I think arguing about it and then showing what the solver would do would be a great addition to this format. I wouldn't completely skip the human discussion personally, I think there is a lot of value to gain from conversations like these and bouncing ideas off of one another, but I do agree with you that showing what the solver would do would be great.

I am planning to make a video with my thoughts in game and then a quick solver analysis soon. I think it’s a great format.

I agree to a point. You need to learn how to find the answers and skipping to the answers doesn't teach anything, but it would be nice after the discussion to have the solver output.

This is usually the way when there are opposite opinions.

You gut the 65s COvBU spot on!

Issue is if every time the straight completes villain POTS it, never checks back, and we are ALWAYS good, which is optimistic to say the least. I am ignoring the node where we jam and get his stack... We complete about 17% of the time, so 17% * 47 BB = 8 BB of additional 'equity', so the turn bet would effectively be 12 into 32 (+8 up from 12 into 24), so we then get to about 27.2% equity to continue, which means we are STILL losing. So we'd need to earn over a PSB on average to continue here every time, from OOP. Only way we can justify this is if we had say 54 with a heart, and justify donk overbet pot as an exploit on a heart river and know villain overfolds in that line to make up some of the EV. The key here is upping the win frequency, so if we now also bluff on those 8 other hearts (assuming we have a single heart in our hand for 'balance'), that adds us donking on 19% of flush completing boards, and 8% of straight completing boards (maybe, I could lean never bluffing straight completers vs fish) and if so only when 9 comes in, likely never when the 3 comes in as it doesn't improve enough of our range, that would be a better checkraise). I don't hate playing this aggro, but we have to build donk overbets which aren't a thing in theory... but I don't mind making as we'd be calling here with flushdraws too, so we'd be balanced in a sense as we have a lot of BD flush draws that continue too on the turn for half pot... and since fish over check back, I think building a donking range on draw completing rivers is reasonable and can be balanced to some degree.

​@@PhonyBologna If our average extra gain on the river (above and beyond what pot would already be) is for example 20bb more from Villain's stack which is less than half of the ensuing river pot which becomes 48bb then we require 12 / (24 + 12 + 12 + 20) = 17.6% pot share to call the turn or in other words around 5:1. Our hand isn't far from this. I might have underestimated how often river goes x-x here in game and ignored implied odds on heart rivers too much, but I think it's at least close to a call if not a winning call. To see what's wrong with your analysis: if as in your example, we earned a pot sized bet on the river from Villain everytime we got there, then we'd be calling 12 to win (12 + 24 + 12 + 48) as the PSB is now guaranteed every time the straight comes in and can therefore be treated as in the pot already the times we get there. In this case we'd need 12.5% equity to call the turn bet. Note in this analysis I am already assuming that we win 0 the times we don't improve, and so there is no need to divide the extra implied odds money by our equity as you're doing here - to do so is to say that when we get there, we only get our turn equity % of whatever the pot ends up being and this is flawed as we have nearly 100% equity on straight completing rivers, not 17%. By treating the pot as lost the times we miss the river, we are already accounting for the fact we have only 17% equity.

@@CarrotCornerPoker wouldn't we be losing 12bb 83% which is -9.96bb of the time then when winning we need to 17% * X = 9.96, so doing basic algebra pot would have to be 58.58, so you're right in the pot odds perspective. So as you said 10.58bb on average then minus rake so let's say 12bb to go in on average into a 48bb pot when we call and check... That seems winning, assuming reasonably villain always 1/3 pots in position at 16bb and always folds, which is pessimistic. I retract my statement.

How much worse is fold pre compared to the call? And is JTo a better or worse call?

It is pretty bad , its just a fold on the flop actually not even on the turn. You have to call 5 bb to win 20, so we need 25% equity which we dont have. Plus multiway pot, plus OOP, I dont know how you can coach people if you play like this. But okay.

Still watching the video, but Pete was correct in the first two hands. Even more so exploitatively on the second hand. The 65s gets raised, and the kq, kj suited doesn't. Make sure to check sims to verify what coaches say, because their intuitions aren't always correct.

@@jeegee-cx7ss my sim for the 65 hand says it’s a pure fold. I used 100nl 100bb ranges from GTO base. I can go further into the parameters if you want. Either way, what Justin said was spot on. Solver folds 62% of the time, hands like 65s pure folding. Peres comment about wanting the direct gut shot was also dead on. 65s pure fold and 54s nearly pure raise.

