---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by WiltOnTilt (Mid Stakes)

Nice vid, one question, you talk about not 3 betting hands like KJo or QJo against this guys because he folds too much to 3 bets. So what would your 3 bet range be against this opponent?

Nice vid, one question, you talk about not 3 betting hands like KJo or QJo against this guys because he folds too much to 3 bets. So what would your 3 bet range be against this opponent?

More polarized... top hands like TT+, AK and AQ then a bunch of suited stuff, Kxs, Qxs, suited connectors, Axo, as much as I feel like I could get away with, without him adjusting.

Time Link to 00:04:52

so how do u like his 5b to 110 vs 5b jam ?
what do we do if he 6b jams?
are TT really strong enough to get it in 160bb deep?

so how do u like his 5b to 110 vs 5b jam ?
what do we do if he 6b jams?
are TT really strong enough to get it in 160bb deep?

Yes it's definitely strong enough. I think going to 110 or shoving are mostly the same but there's not too much downside to going to 110. One might say that you don't want to induce shoves from hands that have 50% equity vs you (rather them fold) which is true but the counter argument to that is what hand is he going to bluff 4bet that he wasn't already planning to get it in with that will now shove? KQ/QJ/AJ those hands probably just call the 3bet at this stack depth anyway and if AJ was 4betting it was with the intention of calling...

Jeffrey=KarlizL?

Time Link to 00:32:55

I dont mean being results oriented, but;

I feel you apply the twobarrel stat badly here. You say he isnt capable of valuebetting thinly enough because of it, but wont the stat also say that he isnt barreling much air either? In most spots where a tight barreler could open up his percentage, isnt the biggest part of those ranges air? What I mean is that if I were to apply the stat, I would say his entire range is tighter, including the air. I feel even thats being optimistic.

On the river you talk about the bottom card pairing, making our perceived range stronger. What about turn? Shouldnt our perceived flop c/c range incude a ton of Ax, and make him much less likely to bluff? Some part of me feel that you kind of sticked to the reasoning "committed to call down" statement so much that you made yourselves partially blind to think clearly on that turn. Also, shouldnt his ranges include a lot of Jx and Ax before the turnbet?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I dont mean being results oriented, but;

I feel you apply the twobarrel stat badly here. You say he isnt capable of valuebetting thinly enough because of it, but wont the stat also say that he isnt barreling much air either? In most spots where a tight barreler could open up his percentage, isnt the biggest part of those ranges air? What I mean is that if I were to apply the stat, I would say his entire range is tighter, including the air. I feel even thats being optimistic.

On the river you talk about the bottom card pairing, making our perceived range stronger. What about turn? Shouldnt our perceived flop c/c range incude a ton of Ax, and make him much less likely to bluff? Some part of me feel that you kind of sticked to the reasoning "committed to call down" statement so much that you made yourselves partially blind to think clearly on that turn. Also, shouldnt his ranges include a lot of Jx and Ax before the turnbet?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

First, as I mentioned in the video, it is a bit of a stretch for me to use the 2barrel stat here as part of my reasoning, but I don't think it's all together meaningless either.

When we are in a spot where his value combos are already going to be very few, and we can reduce them further, then he has the potential to become that much more polarized. I think your point about how we should reduce the air and value combos equally could be right, but keep in mind in this spot we're already at "very few" value combos and moving toward "almost none", and any reduction of said value combos will make it very likely to be a call. I'm also working off the general principle that he simply gets to the situation with far more bluff combos than value combos. We then reduce those by some unknown x%. In spots like these, even if that x% holds for both value and air, it's still going to be a call, and when most people's frequencies get out of whack in a spot like this, it's usually out of whack in terms of not value betting thin enough. I'm not sure if this paragraph makes sense or not, maybe it just comes down to an experience thing.

What Ax 3betting and c/c'ing this flop with? AK/AQ ? Maybe you would but most people are cbetting those as a default and I think it would be a mistake to assume our perceived flop c/c range those hands or any other bare Ax in it. If we think c/c'ing flop with AQ/AK is correct here against this opponent then that should make our turn call even easier with 99. See why? I think him betting the turn with KJ is some evidence that he doesn't put many Ax in our range. Maybe on the river he wimped out or he doesn't give us credit for being able to make a river call with worse than Jx here.

Many people in villain's shoes check behind Jx on this flop. I personally do not for this exact type of situation. How often have you heard some coach incorrectly say in a video "oh well I'm only getting 2 streets of value here so... i'll check the flop for pot control and deception". This spot shows why that is ridiculous in many similar situations. Also many villains with a hand like AQ simply assume that no better hands are folding if they bet so they just check to get to showdown or take a free one. Betting the flop with AQ is likely no good unless you are planning to start a multistreet bluff, which certainly could be good against many opponents.

