Super interesting finding. We discussed your question in our upcoming episode about Ace-high flops (coming out May 3rd). How much did the betting frequency get reduced in your sim compared to when the solver does have those sets/two pairs?

@@mbradycf By quite a bit (45 -> 15%). You can find the sim+explanation in Q1 of this quiz: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ns-RaM9mnqidpo0.html Looking forward to the next episode!

You must be playing in some juicy low stakes live games! Check out our episode on how to win at live poker from a few weeks back. By the way, even if you don't see button vs bb hands specifically, the concepts tend to carry over to other heads-up positional matchups. Though I suspect you don't see many heads-up pots at all if you're never seeing button vs bb.

it's always gonna be small on 976 in a 3-bet pot, in or out of position. The caller's range is gonna smash that board way more than us so we have to be defensive, even checking with lots of overpairs. Main difference between OOP and IP is we will be betting less frequently OOP. Maybe @garyblackwoodpoker will have something to add.

@@mbradycfeven when SPR is high small sizing is preferred right

@@Johnsir88 yes, your range just can't support big bets on that board (generally speaking -- I'm sure there are exceptions).

Also is this for multi way or heads up

@@roamingthereal4060 Thanks. So wet would be flush draws and straight draws and maybe paired boards all together. A spicey flop?

Or is this for 3b pots exclusively?

When talking about equilibrium ("GTO") play, your opponent has to (and often will) call more often vs small bets. So, your betting range should contain a higher proportion of value since they are going to call more often. You bring up a good exploitative point, though. If you've studied a spot and you know it's very tough to defend properly vs, say, a 33% bet in that spot, you can definitely increase your bluffing proportion to a number greater than the theoretical baseline. The (basic) point we are making in the show is: if you compare two very different sizes, like 100% pot and 33% pot, your 100% pot range should have a higher proportion of bluffs to take advantage of the fact that your opponent is going to fold more against the bigger bet (barring exploitative adjustments).

One thing that's kind of confusing is that a lot more of the math that you see about this stuff has to do with equilibrium bluffing frequencies rather than with value bet ranges. When you bet small you are betting for value with hands that are ahead of the villain's continue range. Since they have to call with a lot of weak hands, that means you can bet with stuff that is far too weak to bet when you are betting large. For example if villain is going to have to continue with most or all of their ace high, you can bet a lot of your own ace high for value. You won't necessarily go three streets with these hands but on the flop your opponent will have some tough decisions especially with hands that don't realize their equity very well, where they could profitably continue in theory but are going to have to give up too much on future streets to show a profit in practice. You can also have a few bluffs with hands that aren't much now (so if you get raised, you don't mind letting them go) but that have some nice prospects on certain runouts. You will have some tough decisions of your own if you do get raised with your semi-strong value bets though, since you likely won't be able to bet/call all of them without calling too much.

​@@UpswingPoker but doesnt this mean a range bet strategy is worse then we thought before because range bets have way more bluffs than value am i wrong?😅 Is rangebetting outdated or is it still true that you dont lose much EV on some boards with rangebetting a third?

@@roamingthereal4060 I understand that and agree but we do still use "c-bet" and "donk bet", and "OOP" and "IP". when I said "betting lead" my point was that we were the aggressor on the previous betting round.