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

Poker with Your Pants On: Episode One

This video is a two minute preview. To view the entire video, please Log In or Sign Up Now
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
 

Poker with Your Pants On: Episode One by livebikebart

Bart kicks off his new series with live hands of pocket pairs, from deuces to aces, in and out of position.

About Poker with Your Pants On Subscribe to

Bart brings his live No-Limit hands from his play in LA's casinos.

Tags

bart hanson livebikebart nlhe ipod friendly hh review hand replayer live hands

Video Details

  • Game: nlhe
  • Stakes: High Stakes
  • 63 minutes long
  • Posted over 3 years ago

Downloads

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

Sign Up Today


Comments for Poker with Your Pants On: Episode One

or track by Email or RSS


cAmmAnd0

Avatar for cAmmAnd0

2 posts
Joined 06/2010

Great first video Bart. I second the Limon suggestion. In one hand you mentioned he was at the table and I also saw citizen James. I instantly thought that a commentary on a hand that you were involved in with those players (either multiway or heads up) might actually be pretty interesting from multiple view points given your different approaches to live poker and how well you interact with them on the podcast... for entertainment value maybe even the sober and drunk version Wink

Seriously though I did have a question about your set mining requirements.

In Professional No Limit Holdem they suggest that you should be able to win at least 12X the raise when purely set mining. Which implies not only the villains stack size but also their range and their willingness to stack off in various situations. Harrington in HOC suggests a huge 25X for set mining. Frequently in Low Stakes 100bb or 150bb capped games where standard opens are 6-8bbs or more you often cannot get 25X and many times barely 12x which means you either would be dumping a lot of PPs or must play them other than for set value which can be difficult in the "no-foldem" low stakes games.

I had seen an extensive analysis of online data that suggested somewhere in the range between 11 and 12. You frequently cite 10X which is much more achievable than Harrington and often right on the margins in these lowstakes games. But is this really enough to make pure set mining profitable?

There has been some raging debate in the LLSNL forums at 2+2 about this subject and I would like to hear your views a bit further.

Thanks again and looking forward to the next video.

Posted over 3 years ago

StueysKid

Avatar for StueysKid

1018 posts
Joined 11/2009

Are you seriously going to be able to get 200bbs+ with a set vs a competent player?

Obviously rules like this will vary depending on player type, if it's multiway or not, if you're in position or not, how likely villain is to fold on certain board textures where you can rep and turn your hand into a bluff, etc etc.

I use a very simple ratio of bbsize call per 100bb stack depth (which effectively is an SPR type ratio), but even this doesn't really capture all the variables; it's just a guideline to be aware of when deciding.

Oh and Bart... Excellent video. Two words for it: I came

Posted over 3 years ago

jjfootball2009

Avatar for jjfootball2009

101 posts
Joined 04/2010

Bart this is the best full ring video I've seen since Nolan, and I play both online and live.

Next video can you please address some more barreling opportunities on wetter boards (more two tone) in both limped and raised pots, and value barreling bluffing opponents you put on draws? I find the JDiamond 2Diamond is a tougher sell in those limped pots on two diamond flops.

Edit Don't forget the extra colon kids. Otherwise the diamond makes a smiley face.

Posted over 3 years ago

jjfootball2009

Avatar for jjfootball2009

101 posts
Joined 04/2010


Quote: I had seen an extensive analysis of online data that suggested somewhere in the range between 11 and 12. You frequently cite 10X which is much more achievable than Harrington and often right on the margins in these lowstakes games. But is this really enough to make pure set mining profitable?

There has been some raging debate in the LLSNL forums at 2+2 about this subject and I would like to hear your views a bit further.

Thanks again and looking forward to the next video.



10x is fine. Sometimes I go as low as 7x just to crush a short stack's soul.

Posted over 3 years ago

jjfootball2009

Avatar for jjfootball2009

101 posts
Joined 04/2010

Hey Bart, just thought of some more material for your series, and some stuff not frequently covered in those twoplustwo live forums. I think you could make a whole episode just on c-betting, and various flop textures and barrels. For example, it can get tricky with A23 rainbow against some opponents peeling with 7's, when we're not sure if they have an Ace, and whether we should triple barrel, or make a delayed c-bet. Would like to see your c-bets, sizing, barrels, delayed c-bets, and other stuff Smile
Awesome first episode by the way!

Posted over 3 years ago

sakjfijczwfj21

Avatar for sakjfijczwfj21

3 posts
Joined 08/2010

31:30 do u think there is value in checking the flop?

Posted over 3 years ago

sakjfijczwfj21

Avatar for sakjfijczwfj21

3 posts
Joined 08/2010

55:00 what do you do if he bets the turn? do u bluff-raise or just fold?

Posted over 3 years ago

Joe Tall

Avatar for Joe Tall

6695 posts
Joined 11/2006

55:00 what do you do if he bets the turn? do u bluff-raise or just fold?




Please leave a linked time-stamp, watch this short video, to leave a time link!

That will be much easier for the coaches to find the hand and answer your questions, thanks.

Posted over 3 years ago

threads13

Avatar for threads13

2374 posts
Joined 03/2008

Why would Asian lady of made a preflop mistake if she had a 7?

Surely as she has a raise and 2 callers in-front of her and she has a suited connector they go way up in value. Even given her short-ish stack size.