Nice to know my instincts were right on the AcQc hand. I leaned call/call too, and I think exploitatively both are better as IME players aren't great at meeting the correct bluff frequency in these tight configurations (just as they tend to overbluff wide configurations). I've also learned that calling nut flush draws with overs is usually (not always) better because of the strong implied odds + strong pair draw. Bluffing lower flush draws is better for the opposite reasons. That heuristic doesn't always hold, but it frequently does.

Really good analysis, thanks for writing this up.

@@CarrotCornerPoker I am just wondering on hand 3, if you had position would you just call instead of jamming on the turn and then shove river if villain checks on a blank? I had the same node yesterday and I call turn with my flush draw ATs and chickened out on river blank, my opponent won with AQo lol

Not even 55 and 56hh?

@@Mathemagical55 yea at low frequeny

It’s definitely closer than I thought, but pure folding in my sim. I agree I made it sound worse than I should have though!

I agree. Something about that 65dd hand made it look like a great flop raise in my eyes. I haven't checked the spot with a solver though, but I struggled to comprehend why it would not be a decent raise in this spot. :)

@@GaliReax SPR is p low

mtt player here, and in that spot we have a super standard xr with 65s in that kind of situation, definitely better continuation than QJs JTs kind of holdings; and I see a lot more fe in reality than in theory given the pool going to overfold that node; but I'm not really sure it applies to cash games without ante structures so seems super close but difficult to evaluate at first glance

I think against recs (and not only) in particular there's no uncertainty as you have pretty decent pot odds with implied odds; when hitting your outs on the river you have to get only 45% of the pot (roughly) to breakeven while you can potentially win a lot more. Frankly I was surprised to hear there were arguments for folding there

​@@GODofFMactually Im surprised they only discussed the turn because this hand would have been a fold on the flop already. We only have a gutshot on the flop, backdoor flush is just never live. On the flop we need 25% equity to continue, which we dont have. Plus we are out of position, Plus multiway pot. So you're not even printing a zero. Its - EV

Close to 0ev? Prove it.

​​​@@GODofFMaccurate analysis. About 50% pot in bets has to be made on the river on average in the event you hit, for it to be a 0 EV call. One thing I've noticed is that chasing draws when given bad pot odds is that your implied odds aren't as strong if you're against an opponent who is bluffing a lot

It's close to 0 EV in the sense that -2 BBs or -3 BBs are close to 0 BBs.

On Preflop - We're not playing vs solvers, the other humans also have to play well to make our call -EV and there is at least one known weaker player in this hand. I don't think it's as clear as you think that calling preflop is significantly losing. I'm not convinced it's very difficult to play most of the nodes that follow a defence of 54o in ther big blind. Most of these nodes are just simple x/f spots, some are flop huge and check-raising and others are just close decisions about whether to call a bet. Sure we can make some mistakes, but so can the rec when he flops top pair vs. our two pair etc. On flop - I think the flop is closer than I thought in game. I would estimate that when the turn is a 3 (8.5% of the time) we are entitled on average to a pretty big pot in this situation. There is also some small-medium chance that we see the river for free which adds a bit more equity. If our average reward reaches 50bb or so when we get there, then the flop call can very easily be winning. In game I neglected the branch where UTG raises. I think this is super rare but definitely lowers our realisability a little. The main issue I take with your analysis here is the 'another 5bb dropped' part. This focuses only on the risk and not the reward. If this flop call is losing then IMO it's by a fraction of a big blind, to cite 5bb as a loss is misleading and equates to just focusing on only the branches where we miss. Of course we lose in those branches that's a given whenever you have a pure pot odds/implied odds chasing spot. On turn - I don't think 24 more big blinds is that unreasonable a target for the river. There are some branches where weaker players bet/call river here and because our outs are pretty innocuous cards, I think this will be reopened often than you do. I take the point that the turn half pot sizing leads to more river checks than a bigger size and I do think I overestimated in game how often river gets reopened. You say 'unless Villain is a Baluga' - when this is the case we have enormous EV so even if you only think 10% of recs are 'Balugas' these have a large impact on the EV of this call and we shouldn't ignore the possibility because it's a rarer type of fish.

I think you are getting nowhere with poker if you have this sort of mentality mate. Poker is a fluid game, it's not black and white, and if you fail to absorb value from these open-ended conversations between two guys, no matter whether you agree with them or not, that is completely your fault. With that said, on a more serious note - nothing that either of these guys said in the video is a pure blunder. There were some differences, but to say that any of these guys doesn't know what he is talking about is straight up incorrect.