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

Live Jive: Episode Seven

This video is a two minute preview. To view the entire video, please Log In or Sign Up Now

Live Jive: Episode Seven by DeathDonkey, mike l.

DeathDonkey and Mike L. continue to talk about playing high stakes live Limit Hold'em.

About Live Jive Subscribe to

Mike L and DeathDonkey discuss higher stakes live LHE hands that Mike has played. They focus the discussion on exploiting common errors from brick and mortar opponents.

Tags

deathdonkey mike l. live jive live play ipod friendly high stakes

Video Details

Downloads

Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.

Sign Up Today


Comments for Live Jive: Episode Seven

or track by Email or RSS


OnTheRail15

Avatar for OnTheRail15

1344 posts
Joined 06/2008

Time Link to 00:08:19

What is the minimum hand Mike is calling a c/r with in this spot?

Posted over 6 years ago

DeathDonkey

Avatar for DeathDonkey

5389 posts
Joined 11/2006

What is the minimum hand Mike is calling a c/r with in this spot?



A straight I think? I know you are gonna say he should turn some stuff into bluffs but if he was capable of that I assume Mike would know it and then would consider either not betting, or calling with this hand.

Posted over 6 years ago

OnTheRail15

Avatar for OnTheRail15

1344 posts
Joined 06/2008

A straight I think? I know you are gonna say he should turn some stuff into bluffs but if he was capable of that I assume Mike would know it and then would consider either not betting, or calling with this hand.



Right my point isn't that, although I guess he should, it's that he shouldn't c/r ever given the way mike plays the river here. The fact that it's the 4d does mean that he never loses though. If it were like the 9d c/r would be awful against mike.

Posted over 6 years ago

alexhandros

Avatar for alexhandros

88 posts
Joined 01/2008

Time Link to 00:11:42

You guys say that checking back 555 on the river here is really bad because you would always bet an ace. A couple questions about that

1) What hands can villain really expect to pay off a bet with a set of fives here given that the card smacks his range so well
2) If you're talking about checking top set here because tehre's not much value, why wouldn't you check Ax as well (the hands are basically the same) sometimes. In that case, he could actually be value cutting himself betting 555, and at the very least, I don't see many hands a bet would get value from (at least combo wise, I'm thinking lower sets and stuff, there shouldn't be much 2p stuff based on pre action)

Obviously this villain probably isn't thinking about a lot of this stuff but I'm not convinced 555 would be a value bet even between two good players if you consider the preflop action from both players etc.

Posted over 6 years ago

musclepro

Avatar for musclepro

16 posts
Joined 09/2010

jesse8888

Avatar for jesse8888

66 posts
Joined 03/2010

Time Link to 00:11:56

My first instinct here when you said "it's hard to think like they think" was to go back and try to construct a "call 3 cold" range for your opponent. TBH I think a lot of middling pocket pairs are in there (like 77-TT) that for some reason clammed up on the flop (maybe because you 3 bet, or were planning to raise the turn but got scared when the king hit). Long story short I think he's going to call with these some percentage of the time and that there is non-zero value in a bet. I still like check/call the best, especially since my theory is based on someone not raising an over pair on the flop, which probably happens more in my 20 games than in 40 or 60.

Posted over 6 years ago

Pid Koker

Avatar for Pid Koker

94 posts
Joined 02/2010

Time Link to 00:36:36

If you think Villain's super strong on the flop when he 3!, then doesn't that make your flop cap a little less clear-cut?

Posted almost 6 years ago

bellatrix

Avatar for bellatrix

826 posts
Joined 12/2007

Time Link to 00:10:30

Just to make sure of the continuity of hand values

If the river was the 5Club, would that change your c/c to a b/f, probably not, right?
But if the river was an AHeart you would most definitely b/f?

Posted over 5 years ago

bellatrix

Avatar for bellatrix

826 posts
Joined 12/2007

Time Link to 00:50:01

when you say, he could have AClub, 7x you mean on the turn, right? Because on the river the random 7 still beats us.

Posted over 5 years ago

DeathDonkey

Avatar for DeathDonkey

5389 posts
Joined 11/2006

Just to make sure of the continuity of hand values

If the river was the 5Club, would that change your c/c to a b/f, probably not, right?
But if the river was an AHeart you would most definitely b/f?



Yes, I think so, his Ax range is obviously enormous compared to his 5x range

Posted over 5 years ago

DeathDonkey

Avatar for DeathDonkey

5389 posts
Joined 11/2006

when you say, he could have AClub, 7x you mean on the turn, right? Because on the river the random 7 still beats us.



Right, I meant on the turn, was pretty confusing listening to it again though

Posted over 5 years ago

AKQJ10

Avatar for AKQJ10

668 posts
Joined 10/2008

Time Link to 00:02:03

Re: Mike's assertion that limping 55 is good if you expect a 7-way capped [4-bet] pot.

Wouldn't paying four bets destroy the implied odds that justify playing small pairs for set value? Sklansky and Malmuth said you should stick to 99+ in a game like that, but that might be obslote advice.

I can see postflop arguments in both directions--bigger pots mean more aggression hence more bets you can get in with a set. But, only four bets can go in on each street, and it would require pretty wild opponents to keep reraising the big streets with one pair, or a draw against a reasonable player's aggression.

Getting to play 55 in a single-raised pot six ways is very good, of course.

Posted about 1 year ago

AKQJ10

Avatar for AKQJ10

668 posts
Joined 10/2008

Time Link to 00:03:10

When making these longshot flop calls with small pairs, don't you have to discount a bit for set-under-set?
EDIT: I wrote a longish post thinking about set-under-set incorrectly--"We turn a five" and "Someone has an overset" are practically independent so the joint probably isn't actually a greater proportion of the times we turn a five. That's leaving aside the lack of play suggesting AA or JJ because I tend to think live players are unpredictable.

I do think you have to discount your IO though because set-under-set is a disaster, and set-under-straight or flush is going to cost us a pretty penny too. Since we can turn a set and lose, we need to discount our number of outs accordingly, and even a set's great IO don't really justify peeling a 1.75 outer at 17:1. It does help that only one 5 puts up a BDFD, but doesn't help that a 5 could make a wheel.

Posted about 1 year ago

AKQJ10

Avatar for AKQJ10

668 posts
Joined 10/2008

Time Link to 00:08:28

I don't understand why Mike has more sets than flushes here. What other sets does he have besides three combos of 55? And at least KQ, KT, and QT Diamond seem like three reasonable flushes here.

Or do you mean a Villian might think "unknown Mike" would slowplay a set on a 6-way flop in a huge pot?

Posted about 1 year ago




HomePoker ForumsMid/High Stakes Limit Hold'em → Live Jive: Episode Seven