John at 400PLO HU

This is a pretty interesting hand for a few reasons. As I mention in the video, players all play so differently that it could be possible that when he c/c's in 3b pots he always has draws.  Its equally likely that he never has weak draws.  To be completely honest I sortof remember trying to bet 152 on that turn, so I'm like 80% sure this was a misclick... but with that said I dont mind an underbet here.  You make a good point that this is awkward sizing, and I agree.  The proper size to make a bet with the intention of jamming rivers would be ~80 to set up a substantial river size jam.

Some people will argue that underbetting turns is a great tactic to induce more river calls by decreasing the fold equity on one street, but I would contend that in todays games it is the opposite. Their reasoning is something like: by decreasing turn FE and increasing river's FE you cant make the total FE the amount you would by betting normal on both streets(therefore decreasing total FE).  Some players will call more river shoves, plain and simple, but for the most part you will get more folds on the river than the turn.  Because of this, betting small will be a something like a valuebet since we expect to win the pot on the river a profitable frequency.  This is, of course, an assumption.

I feel it does need to be said that if we were slightly deeper the details of this hand change a bit and an underbet becomes more relevant with vulnerability of our potential hand.  If we did actually have 67xx there are so many rivers that are bad for our hand that pot controlling with the nuts is profitable.  Especially once you factor in the lack of value we will get from worse hands on all of those rivers.

Hi, towards the end of the video you talk about one of your strategies vs this opponent is to get it in for value preflop. you cite as one of the reasons, that preflop edges are so small that you have to take any you can get. don't you think that it might be more profitable to just call 3bets and 4bets pre and get the hands in on the flop and also have some fold equity on the flop? not with AAxx, but with ds rundowns or QQA5ss or stuff like that.

also i believe you said you would get it in pre for value with double suited middle rundowns, i can't imagine that to be a great idea unless he 4-bet/folds a lot. double suited middle rundowns don't even have great equity against the worse hands in his 5b-range like AKQ6ss, and of course he will have some KK and AA as well.

one more point - i remember you saying something like "this is a situation where he either has you beat or not" several times. i assume you are referring to what i know as way-ahead/way-behind situations, you might want to clarify your phrasing there (english is my second language though, so i might be wrong).

i still liked the video though, you went into about the right amount of detail per hand that i'm personally looking for and were discussing some interesting points regarding hand ranges in connection with certain board texture or which turn card improve what ranges.

EDIT: added paragaphs for you :)

After asking a few friends I guess it's not uncommon to use the wa/wb concept regarding river bets, but I just generally think in terms of thinness and use wa/wb regarding flop and turn.  Obv if you have the top of your range vs a weak villain rage you are wa but that just sounds goofy to me so w/e.  In this video and for future reference I would generally be refering to spots where I expect the villain to not have a decision.  AKA a hand where he would either have top 2+ or a missed fd, etc.  Therefore, when I have air in these types of spots I can make smaller betsizes since I expect my opponent to simply call when he has the top of his range and fold when he has the bottom of the range.  I dont really like using the term "polarized" very much, but I guess you could say that is something I look for in these spots as well.