I dont think it is a mistake for her to show up with a suited connector or A7s.

You also said that they are likely to be playing less than 20% of hands and mainly have pocket pairs and big suited cards. They will also show up with suited connectors a good % of the time. Making it a mistake for you to discount the 7x hands she has in her range.




I'd like to discuss this further. Here's my thoughts on it:

I see players make calls crying "pot odds" all the time with suited connectors. Problem is, they don't flop good that often, and pre-flop pot odds aren't as important when the stacks are deep. What's more important is post-flop play. When you have a short stack like villain in this hand, and a lot of money goes in pre-flop (read: raised multiway pots) the SPR gets really low. Take this example, her SPR is a little over 1. Any c-bet she faces will probably be at least 1/3 of her stack, giving her 4:1 stack odds. It becomes unprofitable to draw (although there's enough money in the pot to shove), but now we are calling pre to get into a lot of spots where we are 30-40% equity AI for our stack, which is actually REVERSE implied odds.

The only way implied odds go up here is for the flopping two-pair+ portion of her range. SCs only do this ~3% of the time. So, you would need about 33:1 implied odds to make this call if that were your only profit source. Your stack odds are ~20:1. So, they aren't profitable in that right.

Other than that they flop a lot of draws. The drawing ability of the hand is kind of worthless when the SPR gets so low as you won't be able to draw profitably since bets will now be bigger, and thus cut your implied odds. We should devolve into a shove and pray situation which doesn't seem to be extremely +EV.

The other way we might make money is stealing, but that's going to be pretty rough with an SPR of 1 and a 4-way pot, vs a good players EP raise.

Posted over 3 years ago

threads13

Avatar for threads13

2374 posts
Joined 03/2008

Time Link to 00:09:58

This is pretty interesting. I definitely agree and see where you're coming from with this limp giving table dynamics. I'm just curious to what you think about how the different variables affect these sort of decisions.

The games I've been playing in have a max BI of 100bb. What would be the bottom of your over-limping range 100bb deep in the same sort of situation? What about MP? Along the same lines, what would be the bottom of your raising range?

I assume we prefer stuff like big suited cards before SCs because they have the ability to flop, and stack, bigger flushes?

I find myself in these spots a lot (every hand?Smile) and it's something that just hasn't came up online, obviously. I can totally get behind over-limping a lot of hands in LP, but I have trouble seeing the profit source by limping SCs and stuff in EP/MP, unless the limper is really bad. I could totally be wrong though and would love to hear your thoughts.

Posted over 3 years ago

jjfootball2009

Avatar for jjfootball2009

101 posts
Joined 04/2010

Threads on the subject of bigger flushes, I'm sure Bart will elaborate on it later in this series, but a lot of good live regs like limping ace rag suited hands unless they're getting punished for limping, because it keeps J 7 suited and 7 3 suited to limp in the hand as well, and the morons only play those hands for making a flush (not aggro with draw) value. They almost never fold postflop when they hit.

Posted over 3 years ago

SiQ

Avatar for SiQ

153 posts
Joined 09/2010

Hey Bart,

As an online (sng/mtt) pro who was forced to play live poker after Black Friday I really appreciate this series. I like the concept of the series and this first video was done very well. I wish this had come out sooner as I already cost myself a bit of equity learning some of the things you talk about in this video.
Looking forward to the others. Can't wait.

Posted over 3 years ago

threads13

Avatar for threads13

2374 posts
Joined 03/2008

Threads on the subject of bigger flushes, I'm sure Bart will elaborate on it later in this series, but a lot of good live regs like limping ace rag suited hands unless they're getting punished for limping, because it keeps J 7 suited and 7 3 suited to limp in the hand as well, and the morons only play those hands for making a flush (not aggro with draw) value. They almost never fold postflop when they hit.




Right, that's what I've been doing that seemed to make sense in those lower limit live games

Posted over 3 years ago

Grindcore

Avatar for Grindcore

2383 posts
Joined 11/2008

Time Link to 00:05:10

hand 1, 22 set on the flop, I think this bet should be full pot, for the same reasons you bet ~pot on the turn. Pretend he has K5s and is gonna c/c 3 times and we pot on every street compared to betting $35 and then potting turn/river... We put in $15 more, he calls $15 more, so the pot is $30 larger on the turn. We bet $30 more there as a result, which he calls too, so the pot is $90 larger. The same thing goes for the river and the pot you win ends up being $270 larger, $145 of which was his.

And another reason for betting larger on the earlier street is because fish might look at the bets absolute value rather than relative.

Posted over 3 years ago

jmc999

Avatar for jmc999

54 posts
Joined 07/2008

Time Link to 00:11:59

I understand that we have good equity with the K5s, but you've pegged the initial bettor as a "passive" type -- therefore I'd expect him to have a hand with some kind of strength. Sure, you're essentially coin flipping with sets and two-pair type hands.

However, is there another reason for the flop raise? Does flat-calling give away your hand as a draw? Is it because your stacks are so deep that you need raise just to build a much bigger pot?

You hit the turn obv, but would you bet unimproved on the turn to try to knock him off a medium pair?

Posted over 3 years ago




HomePoker ForumsHigh Stakes Strategy → Poker with Your Pants On : Episode One