~17:30 with J8 on 842 fd you said

"If I don't know someones tendencies i'm going to default to a GTO strategy, meaning i'm not going to fold the top of my range".

I have a question about this:

I would almost argue the opposite - vs an unknown we should play exploitablly until he proves capable of doing things (like c/r mulitway) with a balanced range, and then we default to a GTO option.

There's just SO many people when they C/R here who only have a set or a monster draw - and while J8 may not be doing terrible vs that range - I feel like i'm folding here more often than any other option.

I can see the merit in calling and folding on cards that strengthen his range - but I'm a bit worried about this as a default.

To me, J8 is not the top of our range on this flop w/o a little read on the villain.

(Although J8 is prob better for AA no diamond)

I thought the same thing when I watched the vid and came down to say something about it but saw Chris's post lol.

I was just thinking that maybe stack depth came into play here (more maneuverability with your positional advantage)?

Or another thing could be the stakes.

Default GTO strategy may be different at these stakes than the ones most of us play. I mean, if I sat down at a micro table tpmk isn't so much at the top of my range to a tighter straightforward-seeming unknown's c/r (however this is at stakes where passive is standard). Whereas the (aggressive being standard) high-stakes games --- tpmk in a blindsteal, dryboard c-bet scenario is toward the top of our range. I mean--level 2-3+ should be standard at these stakes, correct? I mean, no assumptions, but anyone with a significant amount at the table ONLINE should be capable of some sort of hand reading lol.

I mean GTO can't really be the same in all settings/stakes?--as a default.
I almost hate even using that term. Game theory optimal is a pretty flexible term if you ask me.

Last hand:

Villian's turn check with the intent of snapping off any river is a strategy to exploit your floats. Correct?

Your overshove punishes him to the max for this play.

Should villian be c/r'ing turn? C/r jam to be exact? ~100bb in the middle with ~100bb left behind. Isn't c/r jamming to punish you're floating more optimal than c/c'ing turn with intent of snapping off any river? Maybe he planned on folding some river cards... But if he was snapping off scare cards I don't think it mattered which one. (I'd say he'd be folding to an A)

Then again... with how deep you guys are... c/c'ing with plan of snapping off most rivers is possibly lower variance as long as you aren't overshoving in the spot like you did? haha shoving probably is more optimal against a better player such as yourself. Haha

You and Chris make good points about the J8 hand. I don't really have a lot to add.

Regarding GTO, I would say that it's not a flexible term and by definition it wouldn't change based on the stakes. In this context "optimal" doesn't mean most profitable against a particular player or type of player. It means unexploitable. Here's an example:

It would take about 2 minutes for an intelligent person to develop a tic-tac-toe strategy whereby he would never lose. In fact, against any other intelligent person, the game would always be a draw. If you were playing high stakes heads up tic tac toe against John Nash, this would be the correct strategy for you to employ. He is never going to make a mistake, so the best you can hope for is to force draw after draw.

But if you were playing against my 3-year old cousin, you might do better off employing a different strategy that takes advantage of the fact that the kid sucks at tic tac toe. He's just awful. This would NOT be a GTO strategy. You'd be playing in a way such that a better player could take advantage of you and beat you. But this particular 3-year old just sucks so hard that he isn't going to take advantage of that, and the GTO strategy that focuses on forcing a draw doesn't give you the oppotunity to take advantage of his abysmal planning. 

GTO strategy is much more complex, possibly unsolvable, for NLHE. Until you know which mistakes your opponents are making, or at least have reasonable basis for a guess (this is Chris' argument), then you should try to play in a balanced way that won't make a big mistake no matter how they are playing. This means betting or raising your strongest hands, checking or calling medium strength hands, and folding or bluffing your weakest hands.

Once you know that a guy is a station, you can bluff him less and value bet him more. This is no longer GTO strategy. If he stops being a station, continuing to play this way will cost you money. However, if he keeps stationing, then you will make more money exploiting his looseness than you would if you were playing GTO.

Does that make sense?

What do you mean by "the GTO strategy that focuses on forcing a draw doesn't give us the opportunity to take advantage of his hopeless/deep (not sure which u mean by abysmal hehe) planning."

Is the second quote basically a paraphrase of the SSNLHE Flynn, Miller, Mehta GTO example? :

"On the river, you'll bet your strong hands for value, and you'll bet enough of your busted hands as a bluff that your opponent will be forced to pay off some of your value bets or risk getting run over. You'll check down most modest-strength hands and try to win at showdown... on the turn, you'll bet your good hands for value, and you'll bet enough bad hands for balance so that, again, your opponent will be forced to pay you off sometimes or risk getting run over..."

