---

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

Time Link to 00:08:13

I agree that donking the turn is definitely bad play but in general doesn't c/calling twice on this kind of very wet board put our range face up as something like JJ, T9s, ATs, QJs? So the best what we can have here is top pair with medium kicker. Doesn't it left us prone to being barreled out of our holding?

Thanks for response

Is it Blah1234 as Donny says in the intro, or Blah234 as in the heading?

Dani* and I'm not sure.

I am no sure how cool it is to talk about certain players so I won't say much other than to prompt you. You called this guy a "station" several times in the prior hand vs him, yet you then elect to try and triple barrel him with A high on a board that is much more likely to hit a coldcallers range. What specific stats or situations are you using to build you read?

When you see someone call down with a hand that's near the bottom of their range you can know tha the calls too much. In this spot I figured because I have 25% equity vs his calling range and combined with the fact that there's a bad player in the pot should make my FE higher when I triple barrel. It's certainly a close spot between triple barrelling or c/fing the flop, but once we start betting the flop I think we're commited to triple barrel on alot of turn or river cards.

I agree that donking the turn is definitely bad play but in general doesn't c/calling twice on this kind of very wet board put our range face up as something like JJ, T9s, ATs, QJs? So the best what we can have here is top pair with medium kicker. Doesn't it left us prone to being barreled out of our holding?

Thanks for response

If you think someone barrel's too much then you can expand your calling range. No one says you must fold any kind of hand by the river. You just need to call with the top x% of your range to make their bluffs 0EV and you're not exploitable vs a good player.

Time Link to 00:36:57

I brought this up before and it wasn't discussed so i will try again. How is it that you came to the conclusion that pocket pairs are not profitable in 3 bet pots?

Ansky seems very irritable/impatient this episode

Good strategic content though!

Ansky, At 23:33 you say "bet 120 and jam river" Where the pot will be 400 if he calls the turn bet and our stack will be 260 on the river. Do you think betting something like 90 would be slightly better so we have more fold equity on river?

I brought this up before and it wasn't discussed so i will try again. How is it that you came to the conclusion that pocket pairs are not profitable in 3 bet pots?

I could be wrong on this and ansky disagrees in the video but here's my throughts on mid pp in 3 bet pots.

When you're bluff catching vs a decent player you just fold bottom x% of your range on each street usually unless you have a read that certain player becomes too honest on a later street. PP never improves when behind so I rather have hands like 2 big cards or suited cards which can flop better bluff catchers or improve with 6-9 outs on later streets vs 2 outter. I never thought I needed mid pp in my bluff catching range. Ansky made a good point though and you shouldn't only 4 bet and stick it in or fold. if someone is polarized with their 3 betting range the calling and bluff catching is fine.

I could be wrong on this and ansky disagrees in the video but here's my throughts on mid pp in 3 bet pots.

When you're bluff catching vs a decent player you just fold bottom x% of your range on each street usually unless you have a read that certain player becomes too honest on a later street. PP never improves when behind so I rather have hands like 2 big cards or suited cards which can flop better bluff catchers or improve with 6-9 outs on later streets vs 2 outter. I never thought I needed mid pp in my bluff catching range. Ansky made a good point though and you shouldn't only 4 bet and stick it in or fold. if someone is polarized with their 3 betting range the calling and bluff catching is fine.

While I don't disagree with your theoretical explanation as to why it might be unprofitable, I was hoping you might look into the actual results using yours or another large database. I am sure that postflop play will creep in to some extent but give it a try and post a screen shot if you can.

RE: ATs - I'd think this call is completely dependent on table dynamics. I can certainly see a ton of spots this is a +ev call.

Ideal situation would be -
*UTG raiser is someone we have a skill advantage on and a solid grasp of their EP opening range and postflop tendencies.
*BU is tight/non-sqzy so we usually will have position on all remaining players.
*Tight regs in the blinds that don't sqz much vs EP.
*Deep stacks (increases skill and positional advantages, increases implied odds of ATs)

Obviously most situations won't be this perfect, but some strong combination of these factors makes ATs an easy call. I think it would be more unusual to have a dynamic where you DON'T call ATs here.

lol wtf, ATs is a snap call MP vs UTG and PPs in 3bet pots are fine, can we discuss shit that matters?

lol wtf, ATs is a snap call MP vs UTG and PPs in 3bet pots are fine, can we discuss shit that matters?

Maybe you can kick it off?

lol wtf, ATs is a snap call MP vs UTG and PPs in 3bet pots are fine, can we discuss shit that matters?

This dude must be pro

Hey guys,

Ansky is discussing the merit of villain calling a 3-bet with 77 in this situation. If we are calling a 3-bet in position with 77+, what stops us from calling with 66-22? from what I've seen most opponents will be calling with 77-99 in the blinds instead of 3-betting, so flatting with a hand like 55 isn't going to much different then flatting 77 right? I guess 77 would have more SD value vs. 22-66 which some villains would 3-bet bluff. Also if we flat with 77 we are going to be folding a shit ton of flops anyhow, possibly almost the same amount as if we flatted 22. Like if the flop comes 843, 22 seems to have almost as much value as 77 in this situation.

You are forgetting that your opponent is so much more likely to have a card under a 7 in his range than a card under 4, or 3, or 2 (lol). So when it comes 834 and you have 22, you still lose when he 3b you with stuff like K4s, 74s, a4s, etc. Not to mention you get counterfitted more (and sometimes they do actually have 77 66 55 etc when they 3b).

Is this really a "standard" call against a UTG opener as CO?

i think so yes.