I'm not sure if this paragraph makes sense or not, maybe it just comes down to an experience thing.

I remember you've talked about this spot earlier. I've ton of experience with the math in poker, so thats not why this hand bothered me. I understand that his valuerange before the turnbet is much smaller than his turn air range. I also understand that his valuerange is going to get more and more narrow the closer to river we get. (For that reason I would feel better calling the river than the turn.) The same will happen to his bluffingrange. I understand that its the ratio between bluff and value combos compared to his bluff and value bluff bettingfrequency that matters. What I feel is hard to understand his how we assign a bluffingfrequency for his air.

What Ax 3betting and c/c'ing this flop with? AK/AQ ? Maybe you would but most people are cbetting those as a default and I think it would be a mistake to assume our perceived flop c/c range those hands or any other bare Ax in it.

If you are right on this, I definetly understand why you increase his bluffingfrequency with air. Vs this spesific opponent it seemed to be right, because he seemed to view the Ax as a relatively blank. But when talking results oriented, this guy was valuebetting surprisingly thin on the turn, also? I wouldn't be surprised if I saw Jx checking behind on that turn even if my HUD said he barreled more often on the turn.

Back to the source of the twobarrelstat: Roughly how would you construct his avg bluff/value ratio after seeing KJ in his turnrange? I mean, if you translate the stat into a range here, it should theoretically be possible to translate it back...?

If we think c/c'ing flop with AQ/AK is correct here against this opponent then that should make our turn call even easier with 99. See why

Because if c/c'ing flop with AQ/AK is correct, then that means he bluffs often enough on the flop that makes his turn air range wider? Sounds like it implies in your sentence that it is a mistake to be c/c'ing with AQ/AK because you say "even easier"?

Tbh, I thought AQ was very close to 99 when C/C'ing flop, because when we get to the bluffcatch spot on the turn, we have more outs vs his bluffingrange than with 99. Since you seem to say he is incapable of valuebetting 88, AQ is therefore the same as 99 in that spot except for the 3 times more outs. Ofcourse, he can improve to one pair that already is beaten by 99, but most of his unpaired cards is above 9, so that argument isnt that valid? Am I right if I say that the A and Q often gives his air range more outs and looks more scary, which boosts his bluffingfrequency, which has a good impact on our c/c EV? If not A or Q, the K and T also improves his bluffingrange (more than improving his valuerange) but also improves AQ to 4 more outs and still looks scary enough for him to get even more tempted to bluff...? Then you have the argument of him valuetowning us with pairs lower than 88 on the flop, but if he doesnt perceive our c/c range to have Ax, why would he bet, for other than protection? Do you think villain bets low PP more often than Jx here? Im just thowing ideas because I dont see the clear difference between 99 and AQ. Where am I wrong?

How often would he be betting Ax on the flop?

Roughly, what do you think your equity is before you call on the turn?

this guy was valuebetting surprisingly thin on the turn, also? I wouldn't be surprised if I saw Jx checking behind on that turn even if my HUD said he barreled more often on the turn.

by "surprisingly thin" on the turn, you just mean that we are somewhat surprised that he bet it, not that it is overall a thin bet right? Yes I agree that by default we weren't sure if he was capable of realizing that KJ is a very easy value bet there, so without knowing how good villain is and how he views the flop with his various top pair hands and how he views the turn with his various Jx hands, it becomes a turn call as we can discount many value combos between the two streets, given the turn card.

Because if c/c'ing flop with AQ/AK is correct, then that means he bluffs often enough on the flop that makes his turn air range wider? Sounds like it implies in your sentence that it is a mistake to be c/c'ing with AQ/AK because you say "even easier"?

Here could be where there is some disconnect. It's not as simple as just a single street math decision to c/c AK on the flop. If you are going to do that, you need to be prepared to call multiple streets for the same reasoning I stated in the video about c/c'ing 99 in this spot. From a pure equity standpoint and being unsure about how thinly he value bets the flop here, it is conceivable that AK is a better hand to c/c the flop with than 99. However, from a playability standpoint, if you are going to c/c AK on this flop and you dont want to leak money badly vs reasonable opponents, you should be prepared to get to showdown here with A high some non-negligible part of the time. As a result of most people's discomfort with doing that, as well as the uncertainty of people's range, many will use AK as a cbet here instead of a bluff catching hand (or they dont think about it and just cbet). So if we think AK is a c/c vs this guy, its because we are comfortable calling multiple streets vs his range and therefore this turn is one where his value range can get narrower and its a card that he can conceivably continue to bluff because our perceived flop c/c range shouldn't have many Ax in it, assuming he's not a mind reader that he knows we are going to multi-street bluff catch him with tons of our Ax combos, since most people simply dont do that.

by "surprisingly thin" on the turn, you just mean that we are somewhat surprised that he bet it, not that it is overall a thin bet right?

