianly easier working it out in terms of collective folds.

Indeed, I've missed Richard's videos for quite some time.

Hi Laurence,

Forgive me, this has peaked my curtiousy now.

I don't understand the n-th root determination (90% to 45% with 4 players). I would guess that it should more or less be the same overall defense (from all the players) required as in a HU pot. And the defense percentages are just added up.

Looking on Vision however I find different results. The spot UTG vs BTN vs BB: On AT6r we see after UTG cbets 75% we have BTN calling 46%(1% raise) and if BTN folds we have BB calling 16%(and raising 17%). So I think that means 80% of the time collectively they should be defending?

MDF is pot size / (pot size + bet size), 11/(11+8.3) = 57%, so it seems multiway they are defending way higher than MDF in this example.

Now this is quite a lot different to this spot HU: UTG vs BTN AT6r, after a cbet of 75% we have BTN calling 53% and raising 10%, total 63% defends. Which is much closer to MDF frequency.

In practice I believe this does play out quite differently. I also understand what you said about it not making much sense to have pure bluffs multiway and therefore a smaller sizing could generally make more sense. However after running through all of this now I think I'm more confused than ever.

Do you have anything further to add possibly?

Hi Laurence,

At 22:45 you say:
"You have the shared burden of defense between the 2 other players in the pot. So smaller sizings actually yield additional fold equity compared to larger sizings in terms of the differential between how much you risk."

Essentially are you saying that a smaller sizing can be more effective because the players don't correctly adjust their defending ranges when the sizings is smaller. I understand that they have a shared defense burden. A smaller sizing means they both have to defend even less, but I don't see how this is especially more advantageous multiway, am I missing something?

Are you saying we will have an edge vs regs playing HU at 50bb? Why is that?

I did like this one.

When you say the goal is to win the most money and therefore win the blinds, I feel like we should probably be saying that often times we would rather play postflop vs way out of line ranges along with players who might make terrible mistakes. I think this definitely comes up very often and is considerably better than winning the blinds? Thoughts?

Did you ever find a coach?

Cool blog, just read through most of it! I'll be back! GL

Sure I'm interested.

Right that's what I understood too. So in this particular case we can either have 1bfd or 2 bdfd because we presumably only have ds combos of this hand. with both categories (1 or 2 bdfd) it's advocating for a fairly high bet frquency ~45%.

I think this could be because our hand actually unblocks a lot of folds AAxx/AKQx hands; the board is decent for our range; we certianly can't check call; and we can turn the nuts/ set of 3's which will likely be the best hand; or we can turn a decent pair/draw to continue.

Based on what Vision told us, I felt this spot deserved a bit more attention than you gave it. Thoughts?

Thanks Richard.

Hi Richard,
At 12:40 we have KQ33 on T96r. At the top right it says KQ33(0%), why is it saying 0% there? And is it saying we should check 55% and bet 45% of KQ33 combos here?

Oh and as per your question to the viewers, I would prefer a more focused approach.

Cool.

It would be nice to get some sort of reply please, even if it's a negative one.

Just to clarify... Do you mean a Khh + wrap hand would always raise, you spoke about it incorrectly in the video and your filter on screen at this point is actually not showing this category of hand?

Good job for going over this and spotting it. Nice to see that thoroughness.

How are you finding Visions since then? Have you been using it much?

Cheers.

Hi Dan,

Thanks for all the answers.

Isn't 20 Iterations per node rather unreliable for postflop?

Hi Christopher, will you be making any more content?

Hi

I have just purchased a month to try it out. I have some off the bat questions.

Visions questions:
1) What rake structure is used? It looks like it could all be rake for $1/$2 game?
2) How high quality are the preflop ranges used for the outputs?
3) WIll there be 200bb situations added?
4) How many iterations per node for postlfop spots?
5) Will there be multiway spots?
6) Will there be ways to study exploitative solutions?
7) Why at the end of the "Getting started" does it say UTG will be added but you can already toggle to UTG position with the seat icon (it makes me wonder if the graphic is just incorrect and in fact it is another positions ranges that are in play).
8) How did they choose which spots to have multiple bet sizes or not, and how can we know how much EV we are losing when adopting a simpler strategy?

It seems a lot of this information is hidden for one reason or another and players like myself will have these questions. Unless of course I am not the target for such a tool, in which case I'd like to know that too.

Cheers

Hi. Thanks for the video. I'm still very keen on cash game content.

I was also curious about this. I checked a 2k preflop solution and it has SB limping KK 32% of the time and then limp/calling 64%, which seems to mainly consist of rainbow KK and the worse single suited KK (which KK93 qualifies for).

FWIW: Overall the solution has us limping 20% of range in SB unopened and raising 30%.

Hi Ben. Good job on the series!

@ 13:55 you talk about opponents shoving range on K946dd 6, and we see in PIO that he shoves almost all KQ and checks a decent amount of AK, is this because AK is blocking a section IP's calling range of A9?

Been a bit out of touch the NL so forgive me here.

Thanks.

Hey Richard,

Really great video. Ironically I felt rather engaged after the preamble about easily auto piloting through videos we're familiar with, so excellent job there!

Two small nitpicks: at 29:20 you speak about the fact that JTs and KQs block J9s, T9s and K9s, but the board already blocks these hands, nevertheless the point is clear.

Then shortly afterwards you speak about how A8 and A6 have the highest EV since they "have 1 out to a straight flush". I suspect the reason for them having this higher EV is actually because they block opponent from having the straight flush. When opponent has 86s we get stacked almost 100% of the time whilst we have an A high flush. Also making the straight flush isn't that valuable when we already have the nut flush because opponent will be more reluctant to put money in with worse, even in the very rare situation when he makes quads or a full house he will be worried about straight flush.

Anyway like I said - nitpicking.

Cheers

I second these points. I think he just means when you look into the camera, although there is clearly a conscious effort coming from you to do this, more than anything it takes our attention away from the tables to look at you at this moment, which is counter productive.

It was CO open BTN flat.

We do have AQQ6ds in 3bet range as well as some ss combos.

Yes you are right pot/calling off is not going to be correct, that was my mistake. Pot folding would be the play.

Hi Phil,
The first hand top left AKK3hhh on Ts9d3d... It seems to me that check folding this hand leaves us way over folding on this board, that as you said, seems rather good/OK for us. The hand we have seems to make a good candidate for a pot cbet/get-in, reducing IP playability on this dynamic board and also putting a lot of 1 pair hands and/or weak dd hands in a roughish spot.
Most of all you should just get a ton of folds, which is pretty great.

Were you perhaps a bit nitty here or am I misunderstanding the spot quite horribly? :-)

Otherwise thanks for a quality video.

Hi Joni, would you mind explaining a bit why an SPR of about 2 on the turn is so favourable. Is it simply because we can put villain in a terrible spot by potting and being more or less committed on the turn? If the SPR was more we wouldn't be able to apply as much pressure?

Thanks. I will definitely look into those. Good luck at the tables.