---

Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by OnTheRail15 (High Stakes)

Are you asking me if it is? I certainly don't think it's trivial.

More like a retorical question i guess. My new role has become stating the obvious.

I mean, are we ever in really good shape with 10s here once this much action goes in? What are we hoping, that one player has flushdraw and probably atleast one over to our 10s, and that the other player doesnt have a Queen? Seems pretty optimistic to me, and i am indeed very optimistic about my hands in general

Looks like I'm a bit more optimistic. I don't wanna be pushed around

Time Link to 00:17:05

Since villain should pretty rarely have (only one) T here, I don't see how JJ would become a raise on turn. EQ-wise it exactly worth AT against the range you gave villain (slightly below 50%). You'd need KK to hit 68% of equity, QQ is still at 57%. And all of those would dislike getting 3!'d on turn by a thinking player.

Or am I missing something that would make the turn raise +EV even with those EQ percentages? I assume you're not planning to fold JJ at any point here?

I assume you're not planning to fold JJ at any point here?

Why not?

Umm... since nobody ever folds an overpair in FL when it's heads up and the pot is big?

Or maybe they do, how would I know since they folded. Let's say I've never seen that done in a video and nobody ever confessed doing that in the forums

Umm... since nobody ever folds an overpair in FL when it's heads up and the pot is big?

Or maybe they do, how would I know since they folded. Let's say I've never seen that done in a video and nobody ever confessed doing that in the forums

It wouldn't be an overpair on the turn.

The board is 934T by turn... I wonder if we're talking about the same hand here.

The board is 934T by turn... I wonder if we're talking about the same hand here.

Oh heheh whoops... Yeah I don't think we should raise jacks here. Sorry if I said otherwise.

Time Link to 00:19:04

I think the turn 3-bet is questionable. From my calculations, given the most optimistic of our opponent's turn c/r range (2 pair+, all top pairs, all flush and straight draws) we have only 56% equity. Given that I think many opponents won't play top pair and flush and straight draws this way, I think our equity is closer to 50% and we will be punished by a lot of better hands. No?

I think the turn 3-bet is questionable. From my calculations, given the most optimistic of our opponent's turn c/r range (2 pair+, all top pairs, all flush and straight draws) we have only 56% equity. Given that I think many opponents won't play top pair and flush and straight draws this way, I think our equity is closer to 50% and we will be punished by a lot of better hands. No?

What range are you using? What you're saying doesn't seem correct according to my calculations.

What range are you using? What you're saying doesn't seem correct according to my calculations.

Yeah 3betting this turn is actually quite the fistpump for me, its such an obvious slowplay spot people use (badly i think but thats another case) to play their top pair hands, and with our hand i think this is pretty easy actually.

Looks like I'm a bit more optimistic. I don't wanna be pushed around

I mean, im as optimistic as the next guy. I used to 3bet this spot sooo much more before, now i dont do it as much, and i really dont feel like ive given up anything by simply stepping out.

What range are you using? What you're saying doesn't seem correct according to my calculations.

I used this for villain's opening range 55+,A7s+,A9o+,K9s+,KQo,QTs+,J9s+,T9s+,98s+ (which I realize is standard/tight - what I meant by optimistic range is that he often won't play a draw or less than tp/tk like this). If I lower his offsuit kings down to KTo+ our equity increases to 65.4%. But, as I said, not everyone will be going for a turn c/r with a draw or top pair with a relatively marginal kicker so I believe these can be discounted somewhat.

Also, if he is on a draw, we won't necessarily be winning any more money on average by 3-betting the turn as opposed to calling down.

I used this for villain's opening range 55+,A7s+,A9o+,K9s+,KQo,QTs+,J9s+,T9s+,98s+ (which I realize is standard/tight - what I meant by optimistic range is that he often won't play a draw or less than tp/tk like this). If I lower his offsuit kings down to KTo+ our equity increases to 65.4%. But, as I said, not everyone will be going for a turn c/r with a draw or top pair with a relatively marginal kicker so I believe these can be discounted somewhat.

Also, if he is on a draw, we won't necessarily be winning any more money on average by 3-betting the turn as opposed to calling down.

Still trying to figure out how this range gets you down between 50-55%. I guess you just took out all his Kx hands that weren't TPTK? I think that's a stretch, and it's worth noting that he did show up with KJ.

It's also worth noting that we're pretty indifferent to what he does with his flush draws, I think, as far as our hand vs his range goes.

Still trying to figure out how this range gets you down between 50-55%. I guess you just took out all his Kx hands that weren't TPTK? I think that's a stretch, and it's worth noting that he did show up with KJ.

It's also worth noting that we're pretty indifferent to what he does with his flush draws, I think, as far as our hand vs his range goes.

The 56% equity I'm getting includes all top pairs from the opening range I listed (which I recognize is too tight for this opponent), not just TPTK. It's certainly possible I'm making a mistake somewhere in my calculations. I'm using CR-EV calculator to get these numbers.

When I extend suited kings of villain's range down to K7s and offsuit kings to KTo and pairs down to 22+ I get our equity at 63%.

What do you think villain's opening range should be? What equity do you compute given that range? What should our minimum equity be for a 3-bet to be correct?