Yes, I was surprised that he bet it.

overall a thin bet right?

Initially I thought that it was a thin bet overall because its a scary card for the 3bettor with 99 given many people probably would put a lot of Ax the bettors prefloprange, and that I put the 3bettor on a lot of Ax, but that was probably wrong as you said. If the 3bettor doesnt have many Ax in his range, I assume its a good and not too thin bet because he should perceive us to continue bluffing on this card. BB being afraid that SB perceive that card to hit the BB isnt an issue if we have good equity vs his callingrange because if we have that, BB doesnt have that many Ax in his range, based on the fact that people probably think that their perceived range is the same as their actual range?

But at the same time, should we be bluffing that card with pure air (turn and we are SB)? I know that we should play kind of "contradictory" in some spots, but is this one of them? You could say its to balance our valuerange, but if we bet all our air it will be very unbalanced, esp since we probably should check behind a lot of our Ax on the flop?

BB being afraid that SB perceive that card to hit the BB isnt an issue if we have good equity vs his callingrange because if we have that, BB doesnt have that many Ax in his range, based on the fact that people probably think that their perceived range is the same as their actual range?

can you restate that question, i've read it a few times and i'm kind of lost on what you're asking

But at the same time, should we be bluffing that card with pure air (turn and we are SB)? I know that we should play kind of "contradictory" in some spots, but is this one of them? You could say its to balance our valuerange, but if we bet all our air it will be very unbalanced, esp since we probably should check behind a lot of our Ax on the flop?

I assume you meant BB. It's a hard question to answer in general but similarly to other spots, the tougher your opponent, the more close to balanced you need to try to be. Vs some random 1/2 reg, maybe its correct to be hugely skewed to air here as the BB and just empty the clip. The less sophisticated your opponents, the more willing to be hugely unbalanced in some of these spots where there hand is face up. Vs a 25 50 reg, I would be trying to balance my betting range on all the streets, which includes the ability to just not bluff sometimes in these spots.

can you restate that question, i've read it a few times and i'm kind of lost on what you're asking

I'm kind of lost also when i reread it. But to make it short: When we play vs a regish player, can we say that villain thinks that his perceived range is the same as his actual range?

I assume you meant BB. It's a hard question to answer in general but similarly to other spots, the tougher your opponent, the more close to balanced you need to try to be. Vs some random 1/2 reg, maybe its correct to be hugely skewed to air here as the BB and just empty the clip. The less sophisticated your opponents, the more willing to be hugely unbalanced in some of these spots where there hand is face up. Vs a 25 50 reg, I would be trying to balance my betting range on all the streets, which includes the ability to just not bluff sometimes in these spots.

Lets say you have a lot of air in your turnrange (when you are IP), how would you construct your value- and bluffrange to make them balanced (if villain is supergood)? Do you pick the best semibluffs to bluff with, or do you go more random?

On NL200, what turnspot are you most balanced?

In some way I dont understand balance. Lets say we play vs a very observant and adjusting player. If we choose to play vacuum optimal all the time, then our game will get very exploitable. But how does that matter if our decisions is vacuum optimal? Exactly how is "balanced range" defined? Like, what if we have a very wide bluffingrange one time in the match in a spot, but later in the match we have a very narrow bluffingrange, in the EXACT same spot/stacks etc. Is that balance, even our range is very unbalanced each time?

Time Link to 00:28:01

table 2 with A4, after the villain checks the turn, i fire the river alot here. I figure most people don't have much, and would have bet a king or queen on that turn. So i don't want to give a show down to Tx, 8x or 66 or some other winning hand.

I do understand that the king is a decent barrel card, so his check does contain some showdown value hands, but this villain was not aggressively going after pots, so i want to keep lots of weak hands in his range ( both hands we beat and hands that just slightly beat us).

Is this a reasonable spot to lead the river 2/3 pot? It seems to me that only the top of his range can call, while most of it is forced to fold.

Time Link to 00:32:57

What do you think of 3betting 9s here and x/c'ing the flop. You did say our hand is face up, but is there merit to taking this line here vs this guy. He's not barrel happy.

it seems to me that x/c'ing here vs him, is just hoping he'll bluff once and give up.