Having to understand of what I see, however, looking into numbers, the passion of numbers leads me back to wanting to add back into my game some more math, to understand those who choose math over how I understand, talk about the game.

Looking at some posts, which I find interesting of others views of the same information differently, for example, ranges of a 119 combos of starting hands, having hands to block combos against someone who has a 10% calling range.

When they hold A7 as starting hands playing against this 10% call range scenario.

They are three betting to steal, and would putting in the extra four bet against this type of scenario, would the player five bet this scenario knowing the small range of the this type of player?

Knowing players will use blocking bets to balance out this type of scenario, however, the question then for my game becomes, does the bet size then back up a blocking of combo scenario, then why would I not just four bet this type of player?

Then would the better players then be forced to either make a defensive play that on the surface would now indicate weakness against my game for the rest of this hand?

Would they make the next level of action and that would be; when they know I am testing would they not have to go back over in situations I caught them blocking in the eternal?

So, bet sizing in situations against better opponents then would have additional information past just the basics of the setup of this scenario?

The question also becomes does the person know this going in? If not when they do become aware are they thinking of information past this first part?

How would one expand without the use of numbers?

Could they when using starting hands instead of clearing the scenario of the cards and just visualize without the cards just play the player instead?

Would they see this as the same thing or a different process that has nothing to do with the scenario I posted from another?

The scenario was using both the initial post and the response, I combined some of the information does this change anything?

Would playing the player in these spots then put back the 119 combo situation back into the face of the player who began to block by having more outs to block than the range of the player holding a starting hand the deck has to hit them in the face to continue?

Thus, the only play the blocker has left to play is fold or call weakly because of the four bet range of the player.

Then they suddenly make this move, the check raise from being OOP to then challenge the blocker who knows they collect more without having to defend but fold more when put in this scenario?

OOP puts in other knowing of scenarios of people who rarely check raise in this scenario?

When the information is reversed then blocking from position, would the check raise look stronger from the weak calling range of the OOP than the blocking from position?

Thus, changing, would this not offer additional information that a person could use going into this type of scenario as to put them at a greater edge making them the opponent more than a victim?

Could ego then be used against the information to then use against the opponent for the opponent to become the victim?

They would have to have a great deal of experience to know the person is bluffing or know this by how the scenario was played out by having prior information, otherwise, the blocker goes from being the opponent to becoming the victim?

I always find it easier to find out what I need to know by applying pressure when the bets are small, at the beginning of a hand or at any point to find out what the other is doing within the eternal.