---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by KRANTZ (High Stakes)

- My point is that leading flops has the exact same expected value against either one of them -- his cbetting percentage is not a factor.

the relative ev of leading is most definitely influenced by his cbet % because your comparing the ev of leading vs the overall ev of chk/raising. you can only realize the ev of a chk/raise when he bets. so how often he bets should play a major role in your decision making process.

- My point is that leading flops has the exact same expected value against either one of them -- his cbetting percentage is not a factor.

This is true in an absolute sense if the only difference between players 1+2 is their c-bet % (a highly improbably assumption fwiw). It also doesn't tell the entire story in a relative sense (ie how much EV are we losing with our default strategy against player 1 when we have to ck through TPTK?), so I think you're looking at the EV from the wrong decision point or angle.

Time Link to 01:14:24

i don't understand the difference in the c/r of stillTrippin and RunItTrim??
why are we folding to stillTrippin?

because he is tighter and thus has fewer semi-bluff combos and very rarely pure bluffs OOP??

Time Link to 01:05:12

"Balance the information you are giving," - a nugget of golden advice.

Time Link to 01:15:14

Table 4 - you say that 77 and an 8x are the same thing, but if he thinks your UTG value range is mostly overpairs/toppair type hands then 8x typically has 5 outs whereas 77 typically has 2.

77 and 8x are only "the same" if you range is dominated by 6 out draws (typically two overcards) AND will slow down on the turn/river.

@Krantz:

clickty - i have read your OP a cpl times and i'm still not sure what you're asking - everything you are saying is obviously correct but doesn't run counter to what we are talking about.

What I wanted to know is this:

I would much rather play against the duck #2

... which I think is a little surprising, because your default strategy is checking. You only start leading when you have seen him check back a lot; before that you more or less expect him to mistakenly c-bet too much, even though you consider him a good player.

a better question you might ask is - the_Eend opens in late position, hero flats in one of the blinds. the_Eend does not c-bet often, maybe around 1/2 the time. the flop is Q27r, what parts of your range should you check and which should you lead? why? what about on 678hh?

That's a really tough question, because you sort of have to decide what is worse: letting him check back and control the size of the pot, or giving him certain information about your hand by leading parts of your range and checking the rest. How do you decide? Do you just try something out?

@ Shreddes and n0whereman:

I realise that, but it's irrelevant in that context. I just meant to say that because of that point, it's strange to consider leading an adjustment to someone checking back a lot. It's the other way around: checking is an adjustment to someone c-betting too much.

@FenderJaguar:

He doesn't (or shouldn't) really mind if you start leading.

It's the other way around: checking is an adjustment to someone c-betting too much.

I don't see how making this distinction matters at all for anything, but I disagree with it anyway because I wouldn't consider it an adjustment anymore if it's your default strategy. The decision to make the default checking is an adjustment, but I'm pretty sure 99% of decent or better MSNL+ regs made that adjustment a long time ago. If you see a rando TAG at MSNL+, are they more likely to cbet too frequently or not frequently enough?

Table 4 - you say that 77 and an 8x are the same thing, but if he thinks your UTG value range is mostly overpairs/toppair type hands then 8x typically has 5 outs whereas 77 typically has 2.

77 and 8x are only "the same" if you range is dominated by 6 out draws (typically two overcards) AND will slow down on the turn/river.

Just saying essentially and not literally since he's floating with a 1 pair hand. Obviously what you say is true and should be very common knowledge so no reason to point it out specifically in the context of the situation.

@ClickityClack:

Of course he's going to mind because he has to play more 3 street pots. That's the whole point of the adjustment.

You're trying to run up an icy hill in rubber slippers

I don't see how making this distinction matters at all for anything, but I disagree with it anyway because I wouldn't consider it an adjustment anymore if it's your default strategy. The decision to make the default checking is an adjustment, but I'm pretty sure 99% of decent or better MSNL+ regs made that adjustment a long time ago. If you see a rando TAG at MSNL+, are they more likely to cbet too frequently or not frequently enough?

Well if you assume that leading is correct against someone who checks back a lot, then it's really really weird to see that everyone is almost always checking to the preflop raiser, because that means that everyone is expecting everybody else to (incorrectly) c-bet too much. That's what struck me.

cool video, good and funny talk --> give me more of that !

@ClickityClack:

Of course he's going to mind because he has to play more 3 street pots. That's the whole point of the adjustment.

Yes I understand that (I'm inclined to think you'd be aware of that if you read my posts a little more carefully), but if leading was so great than you wouldn't start out by checking. In general it's not a bad situation for him at all to play against someone who is leading flops.

Also, it's not even close to as simple as you're saying, because you're giving him an information advantage by leading some % and checking the rest. It's awfully complicated to assess the profitability of such a strategy.

In case it's still unclear what I'm getting at: you basically said (and Krantz agreed) "I should start leading against the_Eend so he can't check back", which I thought was a completely insane statement considering how much stuff that implies about general c-betting strategy, and that it makes such a hugely complex issue sound completely trivial

You're trying to run up an icy hill in rubber slippers

What do you mean by that?

Well if you assume that leading is correct against someone who checks back a lot, then it's really really weird to see that everyone is almost always checking to the preflop raiser, because that means that everyone is expecting everybody else to (incorrectly) c-bet too much. That's what struck me.

A lot of people are c-betting way way too much. Some compensate by bluffing more turns and rivers. But that is not really fix.

"Yes I understand that (I'm inclined to think you'd be aware of that if you read my posts a little more carefully), but if leading was so great than you wouldn't start out by checking. In general it's not a bad situation for him at all to play against someone who is leading flops."

It doesn't sound like you do understand that Even after reading all of your posts. Of course I'd start out by checking because MOST PEOPLE by far cbet too much and more importantly on certain boards. YOU are assuming that I check all the time on all boards and leading is JUST an adjustment here because he's checking back a lot (whether or not you agree bla bla) That's not the case at all. I lead a lot, especially on boards where the average reg or general public have low cbetting tendencies.

"Also, it's not even close to as simple as you're saying, because you're giving him an information advantage by leading some % and checking the rest. It's awfully complicated to assess the profitability of such a strategy."

It is indeeeeeeeeeed forrrr suuuuuurre as simple as I'm saying. I'm not giving him ANY informational advantage until he finds out WHAT I'm leading with. He can make general assumptions but he won't really know. I can always balance what he sees if I'm not balancing already. It's not very complicated at all

"In case it's still unclear what I'm getting at: you basically said (and Krantz agreed) "I should start leading against the_Eend so he can't check back", which I thought was a completely insane statement considering how much stuff that implies about general c-betting strategy, and that it makes such a hugely complex issue sound completely trivial"

It's a pretty easy adjustment. What else can be said?

I believe I'm spent on this topic

JARTS ANYONE!?

Well if you assume that leading is correct against someone who checks back a lot, then it's really really weird to see that everyone is almost always checking to the preflop raiser, because that means that everyone is expecting everybody else to (incorrectly) c-bet too much. That's what struck me.

1) It's not incorrect if the opponents don't adjust to it.
2) People don't play perfectly.
3) EVERYONE cbets a ton. This is actually a striking revelation?