---Basically GTO is a balanced range in your opponents' eyes. Which is only necessary against a player who is capable of perceiving balance.

Should we always take note of someone c/r'ing multiway?  No matter what they showdown with?

I never really filled in the gap but c/r multiway definitely isn't standard.  Most people play straightforward in multiway pots.

Let me rephrase:

Can c/r'ing multiway ever be a standard play? 

I wasn't deliberately paraphrasing that, but yes I think we are saying the same thing.

It actually has nothing to do with your opponent's perception though. In fact the whole idea is that if you are balanced it doesn't matter what your opponent thinks or doesn't think or how he plays. I'd encourage you to watch the two most recent installments in my Story Time series if you're still interested in this. I explain this concept and its applicability to a simple NLHE situation in great detail.

damn you run so good man...

I live for this stuff.  I'm off to watch it now! XD

about that kk hand, I personally think his play is fine. Basically, there was 450 in the middle, assuming you have somewhat balanced ranges, you auto fold approx. 30% of your range. 30% of the time he gets 450, the other 70% consists of hands to call shoves with, draws, and 1 pair hands that are folding to shoves. Since there are very few combos that can call shoves, I will say only 25ish% of your range calls this shove. So 75% of the time he wins 450, and 25% of the time, he's in an all in pot w/ approx 2k in the middle and 10% eq, which is equal to $200. That means, when called he loses $650 on the play. Even if you call with 40% of your hands (a lot), the play is still +ev. Also, you shouldn't bluff raise the bottom of your range, you're supposed to bluff raise hands that are slightly too weak to call, therefore, I think his play is fine.

about that kk hand, I personally think his play is fine. Basically, there was 450 in the middle, assuming you have somewhat balanced ranges, you auto fold approx. 30% of your range. 30% of the time he gets 450, the other 70% consists of hands to call shoves with, draws, and 1 pair hands that are folding to shoves. Since there are very few combos that can call shoves, I will say only 25ish% of your range calls this shove. So 75% of the time he wins 450, and 25% of the time, he's in an all in pot w/ approx 2k in the middle and 10% eq, which is equal to $200. That means, when called he loses $650 on the play. Even if you call with 40% of your hands (a lot), the play is still +ev. Also, you shouldn't bluff raise the bottom of your range, you're supposed to bluff raise hands that are slightly too weak to call, therefore, I think his play is fine.

Also, dealing with your a7s hand, you were getting 4:1, but your odds were much worse, if u know his hand. 1. would you fold if you flopped a 7?
Ill assume that you'll lose as much on average when you flop a 7 as he does whn you flop an ace, so your eq is 1/2 pot when you flop a 7/a which is abt 1/3rd the time which is +$300
the only board where you effectively stack him is 77-x, which happens less than 1% of the time, but for you we'll say it happens 1% of the time, and flopping a flush, the combined total of these is probably 1% approx, wherein you get his whole stack + $2200, but then there are reverse implied odds when you flop a flush draw, and get it in as 2:1 dog, which happens around 11% of the time, in which case you lose $400, and the rest of the time, approx 50%, where you lose $200. Your EV is $100+$22-$44-$85, which gets you to -$7 EV, this is just an estimate, but it works whenever he has an overpair. Your equity is even worse when he has a bigger ace, so I would say that the call is bad.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that equity doesn't determine ev, it is a factor, but you rarely see the turn and the river, so you need to analyze it the way I did imho.

also, you shoved the ak coz emo was the dude with the 56

also, you shoved the ak coz emo was the dude with the 56

Thanks for the comments, an. FWIW in the KK hand I'm primarily considering the EV of shoving 65s vs. calling with it. The best shoving hands are those that will have the highest equity vs. calling range, and that means he should fill his shoving range with draws before he starts adding bottom pair to it.

Regarding the A7s call, there's also the possibility that he's raising light and that I win the pot after flopping a 7 or a flush draw. And since I have the nut flush draw, my equity when I do get it in against an overpair will be closer to 50/50 than 67/33. All of that said, I still think it's very close.

The way I think about pre-flop equity when there's a lot of money behind is that I figure out what kind of overlay I'm getting relative to the immediate odds that I need, and then I try to determine whether I or my opponent is more likely to make better decisions pre-flop. To the extent that I think one of us will be able to outplay the other as a result of skill, position, and/or a dominating range, I adjust the odds I'll need accordingly. Thus in this case I am getting an overlay of about 13% relative to the pot odds I'd need to break even, so unless I feel I will be outplayed to the tune of that amount post-flop (which as I say is very close in this spot), I can call.

Good questions/analysis.