Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by DeathDonkey (Micro/Small Stakes)

Time Link to 00:04:04

I'd expect to see pocket pairs a lot from the kind of guy that would coldcall in this spot. 33-66 I'd expect to be in a cc and c/c range of a ton fishy player's ranges in this spot. As well as hands like 87s, 76s... so there are definitely a fair number of pairs.

I also don't really agree that he'd 3b 55 but not 3bet A9 here. I'd just expect your average bad player to cc with all of those here. Obviously the J hits a lot of broadway type hands that might coldcall as well.

Time Link to 00:10:56

It's a pretty thin spot for value -- much thinner than I think you might realize:

BU 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% { AdKh }
SB 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% { 66-33, A9s-A2s, 97s, 87s, 75s+, A9o-A2o }

If we add in a few more passively played hands or offsuit combos of 7x (87o, 97o), it becomes a clear check behind on the river -- I think I took a pretty realistic range of hands here, it's close enough that removing a few hands can make it a thin bet or adding a few hands can make it a clear check. There's a reason that bet-bet-check is the standard line here IMO.

Rob

Awesome series so far. I feel I tend to learn the most when you guys speak about poker. I like that you guys are not shy of debating difficult spots. Great job, looking forward to the next episode.

Time Link to 00:07:49

hey dd, now, if we were in the sb with a hand like 89s or T9s even 78s, would we ever 3bet,call,or fold to a standard button open preflop?

I know its ok to 3b a hand like QJo or even JT for value here, just wondering. Thanks DD and chuck

hey dd, now, if we were in the sb with a hand like 89s or T9s even 78s, would we ever 3bet,call,or fold to a standard button open preflop?

I know its ok to 3b a hand like QJo or even JT for value here, just wondering. Thanks DD and chuck

Those are fairly standard 3bets for lagtags, I don't consider 87s to be "necessary" though and I will fold it while running badly.

Time Link to 01:02:40

Against stronger players, I do not like a check here. You do not induce enough river bluffs to warrant missing value on the turn. Are you really supposed to have some random QT that you're not firing here? However, as the SB, I might be fooled into "value betting" a strong ace high on the river, expecting you to have weaker aces and strong kings.

It's a pretty thin spot for value -- much thinner than I think you might realize:

BU 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% { AdKh }
SB 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% { 66-33, A9s-A2s, 97s, 87s, 75s+, A9o-A2o }

If we add in a few more passively played hands or offsuit combos of 7x (87o, 97o), it becomes a clear check behind on the river -- I think I took a pretty realistic range of hands here, it's close enough that removing a few hands can make it a thin bet or adding a few hands can make it a clear check. There's a reason that bet-bet-check is the standard line here IMO.

Rob

Agree it's too thin and a really bad value bet IMO. Just because we can dig up some combinations of hands he has that are worse than AK, he has way more combos of hands that have made a pair of some sort, he's always calling with all of these hands, and hes sometimes folding some of the hands that we are targeting with our "valuebet"

Agree it's too thin and a really bad value bet IMO. Just because we can dig up some combinations of hands he has that are worse than AK, he has way more combos of hands that have made a pair of some sort, he's always calling with all of these hands, and hes sometimes folding some of the hands that we are targeting with our "valuebet"

It's definitely not "really bad." Saying it's really bad is missing the whole point of the discussion, which is that it's really close, but that it's not a "clear bet" or a "clear check" as we've defined the situation so far. The combos I listed are 100% reasonable for a river check-calling range; I don't think he's stronger very often and I don't think he's folding any of those hands. If you can take out a few of those hands preflop or say that he plays a few of them more aggressively pre/postflop, you can easily shift it to a valuebet or a check behind.

Rob

It's a pretty thin spot for value -- much thinner than I think you might realize:

BU 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% { AdKh }
SB 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% { 66-33, A9s-A2s, 97s, 87s, 75s+, A9o-A2o }

If we add in a few more passively played hands or offsuit combos of 7x (87o, 97o), it becomes a clear check behind on the river -- I think I took a pretty realistic range of hands here, it's close enough that removing a few hands can make it a thin bet or adding a few hands can make it a clear check. There's a reason that bet-bet-check is the standard line here IMO.

Rob

Thanks, seems like we were overthinking things a little bit trying to create an argument out of not very much.

hey dd, now, if we were in the sb with a hand like 89s or T9s even 78s, would we ever 3bet,call,or fold to a standard button open preflop?

I know its ok to 3b a hand like QJo or even JT for value here, just wondering. Thanks DD and chuck

3 betting almost all of those against any button open raiser, good equity and awesome playability.

Against stronger players, I do not like a check here. You do not induce enough river bluffs to warrant missing value on the turn. Are you really supposed to have some random QT that you're not firing here? However, as the SB, I might be fooled into "value betting" a strong ace high on the river, expecting you to have weaker aces and strong kings.

I agree that we should be value betting the AK here, but I'm not sure what you are saying is standard with the QT. I think checking behind turn and folding river is totally reasonable.