Are you splitting sizes ott or have a depolarized strategy? Most regs including myself are still playing only b75/x on this texture and its hard to merge AT into a polarized range here but if you have a small block sizing then it makes alot of sense.

I would just pick one size OTT so either B33 or B50.

Only time I like splitting sizes is OTF when you need to jam some turns because of how many bad rivers there will be for your range.

A common example is like 3BP OOP PFR and flop is KT7tt. You split small and large because you need to jam a bunch of turns like any 2 FD or some 3 straight turns.

I can re-adjust too. I’m just saying as a static strategy it will be better than the default GTO strategy.

You know 200blitz better than me so maybe I get owned. Time will tell.

It’s okay if we disagree

Sure, but note that my AA only jam logic is the exact same as your QQ+ jam logic (we are causing "standard calls" to be large ev mistakes against our jams). So if you think my AA only jam logic is poor, you should probably have another think yourself.

I think your jam only AA is better than GTO as a default. But I think we can capture more EV by expanding the value threshold.

The idea is to turn 0EV hands into losing calls and is a driving principle behind a lot of MDA theory.

JJ is 0EV but it’s a good call vs population. We are using this knowledge against our opponent.

Versus very good players you reverse MDA lines postflop as a default until they adjust. Even average regs for the stake understand preflop MDA and jam tendencies so now we can be more aggressive with our preflop adjustments.

Okay, interesting. I thought this was pretty much an obviously bad idea, so I really wasn't expecting this reply. But if you think AA only outperforms default gto, and you think QQ+ is basically an upgraded version of AA only, I can at least respect the consistency of your thoughts here. Off-hand I am not convinced, but it is definitely logical.

I have never taken this as a driving principle in my play (though I only have some basic mda knowledge myself)...I guess the idea is constructing in a way where opponents will make large ev blunders while 1) they have a default strategy that plays into these blunders and 2) they are unlikely to quickly adjust or play a counterstrategy to what we're doing?

Is this more or less right?


By "very good players" do you mean something narrow like "reg players who are highly aware of MDA tendencies for their games," or something else?

Yeah that is exactly what it is. You are using their knowledge against them.

In order to counter this you would need to understand what I am doing and then figure out the counter exploits. It’s not enough to just know you might be getting exploited.

I think when I say “very good players” it could be players that go by that definition or just someone who has good instincts. They might not have even studied MDA.

So for example, you might figure out rather intuitively that a board like KQJr is overbluffed in a triple barrel line in a BTNvsBB SRP because BTN has so much Ax in his range. And this would align with MDA.

One note on the QQ+ jam strat, you disregard the opportunity cost of not making a std 4b size and getting calls from hands like suited broadways,smaller pps , SCs + jams from villain

But they ovefold to 4bets and under 3bet preflop.

But he wins more when you 4bet smaller because you are super capped in that line.